what (some) men in power do to women who threaten them
i have just realised that i have seen this happen twice now - the slow but steady insidious character assassination of a woman who threatens a man (or group of men) in power.
i saw it happen in a students' association back in the late nineties - a man, aided at times by his cronies, identified a friend of mine as the leader of a faction that opposed him and so he subtly harassed her and lied about her in public until there was a groundswell against her and he did his best to push her over the edge mentally. constant petty erosion of sanity by such seemingly innocuous tactics like sitting outside her office for hours on end reading an old newspaper upside down, always coming up to her table at the pub and taking her seat whenever she stood up to get a drink, deliberately baiting her in meetings in snide ways designed to force an emotional reaction through the use of trigger words which would get a reaction out of most people (the example that comes to mind is calling someone who has believed in honouring the Treaty since childhood a racist). and then there were the leaflets and speeches denouncing her as mad and misguided and incapable and incompetent (all of which was untrue).
i have seen it happen again in the now and i hate it. i hate it passionately because it is so dishonest.
if you disagree be honest enough to disagree on the principle, or the policy, or the idea, but don't take the nasty despicable path of demonising the person to lose their side of the argument support. it is much easier to drive things on an emotional basis - people will react without thinking and write other people off much more quickly.
of course we all slip up and make remarks that we probably shouldn't. but what i am talking about here is a systematic attempt to undermine someone, usually a woman, by making them out to be weak, emotional and not capable of rational thought. this is so much easier when the target is a woman - even other women will write off their own once they start crying at a meeting, i have seen it happen. just because you are emotional does not mean you are irrational, but in our culture this is not the dominant belief. think about how women who make allegations of rape have been treated historically - false allegations get media coverage when proven ones do not, and yet false allegations would be well less than 5% of all those made (not to mention all the ones that are never made).
an emotional reaction does not mean you do not have an intellectual or moral argument to support that reaction.
10 comments:
Span, being someone who has marched down Queen Street and burnt effigies of Wyatt Creech, do you think that hurt his feelings? If I said that you did it because he was a man, would I be off-beam? Similarly, trying to paint your friend's illegal actions as Vice President of the Student Union as being all a sexist beatup rings hollow.
It also lacks perspective. Your friends, and many of their predecessors spent most of the 1990s vilifying, banning and assasinating the character of the alleged harrasser you mention in personal attacks completely ignoring the issues he raised. Most of what was said about him were lies and exaggerations. Your friends were also known to make calls to the parents of a certain AUSA Treasurer pretending to be women he had "knocked up", as well as falsely accusing him of sexual harrassment/date rape. And I'm not even going to start on some of the shit I myself had to put up with from your friends.
Now the past is past and I don't want to relitigate it, because your memory is obviously different from mine, but to use this example to make the point you're trying to make could be seen as both dishonest and hypocritical. Your friend got rolled because she lacked a conscience, not a penis.
blair you miss the point.
i was trying to say that character assassination, rather than arguing the point, is dishonest and that it is, in my opinion, easier to carry out against women than against men, if carried out in the ways that i have seen twice now (neither time against me).
as someone who was close to the person harrassed in the situation i have mentioned of course i will have a different recollection to you, who was close to the person on the other side. i would point out to you the current situation on shortland street (although this is not the second case i was referring to) as an indication of how people can think they have the true version but do not. fair enough that you could say the same about me, but that doesn't stop me from thinking that i am right.
in terms of illegal actions and the making false allegations i would be careful. beyond the civil disobedience component i'm honestly not aware of any.
in terms of effigies - i wouldn't really call that character assassination, i would call that an action fuelled by anger after years of being ignored and lied to. now that i'm a bit older and (possibly) wiser i'm a bit torn on the effigy issue myself, but we always argued the ideas about the education system, and the occassional burning of the minister in effigy (especially after he was so kind as to provide a photo to improve our accuracy in depicting him) doesn't change that. we didn't actively harass him and try to paint him as a feeble-minded idiot in the media to discredit his argument (although of course we speculated about his intelligence in private). (in reality this was a succession of "him" as the minister changed three times during my time, not including the new Govt in 1999.)
i find your indignation interesting. i have not named anyone, in fact to those who were not involved it would be unclear who i was referring to. of course you have made it very easy to identify people now, in line with the frequent spitting of vitriol that takes place on your own blog which i have ignored. i know this is going to sound patronising, but it is sincerely not meant this way, but i wish you could be a bit less bitter about things - especially as your side won!
have you even wondered about why many of us involved in AUSA at that time have suffered mental illness? because we were not kind to each other, in fact we were very cruel, basically all of us. we smashed each other up emotionally and mentally, a bit like being in prison i suspect. i wanted to avoid continuing to do that, and perhaps it would have been wiser to have used the other case i am talking about as an example, however i thought an historical example would be less raw than a current one.
of course you have a different view - as do i, as does basically everyone else who was around then - much of it is coloured heavily by the abuse that we carried out on each other, and i hope that in the future, while i know we can't be friends, we can at live side by side in the blogosphere. perhaps i was a bit naive to hope that we have already reached that.
Yikes! It sounds like your friend was psychotically stalked and harrassed far past the point of robust political debate.
pretty much MTNW. it was quite startling to me when i did some work on Harassment networks and the like and had a look at the Harassment Act. lately i've been looking at workplace bullying and i guess that has brought a lot of this to the forefront of my mind.
in terms of the second situation i mentioned i am hoping that i will be able to blog about that in the near future, but right now it is too raw. in this case the harassment and character assassination has been more subtle, but it has been just as deliberate and pointed at undermining the viewpoint that the person has espoused through nasty means.
stephen posts anonymously, curse you...
Anyway: this behaviour is not limited to men and in fact the worst practitioners I have ever known personally were women. This is classic high-school bullying behaviour. You rarely see it once you enter the adult world, thank goodness.
The only effective counter is serenity. This causes the perpetrator either to give up, or to escalate to the point where others cotton on. Either that or a good kicking in a dark alley way...
I find it rather amusing that people still talk at length about events that occurred in 98/99 (good vintage in terms of wine I might add). Instead of talking about events that happen years ago, what are you doing in the real world to make a world a better place?
I certainly hope that you have not just locked yourself away in cyberspace and are in fact working to give a voice to those people that do not have a voice.
Speaking of AUSA in the late 90's (or should I say the student population) can you tell me what happen to the following people?
Mark O'Brien, Sarah Lee, Sarah Helm, Mark Van Zon, Alex Spence, Ross Stanley, Les Milligan, John Neal, Darryl Godfrey,
Steff Thompson, Eva Nietzert, Tony Wilson, Larrisa Wakim and Sam Huggard?
well for me i am still working on left wing stuff - i work for a union as my grown-up job, and i am also still active in the Alliance. i also campaigned for City Vision in the Auckland City Council elections recently, get involved in other campaigns as I get a chance.
as for what happened to all those people - Steff and Tony have blogs (Ranting on the ROK and Wilson's World, which I haven't put a link up to yet, but there is one from Just Left). Steff is teaching in Korea, Tony is studying I think. Mark started his own property management company after working in that area for someone else (he's still v left and in the Alliance), Sarah L is working at AUT, Helm is in Wellington but I'm not sure what she is doing now, Van Zon started up an immigration assistance business with Jethro but turned it into a language school when the immigration rules changed, Spence is writing freelance I think (won a Qantas media award a couple of years ago), Ross I have no idea about, Les is a primary teacher, John is working at UOA, Darryl is a researcher at the EPMU, Eva won a Bright Futures and is working on her PhD in London, last I heard Larissa was studying towards an LLM in the USA, Sam is managing the Otago Volunteer Centre.
I only really brought the past up as an example. To be honest it isn't something I dwell on much anymore Mr/Ms Anon. But it was a big chunk of my life - it was when I grew up basically.
I accept that my words were a bit harsh - my apologies. I should have made my point in a less hostile manner.
It's difficult to rise above bitterness when, in my opinion, AUSA is now in an even worse state than I believed it to be in 1997. It makes everything I did seem like a waste of time.
Fair call on the high intake of antidepressants among student politicians. We can only pray for a kinder, gentler world, lol. :oD
Perhaps I've got a tad old and cynical but it seems to me that student unions are still in essence doing the same bullshit they did before we were there and so it isn't surprising that they are doing the same bullshit after we left. The only change in the script is the names.
Perhaps of far more interest is what the hell they all ended up doing with their lives.
Post a Comment