And the biggest bigot of 2011 is....

It's that time of year again, the time where you can't turn around for fear of bumping into another top 10 list. I love it, I love reflecting on the year that's been and remembering my emotions and reactions to the biggest news events, or best Oscar gowns... So I thought I'd do my own version of a top 10 list and look at 2011's biggest acts of bigotry. It's been a killer year for the racists, homophobes and sexists, so let's reminisce on their standout moments together. Without further ado, I present 2011's Top 10 Bigots:

Number 10 - Ricky Gervais

A controversial pick I'm sure, but I've never been a fan of Gervais. While I can recognise the often brilliance of The Office, Gervais's arrogance and offensiveness has never appealed to me. And I became confident I wasn't the only one when Gervais posted the above photo on Twitter and made a series of 'mong' jokes. This understandably created a furor, with disability advocates pointing out to him the offensive history of the word, and the harm that has been caused by its use against people with Down's Sydrome. Now I think at this point it was still salvageable. Gervais could have apologised, professed ignorance of the history of the word or vowed to no longer use it. Instead he behaved like an arrogant bastard and claimed that "words change, get over it" and criticised the "humourless PC Brigade". Nicky Clark, a disability advocate and mother of two children with disabilities, wrote a moving response to Gervais, and rightly pointed out that the word was not his to reclaim, and that ignorance was no defence as "mong" was still used against her children. Gervais finally apologised but for me, and many others I'm sure, it was too little too late. This, combined with his new show that involves a 'sophisticated dwarf about town' have me convinced that perhaps David Brent was not such a fictional character after all.

Number 9 - Julia Gillard

I generally like Julia Gillard. She is in the immensely unenviable position of being Australia's first female Prime Minister, leading a centre-left minority government through an economic down turn. She reminds me a lot of Helen Clark in that she leads an unconventional life for a successful politician - unmarried but in a long-term relationship (with a hairdresser, who has attracted all the same rumours as Peter Davis) and with no children.  She is constantly picked on for her unfashionable clothes, unattractiveness, awkward demeanour and rough accent, all things Helen Clark was picked on for too. So it hurts me a little to put her on here, but I can't tolerate her stance on gay marriage. Senior ministers in her Cabinet are homosexual (with one even expecting a baby with her partner soon), the majority of Australians support gay marriage (with some polls showing this number as being over 70%) and some of the more 'redneck' states (such as Queensland) are legislating in favour of gay marriage. If you can change your view on the carbon tax, you can change your view on this one Ms Gillard.

Number 8 - Kyle Sandilands


I've already spoken about the Kyle Sandilands incident in detail. To hear Sandilands's rant first-hand and some interesting discussion of this man's misogyny, see the video below:

Number 7 - Phil Goff and John Key

Opening the year in style, John Key gave one of his first interview's of the year on Tony Veitch's (a self-admitted woman abuser) radio show where he sought to prove his good ol' down-home typical Kiwi bloke-ness. This consisted of claiming to envy the other "benefits" of Tiger Woods's job and with little prompting, ranking his top three 'hot' women. Phil Goff, eager not to be outdone in the Kiwi bloke stakes, then went on to provide, unprompted, his hot list of women too. Now you might think that this is hardly an egregious crime compared to some of the others I've included on this list, but in the context of a government that has cut funding to Women's Refuge, tried to do the same to rape crisis centres, named and shamed solo mums on the benefit, cut funding to early childhood centres and cut ACC funding for sexual abuse victims, you have to wonder what they really think of women. As objects to lust over, beat when they anger you and provide 'benefits' to your sporting career it would seem. And Phil Goff, you didn't have to join in.


Number 6 - GOP Candidates

Wow. Things are not looking good for the Republican party if this is the best bunch of stragglers they could come up with. There is far too much bigotry to individually list and describe here so let's just look at a few choice quotes from this stellar line up:

Michelle Bachman, blacks better off as slaves - Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African American President. (from the Marriage Vow - A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family pledge)

Rick Perry, gays ruin Christmas - There's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas (from his Strong campaign ad)

Newt Gingrich, Spanish is the language of the ghetto - We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto. (2007)

I almost feel sorry for the GOP. Almost...


Number 5 - Jeremy Clarkson

Another popular British celebrity, another controversial choice I imagine. Top Gear has a charming history of homophobia (describing cars they dislike as gay and queer) and racism ("Cars reflect national characteristics... a Mexican car is going to be a lazy, feckless, flatulent oaf with a moustache leaning against a fence asleep..."). Jeremy Clarkson, the host of the show, has made his name being offensive and 'blokey' (I'm sensing a theme here...). But again, earlier this month he went too far by joking that striking public sector workers should be executed in front of their families, and by describing suicide victims as selfish. He now faces investigation as the show elicited a record number of complaints.

Number 4 - Charlie Sheen

Early 2011 was an uncomfortable time as we watched the extended public meltdown of Charlie Sheen. Sheen has had a long and very public battle with drugs but it seemed to reach an apex this year when his behaviour caused the suspension of the godawful (and probably deserving of a spot on this list itself) show Two and a Half Men. As part of this we heard the hints of anti-Semitism from Sheen, calling producer Chuck Lorre by his Hebrew name as way of insult. But Sheen is not on this list for that alone. In fact, upon learning of Sheen's past indiscretions, I found it difficult to understand why we'd tolerated Sheen for so long. They include:

• holding a knife to his ex-wife's throat and threatening to kill her
• locking a naked and screaming prostitute in a closet
• allegedly threatening to kill Denise Richards
• shooting Kelly Preston in the arm

I find it interesting that we repeatedly gave Sheen second chances after all his crimes against women, but insulting Two and a Half Men and it's producer was a step too far. It says a lot about us doesn't it? Anyway, this is really a lifetime award for Sheen. I wish for, both him and society, his quiet recovery in 2012.

Number 3 - Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the New York District Attorney


You're probably already aware of the details. In May 2011, a maid in a posh New York hotel accused Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund and a promising candidate for the French presidency, of sexual assault. The case was compelling. The victim, Nafissatou Diallo, wore clothes that tested positively for Strauss-Kahn's semen. She had injuries consistent with her version of events. It looked like, for once we'd have a nice David and Goliath story where a woman with no power would help successfully convict a man with all the power in the world for rape. However, this proved optimistic. Subsequent information showed that Diallo had lied on her asylum application, lied about her income and kept company with some unsavoury characters. All this forced Diallo to waive her privacy and speak to the media in her defence. And still, the charges were dropped. It's a sad example of the too common belief that one must be a sinless virgin in order to be raped. Diallo didn't fit the bill (and I'd venture a guess that nobody does...), so Strauss-Kahn will never go to court for this crime. Number 3 on this list is reserved for him, as a serial womaniser and bigot, and for the district attorney for believing the old trope that you can only be sexually assaulted if you have no past to speak of.

Number 2 - Comic Book Fans

Now this is not meant to capture all comic book fans. But if you were one of the many Spiderman fans surprised and disgusted by the new Spiderman, then yes, this is for you.

Earlier this year (in only one series of Spiderman comics),  Marvel killed off Peter Parker and replaced him with Miles Morales, the new biracial Spiderman. News media and opinion columnists celebrated the decision as being contemporary and progressive, bringing the iconic series into the multicultural age. But the vast unwashed masses felt differently. The internet exploded with disgruntled comic book geeks who reveled in their idiotic outrage, saying things like "why we need a homie Spiderman" and "what's next, a Spiderman who is half black, half Cuban gay vegetarian who works as a community organiser and drives a Prius that practices Tai Chi?" And many complained about how they could no longer relate...

It strikes me as ironic that when Spiderman is white, we're all meant to relate to him. I guess that is the common perception of white as being the race that's not a race. But by removing that absence of race and replacing it with colour, Marvel apparently made Spiderman less relatable for us all.

No, outraged comic book fan, you're just a racist.

Number 1 - This drunk lady

I hope you 'enjoyed' my little recap of some of the worst moments of 2011. Now join me in wishing we collectively learn from these horrible examples of human behaviour, and that I have less to blog about in 2012.

Happy New Year!

Battle of the Bigots

I thought I'd move back to my antipodean roots this week and talk about a subject that has been captivating most of Australia for the past wee while - pure, unadulterated, down-under bigotry.

When I look back to the moment my parents told me we'd be leaving South Africa and moving to New Zealand for good, I remember my intense resistance for fear of racism. Now this sounds ironic given I was a mixed race person living in only-just-post-apartheid South Africa,  where I'd just been through I.Q tests to determine whether I was intelligent enough to go to school with white children. But in South Africa I wasn't a minority. Sure I was slightly different, but I had a social group, I had a name I could call myself, and I had others I could identify with who were just like me. I was terrified of moving to New Zealand and becoming an outlier. Attracting unwanted attention is basically the worst thing possible for a 14 year old girl, and I felt my racial make-up would guarantee I would never fit into NZ society.

Fast forward 13 years, and I had ended up being pretty comfortable with my life in NZ. Some of my teenage fears were realised, and people were often puzzled by my non-Maori brown-ness. But it was OK. I'd often thought about moving to Australia, but was often warned of their abysmal race relations record and the manifest racism and sexism. When we decided to take the leap and move across the ditch, we picked Melbourne as it had a reputation for being progressive and tolerant by Australian standards. But given this common perception of Australia, I'm again hyper paranoid and sensitive to any potential bigotry. So it was with great interest that I watched the Kyle Sandilands saga unfold.

Kyle Sandilands is the definition of a shock jock. Abrasive, offensive and arrogant, he made his name belittling contestants on Australian Idol and X-Factor (referring to contestant's 'tuck shop arms' and 'jelly bellies'). His Sydney-based radio show, which he co-hosts with Jackie-O, is one of the top-rated shows in Australia, and was apparently untarnished by an on-air incident where he compelled a 16 year old girl to admit, on air, that she'd been raped at the age of 12. He has a history of misogyny, bigotry and outbursts against anyone, mainly women, who dares to critique his impressive oeuvre.

However, he seems to have gone too far this time. A few weeks ago, a writer for the news.com.au website, called Sandilands's new show "awkward" and a "disaster". By all other accounts, it was both those things. His show, called A Night with the Stars, received damning reviews from all corners. But for some reason, this writer attracted the wrath of Sandilands. Some of his on-air abuse included:

fat slag

little troll

piece of shit

you haven't got enough titty to be wearing that low cut a blouse

and my favourite

I will hunt you down

People were outraged and the reaction has been swift. All major sponsors of the show (including Ford, McDonalds and Vodafone) pulled out within a day and have vowed to remain out for at least another year. Sandilands was almost universally condemned with online polls overwhelmingly calling for him to leave. I did not read or hear a single positive thing about him. And yet... he is still employed by his radio station.

Let's compare this to another public outcry against a notorious bigot - the Paul Henry scandal in New Zealand (which embarrassingly made it's way to headline news across the ditch!) Henry too had a history of being a douche (lady with a moustache, "retarded" Susan Boyle, etc). But it was Henry's questioning of the 'New Zealand-ness' of NZ born then Governor General Anand Satyanand and giggling like a school-boy at the name of Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit that was eventually his downfall. 

I think it's fair to say that the reaction was nowhere as swift. While Henry apologised the next day, it was half-arsed and done in typical 'sorry if you were offended' non-apology style. He also managed to squeeze another racial epithet into his apology (gypo). TVNZ's PR Manager defended him as 'just saying what we're all thinking',  I can't remember anything about sponsors withdrawing and it took a good few days before Henry was suspended. But the end result was that he was pushed to resign and we were free of him on our publicly funded TV for almost a year. I'd hazard a guess that he is still one of the most popular figures in New Zealand media though.

The reaction to these two idiots has been very different and I haven't quite been able to pinpoint why that is. Part of me wonders if it's a cultural thing, if New Zealanders, being a reserved bunch, needed a racist mouthpiece. And Australians, being a bit franker and easier with their opinions, don't feel they need a spokesperson for their bigotry - they can just say it for themselves. I also wonder if it reflects societal attitudes to sexism and racism. Sandilands's crimes are almost exclusively against women, and seem to hint at a deep-seated misogyny. Henry is an equal opportunities bigot, taking aim at gay people, people with disabilities and minorities alike. Perhaps we're more sophisticated in our understanding of sexism as a society, and it's easier for us to react when the infringements are so near violent in nature. Or maybe its the medium - radio versus TV? Or maybe it's that New Zealanders are just more bigoted? 

The public reaction to the Paul Henry saga made me doubt many of my fellow Kiwis. It deeply undermined my sense of self and of belonging as I questioned whether most citizens in the place I called home even wanted me there. The Australian public reaction to the Sandilands saga has made me feel the opposite, like I'm surrounded by people who are OK with calling out bigotry. It's a very shallow analysis, and probably not indicative of anything really. But for what it's worth, I never expected to feel so...at ease...here.

Telling other people's stories

I mentioned last week that I had managed to slip my hatred of racism into a lunchroom conversation about The Help. This is a battle I didn't pick wisely, as I've now discovered that everybody loves The Help. 'How couldn't you love it?', they asked, 'It's about racism, and racism is bad!' The worst part was the awkward looks that followed, and I felt they now imagined me riding around on horses, cutting holes out of pillowcases and calling myself the Grand Wizard.

I haven't read the Help or seen the movie, so perhaps am unqualified to comment here, but I understand the story is based in 1960s Mississippi, where a young white writer decides to reveal the truth about black domestic workers by writing a book exposing this. It includes such gems as the following, where our heroine describes her childhood friends:

Sometimes two girls from next door would come over to play with me, named Mary Nell and Mary Roan. They were so black I couldn't tell them apart and called them both Mary.

What a woman!

The Help has bafflingly won rave reviews from critics and fans alike, with one critic writing that the Help has its cake and eats it "and makes short work of the fried chicken, grits and sweet potato pie too" - charming! People I meet almost uniformly love it and gushingly recommend it to me, and my colleagues sometimes quote it in the way my friends and I used to say 'Orange Mocha Frappuccino!' when Zoolander first came out.

I don't get it. Before I could speak in the language of appropriation, I knew something was off about these movies and books. I knew there was something I didn't like about Crash, and something that rubbed me the wrong way about Dangerous Minds (more than the Nice White Lady trope - seriously, watch that video, it's gold). And now that I'm more well-read on the topic, I can generally enunciate my views on these kinds of Oscar-baiting movies (the Academy loves a good tale of white rescue) a little more clearly.

The problem with these books and movies is while claiming to be inspiring tales of fights against racism, they really achieve nothing more than replace one form of oppression with another, the oppression of silence. The oppressed - the help, the poor minority students, the homeless talented black footballer - are the vehicles for the tales of the white rescuers. We're not interested in hearing these people tell us their own stories, and we're not interested in stories where they rescue themselves from oppression, as is the case in basically all history. We want more stories of the bravery and kindness of wealthy privileged people who look like us.

It's something that's also been playing on my mind a lot recently. I've just finished reading Nickel and Dimed, journalist Barbara Ehreinreich's account of a few months she spent undercover trying to survive on the minimum wage. I was intrigued by the concept, but I couldn't quite place why I disliked the book so intensely. And then it clicked, yet again we are being fed the stories of the oppressed (the overworked and underpaid) by somebody who was doing this as an experiment. Ehrenreich constantly mentioned trying to educate her fellow workers, she drew on her own funds once or twice when things got tough and generally portrayed a sense of being above it all. And I lapped it up. I was desperate to read this book and even put my name down on the library waiting list, hoping to gain new insights. But why can't we hear this from the people who actually live this life? Why do we need a buffer, a guide, a translator for oppression and suffering? 

It's a hard one to grasp, because it seems so contrary. I know I felt like a card-carrying leftie as I proudly carried my expose on poverty home on the tram. These works do such a good job of pretending to be against the very thing they perpetrate. But isms today are a lot more subtle than the isms of days now past. There are no more laws and little segregation. Instead, the most insidious racism is the kind that is done under the guise of integration, or of anti-racism. The term 'One New Zealand' springs to mind. 

So I won't be reading the Help, or watching the Blind Side, or reading any more stories of weekend flings with poverty. I don't think I have many other options though, as there aren't too many people out there willing to fund stories where the oppressed speak for themselves. And Oprah can't keep carrying the baton alone forever...

Being a crafty feminist

Starting a new job is always tricky. There is a whole lot of figuring people out and of people figuring you out. It's doubly difficult when you're also new to the country, so you're trying to work out if these new colleagues are roughly representative of their country, and they are trying to do the same for you. There are always a few things I like to lay on the table early to avoid awkward conversations later on - my feminism (discussions helpfully triggered by sexy Julia Gillard newspaper cartoons), my hatred of racism (discussions helpfully triggered by someone gushing about the Help) and my love of crafting (discussions triggered by bringing in gluten free banana loaf for morning tea).

I've always been, much to my own chagrin, more interested in stereotypically feminine pursuits than sterotypically masculine ones. As a kid I was much more likely to be found indoors in a pink tulle dress playing princesses than outdoors playing cricket. And now as an adult, not much has changed. My interests are certainly more balanced but by and large I'd rather be knitting a cushion than kicking a ball. And I'm not alone in this. Crafting has become a worldwide craze, with various commentators citing the recession, third wave feminism and hipsterism as causes for the trend. Crafter-driven websites like Etsy are massively popular, craft fairs are the new malls, and the crafting trend has been featured in publications like the New York Times. But I've never been clear as to how this passion for crafting fits with my feminist beliefs.

And I'm certainly not the first feminist to grapple with this craze. Many before me have felt discomfort in the wholehearted embrace of something our second wave sisters so flatly rejected.  Pro-crafting feminists have defended craft by talking about choice and claiming feminism has moved beyond agitating to be able to vote and go to work. But I've found little discussion on the inherent problems that exist in the craft trend even though we're no longer forced to remain barefoot and pregnant.

The language of choice and reclamation is well known, and well understood. A third wave feminist might argue that we're reclaiming craft, we're choosing these pasttimes without pressure and we're recognising the inherent value in craft that for so long has been minimised as 'woman's work'. We're making these choices freely and consciously. But I'm not so sure. I think this (and much of third wave feminism in general) mischaracterises our environment as one of free choice and almost seems to declare the battle won. It's premised on a false assumption of equality that sometimes dismisses the history of struggle, and the rampant inequalities that still exist between men and women, especially those of lower socioeconomic status.

I also feel uncomfortable talking about craft to other women who may not share my interests. I find bringing baking to work and friends one of those things - I love baking,  I can't eat a whole cake myself and I love bringing baking to people especially when I've noticed them looking stressed or overwhelmed.  But I can't help but feel show-offy, especially if I make something a little complicated or if the target of my baking-love-bomb is somebody who doesn't enjoy baking, or who may not have the time, or may not be that good at it. Sometimes I think the implication is almost 'I'm a better woman than you'. I feel like this with a lot of crafting, the better you are at it and the more you embrace it, the more feminine and successful at being a woman you appear. And I think the same is true for men and DIY - I've observed many a 'so what did you do this weekend?' conversation between men becoming a competition as to who did the most complicated and physically demanding home renovation themselves. There also seems to be a special kind of disdain reserved for men who hire tradesmen. This gender essentialisation of our hobbies shows exactly how far we've not come.

But my biggest discomfort with the craft craze is also my biggest discomfort with much of the mainstream feminist movement, and that is its blindness to economic inequalities. For me and other crafty Western feminists, crafting is indeed a choice. It's a choice because I have time, money and ability - I have the time to knit as a hobby, I have the money to spend on bespoke mini quiche pans and I have the ability to give things up if they get too hard. But for most non-Western women around the world who craft, its anything but a choice. Disadvantage, prejudice and social structures mean that women who craft in the developing world craft to survive. And this phenomenon allows crafting to survive as a hobby. I can turn my hand to sewing as a pasttime because most of my clothes are bought on the cheap from China and the developing world. Things aren't more equal, we simply have poorer women doing it for us. And is it really feminist if it isn't a choice for all women? It just isn't as easy as reclamation, as nice and clean an explanation as that is.

But I'm not going to stop crafting because I love it. I love the sense of achievement when I bake or sew something a little complicated. I love baking people their favourite cupcakes because it shows extra thought and care. But I'm certainly not going to celebrate it as a triumph of feminism, or have my ironic cross-stitches displayed as a hipster badge next to my Wayfarers and Navajo panties. I knowingly enjoy so many other things that are problematic, and I guess crafting is small fries compared to my obsessive love of Mariah Carey.

On being brown in the Antipodes

I've recently become even more of a cliche - a late 20-something educated Kiwi woman who has moved to Australia in search of greener (browner? redder?) pastures. I am living the brain drain. As such, I'm also living a life where everything is new to me. Not that I was ever a 'finger on the pulse' kind of person, but I'd like to think I had a general understanding of the feeling of my fellow New Zealanders on certain issues. But now, finding out what Australians think about things is tiring. Some things, like opinions on the carbon tax, whack you over the head with long emotive TV advertisements. Other things, like racism, are a bit trickier to get to the nub of.

One of Bolt's opinion pieces on 'White Aborigines'

Take, for example, the recent case of Eatock v Bolt where shock jock Andrew Bolt was found to have contravened key sections of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 with his combative articles undermining the right of fair skinned Aboriginal people to identify as such. If you feel like being sick, read the case as it cites numerous sickening quotes from Bolt. Other than that, its a progressive, fascinating and accessible read, even for this rusty law grad. It has a beautiful section on self-identification of mixed race people, but that's a blog for another day...

This case was a big deal. A "journalist" faced judicial censure for expressing his (frankly disgusting) opinions. After Paul-Henry-Gate in New Zealand, I braced myself for a flurry of pro-Bolt commentary along the lines of 'he's just saying what we're all thinking' or 'but it's the truth isn't it?' and my personal favourite (always exclaimed without any explanation) 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH!' I thought it would be worse than New Zealand as a) This is Australia - everyone knows Australians are racist! and b) this is an actual court case, with actual court-ordered punitive measures (well kind of). By comparison, Paul Henry only lost his job, and technically resigned (and thanks guys now we're stuck with him). 

But I was pleasantly surprised. Either my work was ordering some progressive newspapers for our lunch room reading, or Bolt was already a hated man in Australia, or the Australian commentariat's concept of freedom of speech is more advanced than that of their New Zealand equivalents. I suspected it was a little from columns a, b and c. I got the sense that Bolt was far from universally loved, but also that Australians have had a lot longer to get used to and digest the provisions of their race discrimination legislation. While this judgment pushed the boundaries of this legislation, most Australians seemed OK with that. 

But then the response to Steve William's delightful comments on Tiger Woods made me rethink that... The commentariat on both sides of the ditch universally dismissed his claims as not being racist, as simply pointing out the dark colour of Tiger Wood's skin, well something other than his skin... Golfers even came to his defence by hauling out the old 'but he has black friends' routine. Online polls here and in New Zealand overwhelming supported Steve William's othering of his ex-boss, and defended his right to continue stating the 'facts'.

And then I started attending events. No matter what the occasion, from a talk on dental health in Iraqi children, to a forum on the rights of older people, every occasion thus far has been opened by an acknowledgement of the traditional owners of the land, and a thanks to their elders past and present. Sure this is ceremonial and might not mean anything further than a tick-box exercise, but it's been much more consistent than I ever witnessed in New Zealand. 

And then I did further research. Race really is a big deal in Australia. 44% of the population was born overseas or to an overseas born parent. Indigenous Australians have been here for 75,000 years, yet they face some of the worst outcomes in Australia. Boat people present an ongoing challenge for every Australian government. This is a country of very recent migrants, struggling with a legacy of horrific discrimination against the lawful owners of the land, the people who weren't counted as people until recently. Their issues are certainly more complex than those of New Zealand, but what does that mean? Shall we give them more lenience as they struggle with bigger and wider reaching issues? Or do we expect greater sophistication in their dialogue, more progressive policies and greater societal acceptance of diversity? I don't yet know the answer to that, but I'm leaning towards the latter.

So what did I learn from all this, other than getting myself thoroughly confused? First, which newspapers to avoid (I'm looking at you Herald Sun!). But secondly, that judging the racial temperature of a country takes a lot more than reading some papers and blogs. It's going to be a long time before I get a sense of how I, as a visible immigrant, fit into this country. All I know so far, is that I never got called a wog in 14 years of life in New Zealand. It took me two weeks in Australia.