Pot, Kettle, Black: David and Sarah Deserve Each Other.
080718
I’m sorry, I can’t go on. I have to say something. This past
week we have been subjected to one of the sorriest examples of a confected beat
up argument we have ever seen. I refer of course to the escalating stoush
between Senators David Leyonhjelm and Sarah Hanson Young. While some may have
been entertained by the melodrama of it all, far too many people have taken the
bait and treated the imbroglio as if it is actually important. I regret to inform
you that we have all been taken for a ride, as we were unwittingly caught up in
this scenario, and made to feel as if we had to choose a side.
Clearly, the popular, fashionable, and not to mention
politically correct side to choose was that of Sarah Hanson Young. However, a
quick perusal of social media will show any observer that David Leyonhjelm also
has a band of supporters, smaller in number perhaps, but strident in their
defence of his right to stand up to what the Senator has described as a double standard.
So, before proceeding any further, in the interests of fairness and clear
minded analysis of the dialogue at the heart of this matter, let’s ask one
simple question: Before he shot himself in both feet by using coarse and
offensive language, did David Leyonhjelm actually have a point?
As you no doubt recall, the saga began during the debate in
the Senate, more than a week ago now, when a motion was put before the Senate
by Senator Fraser Anning, once a member of One Nation but now aligned with Bob
Katter’s Australia Party. Senator Anning proposed that the Government should
relax the importation restrictions on such items as Tasers and pepper spray so
that women might arm themselves against attacks in public places. Greens
Senator Janet Rice was speaking against the motion, arguing that it should not
be incumbent upon women to arm themselves just to walk home at night, when
Sarah Hanson Young apparently interjected.
It’s at this point
that the waters become muddied because whatever her remark was, it was not
recorded by Hansard. Senator Leyonhjelm has consistently claimed that Senator
Hanson Young’s words implied something to the effect that “all men are rapists.”
On this basis, he seems to have taking it upon himself to defend the honour of “all
men” by becoming a loathsome troll and calling out to his opponent that, if
that’s the case, she should “stop shagging men.” However, while we have a
reasonably clear idea of what David Leyonhjelm said, very few media outlets
have been prepared to publish a direct quote of whatever it was that Sarah Hanson
Young originally said to inspire such a rabid response.
The only exception I have found anywhere was a report in The Guardian which claimed that Senator
Hanson Young said, in support of the argument put forward by Senator Rice, “Men
should stop raping women.” It is impossible to verify if these were the exact
words or not, but in subsequent media interviews, Senator Hanson Young did not
dispute the suggestion; rather she argued that it is not the same as saying
that “all men are rapists.” Indeed, she insisted that it was vastly different.
Whatever the exact words, Senator Leyonhjelm chose to interpret them as a slur
upon men generally, rather than a comment on the small proportion of men who
are perpetrators of crime.
Semantically, he may have a point.
If Senator Hanson Young did indeed say “men should stop
raping women,” the sentence structure is general in nature. It implies men
generally and collectively, not a specific subset of men. Imagine for a moment
if the exact same sentence structure was used in a different context. For
example, if it was said that “women should stop being manipulative,” it would
rightly be construed as a slight upon all women. Now let’s take the example to
extremes: if somebody should say “black people should stop stealing cars,” you
can imagine the outrage. It would rightly be condemned as a racist statement. Again,
if somebody said “Muslims should stop blowing things up,” the condemnation
would be both swift and righteous. And yet, it is exactly the same syntax as
saying “men should stop raping women.”
This is an unfortunate example of how modern gender politics
has become divisive and in many cases downright abusive. There is no doubt that
feminism has come a long way, and I sincerely believe that women in our society
today are vastly better treated than at any time before. Within my lifetime,
women were being refused the right to borrow money if they were unmarried and
did not have a man to support them. That is an example of real prejudice, and
real disadvantage. Today, women are in a much stronger position that ever
before, although it is sadly true that there is still more that needs to be
achieved. There is still a genuine pay gap between genders, there are still
some members of society who cling to old attitudes about the role of women, and
there are still challenges faced by women on a daily basis of which many men
are blissfully unaware.
However, I feel that there has also been a change in the
rhetoric of some of those who consider themselves feminists, with a cavalier
willingness to use generalised language against men. A perfect example would be
the phrase that Sarah Hanson Young is alleged to have uttered: men should stop
raping women. Even if those are not her exact words, they echo the words of
many other feminists in print and in the electronic media. Somehow, the
argument has been put forward that the problem of violence against women is the
responsibility, if not the fault, of all men. It is suggested that men need to
be better educated to respect women, and this education should begin as early
as possible while those men are still boys. On the face of it, this is an
argument that is hard to resist.
It is, after all, true that men are, generally speaking, bigger
and stronger than women. It would seem obvious that men can often be more aggressive
than women, and more prone to asserting their will by force of one kind or
another. It might even be argued, although the scientific evidence is scant,
that men and women think differently. But these are generalisations, and they
certainly don’t tell the whole story. Even accepting the idea that there are
differences between men and women, in the end we are all people. The fact is both
men and women are likely to attempt to assert themselves, and to act in their
own interests, using whatever tools they have at their disposal. It’s just the
human thing to do. For men who have physical strength, it seems obvious they
will rely on that strength to advance their interests. For women who have the
ability to play upon the emotions it is equally obvious that they will do so.
Now, in reading those last two sentences, you probably just started
screaming about stereotypes and gender-normative prejudices. You would be absolutely
right, and that’s the point. If you look carefully enough, you will see that the
more militant feminists among us, who are demanding that “men stop raping women,”
have fallen into this precise trap of relying upon stereotypes and prejudice. The
fact is that there are many women who are physically strong, there are many men
who are emotionally weak, and very few of us actually fit any stereotype. The flaw
of the argument put forward by the well-intentioned feminists is that in
seeking to enlist the support of men, they have instead insulted and confused
them.
These are the same feminists who have expressed their indignation
when well-meaning police officers have urged them to take care about ensuring
their personal safety. Over and over again, police officers and other officials
have been caught out in this well-concealed trap when they have suggested that
women should take reasonable steps to stay safe, such as try to avoid walking
alone at night, avoid certain areas, try to avoid drawing attention, and so on.
There is no doubt that the police officers who have offered this advice have
done so with the best of intentions, and some would say that it really only
amounts to common sense. However, some feminists have instead chosen to be offended.
It is insulting, they argue, to tell women what they already
know. Women already travel at night exercising as much caution as they can.
They are already acutely aware of the danger that could confront them at any time
without warning. Women already take every precaution they can, but rather than
give up their right to actually live a life, sometimes all the precautions in the
world will still leave them vulnerable when the lift they were expecting suddenly
isn’t available, or the friend who was going to walk with them is called away. It
is easy to see why women might consider the advice to take precautions as an
insult to their intelligence. However, the feminists who start lecturing men
about “not raping women” are guilty of delivering a similar insult.
Men, generally speaking, already know not to rape women. They
already know not to abuse women, or to belittle them, or to take advantage of
them or to hurt them in any way. All men have, or had, a mother. Most men learn
from this to respect women, and sometimes even to revere them. Many men have sisters,
many have daughters. To instruct those men, from a lofty perch of some
self-appointed position of moral superiority, that they should stop hurting
women is gravely insulting. To women I say, the vast bulk of men want to be on
your side, and would willingly defend you against harm. However, instead of
enlisting men to the cause, the more strident feminists are pushing them away.
This is the danger of generalisation. The fact is that most
men and women get along just fine, without being instructed by the moral
arbiters of the world. What we all need to remember is that we are not just
women and men, and let’s not forget people who are transgender, the bottom line
is we are all people. We all deserve respect, and we all deserve to be safe. It’s
not just women who get attacked in the street late at night. In fact,
statistics show that men are far more likely to be assaulted by a stranger,
while women are far more likely to be assaulted by somebody that they know and
trust. But either way, we should all have the right to be safe, whether we are
in a public space or we are at home. If we can’t be safe among our own species,
it is a sad indictment on the state of civilisation.
All human beings have primitive urges, related to survival,
sex and self-gratification. Whether we are men or women, it is a mark of
civilised behaviour that we contain those urges and manage them in a way that
is not harmful to others. The argument that men must change their behaviour is
not only insulting to decent men, it is counter-productive and misleading. It
distracts us from the real problems that are confronting us in the modern
world. We forget that we are all in this together, and if we don’t get it right
we will all suffer. That’s why David Leyonhjelm and Sarah Hanson Young are both
wrong.
It’s easy to climb on the bandwagon of popular outrage
against David Leyonhjelm. After all, he didn’t just let the matter rest in the
Senate. After his interjection, Sarah Hanson Young approached him to register
her discontent. Senator Leyonhjelm told her to “F*** off.” This is hardly an
erudite argument in support of his case, and is really a clear case of offensive
behaviour. To compound his foolishness, David Leyonhjelm then embarked upon a
series of media interviews in which he expanded considerably upon his original
suggestion that Sarah Hanson Young should “stop shagging men.” He went on to
refer to rumours and scuttlebutt about the alleged sex life of Senator Hanson
Young, prompting her to respond with the accusation that he was “slut-shaming”
her. And yes, that was the expression she used. Obviously, given the lurid
nature of Senator Leyonhjelm’s ongoing statements in the media, Senator Hanson
Young has every right to complain.
However, it raises the phenomenon of “slut-shaming,” which
is an intriguing concept in itself. Senator Hanson Young claims to be offended
by the suggestion that she might actually have sex, possibly with an
unspecified number of different partners. Now, to be clear, I have no interest
in the Senator’s sex life whatsoever, however I am happy to defend her right to
have one without it being the subject of public comment and scrutiny. The same
should apply for everyone, male, female, and transgender. However, if I were to
speculate, I would suspect that most adults have some kind of sex life,
presumably some more satisfactory than others. That being the case, my question
is a simple one: What is the shame in being a slut?
Yes, of course I know it is a pejorative and denigrating
term. But why? To be insulted by somebody saying that you should “stop shagging
men” implies that there is something inherently wrong with shagging. It has long
been observed that there is a double standard that allows men to be
promiscuous, and even be admired for it, while women are not granted that
luxury by society. To be blunt, it is purely a social construct, which is a
remnant from the outmoded idea that women are the property of men. In such a
paradigm, a woman who sleeps with another man is reduced in value. This disgusting
kind of objectification has been the cultural norm for so long that many people
simply accept it as the natural order. However, in the modern and enlightened
world, where men and women are supposed to be equal, this concept should no
longer apply.
Women, it should not need to be said, not only have the
right to sleep with whomever they please, whenever they please, but they have
been doing so since time immemorial. In the past of course, it was rather
important not to get caught because the consequences in a patriarchal society
could be dangerous in the extreme. But are we kidding ourselves when we claim
that we live in more enlightened times? The liberated woman should enjoy the
same freedom as any man... remember, we are all just people... and so there should
be no shame in enjoying a healthy sex life. The word slut has been used as
verbal weapon to put women in their so-called place, but what does it really
mean? If we were truly liberated, it would mean nothing, because there is no
shame in men and women enjoying each other’s company.
In the case of David Leyonhjelm and Sarah Hanson Young, as
far as I know, he never used the word “slut.” She did. It was clearly an
attempt by her to further escalate the furore. Both she and Senator Leyonhjelm
are not just conducting a personal battle, but a political one. Do not be under
any illusions. Both are politicians, both are prosecuting their ideological agendas,
and both are looking for votes. They are both right, they are both wrong, and
they are both as bad as each other. They are both self-centred, self-serving ideologues
caught up in grandstanding over an issue that is distracting us all from mush
more important matters. They deserve each other, and with any luck neither of
them will survive the next election.
The plain cold hard fact is that this whole argument is a
wagonload of bulldust that is distracting the nation from far more important
matters. While we have been consumed by this debacle for more than week now, the
nation continues to struggle with such trivial issues as wage stagnation that
has seen almost zero real wage growth for the last four years. The nation
continues to spend more than it earns. Health services continue to struggle to
meet demand. Education is at a crossroads, with universities resisting the urge
to change their curricula to suit the whims of private donors. Low income earners
in hospitality have just lost even more of their penalty rates, while
politicians and CEOs keep collecting pay rises.
And that’s without even beginning to look at the bigger
picture. While we have been arguing about gender politics, Palestinian children
have continued to die. It doesn’t matter whether you blame Hamas or the Israelis,
they’re still dead. Syrian civilians have continued to die. Asylum seekers are
still imprisoned on Nauru, despite the fact that it is not illegal to seek
asylum. Yes, I know plenty of Australians don’t want them here, but that does
not justify the blatant disregard of fundamental human rights. The Russians
have demonstrated that they have no compunction about interfering with the
politics of other nations, and the communist government of China is doing much the
same. In fact, the totalitarian dictatorship in China has an appalling record
of imprisoning and torturing political and religious dissidents, but we do
nothing. The dictatorship in China has annexed the South China Sea and turned
it into a military zone, and we are doing nothing. The dictatorship in China is
building the foundations for a political hegemony in the Pacific, complete with
potential future military bases, and yet we are doing nothing.
Why? For two simple reasons: one, they are much bigger and
more powerful than we are, while our good buddy the United States has
introduced something called the “America first policy;” and two, Australia
makes a truck load of money from trade with China, and nobody is prepared to
upset that applecart. There are some very big and serious things going on in
the world, but here in Australia, all we can do is argue about Senator
Leyonhjelm and Senator Sarah Hanson Young and their silly disagreement.
Oh, and plastic bags in supermarkets.
Don’t get me started.