The Muddy Waters Of Public Discourse

According to this BBC article Sharon Stone has been dropped by Christian Dior after suggesting that the earthquake in China was the result of bad karma. From where I'm sitting, all the parties here look a bit stupid. Another BBC article does a good job of rebutting Stone's comments - the common perception that karma is a black and white "what goes around, comes around" is a bit of an oversimplification.

I'm more concerned about the attitude that seems to be underlying - that the victims of the earthquake are in some sense responsible for their own tragedy. I have the sneaking suspicion that none of the people killed in the Earthquake are from government offices or were involved in forming China's policy towards Tibet and human rights in general. So if Stone wants to suggest that karma is involved, she's also suggesting that karma is more or less racist - killing off an indiscriminate number of Chinese people for something that they didn't do because it was planned and carried out by other Chinese people. It's the same sort of logic as suggesting that Hurricane Katrina was karma for Guantanamo Bay. Sadly the natural world does not have a sense of justice, but I like to think that if it did, it would pick the right targets.

That aside, I'm also pretty unimpressed with Christian Dior's attitude, quoting from the first article above:

"We don't agree with her hasty, unreflecting remarks and we deeply regret them," it said in a Chinese-language statement.
"We absolutely do not support any remark that hurts the Chinese people's feelings."

Wait. So it's not that you are annoyed she's made a ridiculous misattribution of cause and effect and blamed victims for the tragedy they're in? It's just that you don't want to upset the Chinese people? Corporate pragmatism is truly horrific. All that is important to Christian Dior is that they can continue to tap the Chinese market with its huge population and rapidly expanding middle class. It doesn't matter what the Chinese government does, or what the United States government does for that matter, as long as the consumers keep consuming and Christian Dior (substitute any major company name here) can continue shoving products into consumers' greedy hands. Human rights abuse, from a corporate point of view, is nearly invisible.

So what would I reasonably expect a corporation to do in this situation?
Boycotting the Chinese market is unlikely to have any effect on China's Tibet policy - they are large and powerful enough that they can shrug off criticism and accept bad PR simply on the basis that no one can really do anything to them. Is it reasonable to expect companies to do things that will cost them money and sales and won't have any discernable effect? I'm not sure.

It disturbs me that corporations tend to adopt ethical positions only under circumstances where the alternative would make them look bad. On that subject it is worth looking over this document on greenwashing. I have mixed feelings about it because once again, the document isn't suggesting that greenwashing is bad because companies will represent themselves as environmentally friendly even if they're not but because companies who represent themselves as environmentally friendly when they're not may experience a negative reaction from the public. In other words it's another situation and mode of thinking in which the ethical action is not the important part - the important part is that they are seen to be ethical and that it is believed to be genuine. I don't care if a company releases advertisements of chimney stacks with flowers pouring out of them instead of smoke - to me the important part is what that company is actually doing on the issue and the more they spin it and the more polished their image is, the harder it is to know if they are trustworthy or not.

By way of example, I bought a new phone for my house yesterday because the existing one doesn't really work. I picked a phone that boasted of being "40% more energy efficient" and I was also pleased to find that the packaging was cardboard, tissue paper and a small amount of biodegradable plastic. The thing is, I have no idea how energy efficient normal phones are, and my trust that this company cares about the environment is impacted by the fact that they sell other phones that aren't 40% more efficient than normal phones. If they expect me to believe their position, it needs to be a real position - as it is, it looks more like they're just trying to market to a demographic they've just realised exists.

On the other hand, while the ends don't justify the means, the fact that a company is pursuing a different outcome (higher sales) than me (reducing my impact on the environment) doesn't preclude us from having a satisfactory arrangement. This is where it comes back to China.

Last year I visited a couple I know while their power was down, and when the electricity guys showed up, we went outside and talked to them. They were friendly people, but what surprised me was one of the points that came up during the conversation. I don't remember his exact words but one of the electricity guys said something like this:

Well, our whole company is owned by a Chinese company. But I don't see it as a bad thing. They own bits of Australia and we own bits of China. Everyone has shares in everyone else. It means we're less likely to have a war because we're invested in eachother.

It's something I had never thought about, and I am ashamed to say it surprised me to hear a blue-collar worker say something so insightful. It made me realise that despite my politics I still had streaks of elitism and I needed to be truer to my belief that everyone can have a valid viewpoint if they understand the issue. Because he's right. There is no chance that Japan and the USA would go to war any time in the foreseeable future because their economies are tied together. It's getting more and more like that with China. If there is a way to prevent human rights abuse, it is not through boycott or confrontation, which would stiffen their resolve, or conflict, which would cause more suffering. It isn't right to ignore the situation in China, but we gain nothing by suggesting natural disasters are comeuppance. We need to criticise without that bitter, holier-than-thou attitude. It makes me wish that Sharon Stone had stopped talking after her first sentence:

"I'm not happy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans because I don't think anyone should be unkind to anyone else."

It's hard to disagree with that.

Why I am a feminist; or "Where's that equality we all heard so much about when we were growing up?"

So I, like Blessi, missed Blog Against Sexism. In my case I've missed it by much longer, because I feel as a male writing about feminism I need to consider my words carefully, and so it's gone through a few rewrites. Then after that I got sidetracked with a whole lot of things including my graduation. (My intelligence now has a paper trail!)

In some ways this will read as 'feminism for the uninitiated' because that was my starting point. I have only identified myself as a feminist in the past year or two. Before that, I was one of those who believed strongly in equality and in the need for the feminist movement historically, but I was convinced it was a thing of the past. Something that previous generations had fought for and won. I knew that wages were legally equal now and that it was illegal to display any bias, and that, as I thought, was that. What I came to realise, with increasing outrage, was that bias still exists in society, and moreover, that it is deeply entrenched and flourishing. I will return to this soon, but for now I will explain my own journey to identifying as a feminist and the milestones along the way.

As I've said, I have never been anti-woman in any explicit way. I may have had, or may still have, unconscious biases, but I've always believed in equality as I understood it; a person should be able to do anything in a society and not feel threatened, underpaid, or singled out based on any personal characteristic they have, be it race, gender, sexual preference, or anything else.

In first year university I took a politics subject called modern political thought. It was essentially 300 years of history told from a generally political viewpoint, and it was not really anything new to me, since I had just studied modern history for two years at school at essentially university level. The thing that was new was the inclusion of the nonviolent political movements, which I hadn't really been exposed to, since modern history tends towards being a history of war. So for one lecture we had a guest lecturer and for 50 minutes, she told us what a feminist was and what feminism had done and what it was all about. It was not, by any standards, radical; she was talking mostly about the history of feminism, in the same way that a lecture about communism, even radical, revolutionary communism, is not really radical if it is merely a history. All the same, it got me thinking. The arguments were rational, the facts were assured, the feminist movement had, all in all, been justified. Further, I agreed with some of the claims put forward by the radicals of the movement too; society as we know it is largely run by males, and moreover, historically it is almost entirely masculine. Politics, war, government, education, all the actual decisions and directions have been chosen by men. The classic male reaction here is to get defensive and say 'The world wouldn't be drastically different if women had also been there', 'Female leaders would still lead countries into wars', and so on. The funny thing (and by funny, I mean annoying) is that that type of argument is totally irrelevant. The crux of it is there is no good reason why women shouldn't have been doing these things too. Whenever they get a chance they perform just as well as men. The only reason they haven't been is because we as males have not let them, both by actual denial and by social pressure from the moment they are born.

Therefore, while you personally may have had no part in it at all, society as it has always existed and as it exists today is a male institution. The norms, the etiquette, everything about it happens within this frame. We can't ever know what a society based on female domination would look like because that society is impossible from our present perspective. Even if a matriarchal society were formed today it would still reflect the values and norms of the patriarchy that the females were raised in. The women would be acting as puppet males, enforcing a system they'd learned, not chosen. This does not mean the system itself is invalid or inherently wrong (though it may be). What it means is that women have not had access to it and have not been viewed equally by it and there has been nothing about the condition of women, their physiology, or their psychology, that has justified this oppression.

So that is what I got from the lecture. Again, I did not at this point feel like I had been converted to feminism. Rather, I'd come to an understanding that society had been unequal, that the feminist movement had aimed to fix it, and had. Yes it was male-orchestrated and dominated, but that was changing, and my generation and subsequent generations would be far more equal. This view I had did not seriously change for a bit longer, but there was one other thing I got from this particular subject. Later in the week, when it came to the tutorial, one male student was absent. This would be routine except that he had told his friend to pass on a message, which was that he had skipped the tutorial specifically because of what it was about. This repelled me. I could not understand why anyone could have a reason to not want to even talk about something as innocuous as female equality should be. I was not a feminist then, and I would have argued down any ardent feminists that had been in my tutorial, but all the same I went along to have the discussion and get the learning and the insight. I went to the tutorial on conservatism, which pissed me off and didn't sway me at all, and I went to the tutorial on marxism, which I knew in advance would not cover anything I didn't already know. I went because the whole point of the tutorial is to share ideas and discuss them, make sure everyone understands the material and see how everyone is reacting to it. There is not a single subject that could come up in a political tutorial that I would not be comfortable discussing. Yet here was this guy, taking an arrogant stand by refusing to attend a tutorial on feminism.

One thing that has always baffled me is people who refuse to subject their views to scrutiny. If you are afraid that your view will not hold up or that you will not have the answers when challenged, you need to ask yourself very seriously: 'Why do I believe it this?'

You don't have to 'win' an argument, since that comes down to twistings in logic and reasoning, but if you're not prepared to even try to defend or justify your beliefs, why do you hold them? There is no shame in being proven wrong. Even if you are the only person to believe something, you may still be right, and even if you are the last to come around to an argument, you have still let yourself be open to the idea that you were wrong. Have faith in your own argument and reasoning and do not be afraid to change your mind. The adage holds true: Wisest are they who know they know nothing.

If an accurate study is published tomorrow that shows that rape has stopped happening, wage differences have vanished and sexist media are gone, along with a host of other indicators, I will gladly concede that feminism has run its course. I would love to do so. For me, being feminist is a constant admission and declaration that women everywhere are oppressed and mistreated, sometimes in subtle or small ways, sometimes in serious, life-altering ways. It is an indictment of men and of society that the situation persists. If tomorrow it can be proved that this declaration is baseless, I will toast to that.

Yet I've skipped ahead. When we left me, I was vaguely in agreement with feminist thought, and irritated by an anti-feminist who would not allow for the possibility that he was wrong. If I had been asked to make a polar choice between supporting or opposing feminism, I would definitely have supported it. I might even have called myself a feminist in a loose sort of sense.

During second year, I met Blessi, and through her I got a few different insights. At the time and for a long time she was in a relationship that she was increasingly aware was emotionally abusive. Week in, week out, there would be tear-stained phonecalls where she tried to rationalise how she felt and constantly questioned her self-worth, intelligence and attractiveness. It got to a point where we were both realising that this was not a series of unconnected acts, but a pattern of behaviour. This, for me, was a real-life example of a woman being mistreated and undermined by a man, where the man involved was not some aberration or deviant but, to all appearances, an average male. His behaviour, we later found out, was not solely to Blessi's detriment but to the detriment of any female who was close enough to be taken for granted and belittled.

Juxtaposed against this, Blessi regularly sent (and still sends) links to articles on some of the better-known feminist blogs out there. You can find many of these blogs in the sidebar, I believe. Through these I heard a cacophany of voices with similar stories, as well as an insight into the sexual politics of the right wing in the USA, manifested through thinly-veiled, anachronistic anti-woman agendas. All this gave me a keener sense that this was something that I needed to know about, something which was missing from my understanding of the society I've grown in. In first year, Philosophy classes had bored me by taking what I had already explored in high school and re-examining it in the presence of students who found it confusing. Psychology throughout my degree, while I enjoyed it, felt too dependent on rote recall of facts and theories than on critical thinking and engagement with ideas. Sociology was exactly what I had been looking for and I seized on it with delight, but all the same it was re-examining things I had already studied, merely from more interesting and insightful perspectives.

So when it came to choosing third year topics I picked a sociology topic called Gender & Sexuality, which, from the description, sounded like exactly what I was looking for; the discipline and the way of thinking that I was fond of, applied to an area that I was increasingly aware I needed to learn about. The topic covered a lot of subjects; from the way that 'male' and 'female' are not inherent, but socially constructed roles, to examination of actual statistics demonstrating pretty conclusively that women still suffer and are disadvantaged in society compared to men, to a comprehensive, if fleeting (by merit of the course being for only a single semester) exploration of the different feminist arguments on a range of topics, from work and gender roles to sex and sexual identity. Through this I became increasingly certain that I was a feminist, or that I should be. At this point I should also stop to clarify.

I am aware that a number of feminists believe that men should describe themselves as "pro-feminist" rather than "feminist". Their reasoning is that men do not have the lived experience of being the underclass in a patriarchal society. This is true. Society defines "normal" in the western world as "white, male, middle- or upper-class, heterosexual". Every time you miss one of those criteria, you are one step less acceptable, and any problems you face, and crimes committed against you, are one step further towards being marginalised. As a white, middle class male, nominally heterosexual, I am pretty much dead centre in the middle of priviledge. It doesn't matter if I want it or not, or if I am aware of it or not, I was born with it and I carry it when I walk in public. So yes, I am completely aware that I do not have the experience of living as a female and all that entails. I believe that it is valid for me to describe myself as a feminist because I feel that 'pro-feminist' taints 'feminist' by making it sound like something that only women can be actively supporting. If males are 'pro-feminist' it is easier to make feminism look and sound like a fringe movement and play into the stereotypes that feminism is only followed by lesbians, man-haters, bra-burners, and so on. For me as a male to call myself a feminist makes that stereotype ridiculous. There is nothing manly about misogyny, and there is nothing unmanly about equality. I do not hold any illusions that calling myself a feminist is some sort of revolutionary move or that I deserve kudos for being on-side, rather, I feel that on balance I am a feminist, not a pro-feminist. I am open to discussion on this point.

On the other side, you have the camp of people who dislike the phrase "feminist" because they believe we should have or do have an equal society. These are the people who say "Why isn't there a Men's Studies" or "It should be called Equalism, I would support that" and have misconceptions about what feminism actually is. The reason it's called feminism is because it's about female equality. By analogy, the Black Rights movement has never been called the Equal Rights movement even though equality is the goal. White males don't need to fight for equality for themselves and the majority of white males insisting that feminism infringes on male equality are actually just protesting at the loss of undeserved priviledge.

Around the time of the Enlightenment, middle-class males decided they should have rights, so they got together in mobs and killed people, and, generally speaking, it worked, but no one thought to include the women, and it was not years or decades, but upwards of a century, before women got to vote. After that it took a world war snatching all the men off to combat to show that women could actually function in traditionally male jobs, and only in the last few decades have women gained acceptance in the workplace outside of secretarial and school education positions. Along the way at every turn there have been loud, angry voices telling them that they weren't suited to it, that they shouldn't do it, that it was unnatural, unnecessary, would lead to the destruction of the family. Women who have sex are sluts. Women who don't have sex need to be shown a good time. Women who dress sexy are asking to be raped. Women who don't dress sexy are denigrated. Women are either put on unrealistic pedestals or pushed to the gutter. This is not equality. This is not how you treat humans.

So since that third year sociology subject, since getting to know Blessi and understanding her perspectives, since actually opening my eyes and looking at society and at men and at myself, I have identified myself as a feminist. I don't pretend to be a perfect feminist, I believe it is a learning process. If anyone who reads this feels I have something wrong, do not hesitate to call me up on it. I will defend my beliefs when I think they are justified and I will modify them to accomodate things that are missing. If I have made mistakes, I believe they are honest ones and I am open to being disagreed with.

We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Why I'm a Feminist.

International Women's Day/Blog Against Sexism was yesterday, and alas, I have been too tired and busy to blog about it. I am still tired- I had a long shift at work today. But here I am, sitting in front of the computer with aching feet, trying to get all my thoughts together so I can tell you all how I came to the point I'm at now.

So. Why Blessi is a Feminist:

Funnily enough, I didn't start really identifying as a feminist until about midway through 2005. I was 19, in my second year of uni. Prior to that, I had been feminist in my beliefs, but had not really claimed the name as my own- I'd been exposed to feminism in high school (thanks in part to going to an all-girls' school). I believed that women should get equal pay for equal work, that we should have an equal say in government. I wasn't sure I wanted to get married and have children. I wanted to be respected own my own terms, for my own merits, not because I was female and happened to have breasts and a vagina.

But my feminist beliefs weren't quite so articulated as they are now- it's thanks to a lot of consciousness raising via blogs such as Feministe, Pandagon, I Blame the Patriarchy, Bitch Ph.D, and Punkassblog. I don't really remember how it was that I stumbled onto them. I think, perhaps, that I had googled for feminist blogs, and started reading Feministe, and then found the others through six degrees of blogrolls. These blogs, the bloggers who are and have been on them, and the enlightening posts they've written have played a huge part in my feminist education.

Ben's also played a critical part; he and I have often had lengthy discussions on various issues (mostly what comes up in my perusal of the blogs). I'm lucky to have found an intellectual equal in him, and an equal in all ways. He too, is a feminist.

I probably wouldn't have taken this particular direction into feminism had it not been for some of my actual life experiences. Small things, that accumulate, like people patronising you because you're a girl, not a woman. Like random men (always men), exhorting you to 'Smile!', people assuming you'll get married some day, that you're so good with kids because, hey, you have breasts and a vagina. Being afraid to walk home at night for fear of getting assaulted and raped. Dirty old men leering at you, regardless of your dress, reminding you that to you you're not human, you're just another walking hole to fuck. Getting wolf-whistled and yelled at by Shire boys or truckies on the walk home. The everyday things, that remind me that I'm still a second-class citizen because of my genitals.

And the big things, like two and a half years of being emotionally abused. Of naively wanting new experiences, and being exploited for someone else's pleasure. Of having your sexuality co-opted, of being coerced into sex when sometimes you didn't want it. Of feeling that there wasn't a way out that didn't involve something drastic. Of cutting yourself, because there was no other way to articulate your anger and resentment at the difference between what you wanted to be, and what you ended up being. Of having your self-worth and self-esteem stripped from you, of being invalidated and minimised. Of not existing to someone you loved and cared about unless he needed you for something.

There's also the part my religious upbringing played. Most of you probably know I left my old church around 2004. A few months before then, I'd been half-heartedly going to church on Sundays and youth group on Fridays, mouthing the words to the worship songs because I felt horrible singing them. I'd been feeling inauthentic for a good couple of months. During Black Stump '03, I ended having a bit of a fight with Belinda, and that led me to further question why I was in the Church in the first place. (Belinda, I don't resent you at all, so please don't feel bad about it. If anything, you did me a favour :D) So I stopped going to church, stopped going to youth group. Part of the reason was because I didn't feel like I really believed in God. Praying just felt like talking to myself, like there was a resounding silence in my head instead of feeling some kind of response. But mostly I left the Church because I didn't agree with the Church's stance on key issues like abortion, sexuality (things like sex before marriage, as well as homosexuality), and marriage (gay marriage as well as het marriage). I just couldn't reconcile my actual beliefs on these issues with what I was supposed to believe as a Christian. So I left, a somewhat agnostic/atheistic goat, and found feminism instead.

So I've said why and how I got to this point, but not what I believe. Bits and pieces will probably change in the coming years, but here it is for now. It's a bit of a ramble, because it covers a fair bit of territory.

I'm a feminist. I'm strongly pro-choice, and believe that women have the right to choose to do what they want with their own bodies. So if you want to have an abortion, have one. If you want to continue the pregnancy, whether you give the baby up for adoption or keep it, by all means, go ahead. I want all these options to always be available, not just for me, but for everyone. If ever the situation called for it, I would gladly have an abortion. I want better options for mothers, whether it's better and more affordable childcare, better conditions for paid maternity/paternity leave, or even the option for there to be more stay-at-home dads. I believe gender roles as they are now are still too restrictive, and that the patriarchy hurts men as well as women.

I'm sick of people calling girls and women 'sluts' or 'skanks' or 'whores'. I used to engage in that sort of thing, I try not to do it as much as possible now, though I'm still not perfect. It's so easy to slut-shame, even though what someone's wearing, and what they do is none of my damn business. It's another thing though, to question and criticise the way patriarchal notions of female sexuality influence them. I may not understand the urge to have children, and am planning not to have children of my own (I'm enough of a stressmonkey as it is, I don't need a daily heart attack.). But I'll damn well support you if you want to have kids (though I probably won't offer to babysit too much.).

I believe gay, lesbian and transgender people should have the same rights to get married as het people do. It's ridiculous that fundamentalists of all sorts (my parents included), believe in denying civil rights to specific sectors of the community, yet have the gall to call themselves Christians. Me, I don't plan on getting married. And if I do, it will be a civil ceremony, no church wedding, no getting trussed up in white. I'm skeptical of het marriage as an institution, I don't want to be someone's little wife. I will keep my name, because as far as I'm concerned I don't want to be absolved into another family, and I intend to practice artistically under my own name. If I marry, it will be for logical reasons, like because we both want the legal privileges conferred on married couples, not because of love, because that would already be given.I refuse to do the lion's share of emotional work in a relationship. I've done it before, and it's bloody ridiculous. I refuse to come home and do the second shift. (Ben, you are so helping out.)

I believe in placing the responsibility of rape on rapists, not victims. The only difference between a woman who has been raped and one who hasn't is the presence of a rapist, not what she wore, or where she went, or what she did. I'm sick of people comparing women to valuable possessions like wallets, watches, money, etc. and saying that it was her own fault she got herself raped. Listen, assholes: women cannot possibly rape themselves. Rapists can, and do. Blame them. Ditto for sexual assault. And no freaking well means no. It doesn't mean it after the third time it's been repeated, it means it at the first. A woman is not a damn possession to be taken, she is a person.

I'm sick of entitled guys. I have guy friends who are decent people, who respect women as human beings. My partner is one. But there are some guys who believe because women are lesser by virtue of being women, and that as they are clearly not-women, they are entitled to comment on a woman's appearance, behaviour or personality, stare and leer openly, and harass women in public and private, to varying degrees. I'm sick of the guys who yell comments at me from cars, in bars, or who mutter comments as I pass, a lone young woman on her way home, because I possess tits and ass which are somehow, ridiculously, owned by them, or because I don't have the physical strength to fight them, or a man to chaperone me around.

So there you have it, a basic primer on what and why I believe what I do. It's by no means a complete picture, I've no doubt left things out, and I haven't touched the intersections with my views on racism, as a small brown Filipina in a supposedly 'multicultural' society, and to some extent, my existentialism. But that's a whole 'nother story.

Crossposted at i | like | dirt.

Patriarchy, home-cooked.

Some of you may know about my not-so-rosy relationship with my father. For those that don't, here is a brief overview:

My father is a devout Christian man who sees himself as the God-ordained head of the household. He imposes this authority over the rest of the family. He does not listen, and does not take kindly to his opinions being questioned in any way. 'Discussions' with him have never actually functioned as actual discussions: rather, they are platforms upon which he lectures and preaches. Discussion would actually involve participation on my part.

I don't talk to him much. I've learnt over the years that it's pointless, that I could probably talk to a random stranger on George St. who'd listen more than he does. So there's polite conversation, but never anything deeper. And I am learning that this man, who styles himself a patriarch, is racist (he sees Muslim people as somehow threatening), homophobic (he was outraged that I dared to go to the Mardi Gras), and sexist.

His sexist attitudes are the focus of this post. These attitudes were made plain last night, at dinner. Politics somehow made it to dinner 'discussion', and he opined that he would not vote for Julia Gillard, deputy of the Labor party, because of her hair. Yes, her hair. He repeated this several times, even after I told him in no uncertain terms that it was not funny in the slightest, and was highly offensive.

I told him that he was only saying that because she was female. His defense was that since she's a public figure, her image is up for scrutiny. Yes, politicians' images are up for scrutiny. But this pertains to their behaviour, not what they wear, and how they cut their hair. Otherwise John Howard probably would not be in power due to that bald patch, and Kim Beazley would be criticised for his weight. My father could not understand that it was a double standard to criticise Gillard's hair. He couldn't see that it was sexist to judge a female politician on her physical appearance rather than her compentence or beliefs.

The next defense he scuttled to, because I didn't back down for once, was that he was a man, and therefore would look at women differently to how he would look at men. I don't deny that one's sexuality means that one's more likely to be attracted to certain genders. This does not excuse, however, the inappropriateness of his critique. The implication of his defense is that it's natural for female forms to be presented to males for acceptance or critique. That because we possess vaginas and breasts, we are automatically up for public scrutiny in a way that men are never subjected to. It's the kind of sentiment that to some extent drives the catcallers on the street, the harrassers.

That sends a clear message: No matter what you do, how accomplished you are, how you may express yourself, YOU ARE STILL DEFINED BY YOUR CUNT. It's a way to put women in their place.

The final defence he resorted to, before I left the table, was to say that I was condemning him for his opinion. I did not say these words then, for fear of offending and escalating the situation, and for fear of physical confrontation, but I'll damn well say them now. Yes, I fucking well condemn you for your misogynist views. You have a wife and two daughters, and yet you persist in putting us in our place, persist in contributing to the disenfranchisement of the women in your family, social network and workplace. So fuck you, daddy dearest. Don't expect any filial aid when you're toothless and grey.

Emotional abuse, entitlement, and the protection thereof.

So I'll come out and say it. For the past two and a half years, I have been emotionally abused by one of my close friends, who was also one of my sexual partners. It's hard to be lucid when you've been invalidated so much that you start second guessing all your experiences. However, in this post I want to discuss my own experience within the framework of the aforementioned points: the emotional abuse that was inflicted on me, the concept of entitlement from a feminist perspective, and the protection of entitlement that led to the emotional abuse occurring.

Two and a half years of having to deal with being psychologically attacked in this manner has left me bereft of much of my self-esteem, sense of self-worth, and trust in my own perceptions. I started second-guessing not only what and how I experienced specific events, but also who I was and what defined me. I'm by no means behind all this. It's still occurring, and the most I can do right now is collect my thoughts, talk to others and try to haul myself up to my feet.

I've been feeling like my thoughts and feelings weren't valued by this person: let's call him the Philosophiser. I'd get to a point where I couldn't stand being abused and argue, threaten to leave, or leave. But arguments with him ended up being pointless; he was always out to win them, with rhetoric rather than threats. I felt like there wasn't anything I could do to get him to listen, to empathise. He'd give me mixed messages: telling me he loved me at an inappropriate time (when I was furious at him during sex), when prior to and afterwards he refused to say any such thing, and telling me he cared for me, that I was special to him when not once did I receive any emotional support above the barest minimum.

Any discussion of the problems I felt were occurring within the relationship were treated as frivolous bitching. After any argument, his first order of business was to persuade me into having sex as a way to make up, regardless of my emotional state. He would deny that events happened, or dispute how they occurred. At times when I needed emotional support the most, be it due to parental, social or academic issues, including issues pertaining to our relationship, he would deny my emotional need. He would deny my perceptions and memory, citing his own poor memory. He'd tell me that playing with someone's bra with the intent to remove or undo it was not in fact, flirting or an obvious come-on, but that it was merely 'playing'. He'd twist words in order to have himself come up smelling like roses when in reality, his words stunk like shit. Any viewpoint, feeling or perception that I expressed was disallowed when it differed from his own. Because of this, my self-esteem was lowered, and I find it hard to trust my own judgement.

He would invalidate me, failing to recognise reality. I was told that I was too sensitive, that I go 'from drama to drama'. My perceptions were distorted and undermined; I was portrayed as too sensitive, when now it seems to me that I was only attempting to take care of my basic emotional needs as a human being. When I would tell him that I felt invalidated, that he was invalidating me, he would trivialise amd question my reactions. His reactions showed me he didn't respect me, didn't care about me or my feelings. To him, logic was the supreme way to solve emotional problems. He'd tell me I had no reason to feel jealous, no reason to feel angry- eroding at my right to feel this way. You shouldn't be feeling upset, he'd tell me, grossly exacerbating the problem. You're too dramatic, too sensitive. Stop bitching, stop whinging.

If he wasn't denying my emotional needs, he was minimising them. 'You're just bitching about the other night,' he said to me just yesterday. 'I am over you making a big deal of it.' This, in response to my concerns about a sexual encounter that jeopardised my very good relationship with another friend. Because he had enjoyed himself, he couldn't see why I was concerned, wouldn't accept that emotional enjoyment was also crucial. Last I checked, acceptance of this was part of a healthy relationship. In effect, he used us, used me as an accessory in his fantasy.

He would tell me to feel differently, saying I shouldn't feel upset, telling me to get over issues, to not be so dramatic or sensitive, stop feeling sorry for myself or stop taking things so personally. He'd deny my perception by telling me he cared, telling me I was special to him, attempting to placate me with affection while never changing any aspect of his behaviour. He would guilt me by telling me that I was trying to change his personality, that I was just trying to control him. He didn't understand, or want to understand that all I wanted was to get some basic human respect from him, in the same way that he showed to his acquaintances and male friends. He would isolate me by saying things like, I don't have a problem with it, why should you?

He'd minimise my feelings, judge and label me by calling me moody every single time I had a problem. Why not just call me hysterical and be done with it? Yesterday he told me that I 'was just a jealous person'. Nevermind that this jealousy has only manifested with him and no other partner I've had, nevermind that this jealousy resulted from my insecurities about him. He used what was an isolated case in my life as a brush to paint broad strokes over my character.

He would make me question myself, and tell me how i should or shouldn't feel when issues arose. He'd lay guilt trips on me, focussing on his feelings to the detriment of mine. He'd mock me sarcastically, implying that I was a sex prude by telling me I wasn't sex positive- using another friend's sexual agency to damage mine. He'd tell me that my feelings were just a phase I was going through.

And at the end of any argument, he'd show intolerance: 'I am over you making a big deal of it,' would be something he'd say. There was no attempt to establish a way in which we could both manage our differences. My compromise was always demanded, not his. Not once did he take any responsibility for hurting me, or anyone else. It was always the other person's fault. Failing that, he would cite that his intentions were good, that he didn't mean to do it. Not once did he acknowledge the difference between intention and actual result.

So where does this fit in with entitlement? Well, I don't want to try to get into his head on this- I've already done more than enough of that. I believe that entitlement was a possible motivator- the feeling that he was entitled to get no-strings-attached sex with a friend. That all our sexual encounters came without strings. That examining the context of these encounters and our friendship was not allowed. That he was entitled to use me and discard me as he saw fit. I think that that was why any emotional need of mine was met with a distinct lack of concern. He 'didn't want to go chasing after [me], trying to make [me] feel better'. If giving me a brief hug, snuggle, or telling me I had no reason to be upset didn't solve the problem, he would withdraw. Often he'd suggest or use sex as a way to solve issues, telling me, 'Why don't you come over here and I'll make you feel better?'

Despite what I considered (perhaps erroneously) to be our friendship, he wasn't prepared to do any emotional maintenance. It's that overinflated sense of entitlement that leads me to believe that it's partly motivated his psychological abuse of me. Partly, because I can't say what motivated him for sure.

I'm wary of painting him as an out-and-out predator and abuser, though I have my suspicions that he is indeed such. Perhaps I'm giving him too much credit in this respect, but it seems unlikely to me that all this abuse was consciously perpetrated on me. I'm more inclined to think that it was the protection of the entitlement he felt that led him to abuse me. At all turns, he felt the need to retain his advantage, his power over me, be it sexual or emotional. I'm not sure just how conscious or unconscious this was. Unconscious seems more likely, but I don't think that was wholly the case.

I'm quite sure that he'll come across this at some point and read it. But to be honest, I don't think he will ever change in his relationships with women (as I've seen no evidence that he abuses his male friends in this way, the misogynistic wankstain) without some kind of professional help. I don't hold out any hope of seeing him treat me as an actual human being, one with emotional as well as physical needs. I can only express my profound disappointment, emotional despair and fury, and try to regain the self-esteem, self-worth, and dignity that he tore from me.

May the devil get his due.

Tired and stressed out.

I've had four hours of sleep. I need to get my images to the printer, and I've taken the day off work to do it. Too much stuff to do, too little time, and I am burning both ends of the candle to get it done.

The world is getting me down. Every day I read about something that erodes what little faith I have in humanity. I can't justify believing in some prevailing goodness of humanity when shit. like. this. happens.

I'll try to write more when I'm not so busy, and not so dead.

Racist run-in.

Written earlier at the station, 1:18 p.m.

Things that happened today:

• missed my train- I ran but the doors shut in my face.
• subsequently got paid out by a couple of high school students, I believe their words were, "Sucked in, fat Asian mole"

I am literally shaking with rage as I write this. All the anger at the stupid, horrible things that people do to each other, all the racist things that I've seen people say or write, is coming out now.

Despite the fact that I live in an area of Sydney that hasn't got the most tolerant or accepting views on other cultures or multiculturalism (read: Cronulla riots), I was shocked. When they yelled it out, I froze. I couldn't believe that they had just said that. But they said it, and meant it. I have to control my crying; I'm at the station, waiting for the next train.

It makes me think, about the state of Australian society. The sheer hypocrisy of those who claim that multiculturalism is alive in this country in action as well as name, then expect immigrants to 'assimilate'. Accept so-called Australian values, values you'd think were universal, but don't seem to actually apply to the people calling for them, when it comes to common courtesy. After 12 years of Australian citizenship, I can categorically say I've 'assimilated'. Not because some dickhead in power told me to, not because of others' insecurities about what constitutes Australian identity, but because I grew up here. My formative years were spent here. My particular way of life is, dare I say, Australian, not that it's ever been reflected in people's perceptions of Australian life. So I was shocked, shocked that teenagers could be blatantly ignorant, prejudiced and racist today, in Australia, to my face. Shocked that those younger couldn't respect someone older than them, that they had no respect for a complete stranger, that they couldn't see past their bigoted, Anglocentric, racist sense of entitlement.

It is sheer hypocrisy to be spouting bullshit about assimilation, and the values testing of immigrants when members of the populace don't even live those fucking values. There was no respect there, no charity, no empathy. After 12 years of Australian citizenship, I am not proud to be Australian. Misguided morons would say, 'If you don't like it, shove off.' But you know what? Saying that just absolves them of any and all responsibility of respecting others. It absolves them of addressing the underlying racism within this country, blatant or subtle. It absolves them of telling off their colleagues, their neighbours, their friends and family, and themselves, when they say ignorant, bigoted and racist statements.

The ability to be aware and critical of everything, even this country, is something that is sorely lacking in these times. Too often people are quick to wrap themselves up in the nationalistic and intolerant rhetoric in today's political climate, hiding behind cries of, 'Political Correctness is killing us!' Well, here's a fucking newsflash: political correctness just means you can't get away with being a dickhead to others just because they're different from you. So I'm not proud to be an Australian. How can I be, when the people who are supposedly on my side think they're entitled to hassle me based on the colour of my skin and the slant of my fucking eyes?