The Lady Garden

Tea and Strumpets

Tag Archives: warning: massive use of caps lock

Comments Bingo

















The War on Women hits New Zealand

There I was, watching Newt Gingrich losing his shit in the Republican primaries, calling women sluts, and wryly smiling about the infamous all-male panel on contraception. I fell in love with Obama all over again. And I was all smugly, well, we women in New Zealand are so lucky, with our relatively easy and cheap access to contraception.

Aren’t we? AREN’T WE? Yeah, well, until the Government comes along and decides that it doesn’t like poor women, and their grubby little oiks, and so it’ll Put A Stop To That.

Now, if you follow me on Twitter, you may know that this has made me very caps-locky, swearingly, rantingly angry. I will try to be slightly more reasoned here, but I can’t promise this post won’t descend into me ANGRILY BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE KEYBOARD.

So. Some thoughts.

1. Why is this even a welfare issue?

Yes, all women should have access to safe and cheap contraception. And the way we know how we’re getting safe contraception is by talking about it with our doctors. Not our WINZ case managers. In fact, via Nikki:

In making an informed decision about contraceptive use and choice of method, all
women, including young women, must be provided with full and unbiased information about all of their options, including the expected risks, side effects, benefits and costs. This is provided for under rights six and seven of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumer Rights.” From Women’s Health Action‘s paper on welfare reform

So, why is this coming from welfare? Why is Paula Bennett not involved? (If you think you can stomach listening to her, she is here. TLG is not responsible for any damage to your desk or computer from the repeated head-banging.)

Because why? Because poor women are bad and evil and shouldn’t be costing the taxpayer more than they already are! God. Why are they even pretending this is about contraception? It’s about pretending to save money and stopping poor people from having more babies. Because I don’t know if you got the memo? But poor people are bad.

Will WINZ staff be educated in contraception, and advising people on how to get it and what they might need? Will it be explained what an IUD id, and how it works, and what the benefits and side effects might be?

Let’s be clear. If we actually want to do this, to increase access to contraception – especially for young people – then it should be universal, available to any gender, and not based on income.

2. Oh, but come on, aren’t you laydeez overreacting? “Being able to access” is not the same as “have to use”.

Well, first of all, we’re not talking about condoms here, sunshine, we’re talking about long-term IUDs and hormonal implants. So, this has long-lasting effects for the women who choose to “access” it. Five years is a long time, particularly in a woman’s reproductive life.

Secondly, if you don’t think WINZ staff would ever pressure someone into doing something like this, then you’ve never been on a benefit. WINZ staff are required to push policies like this. If you don’t think WINZ staff intimidate and coerce their clients, you are remarkably naive.

And thirdly? What’s to stop them, in a year, turning around and saying – you didn’t take the opportunity for the contraception, so we’re docking your benefit. Oh, you got pregnant while you were still on a benefit, so we’re going to punish you by making you go back to work early. OH WAIT. THEY ALREADY DID THIS.

Being on a benefit isn’t a measure of how clever or moral someone is, and this policy is fucking patronising. Nor, given the fact it will be aimed at women and their children, is it hereditary.

3. Um, there’s this other person involved? I think he’s called Dad.

(Big sloppy kiss to whoever can tell me where I stole that line from.)

Why is this being aimed at women? Why are free vasectomies not being handed out? Or giant bowls of condoms on the front desk at every WINZ branch?

Is it really appropriate for a government to target young women for long-term contraception? If the Government really wants to address these issues, why is it not putting money into much more comprehensive sex education, better, cheaper and easier access to healthcare, and many, many more employment options? Or is that just not punitive enough?

This is only scratching the surface – have at it in the comments. And Deborah has a great post at her place.


Quickie: What the Fucking Fuck edition

Seriously, NZ Herald? This is what passes for election coverage?

I was going to write a whole screed here, rant and rage and encourage people to write to you or boycott you or something. But actually, seriously, I give the fuck up.

Excuse my language, but Go Fuck Yourself.

It must be quite hard for [men], too, to tell the difference between the women who went on a “SlutWalk” in Newcastle on Saturday morning, wearing very, very short skirts and very, very low tops and very, very high heels, and the ones who went to drink a lot of alcohol in nightclubs in Newcastle on Saturday night, and maybe have sex with a stranger. The ones during the day were, it’s true, waving signs saying things like “My Clothes Aren’t My Consent” and “It Doesn’t Matter What I Wear or Where I Go… No Means No”. The ones during the evening weren’t.

Oh Look! The independent found a feminist who is anti-SlutWalk. Isn’t that nice for them. One who doesn’t think that women should wear short skirts, low tops, or high heels. Or if they do, they should acknowledge that they are “sexually available”. That society at large (by which, I presume, she means men and Right-Thinking Women like her) will believe them to be stupid sluts who are up for it and couldn’t possibly want to be a doctor or a lawyer politician. Because bare legs precludes brain power, you see.

There’s so much in this column that I could complain about, so much wrong with it. But let’s just start with the massive fucking logic fail.

Women, largely Western women, said that they didn’t want to be defined by their value in the sexual market place. They didn’t want to be defined by the size of their breasts, or the shape of their bottoms, or the length of their legs. So they started wearing clothes – often rather ugly clothes – that made them look more like men.

OhMIGOD, REALLY? Women didn’t want to be judged by their appearance? They didn’t want to be assumed to be sexually available based on their clothes? They didn’t want comments on the size of their breasts or shape of their ass? I can understand that. So, WHY THE FUCK did you write 1500-odd words DOING EXACTLY THAT? It works both ways. You can’t complain that “men” judge “women” (God, those evil judgy lesbians get off easy), when you yourself vomited slutshaming all over a newspaper.

Of course, we get the standard “of course men should know that clothes don’t equal consent”. But by wearing your miniskirts, you are making it so hard for the poor loves. They can’t be expected to treat you like a human being when distracted by your magical cleavage.

And wanting to look nice some of the time, but slob about other times, completely undermines my argument.

They said that they didn’t dress this way to please men, but to please themselves, although when they were sitting at home, they didn’t dress like this. When they were sitting at home, they wore tracksuit bottoms and trainers.

I don’t know how many times I can say this. I dress FOR ME. Do I know people are looking at my tits? Of course. I might actually enjoy that! (And of course I said people. Not. Just. Men) And sometimes, when I am fucking around at home, yes, I wear trackies. But mainly because I don’t want to spill gin on my dresses.

And isn’t this a delight?

…little girls dress like their mothers, and if their mothers dress like sluts, or even like “sluts”, then they’re quite likely to be as confused on the subject of sexual equality as the mothers who briefly saw a flicker of progress, and then watched it fade.

Isn’t that some lovely “HEY SLUTS, stop being such bad mothers” dogwhistling. You’re fucking up your daughters with your very, very short skirts, and very, very low tops, and very, very high heels.

Look, lady, I am really sorry what you see as your battle to be taken seriously “faded”. Some of us think that a short skirt doesn’t actually preclude that, and shouldn’t. That what you are wearing doesn’t actually matter. We know that clothes send messages, but think that people are intelligent enough to know they are making massive gender, class, and cultural assumptions when they do that, and should be able to recognise that. The difference is, those of us over on this side of the fence think that you should be allowed to wear whatever the hell you like, and that you should grant us the same courtesy.