What was said...

Not a bad week, last week.

Radio 2SM broadcast an interview* between Dr Cathy Kezelman, an expert on adult survivors of child sexual abuse and John Laws. The interview was in response to weeks of activism, yet it felt like it all came together rather quickly.

Briefly...

Back in March Laws hosted an interview with 'Carole' during which he questioned whether she was provocative and possibly to blame for the abuse she suffered between the ages of six and sixteen. Laws glib tone and questioning spoke of the dominant discourse where perpetrators are provoked and victims blamed for the crimes committed against them.

As the furor over the interview threatened to disappear within the twenty-four hour news cycle, online activist groups 'Destroy The Joint' and 'GetUp!' initiated a campaign and petition to demand an apology and education for Laws and his misogynist views. Laws refused to personally accept the petition. He also deferred a request for airtime that would present expert opinion on the issue of sexual abuse.

A slew of incredulous Sydneysiders, your humble blogger included emailed Laws petitioning for the interview. Last Monday I received a reply; his producer assented to scheduling the interview. A flurry of emailing and phone calls between myself, 'Destroy the Joint' and Laws producer saw the interview finally happen.**

So what was said, and what does it all mean?

Really it depends on who you ask: 'GetUp!' emailed victory to it's members citing "John Laws and 2SM have made commendable strides towards ensuring another victim blaming incident won't happen on it's airwaves again". 'Destroy the Joint' offered congratulations to it's members focussing on Laws' humility in acknowledging that "he now knew a lot more about child abuse than he had previously".

Clearly many followers were not pleased with the outcome though. 'Destroy the Joints' Facebook page was divided between celebration and frustration, with one 'Destroyer' maintaining that "he should still lose his job".

And what do I think?

Listening to the interview live I was immediately struck by the way Laws distanced himself from the fallout of the initial interview. Yet when Dr Kezelman was given the chance to speak Laws was polite and engaging. He was receptive to the points made and acknowledged he had something to learn. I felt more could have been discussed but then I'm not typical of Laws audience and nothing is achieved if they start tuning out over the content.

Mine is a very equivocal endorsement of Laws response after the strident opposition I offered to his initial attitude. See I don't believe the world is perfect and that means people need the chance to change.

You win very few supporters by constantly berating the opposition. Laws speaks to a broad audience, though his view is often narrow, that was part of the reason his initial comments were so objectionable. His interview with Dr Kezelman may not have been a call to arms, to combat abuse. However it did reach more people than my writing perhaps ever will. Most importantly it challenged listeners to look at the issue of abuse and victim blaming in a different way. Small changes, but in a large audience these things add up.

So is the campaign over?

Well, no. In the week since the interview I've heard of friends and colleagues making sexist, pejorative comments. I've seen the double standard of male/female expectations play out professionally and socially. The dominant discourse does not shut up so easily.

But I've also talked to people about it. Sometimes they listen, other times not, but I've always left the conversation such that we could take it up another day. Because one thing I know for certain is that you will never change a discourse if you stop talking...

________________________

* You can podcast the show and interview here: http://www.2smsupernetwork.com/podcasts.html just look out for the episode from the 10/4/2013

** Check out the trail of correspondence on my earlier post - 'Opportunities Missed...'

Blame...

Let's get this out of the way from the outset: victims are never to blame for rape or sexual assault.

Yet prominent Australian broadcaster John Laws yesterday asked a woman who had been abused at age six "was it in any way your fault?" Laws goes on in the interview to question whether the woman was provocative during the nine years of abuse she suffered and whether or not she was attractive. Following criticism of the interview Laws stood by his comments, claiming he was "trying to keep it light".

A few days ago I wrote about men and feminism. I posited that for men to contribute they must first challenge their assumptions about equality, women and society and often stop talking; taking time to consider how these assumptions inform the conversation.

At a guess John Laws would not subscribe to my position on this. The self proclaimed 'King of Radio' speaks with full confidence that people are listening. To stop talking would be akin to death for him. His claim that he was keeping it light reveals his deep need to entertain, not challenge or inform. There is no place in his world for challenging assumptions.

This makes Laws a dangerous presence on the radio. Over fifty-four years of broadcasting he has garnered a huge audience, many who see no need to question what Laws says. Laws is the embodiment of oppressive, patriarchal discourse; an old, white guy talking without thinking, who is primarily interested in maintaining his own position.

How do we challenge such ingrained beliefs?

A fantastic picture I saw online recently depicts a girl holding a sign. It says "Why am I dressed like a slut? Why are you thinking like a rapist?" This is the crux of the matter. Too often we focus on the overt, the visual, the thing we can easily identify and that is the victim. We must instead delve into the thoughts, attitudes and beliefs of the attacker; reflect them back in his face.

When John Laws speaks to his sympathetic audience he has his beliefs reinforced. Let's hold a mirror up to his comments and ask what it means when a seventy-seven year old man thinks a six year old or a fifteen year old girl can be provocative?

_____________

There is a very real danger that this story could be overshadowed by other news events. Today's SMH has the story relegated to page #15. following eight pages of election coverage and three pages of advertisement.

You can help keep it on the news agenda, hold a mirror up to victim blaming and show Laws how disgusting his comments really are. Write to him at Radio 2SM and sign the petition demanding an apology started by 'Destroy the Joint'. Only by speaking out will we change the conversation.

Talking about Feminism...

I was overseas when Prime Minister Julia Gillard made her, now famous, misogyny speech to the Australian Parliament in October last year. It made an impact in Dublin, where I watched it late in the evening and I understand it was a similar sensation worldwide.

Back in Australia I find a country significantly energised by the debate on the role and mission of feminism in the public discourse. Movements such as 'Destroy The Joint' and large, social media driven responses to sexist comments by prominent radio announcers signal a refusal to tolerate a masculocentric view of the world.

But I'm a guy; do I have anything to contribute to 21st century feminism?

Man vs. Woolf

This question has plagued me since high school, maybe uni; whenever I first read Germaine Greer and Virginia Woolf. They opened my eyes to how fucked up men can make women's lives. My reading taught me a little on the notion of a dominate discourse and how minds, attitudes, opinions might be shaped simply by the way we talk about the world.

Virginia Woolf railed against the cacophony of male voices all trying to neatly encapsulate women. A litany of voices, pulled from all walks of life, spoke relentlessly with barely a voice raised against them. Woolf believed in an alternate discourse, created by women.

But to honour all voices some must be quietened.

An example...

Yesterday I went on a training course. In one of my non-blogging incarnations I'm a bartender and this was a cocktail making course, so nothing too strenuous.

Attending the course were about eighteen bartenders from around Sydney. Of our little group only four were female, so not quite 25%. Our instructor was a brand manager from the company running the course. Helping her were other brand managers from the company, again the female ratio was approximately 25%.

At one point during the training our instructor turned and thanked one of the guys for cleaning and clearing the bar while she made the drinks. He turned and responded in a mock, high-pitched voice mumming a maid. It got a huge laugh from the floor.

It was standard, bad pantomime aimed to keep the session light. That's what everyone responded to, with our instructor laughing alongside. On the other hand there was an implicit reinforcement in the mock-female voice that cleaning is predominately a woman's job.

Now I didn't jump up and shout "HOLD ON! Stop oppressing women and reinforcing the dominant discourse!" I'm not sure the crowd would even know what I was going on about. I didn't laugh either, I just sat there and thought about how deeply some of our prejudices go. It wasn't really my place anyway. Our instructor carried on and we all learned some new practical skills, even if some jibes continued.

If men are to contribute in a constructive way to feminist discourse it seems we may have to delve into our subconscious acts before attempting to make any conscious effort. By clearing away some of our assumptions we create the space to hear new ideas. By keeping our mouths shut when they might otherwise flap open we can create the space for those ideas to be spoken.