What is it about feminism?

I have been reading an interesting, "robust exchange of ideas" on the OzConservative blog, about domestic violence. In reading this, I was struck by the vitriol against feminists, being labelled "feminazis" and "feministas". These people seemed comfortable in mutually reassuring themselves that feminism is equal to extremism and irrationality. I was extremely disappointed. These are clearly educated young men, yet they play the (wo)man and not the ball. When my friend Legal Eagle - more conservatively inclined than I, but equally committed to rational thought - engaged in debate, she was received as a raving lunatic.

I comfortably call myself a feminist. After teaching criminal law, having a baby and attempting to re-enter the workforce, I am proudly entrenched in that position. The label is a purely historical one in some ways: I am proud of the women who have called themselves "feminists" and what that meant. I can now vote, I can work for money, and I can own property. Second wave feminism meant I can work part-time, I can refuse to spend all my time serving my husband's career, and I could get decent help if I found myself in a violent relationship. This is why I call myself a feminist, and I think that's fair enough. Just like others call themselves Aussies or Gypsies or Jews.

What it means, however is as much a question of individual beliefs as any culture or religion. I base these beliefs on my perceptions of people's behaviour, my readings of experiences, and on research. I am a feminist because I believe in a right to a good life, which takes into account the realities, and disregarding unnecessary unrealities, of "gender".

It seems that the mere concept of feminism is unacceptable to these people. My feeling is that this aggressive view belies an inability to recognise women's truths: like their need for meaningful work and meaningful parenthood, the fact of violence against them and the physical and political dominance of men. I think it is hard for a man to imagine what it feels like to be a woman in this context.

Perhaps this one example might help: I did an exercise once, in a workshop that was thinking about relations between the sexes. The background was that one woman identified that there was a man who wouldn't leave her alone when she was sunbathing and swimming by a river one day, despite her efforts at communicating that she was not interested in talking to anyone.

So we did an exercise, where the men stood in a line at one end of the room, and the women stood in line at the other. Then the men had to walk towards the women, and the women had to look a men in the eye and say "stop" when they reached the woman's personal space.

The results were interesting. Many women couldn't do it the first time, they would stop and giggle or feel uncomfortable. The men found this extraordinary - why couldn't you assert your personal space? The second time, all the women did it at the same point - about double arm's length. Interesting that this means that as the men entered touching distance, this was considered within a woman's personal space for this exercise.

On a personal level, I found it confronting to do this, even as a strong young woman. What right did I have to tell a young man not to come near me? How would he feel about that? I don't want to upset him, do I? Especially if he'd been perfectly nice to me during the day? It was very powerful and it clarified a lot of gender relations questions that I'd had up to that point. It certainly had a big impact on the men in the room. These are probably the sort of men who will go away and support White Ribbon Day.

White Ribbon Day is a way of saying to women: yes, we have listened. We don’t deny that there’s a problem. You’ve been screaming at us for a long time to get our attention: you have it now. Let's talk about this: how can we help?

I find WRD extremely reassuring, for exactly that reason.

AIC "white ribbon day" special website

From the Australian Institute of Criminology - a dedicated website for white ribbon day. Just the facts, please sir...

http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/women/hot-topic_white_ribbon.html

Tie a big old white ribbon up, boys!

Legal Eagle posted an interesting piece on domestic violence recently. And the Daily Flute has had a hot debate over white ribbon day, which I've contributed to. So I feel it's my time to put something together on this, having had some experience in the area of domestic violence and criminal law.

Regular correspondent with Legal Eagle, Iain, wrote on his blog that:

Women who goad, nag and belittle their partners must accept some responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Perhaps, for the sake of argument, you have something of a point Iain - if you're talking about conventional relationships, which can indeed become emotionally toxic, some of which become violent, usually superficially and briefly (a chair through a window, a high-heeled shoe thrown, etc). Most of these battles, however, are fought in and out of family courts, or in gossip circles. (at the same time, men are bigger and stronger than women, so there's still no excuse... but *sigh* anyway...read on...)

In my experience prosecuting (not extensive but very in-depth), and in teaching criminal law, cases of domestic violence are not conventional relationships, but ones of malignant violence and entrapment.

Sometimes the woman in the relationship has been beaten by a father or brother in childhood, so she already knows what violence means and how impossible it is to escape from. Either that, or she has been "caught" in the situation, by a man who promised everything and then began to frighten and terrorise the woman until she is completely unable to escape out of fear for her life. (Indeed, this fear is genuine - most of the women we studied were killed when they were trying to leave. This is why I don't believe in the learned helplessness of early battered women syndrome theories)

Often - almost always - the man in question is heavily into a cocktail of drugs and/or is an alcoholic, and the beatings happen during those sessions. Either that or they are seriously troubled and insanely stressed individuals. Often these men carry illegal weapons in the house, just to refer to occasionally, if the woman threatens to leave.

Women in these situations are not "nags". They are usually asking for common needs - to know when the man will be home, for money for the kids' excursions, etc. The man feels overwhelmingly ashamed of his incapacity to care for his family, but uses rage to deflect this "criticism", as he sees it... and takes it out on his partner. Beatings are usually accompanied by rapes. As the woman becomes more terrified, the welfare of her children become her primary focus. So she sets herself up between the child and her partner and gets pummeled.

Usually she tries to leave at least once, and is found. Some of the cases show men who travel all over the country, waiting outside parents' houses, cruising streets, looking for her. Just to "show her who's boss".

This isn't being a nag, Iain. Have a look at the AIC website for the statistics, and have a look at some of the cases. Tell some of my victims when I was prosecuting that they "have to take some responsibility" for this.

Heather Osland's history was a good example of what can happen - the facts of the case are compelling. Unfortunately, her case was argued badly (the High Court - mainly McHugh J - acknowledged this), and she ended up in jail for what she did, with the real legal points left behind.

I think ordinary, gentle men try to relate to these other men, but they can't. So they try to imagine what would make them so enraged to become that violent - and they imagine that the woman must have been extremely provocative. Sorry guys, but there's other stuff going on here. This is what White Ribbon Day is all about - telling men that this is not on. That they don't actually relate to their experience. That it's F*CKED UP to treat another human being like that.

Men who do this persistently defend themselves, way beyond comprehension. None of it was their fault, it was all her fault, it was because of the kids, it was because a job fell through, you know what it's like, etc, etc. It's the same with most violent criminals. So standing up and saying "no - you're the one at fault here" could be very powerful. I support it.

On the legal points (having taught crim I hope I've got a couple of accurate observations here) - yes, the provocation cases do have a couple of female ones, but they are all examples of self-defence as provocation, not overwhelming anger. The self-defence cases were about 50/50 successful. The anger cases are all men, and all but one that we studied were successful. And they all stemmed from an inability to cope with the independence of a woman from them, be they a woman who they stalked and hardly knew, or a woman they were married to for many years (eg the Ramage case).

The true tragedy of provocation is that the evidence of the accused that he was provoked simply cannot be contested. Usually the confrontations leading up to the killing happened in private, so there were no direct witnesses. And any other evidence to suggest that the man himself was frightening the victim is generally hearsay and inadmissible. It's one of those serious imbalances in the interaction of evidence law and criminal law. Julie Ramage's sister, Vicki Ramage, wrote about this devastating principle of law, and how the facts as accepted by the court were totally contrary to what her sister had told her, about her fears for her life.

Somebody give me that hammer

I have to say, I've hit the glass ceiling recently, as a part-time worker and mother of young child. It's not pleasant at 30.

Luckily I'm in the public service. Luckily in some ways... I received 13 weeks maternity leave, and I work part-time. But I've been back for a year now, after nearly 4 years of service, and despite the fact that I increased my skills while I was away by doing sessional teaching at uni (a better paid alternative to a masters), and the fact that I wrote the manuals that my colleagues, happily leapfrogging me, use for their work, I can't get ahead.

a) there are no part-time professional positions. none. You'd think the entire workplace hadn't heard of job-sharing. Lawyers in firms reckon part-time is 4 days per week.

b) You've got to be 5 times better than anyone else to be considered for a full-time position on a part-time basis.

c) There are few chances to improve your skills (and become the said 5 times better) because the quality work always goes to the full-timers.

I've been told "you'll mark time until your children are in school", I've watched equally worthy colleagues promoted again and again beyond their capability and I've seen my boss fight for their retention. But when it comes to me, he is confounded by the idea that I'm asking for a better deal, validly based on my experience.

This in the public service...

It wouldn't be so bad if the cost of living wasn't so insanely high for young families, mainly because of super-inflated housing prices (something for which I hope we will hold our governments criminally responsible one of these days). But at this stage, we can barely afford a bare block in the country. But that's for another post...

If I could coast, or "mark time", I probably would. But for me and my family, the stakes are way too high.

Lawyers, Pessimism and Depression

I've been thinking a lot about my career lately, as one does at the end of each year (no, not the financial year!), so Legal Eagle's recent postings on the issue have been particularly poignant according to my poignometer.

I was in a meeting recently with a non-government organisation which I assist in running. We had a proposal brought to us to jointly run a music festival. Unfortunately, it had more holes than my best painting jeans, and a short time frame in which to plug them. The people in question were certainly well-intentioned and reasonably thorough, but I saw a number of risks. I put on my best lawyer hat and pointed out the lack of planning approval, contract drafting and provisions for insurance and security. I saw liability everywhere.

We made the right decision - to postpone the idea - but I felt like a pariah afterwards. Everyone wanted to join in and create goodwill, but I could only see the "what-ifs". For a long time afterwards I struggled with my reaction. Am I too risk-averse? What is my role here? Why do I sound so negative? Did I do the right thing?

It didn't help that the person putting the idea forward was a close friend.

The experience tapped into a whole lot of other concerns about my career choice. What is worthy about what I do? I don't save lives, I don't facilitate good and amicable dispute resolution, I don't help people feel better about themselves, and I'm not solving the hunger crisis in the world. Why do I do this? I didn't need the weight of others' perceptions of lawyers to reinforce that I felt like a bottom-feeder.

Lawyers, when practising, are dedicated pessimists - it's their job. But this can feel less than worthy, especially for those of us who feel the pain of the world heavily at times.

The year my law firm's voice broke

Legal Eagle, another insightful post on that old bugbear, the law firm. They're lucky young lawyers are so insecure, because I tend to think they deserve to have a fight on their hands.

In this instance, Legal Eagle has been discussing the importance of good people management and guidance.

Clear guidance is so important to good work. When I started out as an AC, my boss used to say "the stupid questions are the most important." He always had his door open, even though he was one of the more senior lawyers in the public service.

Mind you, we didn't have to worry about 6 minute billing, being salaried in-house lawyers. It also means we didn't have a "law firm culture", rather a more modern organisational development model, which takes into account relationships between a range of parties, not just lawyers. It seems to keep things in perspective, especially since promotion tends to come from the quality of your work and experience, rather than billing hours.

From my experience working at law firms whilst studying, I generally think they are hopelessly insular and hierarchical, and full of snobbery and fragile egos. The expectations on young lawyers keep them so tired and stressed that they can't see their way clearly out other than by working, which keeps them stuck in the cycle.

So what can they do about it? Well first of all they can hire good HR managers with a brief to ensure the welfare of staff, and to foster good channels of communication between levels of seniority. Perhaps creating partnerships with organisations outside the firm would be beneficial. Salarying young lawyers is, I've heard, an excellent option for some. I know of a couple of firms that do it. But most of all, I suspect changing a firm's culture to accept responsibility for the well-being of staff - all staff equally - would make a huge difference. A good HR manager, who is supported by the partners, is extremely important.

I also wonder if the articles system is too insular - some rotations could perhaps be required, through public service or NGOs.

But are firms actually haemorrhaging young lawyers? Because it feels like everyone's saying this, but there's little motivation to change. Am I right? Are we pissing in the wind?!

If not, junior lawyers need to take a bit of a hit here too. I have also found that, in my experience, junior lawyers are divided by competition and favouritism and infantilised by their firm's treatment of them. They need to curry personal favour to get anywhere. If one wanted to take a stand against poor treatment, the others would merrily use the opportunity to get higher on the ladder. This is exactly why I chose not to work in a law firm - I saw this attitude at uni and in clerkships and part-time work, and realised that I would die working in that environment.

I had a lovely moment once: the senior partner (and namesake) of a well-known Melbourne law firm with whom I had completed a summer clerkship came to see us for a meeting - we had outsourced some legal work to them. I shook hands and he said "I know your face", so I told him I did a summer clerkship there. He apologised that I hadn't obtained articles with them, as they have such a high quality of candidates. I replied "oh that's okay, I didn't apply." My boss was aghast and the man in question went slightly pale, so it wasn't particularly good for my career but it was very satisfying.

I think that if law firms aren't going to change, young lawyers need to force their hand by moving away from law firms and trying other options, rather than pursuing partnership out of ambition, or even petty snobbery. I can't count the number of times I heard the public service put down at uni or in law firms, yet it is the most satisfying work I could ask for, and has excellent conditions now that I'm a mother. And it's work that actually, really, makes a difference to people's lives. I don't just apply the law now, I help make it. No amount of extra money can make up for that kind of satisfaction. I work to live and live to work, because my work is meaningful. I think we're fooling ourselves if we see work as a means to a good life, rather than a part of it.

But coming back to the theme, in any organisation, (and definitely in areas of the public service!) you're absolutely right: good people management is crucial, especially for junior staff. Law firms need to grow up.

Might this issue also link to your observations about lawyers and mental health...?

Reclaim the night? Reclaim the agenda

Dianne Brimble lay drugged and dying in a cabin while two men raped her, shaved her public hair, took photographs of it, then went off to a cabin down the hall to share the photos with other female passengers, who laughed along with these men.

A group of teenagers in Werribee filmed the merciless and sexualised brutalising of a young woman, then packaged it and marketed it around the streets of Werribee.

Over in Sydney, Sheikh Hillaly made a speech that has left me gobsmacked for weeks. And now he is inciting marches in support of his outrageous assertions.

Well may we be outraged. As women, we have a right to be genuinely frightened. Why are men doing this, and what is this attitude that permits the utter de-humanising of another person? And what can we do about it?

We may ask ourselves: who are these people, who can treat another person like that? I find this behaviour astonishing. But in contemplating these events I'm trying to remain interested in why this is happening. I see something greater: what is the culture that we are creating? Why is there no empathy between people so that they can be treated like a "piece of catmeat"?

First, I should say that I will not countenance any argument that humiliating, assaulting or raping women is because of an uncontrollable sex drive. If your sex drive is that bad, have a good w*nk and get some counselling, because this is not sex - this is dehumanising, assaulting and commiting an atrocity against another human being.

But where are the men? I want them to talk to other men about how outrageous this behaviour is, but they close ranks. I feel sometimes like we are screaming inside a cone of silence. Yes, before I hear your protests, good men also feel this way, sometimes very intensely out of horror and shame for the behaviour of their brothers. The fact of an assault can drive good, peaceable, respectful men to contemplate physical violence against other men. But what I'm talking about is a systemic problem, which seems to stem from a deep suspicion of - or utter contempt for - women. How is it that any group of men can countenance treating women like this?

I have spoken to a friend who is a social worker and she has noticed men - sometimes literally, because she works with military families - closing rank on women who have alleged assault or sexual assault against their partners or others. Surely a real man would say "Yes I'm your mate, but what you did was pretty f*cked up", rather than "she's off her rocker". She said the women in question often feel assaulted for a second time, by being effectively accused of being crazy, scheming, lying or malicious, when she was simply a victim of violence who told someone. Naturally, it means others don't tell, and the violence continues.

Interestingly, in the same week as the Hillaly comments, VicHealth released a report into attitudes to violence against women, entitled two steps forward, one step back. Despite finding that most men disagree with using any forms of physical violence against women (a marked improvement since 1995), this study also found that there remained concerning numbers of people who held attitudes which may condone or trivialise violence against women or undermine efforts to address it:

• nearly one in four respondents disagreed with the statement that ‘women rarely make up false claims of being raped’ and a further 11% were unsure;
• approximately one in six people agreed that in relation to sex ‘women often say no when they mean yes’ and a further 8% were unsure; and
• just over one in ten people believe that women who are sexually harassed should sort it out themselves.
• nearly two in five respondents agreed that ‘rape results from men not being able to control their need for sex’.

Further findings were that "despite evidence to the contrary, there is a high level of belief that men and women are equally likely to perpetrate domestic violence and that women often falsify claims of domestic violence to gain tactical advantage in cases of contested child custody."

In 2004, a study by VicHealth and the Victorian DHS showed that physical violence is the largest preventable health risk for women aged 15-44 years, and the biggest single cause of death in that age range.

The 2005 Personal Safety Survey, a rigorous national study based on face-to-face interviews with over 17, 00 Australians, found that:
• one in three women had experienced physical violence since the age of 15;
• nearly one in five women had experienced sexual violence since the age of 15; and
• 16% of women had experienced violence by a current or previous partner since the age of
15 (ABS 006).

I recently taught a subject about crime at a large university. I showed my students statistics from reliable sources such as the ABS and the AIC indicating a massive problem that is not being reported, or not being dealt with by the justice system, and one that is not really abating.

Our class was divided: those who saw how prevalent sexual assault is - who saw it as a massive unredressed issue in social morality and social policy, and those who genuinely believed that sexual assault allegations should be treated with the utmost scepticism and interrogation, out of concern for the reputation of the alleged assaulter. These are educated, English-speaking, intelligent kids. What is it about?

Here's a theory: we're currently going through a period of intense self-justification and narcissism. Nobody needs to apologise for anything, be it road rage, state-sponsored abduction (ie the "stolen generation"), illegally going to war, systematically lying to constituents, or accepting political donations and plum jobs after holding public office. Ethics shmethics (...try saying that 5 times fast...). Bugger accountability, and bugger Westminister. Put principles on hold, I'm trying to ram through my own agenda. Screw her, she's just a slapper. It's all about me.

On the other hand, there's the "I'm relaxed and comfortable. I'm not getting involved. It's all too hard" perspective, which is the other, defeatist side of the narcissism coin. Apathy.

The VicHealth report made a number of recommendations for change, but it seems to me that what is needed is an enormous, elephantine effort in shifting our own culture to a less comfortable, but more trusting and healthy place. But in an environment where an award-winning, hard-hitting campaign to change our understanding of abusive relationships (the "No respect no relationship" campaign) was filtered down, given the runaround and had its key byline changed, I wonder what hope we have.

----------------------------------------------

Just an aside: Legal Eagle, in response to the question "where are the feminists?" is concerned that fears of Islamophobia have silenced many feminists in response to the Hilaly speech. I don't tend to agree. I think it's actually a sign about understanding that the voice of radical conservative islam is best countered by other islamic voices; which have indeed been loud in criticism. Perhaps we need to support them too.

An inconvenient truth?

"KIWIFRUIT BLAMED FOR GLOBAL WARNING" (Page 1 headline,
Taranaki Daily News - 31/10/2006)

Poms say the humble Kiwifruit is responsible for
discharging carbon emissions into the atmosphere by flying
the fruit into Britain. Aussies can relax now they have
found the real cause of the widespread drought conditions,
a spokesman said, “We knew the Kiwis were behind it some
how”.