Can’t link to this electronically so here’s a picture from Friday’s Dominion Post -  Tiger Woods mocked up post taking a beating from his wife. 

Would it be “funny” if it was the other way around?  Or if it was, say, Tony Veitch standing next to a mocked up photo of Kristen Dunne Powell with stitches and her teeth missing while he held a weapon?

It seems that Tiger Woods is unlikely to be the victim of abuse in his relationship with his partner – most of the gossip has been about his alleged affairs, not his wife’s “tempestuousness” or whatever the current euphemism is now. 

But this is still NOT FUNNY.

Lew at Kiwipolitico has the kind of post up at the moment that reminds me why mainstream media is such an unsatisfying read/consume when it comes to political commentary.

He calls war between a Maori Party demanding race allegiance, and a Labour party demanding class allegiance.  War signposted by Phil Goff’s recent speech – a strategy Lew is calling “blue collars, red necks”:

…the ‘blue collars, red necks’ strategy fails at the tactical level, because it asks Māori to choose their economic identity over their cultural identity; it fails at the level of principle, because it represents a resort to regressive politics, a movement away from what is ‘right’ to what is expedient; and it fails at the level of strategy, because by turning its back on progressivism the party publicly abandons its constituents…

Bang on I’d say.  And I’d add that the conflicts within the Maori world over conservatism vs liberal social justice ideas – for example, Tariana Turia voting against the Civil Union Bill despite widespread queer Maori anger – is equally real, if less well understood within the Pakeha world.

And if Hone Harawira is no poster boy for queer human rights, he is a champion of the working class – particularly working class Maori – hence his importance in the conflict over exactly what kind of allegiance working class Maori choose.

Without him, the Maori Party lose much more than his undoubted talents in the House.  They lose the semblance of connection with many Maori who want tino rangatiratanga, not brown capitalism.

Tim Watkin at Pundit, I think, has got it right in terms of how this has played out within Maori Party structures (despite Chris Trotter’s disagreement in the comments).  This is a fascinating period for politics in Aotearoa – and Hone, just as he was in the 1980s, is right smack bang in the middle of it.

When the queer community went public with concerns over what turned into the Glenn Mills case, it was a pretty brave action.

Let’s face it, the screaming headlines over the next few weeks about “promiscuous” “bisexual” “homo” “raving lunatic” “bummers” – and that was just John Tamihere on RadioLive – had no problem in stereotyping queer men as murderous predators out to destroy the civilised world.

And just who is the target of that kind of bile?  Not only Glenn Mills of course, but anyone queer, especially anyone queer and male.

Watching John Tamihere justifying his hate speech would almost be funny if I didn’t know so many queer men who have been beaten up for their beautiful queerness.

So firstly, my hat goes off to GayNZ for exposing Glenn Mills’ actions in what resulted in charges for willfully infecting other people with HIV after knowing he was HIV+.

But I also want to consider Mr Mills actions.  One argument is that we should all take personal responsibility for our own sexual safety.  If you become infected with an STD, including HIV, even if the other person knew they had the disease, it’s your responsibility, because you didn’t have safe sex.

This would say that Glenn Mills is not responsible for the people he infected with HIV.  Because who knows how many other people those infected had had unsafe sex with?

I just can’t buy this argument, even though I do believe we all need to be negotiating safe, hot, consensual sex with our lovers.  I believe if I choose to have unsafe sex and I have an STD, it’s like choosing to drive when I know I am pissed or stoned – I take other people’s lives in my hands.

This has got nothing to do with sexuality – and it has everything to do with sexuality.  Australian researcher Michael Flood found that straight men don’t like using condoms because:

1. It means they have “negotiated” sex with women rather than taken control of sex
2. Male sexual pleasure in penetration is supposedly reduced with condom use – and if that’s all you think sex is, and you think your pleasure is most important…..
3. The male sex drive is “out of control” – using a condom kills the moment by showing how in control men actually are
4. Masculinity is associated with taking risks – safety is women’s work
5. You don’t need to take precautions with “good” women, only “bad” women

Michael argues that the best safe (male-female) sex involves men looking critically at their sexual practise:

We have to make consent the absolute bedrock of our sexual practises and relationships.  What’s more, this requires explicit verbal negotiation.

For many women in relationships with men, avoiding the pressure to have sex without condoms is a constant battle.  Don’t believe me?  Try visiting any community health clinic for young people and listen to the stories of the staff.  Or talking to women who have sex with men for any length of time.

Men may also try to refuse to use condoms when they purchase sex, especially when they are purchasing sex with women who have been trafficked into prostitution.

Now Glenn Mills is dead, on the eve of the court case that would have no doubt been plastered all over every media opportunity in Aotearoa.   It’s hard to blame him for that choice at least – who wants their sex life taken apart in court?

For those it seems he infected though, I wonder if it is enough, to know they stopped further infection.   The gay community continues to take responsibility for this issue in a responsible way, by offering counselling to those effected by Glenn Mills’ actions.

And the ever-delicious Michael Franti joins Michael Flood in my book as a pro feminist man-who-has-sex-with-women extraordinaire when he asks:

“Was it really all that magic, the times I didn’t use a prophylactic?”

I love direct action.  I spend a lot of my life, with many, many other women and some men, trying to stop male violence against women.  I write, talk, provide support to women and children, help design educational programmes and training for professionals, deliver programmes to stop sexual violence, contribute to policy documents to guide how different agencies respond, etc etc etc.

So sometimes walking down a Wellington street shouting “Say it once, say it again, no excuse for violent men” and “Yes means yes, no means no, however we dress, wherever we go” has just the right degree of directness, of immediacy, to feel rewarding.

Direct action around violence against women sure is a lot easier these days than 20 years ago.  This year Reclaim the Night had no male hecklers telling us “I wouldn’t rape you” apparently, as an insult?  Go figure.  I remember this well from my first march, as a very nervous 18 year old.

This year in Wellington we had 80 plus women gathered around on a gale force night.  Cars tooted their support and women (and a couple of men) joined in our chants as we walked through central Wellington.

I know the other work I do is probably more important for real women’s lives.  But there is something about a protest…..

Setting out from Wellington Railway Station

It’s that time of year again – White Ribbon week – when we commemorate the violence perpetrated by Marc Lepine, a 25 year old man who killed 28 people, mostly women, at Montreal University in 1989 claiming he was “fighting feminism.”

Australian journalist Paul Sheehan calls male violence against women a “giant scar on mankind”.  

That’s what the Canadian men who were appalled by Marc Lepine’s misogyny thought too, when they started the White Ribbon campaign, now active in 55 countries including a list of events in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Big ups to all you kiwi blokes standing up against male violence against women.

And following November 25th, some other events fitting in around the same theme.

On November 27th in both Wellington and Auckland, Reclaim the Night events are planned.*

Reclaim the Night is an international event demanding women’s right to be free from the fear or reality of rape, of sexual harassment, of domestic violence, of stalking.

This year the Wellington Reclaim the Night is focused around being safe in our city; in our homes, at work, while out exercising or walking, going clubbing or out for a drink with our friends.

When: Friday the 27th of November, 6.00pm

Where: Assemble at the front of the Wellington Railway Station for speakers including Labour’s Lynne Pillay on the changes to ACC for sexual violence survivors, and a performance by the Real Hot Bitches (tbc)

Who: Women, trans*, intersex, genderqueer allies and children.

After party: Ivy, Dixon Street from 8pm with performances from… Edwardene Tanaki, Tyree Robertson, Mahinarangi Maika, Rachael Wright, Freya Eng, Palace This! and others…

Auckland details here.

*I’ve been involved in planning in Wellington – hope to see some of you there

You can download some funky posters made by organiser Anna here and here.

ACC’s changes to therapy for survivors of sexual violence have been a huge success, according to ACC rep Peter Jansen.

Phew, no need to worry then, and that 6 month review Minister Nick “the needs of the victim are paramount” Smith promised us will no doubt show clinical best practise is keeping victims safe.

Fertile ground for a Tui ad, methinks.

Because ACC Southern Manager Karen Walsh told the Fairlie Lions Club last week that it was ACC policy to reduce the number of Sensitive Claims.

Since ACC are not pouring any money into stopping sexual abuse before it happens, the only way to do that is to make it harder for survivors to get therapy. 

The reality of the new funding regime is that there are longer delays in assessment from ACC, going back to May this year, as the Sensitive Claims Unit began gearing up for the changes.   There are horror stories from all over the country, like the woman raped on a psychiatric ward turned down for ACC counselling because she already had a mental health issue. 

No services at all in some parts of the country because ACC registered counsellors have resigned rather than work under this unethical regime.

Sexual violence agencies that support survivors facing huge funding cuts, and resulting job losses, because the people they are seeing are no longer eligible for ACC support. 

Survivors say that therapy saves lives.  So stopping access to therapy?  Those defending this new pathway for ACC – in full knowledge of the problems a hugely united sexual violence intervention sector is communicating - have no integrity at all.

There are some lurking here at the moment, talking about false sexual abuse claims and the “sexual abuse industry”, and using these ideas to suggest ACC should be introducing hoops for sexual abuse survivors to jump through in order to get access to counselling.

The usual methods that some use to discredit and minimise sexual violence.  No surprises these comments have popped up in defence of Dr Felicity Goodyear-Smith, whose work and ideological stance on sexual violence I posted on a while back.

Some are also claiming their views of the sexual abuse “industry” are shared by organisations with expertise in the area.

To quote one of the posters with my notes in bold:

It’s true that never-ending counselling is not the best treatment for injuries caused by childhood sexual abuse……(later qualified slightly by inserting the words “probably” before the word “true” and “always” before the words “the best treatment”)…….

I think that the MHF (Mental Health Foundation) supports the new clinical pathways because the MHF supports better access to mental health treatment and management.

This turns out to be misleading.  To quote the Mental Health Foundation directly, in a public letter they wrote to Minister Nick Smith about the changes to ACC: 

We believe the current proposal to be a significant tightening of the support available to victims.  The suffering of sexual abuse victims if not healed remains as part of the community, with a range of negative connotations for generations.

They specifically raise concerns over the need to diagnose “mental injury” linked to a DSM IV diagnosis; the initial assessment to be done over just two sessions and the limited nature of counselling, to just 16 sessions.

Looks like the Mental Health Foundation, just like counsellors, psychotherapists, sexual violence agencies and survivors, can see this new pathway is unethical and will cause long term harm.

But Nick Smith plans only to review it after six months.

The Sensitive Claims Unit are to be reviewed, according to ACC Minister Nick Smith:

I have requested ACC to do an independent clinical review of their management of the sensitive claims, the new process, the board and ACC have agreed to do that.

Now let’s just see if he thinks the review should happen before the unethical new pathway is introduced, so that a better pathway for everyone – survivors of sexual violence, counsellors, sexual violence agencies and ACC – could be designed.  That would mean halting the implementation – which in theory began today.

He’s got to be annoyed with ACC – beating up on survivors of sexual abuse is a bad, bad look.  Although, according to Stuff, he says the problem is professional tension between different types of therapist.

Or will the “review”, which will take six months, actually just rubber stamp the new process, and put off the huge swell of anger and outrage which this unethical framework continues to provoke?

I look away from the news for a bit while I try and get to grips with work piling up around me, and what happens?

A Nobel Peace Prize has been given to a US President just because in two weeks he hadn’t blown anyone new up.   Or had he?  John Pilger is even more cynical about Obama’s prize than I am.  But even Pilger doesn’t mention that previous Nobel Peace Prize nominees include Adolf Hitler in 1939 and Josef Stalin in 1945 and 1948.

There’s been talk that Obama’s prize is for the good work he will do.  If that’s true, it’s in direct contradiction of the intention of Alfred Nobel, whose will states he has set up:

…. a fund, the interest on which shall be annually awarded as prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind………………one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.

Obama could have turned it down.  Like Le Duc Tho, the Vietnamese Communist who turned down the award in 1973, pointing out that Vietnam was far from peaceful.

Then there is the revelation that Barbie’s ankles are in fact, too fat to wear sexy shoes, according to shoe designer Christian Louboutin:

Barbie needs to wear great shoes because every girl needs to wear great shoes. I guess I always had a little ‘girlie side’ who liked Barbie.

You put this thing on then, you sadist, and spend the day stomping around in it.  Why on earth men who make millions out of women’s fashion don’t make the stuff they “always dreamed of” for themselves is a great unanswered question.

Or could it be because high heels cause spinal problems, hammer toes, bunions and nerve problems in women’s feet?  Perhaps fashion boys are happy giving women the opportunity to deform our bodies. 

But anyway, back to Christian’s comments on Barbie’s fat ankles.  He’s helping redesign a new, thinner, Barbie.

According to research, if Barbie was real, she would be unable to menstruate because her fat percentage would be too low.  This is the doll that makes young girls want to be thinner, even when they are a healthy size already.

If Barbie was life-size, this is what she’d look like, according to the BBC, with a real woman thrown in there just for kicks:

To be allowed her real waist size, Libby would have to be 7 foot 6 if she was Barbie-proportioned.  Can’t wait to see what we’ll be trying to look like post-Christian.

Now we understand why ACC has been pushing a clinical framework for providing counselling to survivors of sexual abuse which counsellors, survivors, and advocates working in the sexual violence sector say is unethical.

Why now? 

The National government admits their plans investigate explicitly the privatisation of ACC.  Despite there being no economic need according to, well, economists.

Minister Nick Smith told us the new clinical pathway was all about the “paramount” needs of the victim, remember.  We were repeatedly told it was not about cost-cutting, and that sexual abuse claims were skyrocketing.

Just as well we have the Official Information Act I say.  This is what’s been happening to sexual abuse claims over the last ten years.

Two blips in 1998 and 2002, apart from which the trend is just steady claims at a little under 6000.*  Much clearer trend when we look at what’s happening to acceptance rates of claims.

More and more claims not meeting the legislative need for funding?  A different kind of sexual abuse?  Or ACC policing who they will fund more and more rigorously?

The new clinical pathway limits access to counselling to those who fit a narrow DSM IV mental health diagnosis.  Unless you have genuine certified mental health condition – which you can prove  in two visits to someone you’ve just met – and it neatly “fits” into the DSM IV categories, then no dice from the Sensitive Claims Unit.

The new re-jigged clinical pathway was released to the continuing-to-be-stunned sexual violence sector this week.  After genuine engagement, meetings with ACC officials, statistics and feedback from survivors that this pathway could prove lethal for some unable to access treatment, well, despite all this ACC have changed buggar all of the original pathway.

We need to get one thing clear here.  ACC funding for survivors of sexual violence was survivor-centred despite where the funding came from.  It has never been a survivor-led stream of support, or consciousness, or world-changing dismantling of systems which support rape and sexual abuse. 

Counselling is important for healing and recovery.  Just not this kind of counselling, as the increasing number of counsellors who are refusing to work under these conditions testify.  ACC are defending how narrow their new pathway is by saying those who do not “fit in” can go to Rape Crisis centres, or into the mental health system.

Well guess what?  One of the main contributors to mental health issues, including people needing inpatient support in hospitals, is sexual abuse.  Up to 70% of women who are sectioned are survivors of sexual abuse, according to US studies.

Yet those working in mental health are not routinely trained in responding appropriately to sexual abuse, for either female or male survivors.  So shunting more survivors there hardly seems likely to have a good outcome for anyone, services or survivors.

And Rape Crisis Centres in Aotearoa New Zealand?  Poorly funded so with patchy cover around the country and services gaps for specific groups of people (ethnic groups, male survivors, people with disabilities, sex workers) according to the latest scan of services.

Yet, what if the ACC clinical funding pathway was to be restricted only for those with clinical diagnoses requiring counselling, and other survivors, whose needs are not so clearly within the “medical model” were able to access adequately funded alternative client centred services?  What if we took what worked within the community sector – crisis responses, advocacy and counselling – and funded it properly?

Legal challenges to the ACC debacle will be ongoing, as the sexual violence sector asks if the new framework meets ACC’s legislative obligations.  There will also, no doubt, be continuing direct action, as last weeks well-attended protests around the country showed the strength of feeling this cost-cutting is provoking.

Protestors march in Christchurch, photo courtesy of IndyMedia

The sexual violence sector should not be wedded to ACC.  What do we usually call a relationship where one party does what they want, no matter what the other thinks?  Where one party holds the purse strings and only lets the other have anything if they’ve been “good”?

It may be time for a divorce.

*These figures, bewilderingly, do not agree with figures on ACC’s own website, on which I have blogged in the past.  It seems I owe Karl du Fresne an apology in this matter at least