...achieving outcomes, going forward.

vivzilla:

Dear Bob Ellis,

Every time a woman suffers sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault or is otherwise violated, she suffers some form of trauma. She then suffers a rather disgraceful question: what should I do now? The reason this question is disgraceful is because it reflects badly on us. Australians, and Australian men in particular. We have created a society where women often do not have a remedy for being treated disgustingly by men. When someone is sexually assaulted in NSW, there is a 15% chance she or he will report it to the police.

That is, 85% of victims – overwhelmingly female – won’t report it when they are raped.

Part of the reason is the lack of sympathy to rape victims in the criminal justice system. There is the well known ordeal rape victims face in going through a trial. There is the likelihood that the rapist will not be convicted.

And there is the problem that many people will not believe her. There is the problem that many people will say it’s not a big deal. That it was probably her fault.

Bear in mind, according to NSW Rape Crisis Centre, “One in five women in Australia will experience sexual assault at some time in their life.”

The number who suffer other forms of sexual harassment and abuse is incomparably higher. They, too, suffer in silence. They know better than to expect the criminal justice system to care. If someone who is raped can’t expect sympathy or understanding, why should they?

These results draw on a broader political culture in Australia. A culture that blames victims, that trivialises their experiences, and expects them to tolerate what we should all agree is intolerable.

Mr Ellis: do you think your column today was constructive? Do you think, bearing in mind the above, that it helped the situation facing women today? Or do you think that you have contributed to Australia’s disgraceful sexist culture of trivialising the experiences of women who suffer sexual abuse?

As far as your arguments go, I find it hard to believe you could actually think they are reasonable.

You begin by implying that if women “are tough enough for service on any battlefront”, they should be “tough enough to be peeked at in the shower”. Firstly, that isn’t what happened. Secondly, these statements are only inconsistent if you think that men have a right to treat women with contempt when they join the army. This kind of logic could presumably be used to justify anything. If men are tough enough for service on any battlefront, they should be tough enough to face a little electrocution, no? I mean, maybe they should be willing to face being mistreated, but that is an entirely separate proposition from whether we, as taxpaying Australians, should support an institution that violates the rights of Australians.

You then go on to cite various authorities on voyeurism, such as the Bible. I too, go to the bible whenever I need guidance on how to treat women. For example, Deuteronomy 22:28 teaches us that if a man is caught raping a virgin not pledged to be married, he has to pay her father 50 shekels and marry the woman, and may never divorce her. I also look to Numbers 31, when Moses instructed his men to kill all the Midianites, except female virgins “keep alive for yourselves.”

The point, Mr Ellis, if it is not obvious to you, is that our ideas of respecting women and opposing sexual assault have changed slightly over the last few thousand years.

You then describe a “tiny variant on what probably happened”: that the woman agreed to be filmed. This shows how truly you do not get the issues at all. The whole issue is that she did notagree to it. If she did agree to it, there would be no problem at all. Consenting adults can do whatever they like in the privacy (or otherwise) of their bedrooms (or elsewhere) – so long as it is consensual. If she didn’t agree to it, it’s wrong. Just as surely as it would be wrong if she filmed it without his consent.

Why can’t you understand that what was done was wrong? Do you find it so hard to empathise? Can you not understand that if it were you, you would feel hurt? Angry? Betrayed? Violated? That you couldn’t trust anyone around you? I would probably prefer if Australia abolished its army – but as long as we do have one, it is probably crucial to its functioning that soldiers trust each other.

Not only this, but according to media reports, the other cadets are angry at her.  Not at the men who secretly filmed her having sex without her consent, and broadcast it on the internet. Doesn’t that say a lot about the culture within the army created and maintained by our tax dollars? I mean, in my view, it would be ideal if no one joined the army. Or any army for that matter. But in light of the sordid culture that has been uncovered, why would any sane woman want to join such an institution? Do you think having a male-only army would be a good thing?

You then write, Mr Ellis, that considering everyone would probably soon have known the two were having sex, where was the “grave wrong in seeing” it happen? The idea that knowing two people had sex is the same as seeing it is so preposterous one hardly knows how to begin ridiculing it. Mr Ellis, considering you were born, you presumably know that your parents had sex. Do you think knowing this fact is the same as watching your parents have sex? By your logic, knowing that your parents had sex would be the same as letting you watch, and they would have no reason to believe any grave wrong occurred. Does this sound like a reasonable position to you, Mr Ellis?

You then go on to write that “She would almost certainly have got over it, in three years or ten.” Ok. I have a friend whose father died about ten years ago – she seems to have basically accepted it by now. Does that mean it wasn’t traumatic?

Mr Ellis, there are other people who agree with you. Andrew Bolt, for example, complained that what happened is “actually trivial”: “One teenage girl cries, and the whole ADF must now tremble and turn pink.” Is this the kind of company you want to keep on this issue?

I think Australians should learn to respect women and treat them with basic decency.

Or perhaps you disagree.


Yours sincerely,

Michael Brull

THIS!

What really amuses me about whenever Bob Ellis leaves his trail of herpaderp all over the Drum is how many people of older generations than me seem shocked by it all. I’ve never known him to be anything other than an old goose who, when he’s on tv, always seems drunk.

Perhaps he wrote something good or important in years gone by but that to me seems to be far too long ago for him to be still considered relevant. 

When I was working in the Cairns Casino I’d often arrive on the floor to replace a guy who had been in the industry as long as casinos had been in Australia. He had started back at Wrest Point in a time when people would dress up to go to the casino, and the penalty rates for dealers were so outrageous that some used to work casual for half the year, then take the other half off skiing around Europe. He would often greet me by saying, “Welcome once again, young man to this international playground of the idle rich.” It was a standard joke the two of us had as we then looked around and saw no playground, and certainly no idle rich. The line was a sort of gallows humour – an attempt to divert us from the grim task we were there to do – namely, take money from people, and make them feel good while doing it. One of the other jokes we had was to refer to the pokies in the casino as “wages” – they took people’s to pay ours. This joke was unfortunately much nearer the truth. Working in a casino provides an interesting insight into people’s psyche – on both sides of the gaming tables. One of the first things a new dealer has to get used to quickly is to not give a damn about whether the punters won or lost – because they mostly lost. Often the reaction of the staff was then to become indifferent – all that mattered was that things were run well, that everyone was happy, that turnover was good, that no mistakes were made. Punters would often accuse us of wanting them to lose – mostly that was not the case (unless they were particularly loathsome), we didn’t need to want them to lose, mathematics took care of that for us. On the games I dealt and supervised the House advantages were as follows: Blackjack – 0.80% Baccarat (banker) – 1.17% Baccarat (player) – 1.63% Roulette (single zero) – 2.7% Caribbean Stud Poker – 5.26% Big Wheel – 11.1% to 24% Sic-Bo – 2.78-18.98% We didn’t need to wish or try and rig the game, the mathematics had rigged it for us already. All we had to do was keep the turnover going and keep you happy – happy enough so that if you did happen to win, you would come back. Because the golden rule of the casino world is that the house always wins in the end.

The first half of this was so sad but then the second half was so bam.