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...'

Opportunities Missed...

A weekend has passed following broadcaster John Laws comments questioning whether a caller, Carole, was at fault for the sexual abuse she suffered from age six. Laws is singularly unrepentant for both his line of questioning and the attitudes that underly it. Lashing out at critics he suggested that anyone who has a problem with the interview can "go to hell".

Almost a week gone and the issue slips quietly from the news agenda. Perhaps the greatest shame is the missed opportunity to honour the story of Carole and offer support to victims of sexual assault. By framing the interview around blame and provocation Laws has potentially scared women who are struggling with their own sexual assault, making them reluctant to report their abuser.

Rape and sexual assault are on agenda worldwide. In India the brutal gang rape and murder of a 23 year old woman sparked protests throughout the country aimed at better protection for women. While in the Maldives a 15 year old girl has been sentenced to 100 lashes for 'fornication' after suffering sexual abuse at the hands of her step-father.

These cases and thousands like them are often described as the product of outdated traditions and a lack of gender equality. Where women have relatively depressed financial and social situations they have less opportunity and inclination to report their attackers.

Meanwhile in Australia people ask if the work of feminism has been achieved?

The Australian Institute of Family Studies describes sexual assault as "one of the most underreported of all personal crimes". They report an estimated 44,100 persons over the age of 18 were victims of sexual assault in the reporting period of 2005. The Australian Institute of Criminology, in a 2001 report on 'Sexual Violence in Australia' report that 18% of Australian women have experienced sexual assault in their lifetime. In all these reports it is acknowledged that data gathering is can be limited and complicated by factors such as a reluctance to report. Therefore figures may be much higher.

Despite all this John Laws questioned Carole, a victim of sexual assault, as to whether she may have contributed to the assaults she experienced. Laws claims he was "keeping it light". Listening to the interview he sounds uncomfortable. What is not widely reported in the media is that Laws did acknowledge that Carole had gone through a terrible experience. Yet when Carole's voice becomes strained he does not stop. We have little knowledge as to whether Carole is really coping with her experience and Laws offered no support opportunities to listeners who may have experienced the same assault.

One of the greatest difficulties in combating sexual assault and rape is how often it goes unreported. Laws contributed to this phenomenon of underreporting by implying that the assault could in some way be the victims fault. In talking about 'attractiveness', he perpetuated the myth that some women are 'asking for it'.

Victims of sexual assault need support to take back the control and dignity that has been stolen from their lives. John Laws needs to shut up until he learns this...

______________

If this blogspot or any of the issues brought up by John Laws comments have affected you there are support services available in Australia:

Lifeline provide 24 hour crisis support on 13 11 14 

or visit their website at www.lifeline.org.au for a list of services available in your area.

______________

If you'd like to take action on this issue:

GetUp! and Destroy the Joint have a petition requesting Laws apologise

and undergo training to better support victims of abuse.

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.