radiofree.asia

Category: Misogyny

  • I’m somebody, not just my trauma

    Content notification: This article discusses domestic abuse and gendered violence.  

     

    Tender is a thoughtful podcast series about what happens when women leave abusive relationships. Each season follows one woman’s story as she slowly—but surely—gets to know herself again.
    Chronicling the life of domestic violence awareness advocate, mother and victim-survivor Roia Atmar, season two invites you into the inner-workings of Roia’s ‘after’: from a solitary hospital bed, to the haunting stare of a room full of police recruits, to crowded Perth pubs, Tender captures the complex intricacies of what it means to live with abuse.


    For those people who don’t know you, briefly tell us a bit about your story.

    My name is Roia Atmar, and I am a mother, a victim-survivor and a domestic violence awareness advocate. I am also the narrator of Tender. My being a mother to four amazing children comes first: I’m a mother before anything else, and it’s being a mother that has given me the strength to move on. My ‘after’ began after my ex-husband assaulted me while I held my child, setting me alight. I was given the opportunity, the support and the love to find the strength to deal with what we went through, and then to be able to talk about it. This is entirely because of the love I received.

    Domestic abuse is a national crisis in Australia. One woman is killed nearly every week in Australia, usually by a man she knows. But at the same time, it’s hard to keep the public’s focus on the issue. Why did you and the podcast team who create Tender try to tell this story in a fresh way? What approach have you taken to keep people’s ears and minds stuck to this critical issue?

    Tender draws the listener’s attention to the smallest, most seemingly insignificant things, like having a dear friend paste Eid Mubarak posters around my hospital bed. These small moments and gestures that somebody can do make a huge difference… it can quite literally change the course of their life. 

    Why I chose to partner with Beth and Madison of Broadwave podcasts is because they wanted to create an audio-series that was as gentle as it was informative. There’s no sensationalism, and having listened to how season one was delivered, I thought this was the best way to bring my story to light. Survival stories are always personal. We don’t want to just feel like statistics. Tender is delivered and created in such a caring, kind and gentle way, while still being illuminating when it comes to the reality of domestic abuse and its aftermath.

    Roia, you narrate the podcast in season two and your voice and story are compelling, but harrowing. How hard has this been for you, as a survivor, to situate yourself amid all this trauma and abuse given what you’ve been through? 

    Initially, when I decided to join the team, I did not think it would be as hard for me as it was. I’ve spoken about my experiences many times before, because – in my mind – every time I talk about it, I think… if this is able to help just one other person, it all becomes worth it. 

    But I was surprised to find that it was an emotional experience. When I was delivering the script, there were a few moments that struck a chord with me. I’m generally not an emotional person, but I found myself affected by the process. What it offered me was the realisation that while I want to move on, at the same time, I need to honour my experiences. I need to talk about it, I need to remember. 

    I think it comes down to the way it’s done: Tender breaks the story up with care, bringing other people into the atmosphere of abuse and recovery. Because of these qualities, I was really made to feel it all again.

    It’s not sensationalised to shock or disturb you, what it does is it reminds you that there’s a person at the heart of domestic abuse, there’s a survivor. It reminded me of this as well: I’m somebody, not just my trauma.

    Roia Atmar

    Roia Atmar is a mother, a victim-survivor and a domestic violence awareness advocate. She’s also the narrator of Tender. Picture: Supplied

    There are many compelling moments in your podcast series – both your own personal story and expert opinions and facts. But which incident or interaction sticks in your mind and why? 

    I find a lot of solace in the inclusion of experts. For example, when Dr. Jeremy Rawlins featured in the second episode of Tender to explain the psycho-social dimensions of burns healing, he was describing something I had gone through but never had told back to me in those clear, considered terms. My burns had healed, and still… I wasn’t okay. Twenty years ago, when I went through the ordeal of recovering from a burns attack, I wasn’t given the tools to understand that the impact wasn’t just physical. It was psychological, emotional, and deeply social. These moments of Tender proved affirming… like light-bulb moments for me. 

    In my narration of Tender, I’m afforded space to realise that, even though you’re removed from an abusive space, the abuse doesn’t just stop. It sticks with you. This is a burden survivors everywhere have to endure.

    Without giving away too much about the podcast, what did you learn about domestic abuse in Australia that you didn’t know? What solutions and hope for the future did you find? 

    Given my work in the sector as well as my own personal experiences with domestic abuse, I am still left feeling as if not a lot has changed in this country. Another woman was killed just yesterday. I wish I had an answer for how to fix it. All I know is that there is a clear need to convey the complexities of these stories, to make sure that women feel they aren’t just statistics. If you’re in an abusive relationship and reading this: you’re not alone, it can happen to anybody, domestic abuse does not discriminate. 

    The issue in how we attempt to find solutions for domestic violence is that the system is behind. Services for women and children can’t promise to end domestic violence, even if they so desperately want to. This is because, predominantly, the perpetrators are men and they are the ones that must stop engaging in violence and abuse. No matter how much we attempt to put a band-aid on the issue when it comes to the safety and wellbeing of women and children, there’s only so much we can do when perpetrators aren’t being held accountable. In my line of work, as a domestic violence support worker, you’ll sometimes meet upwards of 4 to 5 women who each share one thing in common: they have the same perpetrator. Doesn’t it make sense to address the issue when it comes to how that perpetrator is handled, as opposed to the handling of 4 to 5 women and their families? I can’t understand why policy-makers, why politicians, why the systems in place, can’t see where the issue lies. 

    Season Two of the podcast “Tender” is out now. 

    Feature image: Stylised graphic of Roia: Supplied

     

    The post I’m somebody, not just my trauma appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Lifting the lid on Sony’s toxic, misogynist culture

    As a podcast junkie and host, people recommend podcasts to me all the time. A few days ago, I was recommended a pod called ‘Everybody Knows,’ hosted by Ruby Jones. What a great listen!
    This investigative audio series delves into ‘why #MeToo stories are still so hard to tell in Australia – and why there is so much fear about speaking out and naming names.’
    Specifically, Ruby and her team look into a huge company in the music industry and the ongoing sexual harassment and abuse that have occurred there. It’s not pretty.

    What led you to ask this question about why #MeToo stories are so hard to tell in Australia? How hard was it for YOU to report this story, given so many people who actually speak to you are clearly afraid? 

    When #MeToo arrived in Australia, I was so excited. I remember thinking that things were finally going to change. In a matter of days in 2017, sexual harassment went from a secret we all kept to front page news. Then, as quickly as the stories began, they stopped. I wanted to understand what had happened. What I quickly came to realise is that harassment, abuse and assault are still endemic in Australia, four years on from MeToo. But the barriers to speaking about it, and reporting it are huge. In many cases, they’re insurmountable.

    Time after time, I came to realise that women (in this case women who worked in the music industry) were terrified of speaking publicly.

    Many of them had been threatened, told they would never work again if they spoke out.

    They stood to lose their jobs, their livelihoods, they could be targeted online, and they could also face legal action if they tried to name their abuser. So how did this happen? How did we create a system where it’s almost impossible for women to talk openly and honestly about their experiences? And if we can’t even talk about the problem, what hope do we have of changing things?

    Reporting ‘Everybody Knows’ was extremely difficult. There were times that I didn’t think I would pull it off, that no one would want to go on the record. That the behaviour that I was hearing about would stay secret, perpetrators would remain unchallenged, and women would continue to be scared. The threat of legal action hung over me, every move that I made – it’s impossible in this country to try and report a MeToo story without taking our extremely strict defamation laws into account. But eventually – one by one – women made the decision to speak, and the series took off from there.

    Sony sign at the Sony Interactive Entertainment offices in Silicon Valley

    Sony has been entirely run by men. And Ruby says this is a huge part of the problem. Image: Shutterstock

     There are so many moments in your podcast series which stick in my mind. But which incident or interaction sticks in your mind and why? 

    There was one moment that was particularly big, and unexpected. A few months into the project, Denis Handlin, the CEO of Sony Music Australia, left the company. No-one thought that would ever happen. Denis Handlin was almost universally known as the most powerful man in the music industry, he was untouchable. His departure sent shockwaves through the industry. I remember jumping into the studio to talk about it the morning the news broke, and my recording kept getting interrupted by people texting me or sending me internal correspondence about what was unfolding inside the Sony building. It really felt like I was witnessing something historic in the industry. I was seeing things change and feeling the impact of that in real time. It changed my entire investigation, because people began to feel like this was the time to speak publicly, that maybe the industry was going through a seismic shift. To be clear – I’m not alleging any claims of sexual harassment against Denis Handlin, but there’s no doubt he was a larger than life figure in the industry. To many people he represented the old way of doing things, and they couldn’t imagine that changing – until it did.

    Without giving away too much about the podcast, what did you learn about the organisational structures and cultures that allow a company like Sony to harbour so many abusers for so long?

    It became clear to me that abuse only happens – to the extent that it has in the music industry – because it’s allowed to occur. There will always be people who try to take advantage of their positions of power, but it’s when those perpetrators know that they will be able to get away with it that you see endemic abuse of this kind. And for years, men in the music industry have been getting away with it. Harassment is so normalised – so many of the women I spoke to in the industry had multiple, horrific stories, but they didn’t necessarily realise how bad their stories sounded to me, an outsider, because the entire industry around them had been toxic for so long. Some women had tried to complain when it happened to them, but there was nothing in place to help or protect victims – in fact, when some women tried to seek help, through HR departments, things became worse. HR was really acting in the interests of the people at the top. And these kinds of cultures are set at the top. If you look at Sony – or really any major music label – they’ve traditionally been entirely run by men. That is slowly changing, but a lot of this  sexism is deeply ingrained in the music industry. And of course, women can be sexist and can be bullies too.

    What’s the difficulty you see in the media requiring those who’ve been harassed and abused to keep publicly telling their stories and keep putting their trauma on display?

    For so long, we’ve been relying on individual women to tell their stories of harassment and abuse. We hear their stories, we feel their pain, and then we move on, and structural change doesn’t come. To me that seems unethical. Why do we expect the person with the least power to speak about traumatic incidents, over and over again, in the hope of inciting change? There’s no doubt in my mind the toll that it takes on these women. You only have to look at someone like Brittney Higgins to appreciate that. The scrutiny she’s been under since she went public with an allegation of rape at Parliament House would be unbearable for a lot of survivors I think. That’s not to say that there isn’t power in women owning their stories, and speaking publicly if they decide to – it’s just that there is a very high cost to doing so.

    To that end, I think the media needs to take a good look at the way we report harassment and abuse. Media outlets tend to focus on the victim, particularly if they seem like the right type of victim – young, white, beautiful – we make it all about them.

    They become the face of the abuse. But to get real accountability you have to go beyond that – you have to go to the perpetrators, and ultimately the enablers too, the ones who allow this to happen, or who look the other way. You have to see harassment, abuse and assault for what they are: systemic problems in society, not one-off decisions made by individual bad men.

    This series made you question things that had occurred in your own life. What can you tell me about that?

    Almost every woman I know has a MeToo story, and I’m no exception to that. I’ve experienced workplace sexual harassment, and it really shook my confidence. Like many women do, I tried to bury it, minimise it and to move on. I just wanted to live and work normally. But it does have an impact on your self worth, and your ability to feel safe in the world and to follow your ambitions. I understand that intimately, and I saw that play out again and again for women in the music industry.

    Many of them left jobs, jobs that they were good at and loved, as a result of the things that happened to them. It made me so angry seeing women constantly carrying the burden of their own mistreatment. That’s what really drove me making this series – the unfairness of it all, and the lack of accountability.

    As someone who has also suffered workplace sexual harassment (in the media) myself, the series made compelling but difficult listening. As you suggest, so many scenarios are familiar. After everything you’ve investigated, what hope do you hold that there will be long-term societal change when it comes to sexual violence, particularly against women, but also against and others, in workplaces?

    I’m sorry to hear that! Sexual harassment really is so common, and to be honest I think the media is still to have it’s real reckoning with this kind of behaviour. It’s rife in the industry. But I do have hope! I think seeing the women I spoke to come into their own power was very inspiring. They simply weren’t willing to tolerate this kind of thing any more, or feel shame about it. And we’re seeing that on a national level too – someone like Australian of the Year Grace Tame refusing to carry shame for the things that were done to her is extremely powerful. Being able to speak about the issue is the first step. That was what MeToo was supposed to be about, before the wave of legal action effectively silenced journalists and victims. And I think that’s the next frontier – the next place that structural change needs to happen – in the legal system. People have to be able to speak about their experiences without worrying that they could be sued.

    As for workplaces – I do think things are slowly getting better. Some of the stories I’ve heard about what happened in the 80s for example, I don’t think anyone could get away with now. But it’s such a painfully slow process. What’s required is real leadership, real accountability. Men and women deciding to take harassment and abuse seriously, and to really – and proactively – mean it. That would look like public statements, specific and clear workplace policies, actively supporting victims. None of this should really be that hard – but we’re not very bold as a country, when it comes to this kind of thing. It does require some real backbone, some real fearlessness. But I think we can get there!

    Follow Ruby on Twitter here.

    Feature image: Investigative reporter, Ruby Jones. Image: Supplied

     

     

     

    The post Lifting the lid on Sony’s toxic, misogynist culture appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Why ‘she was just walking home’ feeds a victim-blaming narrative

    The murder of Sabina Nessa as she walked through a London park has, rightly, shaken women across the country yet again. It seems like only days ago we were reading similar headlines about Sarah Everard, Bibaa Henry, and Nicole Smallman.

    As women, we are sick and tired of being told to moderate our behaviour. “Follow the rules”, they say. “Don’t walk alone in the dark”. “Don’t be drunk”. “Don’t dress a certain way”. How, exactly, does moderating our behaviour in any way address the root issue: the misogyny entrenched in our society? As women, it’s not our responsibility to make sure we are safe. It’s our most basic right to be safe. If you’re a man reading this, it’s your responsibility to tackle misogyny within our society. Please don’t respond with, “but not all men”. Please don’t ignore the fact that this is a systemic failing that you’re a part of.

    The majority of women aren’t actually murdered on the street

    According to Counting Dead Women, at least 108 women have been killed by men, (or where a man is the principal suspect), in 2021 so far. On average, this year, a man has killed a woman every 2.5 days. Think about this. Every 2.5 days. This figure is far greater than the stories covered by news headlines. Usually, it’s young women, murdered while walking on our streets who are deemed worthy of mainstream media attention. “She was just walking home,” we now hear all the time.

    But the majority of women aren’t killed while walking down a city street. The Femicide Census names all of the 1,425 women killed by men in the UK over a decade, between 2009 and 2018. It has found that 62% of women are killed by their current or former partner. Others are murdered by relatives. In 92% of the cases, the women knew their killer. Many of the women had lived for years in abusive relationships, subjected to coercive control. In fact, the researchers argue that coercive control in a relationship is key to understanding whether a woman is in danger of being murdered.

    The ages of the 108 women killed by men this year vary greatly: 71-year-old Christina Arnold was killed by her husband of fifty years. 85-year-old Loretta Herman’s son was charged with her murder. And as I write this, the ex-partner of 26-year-old Bethany Vincent has stood up in court and denied her murder. Vincent was stabbed to death in a house, along with her nine-year-old son.

    Don’t ignore domestic abuse victims

    By giving the greatest headlines to those who were “just walking home”, or who were attacked on the street by strangers, are we somehow victim-blaming the women who were murdered by people they know, inside their homes? Are those killed by their husbands seen as less innocent? As a society, do we see them as complicit in their abuse because they weren’t murdered by a stranger, or because they didn’t walk away from their abuser?

    The Canary spoke to Alice Chambers, who works with survivors of domestic abuse. She said:

    We know that when women are killed it is usually by someone they know – two women are killed a week by a partner or ex-partner in England and Wales. Yet it is often when the perpetrator is a stranger that the story hits the headlines and protests ensue. What does this tell us about our views of domestic abuse victims?

    Chambers continued:

    Women are often blamed for the harm perpetrated against them by men. It seems this is even more so when women are attacked by their partners or ex-partners, with common responses being that she must have driven him to it or that she should have left him. Women killed by their partners and ex-partners are just as worthy of our compassion and rage as those killed by strangers and they are in no way responsible for what happened to them. We must get educated about domestic abuse and challenge these harmful myths.

    State failings

    Independent magazine Hate Zine, summaries our society nicely when it says:

    [Women’s] behaviour is constantly scrutinised, dissected and micromanaged by a society which is somehow still able to ignore the entrenched misogyny within.

    I have already written about how the state should be held accountable for the murder of women. Back in December 2020 I wrote:

    Under UK law, a perpetrator receives a minimum sentence of 15 years for murder if the weapon he used was already in the home where he committed the crime. But if the perpetrator takes a weapon to different location and kills someone, he is sentenced for a minimum of 25 years. It’s a travesty that the murder of someone in a home can be seen as a less serious murder than one on the street. And because most women are killed in their homes, this law can be seen as systemically sexist.

    And in April 2021 I wrote about how the government rejected amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill: amendments that might have protected women more.

    The issue is men

    By focusing only on the victims who are attacked on the streets, it’s easy for the government and the police to come up with half-hearted solutions, like lighting our streets better, or giving us suggestions not to walk alone. And by ignoring all those domestic abuse victims murdered by men, the state don’t have to face the actual issue at hand. And that is male violence.

    The issue isn’t about whether we are safe alone at night. We aren’t even safe in our own homes, surrounded by those who are supposed to love us the most. So while we grieve Sabina Nessa and Sarah Everard, remember, too, 85-year-old Loretta Herman, 71-year-old Christina Arnold and more than one hundred more women in 2021 who have barely made news headlines. Let’s continue to shout all of their names in rage as we fight against entrenched misogyny.

    Featured image via a Bristol activist. Used with permission

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Women feel unsafe after teacher’s murder, warns campaigner

    Women do not feel safe on the streets of London following the death of teacher Sabina Nessa, according to one of the organisers of a vigil in her memory. Anna Birley, 32, co-founder of Reclaim These Streets, has urged the Government to reform the education and criminal justice systems to stop misogyny and violence against women in the wake of her death.

    A vigil for Sabina Nessa, 28, is due to take place on Friday evening at Pegler Square in Kidbrooke, south-east London. The primary school teacher had been heading for a pub in the square to meet a friend last Friday when she was fatally attacked on a walk which should have taken five minutes.

    Misogynistic and gender-based violence

    Reclaim These Streets organised the Clapham vigil for Sarah Everard after she was abducted and murdered earlier this year, and an event to remember murdered sisters Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman at Wembley in 2020.

    Six days afterSabina Nessa’s death, Birley told the PA news agency:

    I think women don’t feel safe in public.

    We often get told when the worst happens that murder of a woman by a stranger in a public place is very rare and we are very safe.

    But the thing is our lived experience of street harassment, cat-calling, a man exposing himself to us, tell us we’re not safe, and murder is rarely the first crime someone commits.

    Misogynistic and gender-based violence is likely to have come about as an escalation and I don’t know a woman who hasn’t experienced something along that spectrum.

    You never know when one of those things is going to put us in danger.

    We hope that anyone who saw anything will come forward to the police.

    It’s scary for people, especially women in that community knowing that there’s a violent perpetrator still at large.

    Sabina Nessa
    Sabina Nessa was killed while walking to meet a friend at a pub near her home (Met Police/PA)

    But however well-meaning advice is for women to stay at home for their own safety or to carry rape alarms with them, it doesn’t actually fix the problem of violence against women.

    We shouldn’t be looking to solutions that require women to change their behaviour.

    Women should be able to walk five minutes across a park at any time of day or night without fear of violence.

    We need to tackle the “deep-rooted culture of misogyny in British culture”

    Birley said the government urgently needs to fix the “deep-rooted culture of misogyny in British culture” by reforming the criminal justice system to achieve a higher conviction rate against rapists, introduce anti-misogyny training for police, and bring in lessons in schools aimed at “tackling toxic masculinity” from a young age.

    She added that hundreds of women are likely to turn up for the vigil for Sabina Nessa on Friday. She said:

    I hope for Sabina’s sake that people come,

    Her name deserves to be heard and she deserves to be remembered not just as a victim but as an amazing teacher and member of the community and as a sister and a friend.

    She deserves the same outcry and outpouring that other women get.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • How to prevent sexual violence and harassment

    Content Notification: This article discusses sexual violence and harassment. It does not have any descriptions.

    What needs to happen to not only stop sexual violence and harassment but to address the root causes? We wrote a report on sexual violence and harassment primary prevention and we created a Theory of Change, or a roadmap, for what can be done about the issue in Australia. Our reports were made public in time for the Women’s Safety Summit.

    What is sexual violence and harassment?

    The term sexual violence and harassment is an umbrella term to describe physical and non-physical forms of violence of a sexual nature, carried out against a person’s will. Anyone can experience sexual violence and harassment, yet it is overwhelmingly experienced by women and girls and the perpetrator is most often a male. The Personal Safety Survey found that one in five women have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15, compared to one in 20 men. Fifty-three per cent of women have experienced sexual harassment in their lifetime compared to 25% of men. A recent reportfound that up to 97% of perpetrators of sexual violence are men.

    However, while it is true that all women and girls can experience sexual violence, women and girls who face other forms of inequality can be at heightened risk. For example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and women with disabilities have high rates of sexual violence and harassment but the research is often limited or culturally inappropriate. To date, the research has been limited for LGBTIQ+ communities, though this is changing.

    What is Primary Prevention

    While responding to sexual violence and harassment is important, to address the root causes we need what is called primary prevention. The peak body Our Watch, in their landmark report Change the Story describe primary prevention as “whole-of-population initiatives that address the primary (“first” or underlying) drivers of violence”. What this means is a shift from responding to sexual violence and harassment to figuring out what causes it and how to stop it before it starts.

     

    La Trobe Theory of ChangeWhat did we do?

    The Commonwealth Department of Social Services commissioned us to firstly research what sexual violence and harassment primary prevention interventions currently exist, specifically for women and girls. We also analysed data from the 6th National Survey of Australian Secondary Students and Sexual Health.

    Secondly, we undertook consultations with organisations, peak bodies and individuals across a broad range of sectors, to discuss key issues relating to sexual assault and harassment in Australia. We consulted with sexual violence services, including 111 people – from counsellors to researchers and advocates to businesses and identified priority prevention strategies.

    Armed with both the research and the consultations, we built a Theory of Change (see diagram), or a roadmap, for the primary prevention of sexual violence and harassment in Australia.

    What did we find?

    We found very few successful primary prevention programs specifically targeting sexual violence and harassment. Most of the programs we found were for university students in the USA. The programs were generalised with little specific targeted programs for at risk groups nor for perpetrators. In particular, there were no successful programs aimed at men and boys.

    Our analysis of the sixth National Survey of Australian Secondary Students and Sexual Health found that almost one-third of participants had experienced an unwanted sexual event in their lifetime. Those more likely to report having had unwanted sex were female, trans and gender diverse and non-heterosexual young people.

     

    We also found few programs focused on alcohol. Yet we know that alcohol is a significant factor in the perpetration of sexual violence and harassment.

    What needs to happen?

    Firstly, all approaches must be intersectional. That means, they need to include diverse voices and experiences. We also note that at the Women’s Safety Summit, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community representatives called for a specific national plan. We also made similar recommendations after feedback from our consultations. Also, LGBTQ+ communities asked for further inclusion, which is mirrored in our findings.

    To address sexual violence and harassment, we identified 5 key areas:

    Early supportive relationships: Sexual violence and harassment start early in life, with one in five Australian girls and one in 25 boys sexually abused before they turn 15 years. Preventing this violence means early childhood relationships with parents, caregivers and other family members need to be supported. Also, this means addressing structural disadvantage such as employment, education and housing. In the long term, supporting families/parents or caregivers and addressing social inequities can improve social cohesion, which is an important primary prevention aim.

    Education for behaviour change: Education is a key area for primary prevention. This means more than just sporadic lessons about consent in high schools. Education needs to start early, and it should promote gender equality, healthy masculinities and safe and respectful relationships among young people. This must include age-appropriate sex education, affirmative consent, critical literacy of media and technology including pornography, and it must include diverse experiences.

    Safe Environments: All community members deserve to be safe from sexual violence and harassment in any environment or setting, including at school, work, online, in public and at home. We found that targeting different settings could allow for a range of different, tailored interventions to reduce and prevent sexual violence and harassment.

    Transform social norms: Social norms are the broad attitudes and cultures within society that condone all forms of violence against women, including sexual violence and harassment. We found that building strong and inclusive social movements that can facilitate men’s engagement as allies, enhance women, trans and gender diverse people’s voices and social activism will sustain change.

    Policy and reform: Australia has a national policy on the reduction of violence against women and children, yet this is not specific to sexual violence and harassment. A national sexual violence and harassment policy and the revision of other supportive legislation and reform is recommended.

    Conclusion

    Sexual violence and harassment is pervasive and can cause serious harm. However, it is preventable. If we focus on primary prevention, we can not only stop it from happening, we can change the underlying attitudes that foster sexual violence and harassment. That is an exciting goal.

    You can read the Evidence Review and Theory of Change on the DSS Women’s Safety website.

    Please note: Feature image is a stock photo.

    The La Trobe University report was made possible by funding from the Commonwealth Department of Social Services. Alongside Leesa Hooker and Jessica Ison, the research team included Nicola Henry (RMIT), Christopher Fisher, Kirsty Forsdike, Felicity Young, Hannah Korsmeyer (Monash), Grant O’Sullivan and Angela Taft.

    The post How to prevent sexual violence and harassment appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Yom Kippur Is About Rejecting the Status Quo — and Vowing to Change It

    Over a hundred people joined Ramarley Graham's family and other organizations and groups for a public action and vigil in conjunction with Beyond The Moments National Day of Action on April 4, 2017.

    This Yom Kippur, a sacred refrain is running back and forth through my head: Texas, what the hell?

    That’s right Texas, what the hell? In just one day, on September 1, the Texas state legislature all but banned abortions statewide, passed the most restrictive voting laws in the U.S., and allowed Texans to carry handguns openly without a license. And if that were not nearly enough, this past June, Texas’s governor signed a bill limiting the teaching of the New York Times’s “1619 Project” and other content deemed by conservatives to be “critical race theory” in public schools.

    Yet, we must also refrain from demonizing Texas as some wholly disconnected outlier. These trends are not at all unique to that state. Indeed Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina and South Dakota are currently preparing abortion bills that mimic the Texas legislation. Meanwhile, there are 20 other states besides Texas that allow permitless handgun carrying. And as of August 26, 27 states have introduced bills or have otherwise taken steps to restrict the teaching of what conservatives see as critical race theory.

    So, while it might feel satisfying for progressives to pile on Texas, it’s probably more accurate to say that this particular state represents a larger phenomenon that has been part of our national culture for some time. For lack of a better term, let’s call it the rage of the white American man.

    White rage is, of course, nothing new, it might be argued that it’s currently entering an era of renewed ferocity. Last month we learned from the Census Bureau that the percentage of white people in the U.S. has actually decreased for the very first time. Since the last report 10 years ago, the overall white population in the U.S. has declined by almost 10 percent. In that same amount of time, the Latinx population grew by 23 percent, the Asian population increased by over 35 percent and the Black population grew by almost 6 percent.

    When you consider that the United States was built on a foundation of white supremacy — that is, by white men, for white men — it’s not difficult to grasp the impact of news such as this. While the country’s percentage of white people may be declining, white supremacists surely won’t go away quietly. We know from history that a dying beast can still do a considerable amount of damage on the way down. Indeed, this is precisely what we’re seeing unfold in Texas and around the country: the anger of white supremacist, misogynist Americans who are increasingly galled by what their country is becoming.

    And they are galled. They’re galled by the fact that the U.S. actually had a Black president for eight years. They’re galled that there’s a new national reckoning going on over the legacy of slavery and structural racism in our country. They’re galled by the increased national attention being paid to police violence against Black people and by a Black Lives Matter movement that mobilized the largest mass protests in U.S. history last summer. They are galled every time another statue of a Confederate is toppled in a Southern state, as was the case at the Virginia statehouse last week.

    And it doesn’t stop there. They’re also galled when women, nonbinary and trans people seek power over their own bodies — and really, whenever they seek more power in general. They’re galled by the rising movement for reproductive justice. They’re galled that there are now a record number of women serving in Congress, including a Palestinian American and a hijab-wearing former refugee from Somalia. They’re galled by the #MeToo movement, which is removing sexually violent men from positions of power. Last November, they were particularly galled when a powerful voting rights organizing effort largely led by Black women helped turn Georgia blue in both the presidential and congressional elections.

    Of course, white and misogynist anger over voting rights in this country didn’t begin last year. It surged in 1870, when the 15th Amendment technically gave Black men the right to vote. It surged in 1920, when the 19th Amendment technically gave women the right to vote. And it surged again in 1965, when the Voting Rights Act went into effect. Even as we celebrate these landmark legislative events, we can’t look away from the immense backlash and rage they engendered — and continue to engender — throughout the U.S., which makes it all the more crucial that we keep fighting for real universal enfranchisement. (It’s worth noting that truly universal enfranchisement would also include populations that don’t yet have the vote, such as undocumented people and most people who are incarcerated in prisons.)

    As we contemplate how to respond to the events transpiring in Texas and around the country, it’s immensely important for us to understand the historical power of white rage. This phenomenon has been part of U.S. national culture since this country’s founding on stolen land, and the colonial mass murder of Indigenous people. The current brand of self-righteous white rage is reminiscent of the racist backlash that played out during Reconstruction. We shouldn’t be surprised by the current devastating setbacks to public policy; on the contrary, we should expect them.

    The staying power of white supremacist anger in this country sometimes reminds me of a certain Biblical trope. Readers of the Hebrew Bible are, of course, familiar with the story of creation in Genesis 1, in which an omnipotent God creates light out of darkness and separates the primordial waters of chaos. It’s a satisfying, deeply aspirational myth that expresses a certain vision of the world as it should be: a neat and tidy process by which the world moves from chaos to greater order and progress.

    However, scholars have pointed out that there is another creation story embedded in the Bible, influenced by epic stories from the Ancient Near East that portray a battle between the gods and powerful sea monsters that represent the primordial forces of chaos. Biblical books, such as the Psalms, Job and Isaiah describe God’s battle with a mighty sea monster named Leviathan, among others. Unlike the orderly movement toward progress that we read about in Genesis 1, this other narrative portrays creation as an ongoing and even desperate struggle. And while God generally gets the upper hand, it’s not at all clear in the Bible that the primordial sea monster is ever completely vanquished.

    It sometimes occurs to me that our conventional, liberal view of history reflects a “Genesis 1 mindset,” i.e., an orderly movement toward greater progress, proceeding neatly from victory to victory. And while these landmark moments certainly represent political progress, they do not fundamentally change the foundational truth of this country. To put it differently, we too often forget that the sea monster is never fully vanquished. Yes, victories should be celebrated. But even more than that, they must also be protected.

    If we were ever sanguine about the threat of white supremacist resentment in this country, we should now have no doubt that it still exists, after the past four years of Trump (which literally culminated in an armed insurrection on the U.S. Capitol). This rage is real and it is mobilizing in truly frightening ways. It’s no coincidence that among the bills passed in Texas earlier this month was legislation loosening restrictions on gun carry laws. Indeed, the dramatic spike in gun ownership and the erosion of gun control measures around the country should make it clear to us that the threat of white nationalism is deadly serious.

    So where do we go from here? How do we resist such fierce and unrelenting rage? Perhaps the first step is to remember that white resentment is fueled by fear — and in truth, white supremacists have genuine cause to be fearful. They are afraid because they know full well that there are more of us than there are of them — and our numbers are growing. We should never forget that while fear may be one of their primary motivations, it’s also a sign of their fundamental weakness.

    White nationalism is essentially a reactionary movement; that is to say, it has historically reacted to changes that genuinely threaten its power and hegemony in this country. But even though by definition, these reactionaries have been playing defense throughout American history, the liberal response to white supremacy has been to resist the prospect of a strong offense as “too much,” “too radical,” or “too extreme.” White liberals often distance themselves from revolutionary people-of-color-led movements in this way, and those of us who are white must consciously resist this form of distancing, because this phenomenon is itself a form of white supremacy preservation. During the years of the civil rights movement — just as we’re seeing today — many white liberal leaders would publicly criticize movement tactics they felt were too radical or extreme.

    This is precisely what Martin Luther King Jr. was addressing when he so memorably wrote from a Birmingham jail, “the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?” The Black playwright Lorraine Hansberry put it succinctly in a 1964 speech entitled “The Black Revolution and the White Backlash,” saying, “We have to find some way to encourage the white liberal to stop being a liberal and become an American radical.”

    In other words, as long as white supremacy is baked into the very systems that govern our country, we can ill afford to play defense. If anyone has any doubts, consider this: Two months before the census reported the decrease in the white population in this country, the Reflective Democracy Campaign released a report that demonstrated how radically white minority rule pervades politics across the U.S. Despite the recent electoral gains for women and people of color, white men represent 30 percent of the population but 62 percent of state and national officeholders. By contrast, women and people of color constitute 51 percent and 40 percent of the U.S. population respectively, but represent just 31 percent and 13 percent of officeholders.

    When the Reflective Democracy Campaign released these findings, its director, Brenda Choresi Carter, put it very well: We have “a political system in general that is not built to include new voices and perspectives. It’s a system built to protect the people and the interests already represented in it. It’s like all systems. It’s built to protect the status quo.”

    As I read those words, I can’t help but ask: Isn’t challenging status-quo systems what Yom Kippur is ultimately all about? Every year at this season, those of us who observe this holiday are commanded to take a hard, unflinching look at the status quo, openly admit what needs changing, and commit to the hard work it will take to transform it. It’s an inherently radical concept: to proclaim every year that the status quo is unacceptable and that nothing short of genuine intervention will do. If our Yom Kippur prayers are to mean anything at all, we must be prepared to act upon this radical idea.

    Organizers and activists working to intervene in our racist, inequitable systems are already lighting a path toward a transformed world. We must take our cue from them. Because in the end, when we fight for voting rights, reproductive justice, racial justice, economic equity, or any other issue, we’re not only advocating for specific causes that have suffered setbacks — we’re fighting to transform systems that are fundamentally unjust.

    So when we sound the shofar with a long blast at the end of Yom Kippur, let’s not only regard it as the conclusion to this season. Let’s consider it a call to action for transformation in the year ahead. And when the inevitable setbacks occur, let us not respond with surprise or dismay; rather, let’s remind each other that setbacks and backlashes are a sign of their fear, not their strength. Let us never forget that there are more of us than there are of them — and if we see fit to summon our strength, we can indeed create the world we know is possible.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Dozens of women sue Pornhub alleging it profits from non-consensual content

    Dozens of women have sued the company that owns PornHub. They’re alleging that the adult video website profits from non-consensual content.

    34 women filed a lawsuit in California which describes the site as a “classic criminal enterprise” run in the same way as the fictional Sopranos mafia.

    The lawsuit

    It’s alleged that MindGeek, the owner of PornHub, has created a “bustling marketplace” for “child pornography, rape videos, trafficked videos and every other form of non-consensual content”.

    The lawsuit states:

    This is a case about rape, not pornography…

    It is a case about the rape and sexual exploitation of children. It is a case about the rape and sexual exploitation of men and women.

    And it is a case about each of these defendants knowingly and intentionally electing to capitalise and profit from the horrendous exploitation and abuse of tens of thousands of other human beings so they could make more than the enormous sums of money they would have otherwise made anyway.

    The lawsuit only names one of the plaintiffs. Meanwhile four are listed as being UK citizens when they were filmed. And 14 said they were underage at the time and therefore ‘victims of child sex trafficking’.

    Survivors

    Crystal Palace footballer Leigh Nicol shared a statement on Twitter saying she was a victim after her private videos appeared on the site:

    Nicol said:

    When the videos appeared on PornHub it ruined my life, it killed my personality, it zapped the happiness out of me. It brought me almost two years of shame, depression, anxiety, horrifying thoughts, public embarrassment and scars.

    I still bear those scars. It’ll be an ongoing battle for the foreseeable future for myself and other survivors.

    Serena Fleites is the only plaintiff the lawsuit names. She was allegedly 13 when her boyfriend coerced her into making a sexually explicit video. It was uploaded to Pornhub without her knowledge or consent, the lawsuit states, and was viewed millions of times.

    Fleites became depressed and attempted suicide as a result of the video, the lawsuit claims.

    According to the lawsuit, the women have suffered “substantial damages,” including “physical, psychological, financial and reputational harm”. Moreover, it states that MindGeek’s websites are some of the most popular on the internet. And the online porn industry as a whole may generate as much as 97bn USD a year (£70bn).

    Lawyers for the women are demanding substantial damages.

    Pornhub’s response

    In a statement, Pornhub said it has “zero tolerance” for illegal content and investigates all complaints.

    It described the allegations of running a criminal enterprise similar to that of the Sopranos as “utterly absurd, completely reckless and categorically false”.

    And Pornhub said its website has:

    the most comprehensive safeguards in user-generated platform history, which include the banning of uploads from unverified users, expanding our moderation processes and cooperating with dozens of non-profit organisations around the world

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Horrifying research shows two cops a month commit violent or sexual offences against women and children

    THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS REFERENCES TO RAPE AND MURDER SOME PEOPLE MAY FIND DISTRESSING

    Eight police officers have been convicted of murdering their wives or girlfriends in the past 11 years. This figure comes from research on criminality among people working in criminal justice. And it destroys the idea that Sarah Everard’s alleged murder at the hands of a cop was, if true, isolated. Because in every month in 2019, on average at least two police officers committed violent or sexual offences against women or children. Yet the government wants cops in nightclubs to “protect women”. 

    But the figures are actually just the tip of the iceberg. Because in the year ending in March 2020, on average, more than one police officer broke the law every week.

    Unbelievable figures

    A writer calling himself Huyton Freeman has been researching crimes by people involved in criminal justice. His results are rigorously backed up by evidence. And the document is staggering.

    You can view Freeman’s research here. It details the criminality (or allegations of) or professional misconduct of police officers and police support staff, prison staff and court staff since January 2009 (also including once offence from 2008). It covers up to September 2020. And the details are horrifying.

    The document lists at least 500 incidents involving police officers. This includes:

    • Over 400 linked to police constables (PCs).
    • Around 70 linked to sergeants (Sgts).
    • Around 40 linked to police community support officers (PCSOs).
    • Around 40 linked to detective constables (DCs).
    • Around 30 linked to inspectors (Insp).
    • Three linked to detective chief inspectors (DCIs).

    The numbers above don’t include officers who had already left the force at the time of proceedings. Then, on top of this, the research documents prison officers, court staff, and others. Overall, Freeman has documented at least 800 offences. But it’s the details of what the listed people have done which is awful.

    Horrific crimes

    For example, between January 2009 and September 2020 there were:

    • 11 murders involving serving or ex-police officers. Eight were convicted. Three cases are ongoing. But nine of the 11 victims were police officers’ wives or girlfriends.
    • Over 90 charges of, or convictions for, rape among all professions. The majority were against women and children. Several of the offenders committed multiple crimes. Dozens of these were serving police officers.
    • Over 150 offences relating to children among all professions. Some of these were rape, sexual assault, or images of child abuse.

    Just in August last year, Freeman listed the following allegations/charges against police officers or police staff:

    • Three separate cases of gross misconduct.
    • Misconduct.
    • Cocaine use on duty.
    • A sexual assault charge.
    • “Sex acts while on duty”.
    • Theft.
    • Alleged sex offences, including “possessing extreme pornography”.
    • Inciting a 13-year-old girl to “engage in sexualised chat”.
    Heinous offences

    The list includes some horrific offenders. For example, as the Press and Journal reported:

    A former police officer was today jailed for 14 years for a catalogue of rape and sexual abuse offences against three women.

    David Cunningham committed the offences described by judge Lord Armstrong as “controlling and coercive” over a 14-year period.

    The 60-year-old regularly raped one woman between January 2005 and June 2008.

    He also forced her to stand outside in her underwear in bad weather on various occasions between January 2007 and June 2008.

    Cunningham raped another woman once or twice a week between December 2000 and April 2004.

    His third victim was sexually abused between June 2011 and October 2014 and on one occasion in September 2012 he choked her so violently she feared she was going to be strangled.

    It’s important to note Freeman’s work is just the cases they have managed to document. For example, Freeman missed that in June 2020 a former Devon and Cornwall police officer was found guilty by a misconduct panel of having sex with “vulnerable” women. Also, In January 2020 a South Wales cop was sacked for having sex while on duty.

    Overall, police criminality is not as rare as we may think. Official figures show that in the year ending 31 March 2020, 115 police officers faced criminal investigations. Of these, around 67 (59%) were found, or pleaded, guilty. That’s more than one officer a week being guilty of a criminal offence.

    Entrenched misconduct?

    Meanwhile, official stats from September 2020 show the level of police misconduct in England and Wales. In the year ending 31 March 2020 there were:

    • 2,242 cases of misconduct or gross misconduct.

    1,385 cases (62%) ended in misconduct proceedings. The results were:

    • “698 (31%) were assessed as misconduct and referred to a misconduct meeting”.
    • “687 (31%) required the bringing of a misconduct hearing or special case hearing (where the force considered there was sufficient evidence and public interest grounds for the case to proceed without delay) as they related to matters that could lead to the dismissal of the individual”.
    • “The remaining 857 (38% of all cases) did not require the bringing of misconduct proceedings but resulted in ‘management action’ which is ‘action or advice intended to improve the conduct of the officer concerned’”.

    Of these, the rates of action against police and police staff were low:

    Misconduct Figures One

    Misconduct Figures Two

    But Freeman’s document and official figures also pose a bigger question.

    Sarah Everard’s murder was not isolated

    The establishment painted Sarah Everard’s abduction and murder as “isolated” and “extremely rare”. This ignores the fact that someone kills a woman every three days in the UK. It also whitewashes the fact that current or ex-partners kill around 62% of the total number of women murdered.

    But moreover, Freeman’s research shows that police officers committing violent crimes against women and children is not isolated either. In 2019 alone, there were at least two cases a month involving serving or ex-police officers committing violent or sexual offences against women or children.

    As Byline Times reported, the problem appears acute in the Met Police. It wrote that:

    As many as 26 members of the Metropolitan Police were arrested between January 2018 and August 2020 for sexual offences, a previously unpublished Freedom of Information (FOI) request reveals

    Then:

    a total of 58 Met officers and staff members faced sexual misconduct proceedings over the course of the 19 months. Twenty-eight of these individuals were dismissed without notice, eight “would have been dismissed” but left of their own accord, and the remainder were given warnings of different severities.

    And Byline Times noted that:

    from January 2012 to June 2018… 562 officers were accused of sexual assault and only 43 faced subsequent proceedings. Twelve of these individuals faced informal “management action”.

    These figures alone raise serious questions over the government’s plans to put undercover police in bars and nightclubs to, as Sky News put it, “protect women from “predatory” offenders”.

    Broken beyond repair

    Ultimately, Freeman’s work and official stats are just the tip of the iceberg. The threshold for police to face disciplinary action has always been high. And all of this also doesn’t include, as Inquest noted, the “1778 deaths in police custody or otherwise following contact with the police in England & Wales since 1990”.

    Our system of policing is broken beyond repair. Something needs to change, and quickly. Because too many people are suffering horrifically at the hands of those supposed to protect them.

    Featured image via Postdlf – Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The BBC ran to protect the Met over the Sarah Everard vigil

    The BBC faced backlash over its reporting on the violent police response to the Clapham Common vigil for Sarah Everard. And on the same day, it also put out some appalling coverage of an attempted assault on a child. Now, its coverage of the Andrew Marr Show has just compounded the issue.

    Say her name

    Serving Metropolitan Police constable Wayne Couzens, 48, is charged with kidnapping and killing Sarah Everard. The 33-year-old marketing executive went missing while walking home from a friend’s flat in south London on 3 March. Her body was found on 10 March.

    In response, the group Reclaim These Streets organised a vigil. It was due to take place on Saturday 13 March. After a court hearing and objections from the Met police, however, the group cancelled the official vigil. But crowds of people still turned up to remember Everard at Clapham Common. The vigil was livestreamed. And this meant tens of thousands of people witnessed the police violence against unarmed, peaceful women.

    The media has widely reported this. But a BBC headline put the emphasis on the women being at fault.

    Enter the BBC

    As SKWAWKBOX reported, the BBC put out this headline just after 9pm on 13 March:

    BBC confrontation headline

    People were angry:

    The initial headline clearly framed the women as the antagonists. And the BBC had already done something similar on 13 March, in another story about violence against women and girls.

    Framing is everything

    As it reported:

    Police are trying to find a man who attacked a teenage girl as she walked along a path in Derby.

    But the BBC headline on Twitter was:

    Here, the headline frames the girl as the aggressor. Writer Erica Buist broke it down:

    To make matters worse, the BBC managed to compound the issue even further.

    Jess Phillips on Marr

    Labour’s shadow minister for domestic violence and safeguarding Jess Phillips was on Marr. The host asked her at one point if she thought Met chief Cressida Dick should resign. Phillips said:

    I came here this morning to talk about violence against women and girls; about the names of all of those women, as well as Sarah Everard. And I’m ending up talking about Cressida Dick.

    But as people pointed out, the BBC chose to frame the issue around Dick and the Met:

    And again, the BBC played down police violence:

    Entrenched misogyny?

    It’s difficult to offer an explanation for the BBC‘s coverage of events this weekend. Repeatedly framing women as antagonists or aggressors cannot be a mistake. Playing down police and male violence can’t be, either. Many journalists, including at The Canary, are trained to write in the so-called “active voice”. As Grammarly says:

    Active voice means that a sentence has a subject that acts upon its verb. Passive voice means that a subject is a recipient of a verb’s action.

    The “subject” in the BBC‘s coverage should have been the police at Clapham Common, and the male attacker in Derby. But they weren’t. So, it’s hard not to conclude that journalists at the BBC are intentionally doing this; firstly in the case of the vigil, and secondly over the teenage girl.

    Framing news coverage not only to protect the police but also to make women the aggressors is appalling. It only furthers the notion that the BBC is in no way a ‘public service’ broadcaster. It also points to entrenched misogyny in its output. And ultimately, it shows the BBC‘s MO of protecting the state, whatever the cost.

    Featured image via Subject Access – YouTube and pixy

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Who are the women of the extreme right?

    On January 6, Ashli Babbitt, 35, became a martyr. The Air Force veteran was in the act of scaling a barricade of furniture in Washington DC’s Capitol when she was shot in the chest at point blank by a security officer.

    Babbitt, a Trump diehard and QAnon sympathiser, was one a handful of women among the insurrectionist mob of mainly white, middle-aged, right-wing men who stormed the Capitol.

    As of January 19, of the 99 people who had had cases brought against them for their participation in the attack on the US Capital, 86 were men and 13 women. More broadly, an online tool PIRUS, which profiles individuals affiliated with far-right groups in the US, found that of the 922 individuals it identified, only 52 were female.

    Ashli Babbitt and husband Aaron

    Which raises the question of why are there apparently so few women engaged in extreme right-wing activism? And, of those who do engage, is their role mainly that of moral support to the men?

    Well, no, says Kristy Campion, a historian and expert in terrorism at the Australian Graduate School of Policing and Security at Charles Sturt University.

    “There is an emerging stereotype of right-wing violence that it is exclusively male,” Campion tells BroadAgenda. “We are making the same mistakes as we made about women in Islamic State which is assuming women are non-violent actors.”

    Women often play a significant role but more often as influencers, motivators and content producers on social media channels, such as YouTube and Twitter.

    In fact, says Campion, women often play a significant role but more often as influencers, motivators and content producers on social media channels, such as YouTube and Twitter.

    “Women’s ability to promote and cross promote information is significant,” says Campion. “They are often quite organised in how they engage with each other.”

    In a recent paper for the journal Social Sciences, Campion argues there are six forms of participation for women extreme and radical right-wing groups – violent actors; thinkers; facilitators; promoters; activists; and gendered exemplars. While it is rare for women to operate as lone actors in perpetuating violent acts – when they do engage in it, it is almost always in cahoots with men – they are more likely to “facilitate or sustain violent operations through engaging in support activities that contribute to mission completion”, Campion writes.

    “While right-wing violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men, women can also pose violent and non-violent threats and can influence ideology despite the presence of misogynistic content. This is because women interact within the ideological ecosystem rather than passively receive content.”

    Trump supporters sing the “Star Spangled Banner”.

    Indeed, many women involved in extreme right-wing groups subscribe to the notion saving “lost womanhood”, a narrative that can be seen playing out in such groups as Tradwives.

    Writing in The Conversation, University of York PhD candidate Catherine Stinton noted the apparent irony of women being attracted to groups that are violent, macho and outright misogynistic can seem baffling.

    “But while this [misogyny] can be an article of faith for many of these movements, it tends to be anti-immigration and anti-government activism that are their key recruitment messages,” Stinton writes.

    While misogyny can be an article of faith for many of these movements, it tends to be anti-immigration and anti-government activism that are their key recruitment messages

    “Women largely get involved with the far right for the same reasons men do – most commonly radicalised by a fear of losing what they have and feel entitled to keep.”

    Campion notes that women play “a role in both ideological creation and magnification”.

    Both Campion and Stinton argue that women involved in right-wing extremism are not an oddball collection of “lone, pitiable, naive individuals” but rather finds “women expressing, perpetuating and organising hate with as much agency and vitriol as men”.

    “Even if the ideology of the far right puts them second to men, that’s still a privileged position above non-white people in a white supremacist society,” writes Stinton.

    “The enforcement of this racialised hierarchy is a role that women have played throughout history. Some will accept this as a compromise, while others rationalise this as still being in their self-interest.”

    Storming of the Capitol.

    Campion agrees: “A lot of the women who are posting of Facebook and making YouTube videos are doing it from the position of feeling righteous and justified. They think they are saving America,” she says.

    Right-wing groups also need women to help “soften” the gun-toting image, but also to keep male members.

    “These groups of very cognisant of the fact that if they want to keep male members, they have to attract and keep female members. If the wife isn’t committed, the husband might leave,” says Campion.

    So while women are treated as second-class citizens they are simultaneously put on a pedestal.

    The white supremacist core of the far right holds women in a particularly privileged place. As wives of their warriors and mothers of future white children, they are expected to stay at home and commit to the family.

    “The white supremacist core of the far right holds women in a particularly privileged place. As wives of their warriors and mothers of future white children, they are expected to stay at home and commit to the family,” writes Stinson.

    Indeed, these women are not hapless, naïve, unthinking consorts to men who hold whacky ideas. They are not forced or coerced into participating with these groups and espousing radical theories.  Instead, they are individuals with agency and free will who internalise and externalise intense racism and hatred.

    When Joe Biden is inaugurated tomorrow, if there is violent protest and insurrection as predicted, rest assured many women will also be involved. And like their male counterparts, they will also be throwing bombs – just not of the physical variety. But of the kind ratcheting up hatred and fear on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

    The post Who are the women of the extreme right? appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • The US Election, Sex In The Cities And Goodbye Joel

    The 2020 US Election has brought in a new President (we think) and the key question will be how an incoming Democrats administration will affect political behaviour in Australia and whether the Morrison government feels the need to do anything at all on climate change.

    Or change its economic philosophy. Or even feel the need to be more truthful with the Australian public, but we feel this is most unlikely.

    And will the media turn down the volume on Scott Morrison, as they did with Donald Trump? We don’t think so, their courage is in short supply.

    US elections are always big news around the globe but the news Trump was on the verge of eviction from the White House was blown away by the revelation Ministers Christian Porter and Alan Tudge were having affairs with their female staffers, smooching in late-night bars in Canberra, and then getting rid of these staffers when they no longer suited their purposes.

    If only these men in positions of power could keep their hands to themselves and understand that a workplace isn’t a place where we all go to have sex and drink alcohol – the world would be a much better place.

    We also report on the Queensland election result, the likely outcome for the next series of Australian elections, the bizarre decision of the ALP’s Joel Fitzgibbons to announce his resignation just when the government was on the back foot with its sexual harassment scandals – maybe that’s what his intention was all along.

    Also, it’s NAIDOC week and the government refused to fly the Aboriginal flag at Parliament House. Because nothing upsets a conservative government more than ceding an inch to Aboriginal people or engaging in symbolism that would have cost absolutely nothing.

    Music stings:

    • Betty’s Worry Or The Slab, Hunters and Collectors
    • Hit Me With Your Rhythm Stick (Flying Remix), Ian Dury and The Blockheads
    • Fortunate Son, Creedence Clearwater Revival
    • Cosby Sweater, Hilltop Hoods

    Support independent journalism and get a free book!

    We don’t plead, beseech, beg, guilt-trip, or claim the end of the world of journalism is nigh. We keep it simple: If you like our work and would like to support it, send a donation, from as little at $1.

    And if you pledge $50 or more, we’ll send out a free copy of our new book, Divided Opinions, valued at $27.95.

    The post The US Election, Sex In The Cities And Goodbye Joel appeared first on New Politics.

    This post was originally published on New Politics.

  • I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man

    Wearable artwork of Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s most famous quote “I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man”, contained in the Misogyny Speech, the parliamentary speech delivered by Gillard on 9 October 2012 in reaction to sexism from the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott.

    T-shirts, coffee mugs, bags, stickers, pillows, and a wide range of other paraphernalia. Full details available from the Red Bubble website: https://www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/61422318

    The Misogyny Speech: Julia Gillard

    “Thank you very much Deputy Speaker and I rise to oppose the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. And in so doing I say to the Leader of the Opposition I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. I will not. And the Government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever.

    The Leader of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office. Well I hope the Leader of the Opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out his resignation. Because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn’t need a motion in the House of Representatives, he needs a mirror. That’s what he needs.

    Let’s go through the Opposition Leader’s repulsive double standards, repulsive double standards when it comes to misogyny and sexism. We are now supposed to take seriously that the Leader of the Opposition is offended by Mr Slipper’s text messages, when this is the Leader of the Opposition who has said, and this was when he was a minister under the last government – not when he was a student, not when he was in high school – when he was a minister under the last government.

    He has said, and I quote, in a discussion about women being under-represented in institutions of power in Australia, the interviewer was a man called Stavros. The Leader of the Opposition says “If it’s true, Stavros, that men have more power generally speaking than women, is that a bad thing?”

    And then a discussion ensues, and another person says “I want my daughter to have as much opportunity as my son.” To which the Leader of the Opposition says “Yeah, I completely agree, but what if men are by physiology or temperament, more adapted to exercise authority or to issue command?”

    Then ensues another discussion about women’s role in modern society, and the other person participating in the discussion says “I think it’s very hard to deny that there is an underrepresentation of women,” to which the Leader of the Opposition says, “But now, there’s an assumption that this is a bad thing.”

    This is the man from whom we’re supposed to take lectures about sexism. And then of course it goes on. I was very offended personally when the Leader of the Opposition, as Minister of Health, said, and I quote, “Abortion is the easy way out.” I was very personally offended by those comments. You said that in March 2004, I suggest you check the records.

    I was also very offended on behalf of the women of Australia when in the course of this carbon pricing campaign, the Leader of the Opposition said “What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing…” Thank you for that painting of women’s roles in modern Australia.

    And then of course, I was offended too by the sexism, by the misogyny of the Leader of the Opposition catcalling across this table at me as I sit here as Prime Minister, “If the Prime Minister wants to, politically speaking, make an honest woman of herself…”, something that would never have been said to any man sitting in this chair. I was offended when the Leader of the Opposition went outside in the front of Parliament and stood next to a sign that said “Ditch the witch.”

    I was offended when the Leader of the Opposition stood next to a sign that described me as a man’s bitch. I was offended by those things. Misogyny, sexism, every day from this Leader of the Opposition. Every day in every way, across the time the Leader of the Opposition has sat in that chair and I’ve sat in this chair, that is all we have heard from him.

    And now, the Leader of the Opposition wants to be taken seriously, apparently he’s woken up after this track record and all of these statements, and he’s woken up and he’s gone “Oh dear, there’s this thing called sexism, oh my lords, there’s this thing called misogyny. Now who’s one of them? Oh, the Speaker must be because that suits my political purpose.”

    Doesn’t turn a hair about any of his past statements, doesn’t walk into this Parliament and apologise to the women of Australia. Doesn’t walk into this Parliament and apologise to me for the things that have come out of his mouth. But now seeks to use this as a battering ram against someone else.

    Well this kind of hypocrisy must not be tolerated, which is why this motion from the Leader of the Opposition should not be taken seriously.

    And then second, the Leader of the Opposition is always wonderful about walking into this Parliament and giving me and others a lecture about what they should take responsibility for.

    Always wonderful about that – everything that I should take responsibility for, now apparently including the text messages of the Member for Fisher. Always keen to say how others should assume responsibility, particularly me.

    Well can anybody remind me if the Leader of the Opposition has taken any responsibility for the conduct of the Sydney Young Liberals and the attendance at this event of members of his frontbench?

    Has he taken any responsibility for the conduct of members of his political party and members of his frontbench who apparently when the most vile things were being said about my family, raised no voice of objection? Nobody walked out of the room; no-one walked up to Mr Jones and said that this was not acceptable.

    Instead of course, it was all viewed as good fun until it was run in a Sunday newspaper and then the Leader of the Opposition and others started ducking for cover.

    Big on lectures of responsibility, very light on accepting responsibility himself for the vile conduct of members of his political party.

    Third, Deputy Speaker, why the Leader of the Opposition should not be taken seriously on this motion.

    The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have come into this place and have talked about the Member for Fisher. Well, let me remind the Opposition and the Leader of the opposition party about their track record and association with the Member for Fisher.

    I remind them that the National Party preselected the Member for Fisher for the 1984 election, that the National Party preselected the Member for Fisher for the 1987 election, that the Liberals preselected Mr Slipper for the 1993 election, then the 1996 election, then the 1998 election, then for the 2001 election, then for the 2004 election, then for the 2007 election and then for the 2010 election.

    And across these elections, Mr Slipper enjoyed the personal support of the Leader of the Opposition. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that on 28 September 2010, following the last election campaign, when Mr Slipper was elected as Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition at that stage said this, and I quote.

    He referred to the Member for Maranoa, who was also elected to a position at the same time, and then went on as follows: “And the Member for Fisher will serve as a fine complement to the Member for Scullin in the chair. I believe that the Parliament will be well-served by the team which will occupy the chair in this chamber. I congratulate the Member for Fisher, who has been a friend of mine for a very long time, who has served this Parliament in many capacities with distinction.”

    The words of the Leader of the Opposition on record, about his personal friendship with Mr [Slipper], and on record about his view about Mr Slipper’s qualities and attributes to be the Speaker.

    No walking away from those words, they were the statement of the Leader of the Opposition then. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, who now comes in here and speaks about apparently his inability to work with or talk to Mr Slipper. I remind the Leader of the Opposition he attended Mr Slipper’s wedding.

    Did he walk up to Mr Slipper in the middle of the service and say he was disgusted to be there? Was that the attitude he took? No, he attended that wedding as a friend.

    The Leader of the Opposition keen to lecture others about what they ought to know or did know about Mr Slipper. Well with respect, I’d say to the Leader of the Opposition after a long personal association including attending Mr Slipper’s wedding, it would be interesting to know whether the Leader of the Opposition was surprised by these text messages.

    He’s certainly in a position to speak more intimately about Mr Slipper than I am, and many other people in this Parliament, given this long personal association.

    Then of course the Leader of the Opposition comes into this place and says, and I quote, “Every day the Prime Minister stands in this Parliament to defend this Speaker will be another day of shame for this Parliament, another day of shame for a government which should already have died of shame.”

    Well can I indicate to the Leader of the Opposition the Government is not dying of shame, my father did not die of shame, what the Leader of the Opposition should be ashamed of is his performance in this Parliament and the sexism he brings with it. Now about the text messages that are on the public record or reported in the – that’s a direct quote from the Leader of the Opposition so I suggest those groaning have a word with him.

    On the conduct of Mr Slipper, and on the text messages that are in the public domain, I have seen the press reports of those text messages. I am offended by their content. I am offended by their content because I am always offended by sexism. I am offended by their content because I am always offended by statements that are anti-women.

    I am offended by those things in the same way that I have been offended by things that the Leader of the Opposition has said, and no doubt will continue to say in the future. Because if this today was an exhibition of his new feminine side, well I don’t think we’ve got much to look forward to in terms of changed conduct.

    I am offended by those text messages. But I also believe, in terms of this Parliament making a decision about the speakership, that this Parliament should recognise that there is a court case in progress. That the judge has reserved his decision, that having waited for a number of months for the legal matters surrounding Mr Slipper to come to a conclusion, that this Parliament should see that conclusion.

    I believe that is the appropriate path forward, and that people will then have an opportunity to make up their minds with the fullest information available to them.

    But whenever people make up their minds about those questions, what I won’t stand for, what I will never stand for is the Leader of the Opposition coming into this place and peddling a double standard. Peddling a standard for Mr Slipper he would not set for himself. Peddling a standard for Mr Slipper he has not set for other members of his frontbench.

    Peddling a standard for Mr Slipper that has not been acquitted by the people who have been sent out to say the vilest and most revolting things like his former Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Senator Bernardi.

    I will not ever see the Leader of the Opposition seek to impose his double standard on this Parliament. Sexism should always be unacceptable. We should conduct ourselves as it should always be unacceptable. The Leader of the Opposition says do something; well he could do something himself if he wants to deal with sexism in this Parliament.

    He could change his behaviour, he could apologise for all his past statements, he could apologise for standing next to signs describing me as a witch and a bitch, terminology that is now objected to by the frontbench of the Opposition.

    He could change a standard himself if he sought to do so. But we will see none of that from the Leader of the Opposition because on these questions he is incapable of change. Capable of double standards, but incapable of change. His double standards should not rule this Parliament.

    Good sense, common sense, proper process is what should rule this Parliament. That’s what I believe is the path forward for this Parliament, not the kind of double standards and political game-playing imposed by the Leader of the Opposition now looking at his watch because apparently a woman’s spoken too long.

    I’ve had him yell at me to shut up in the past, but I will take the remaining seconds of my speaking time to say to the Leader of the Opposition I think the best course for him is to reflect on the standards he’s exhibited in public life, on the responsibility he should take for his public statements; on his close personal connection with Peter Slipper, on the hypocrisy he has displayed in this House today.

    And on that basis, because of the Leader of the Opposition’s motivations, this Parliament today should reject this motion and the Leader of the Opposition should think seriously about the role of women in public life and in Australian society because we are entitled to a better standard than this.”

    The post I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man appeared first on New Politics.

    This post was originally published on New Politics.

  • EGO defeats NOUS

    When John Howard departed the political scene in 2007, there began an era of instability that has all but destroyed legitimate democracy in Australia. I am in my 87th year on this planet and I have never witnessed a more shameful Parliament than this one. Sadly, only a few of our Parliamentarians are aware of it. They …

    Continue reading EGO defeats NOUS

    This post was originally published on My Articles – Everald Compton.