IQ2 2017 - Political Correctness Has Failed Itself

The first debate in the IQ2 series was entertaining and thought provoking. Upon entering, we were asked to vote on whether we were For the statement that political correctness (PC) has failed, Against or Undecided. I chose Undecided. While I was leaning towards being Against the statement, (I believe PC hasn't failed and we still need it, now more than ever), I wanted to hear both sides of the argument and make a better choice at the end.

31% were Undecided at the start, 22% were Against and the remaining 47% were For. This means that at the beginning of the debate, most people felt that political correctness was failing, but many weren't sure and perhaps, like myself, hoped it wasn't and wanted to hear an informed discussion that confirmed its necessity or obsoleteness.

There were two speakers on each team who took turns presenting their arguments. At the end, we were asked to vote again and while the votes were tallied, the floor was opened to questions or statements from the audience. I'll disclose the result at the end.

Here are the speakers:

Image via: The Ethics Centre website

Simon Longstaff hosted the debate and immediately summarised the crux of the argument. Is there a conservative backlash against political correctness or is it a failed movement in itself?

Chris Kenny was the first speaker. He suggested that political correctness was a way in which our thoughts are controlled and shaped. He described this as some sort of dystopian or Orwellian nightmare whereby we are brainwashed into thinking a certain way to police our thoughts and words. You know, like how advertising, education, popular culture, television, movies etc. are dominated by a mostly white, male, hetero/cisgender ideal and shape our identities. He remarked that the Left of the political discourse aims to promote a Utopian ideal. So far, Chris was convincing me to vote for the other team. Perhaps PC works to undo the stereotypes and negative representations that all those other bias mediums communicate in order to condition us, and perhaps PC is a way in which we can achieve a balance. Chris suggested that PC as a tool to achieve this balance had gone too far and in its extremity has instead caused the mainstream to resist. PC has become a buzz word whereby its original intent and meaning has been distorted and has thus failed, becoming a "springboard to all it despises". I can see how anything in its extreme can do that. How over policing language can water down the intention, making it seem absurd and how "political posturing" and "virtue signalling" can become antithetical to common sense. But did that mean that we could or should do away with it all together? Chris' main argument was that political correctness had become alarmist and so prevalent that it was now irrelevant and counter productive. He gave examples of how people and governments can opt for preventative responses to serious events and ideas instead of making a commitment to practical action. Some of the examples he gave were the way in which the Lindt Cafe siege was handled. He suggested that in an effort to protect the feelings of Muslim Australians, police and the public responded in a hypersensitive manner (with hashtags such as #illridewithyou), effectively abandoning the actual victims of the crime. He also mentioned the way in which environmental science is often exaggerated, causing excessive preventative expenditure that doesn't address scientific reality, like responding to droughts by increasing expenditure into ventures like desalination, that were then prevented from going ahead due to flooding. 

Mikey Robbins spoke next for the Negative side, arguing that political correctness was not only succeeding, but was necessary and desirable. He asked if PC was such a failure, then why is it still so prominent in our media? Why do we discuss it so often? Surely if it was failing it would have disappeared, like Trotskyism? If there is such a prevalent need to decry political correctness, doesn't that prove that it's working? It provokes debate and shifts apathy. Mikey talked about how the phrase political correctness originally came about. He said it was a tongue-in-cheek description given to the Left, by and to themselves, to make fun of the way in which language was modified in a changing world to reflect contemporary values and agreed upon phrases and labels that respect marginalised groups in particular. Mikey said he was an advocate and regular participant in exercising free speech, even if it caused offense sometimes, but that didn't mean that PC was unnecessary or failing. He was suggesting that the context and intention of our words can make all the difference. For example, being critical of someone's actions is different to criticising their condition. Saying someone is behaving unjustly is not the same as suggesting the colour of their skin is inferior. PC is simply the term we use to describe something that has always existed; a discourse around what is socially acceptable and known and how we progress these ideas with sensitivity, respect and inclusivity. 


Jacinta Price was the next speaker for the Affirmative and claimed that political correctness distracts us from the real issues, preventing real solutions, particularly for Aboriginal people. She talked about the way her people spoke to one another and while in the mainstream, it can be considered politically incorrect, like referring to herself as a blackfulla, it was a cultural way of communicating that wasn't hurting anyone. Again, like Mikey, she was alluding to the idea that context and intention are very important when we consider how we use language and when it is appropriate to call it out as not being PC. She gave the example of how her mother, a respected Aboriginal Elder who participated extensively in elevating the status and well-being of her people, was denied the right to speak at a prominent Queensland university. Apparently she had been on the SBS program Insight and had said to a young person that she didn't think she looked like a blackfulla, inadvertently suggesting she was too white. People were offended and accused her of being politically incorrect and as a result she was denied the platform to speak publicly, effectively silencing her. Jacinta argued that her mother didn't have any ill intent, it was just the way she spoke. She didn't mean to cause offense and wasn't being "racist", it was benign language and its criticism deflected from the real issues that her mother wanted to address. It got me thinking about context again. Surely, most people in that room understood that Jacinta's mother wasn't being abusive and had ownership over that language as a cultural way of communicating. However, flagging those words as politically incorrect, don't necessarily condemn her or her ideas, they simply point out that better words can be chosen in another context. It prevents giving license to people who would use those words to denigrate or abuse people by suggesting the darkness of your skin determines how Aboriginal you are. I think they should have let her speak at the university, but I'm glad the discussion about her words happened. Of course she isn't racist, but it's necessary to talk about how her words can impact on others and what the consequences may be. Jacinta, like Mikey, talked about the place that humour and offense has in delivering often heavy and serious messages and how if we police our language too closely, we risk silencing vital voices. She suggested that in denying fundamental truths because we are afraid to speak about them and saying the wrong thing, we further enforce incorrect stereotypes. So do we say whatever we want to get our facts straight, or do we say what we want in a way that allows us to examine the facts sensitively? Jacinta mentioned the Bill Leak fiasco and how his cartoon about Aboriginal fathers was perhaps taken out of context and blown out of proportion. She said many Aboriginal fathers who did not identify with the derogatory portrayal, still understood its meaning and that the fact is those fathers do actually exist. She noted that nobody suggested that the cartoon was portraying all Aboriginal men as policemen, as the policeman in the picture was indeed Aboriginal. Both Chris and Jacinta suggested that Bill Leak was being unfairly targeted for his controversial cartoons and it was an example of PC being used in its extreme. She didn't talk about the unequal platform that white journalists and cartoonists have in society generally, compared to Aboriginal fathers who are still experiencing the effects of colonisation, poverty, unemployment and attempted genocide. Jacinta also talked about how Aboriginal women in remote areas are being threatened by their own people, with violence, if they dare to break traditional lore. She said nobody wants to talk about it out of fear of being politically incorrect. It seems that in order to be PC, people refuse to acknowledge that black on black violence has taken more lives that white on black violence and this is hypocritical in the face of the #blacklivesmatter campaign. Again, I thought about the context of privilege and discrimination in which violence happens generally. Shouldn't we be asking why and in what circumstances black people are dying compared to white people? Jacinta stated that she believes that racism and political correctness were two sides of the same coin. That's when she lost me.


Tasneem Chopra was the final speaker and argued for the Negative. Her concerns centred around the notion that when the conversation is dominated by a certain group of people and when those whose lives the issues impact are excluded from the debate, PC is a way in which we address imbalances of entitlement, privilege and representation. Political correctness provides boundaries. It defines the checks and balances that keeps the discourse honest and ensures a level playing field. When there is a lack of representation and when marginalised groups are spoken about instead of being allowed to speak, bigotry and misinformation becomes casualised and eventually becomes acceptable and mainstream; sometimes those who hold those bigoted beliefs can even become POTUS or PM (who in the case of Tony Abbott, a white, male, conservative, suddenly and inexplicably to many, declared himself Minister for Women and Minister for Indigenous Affairs). Tasneem pointed out that PC helps us to identify the issues that divide us and eliminates the Us vs Them mentality that often causes bigotry to escalate, as it is currently, despite the influence and prevalence of political correctness. PC is a siren of the non acceptance of hatred and it helps us to ensure respectful discourse. 

The debate was then handed over to the audience. A few people brought up some excellent points. One man argued that PC is a form of self-censorship that occurs when we have freedom of information. It is a way in which we can police our own thoughts as opposed to censorship being imposed on us by the state. Another person talked about stereotyping and how accurate stereotypes are a way in which we make sense of the world around us. It is when stereotypes become inaccurate assumptions that can cause harm, that PC can help us to keep these inaccuracies in check. Another woman reminded us of when words like kaffir, nigger, wog, faggot and other derogatory terms were an acceptable part of the lexicon and how those insults have been eliminated due to political correctness. It made me wonder if political correctness has gone too far, or if in fact it has forced the scum to the surface. When people get defensive about being PC, are they just showing their true colours, indulging in their cognitive dissonance and refusing to admit that they are out of line and learning from it? Is it PC that is stifling debate or privileged people using it to deflect from the real issues? Which is the argument that is twisted around to minimise political correctness. As Mikey said, surely political correctness has done more good than harm. That quote kept coming to my mind. "When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression". I'd made my decision. I voted Against the statement and went with my initial thoughts. Political correctness hasn't failed. It's working, it's agitating and it's changing the way we see the world, for the better.

The final vote was counted and the results spoke for themselves. It was one of the biggest swings seen in IQ debate history.

Undecided - 13%
For - 18%
Against - 69%

Show Me The Money!!!!

  

Image via: Lancersglobal.com

Today (25th November) is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Everyone is talking about it. We are very good at talking about violence against women. We click our tongues and shake our heads at how awful it is and send love and light and prayers (vom). We like the memes, we pin the ribbon on our shirts and we all agree that violence against women is a tragedy and an epidemic. The statistics are appalling. Around one woman is killed each week in Australia, at the hands of someone she knows, most often her partner. The statistics are also inaccurate. Many cases of violence go unreported and unrecorded. What we know for sure is that most women, I daresay all, will have at one time or another, experienced some form of violence in their lifetime, perpetrated by a man, BECAUSE THEY ARE A WOMAN.

What many people refuse to do is to connect the dots. To see how so many things contribute to the idea that women are less than men. That they deserve to be mistreated and bring it on themselves. That they are not people, that they are not human and that they are not worthy of living a completely free, self determining and whole life, that while living in a differently sex defined body (and that's a huge bloody spectrum anyway) still deserve to be equal.

What I'm saying is that so many things around us are lies and historical power abuses that position women in a compromised place, leaving us open to marginalisation, disadvantage and abuse. Here are two things that happened to me yesterday, just in time for me to write this today, a day when we should be fighting to end this shit once and for all.

First I went to the toy section of Big W. What a farce. 

Apparently, children can only play with certain toys depending on what they have between their legs. Penis children get the mostly blue things. Things with wheels and guns and scary faces and aggro. Vagina children get mostly the pink things. The sparkly, fluffy, smiley and nice things. Boys get violence and power. They also get construction, noise, muscles, weapons. Girls get cleaning equipment, dollies (mummy or bust), makeup and hair accessories. Of course the reality is different. Most kids I see in the toy section run through all the aisles and want to look at everything. Watch the parents though. Are they guiding them to look in "their" aisle or away from the "other" aisle? 

Then this happened. As you may know if you've read my previous posts, I quit my job to look after my children, like I'd planned all along. I had three under two and childcare simply wasn't affordable. It was too far to travel to work. I also wanted to be present in my children's lives for the first couple of years. Having worked since I was thirteen, I decided I'd earned it and was lucky enough to have a partner who could financially support us. He wasn't a financial plan, our partnership was. I also wanted to pursue my writing, start a self-publishing business and embark on a new adventure. It hasn't been easy, but nothing ever is. It would have been harder to continue in a job I wasn't all that satisfied in, traveling into the city and back each day on public transport for sometimes three hours in total and being rushed off my feet to get everything done. I reasoned that it wouldn't be forever and having had extensive education and work experience, I could get back into the workforce pretty easily when the kids were all in care, even if only part-time. All three children will be in childcare for two days of the week as of next year. I hope to work those two days. It won't pay for daycare, but it will contribute and working isn't just about the money. It's about so much more. Like, you know, me being a person and that! 

The rude awakening, while not unexpected, has begun and I'm already livid. I was alerted to a NSW public service position in my local area! What!! First cab off the rank and it's potentially a dream scenario. I was in the public service for eight years before resigning. This new position was part-time; four hour shifts spread across a five day working week and maybe some Saturdays. I knew when I applied that I would only be available on Mondays, Tuesdays and Saturdays, but I could make up the required twenty hours easily. Two lots of eight hour shifts on Monday and Tuesday and four hours on Saturday. I applied anyway, hoping for flexibility. I got none. 

I was called by one of the recruiters to be told that my application was shortlisted. Of course it was. I have nearly a decade of experience in the public service and numerous years of experience in a range of other industries and positions. Mostly service focused. I have a degree and an extensive list of education and training. I am skilled, capable, efficient and have a strong work ethic. So what! She clarified my availability and apologised for wasting my time. She cut me from the list. 

The abruptness of it all was a shock. Again, I will tell you I wasn't surprised, but my hope and optimism was dashed so aggressively and swiftly that it left me furious. I tried to argue a case with her, but she wasn't prepared to even listen. So I wrote a complaint. Here is an excerpt below. Back to the drawing board and back to writing. 

".......My question is, how are women who are forced to give up their employment to raise their children, due to unaffordable and inaccessible childcare options, ever to hope to get their foot back in the door. You would think that the state government would be accommodating and supportive of women who sacrifice their livelihood to provide care for their children without burdening already struggling and competitive systems.

I can't understand these employment practices that demand women be available to provide free labour and free care, and then make absolutely no allowances to support them to ease back into the workforce until they can either afford full-time childcare or their children are of school age. It is misogynist, economically unsound and regressive policy that disadvantages women, children, the public service and their clients. In doing so, experience and expertise is discarded in favour of outdated ideas about workplace policy.

I hope you will consider my experience and make your employment practices more flexible and accommodating for women to ensure better services."

 

Cherry on the cake? Just then, a page I used to follow on Facebook called Bay Retro, a radio station in Malta, posted about Johnny Depp visiting the island. I commented on his history of abuse, particularly considering that today is dedicated to eliminating violence against women. They promptly deleted my comments and blocked me from commenting further. Admittedly, I did tell another commentor to fuck off when she suggested Amber Herd lied, so in their defense they had every right. Not everyone wants to talk about violence against women. Actually maybe I don't. I'm sick of talking. We know the facts. I want action. And it has never ruined a perpetrator's career. Check out the video of Johnny Depp abusing his ex girlfriend in the TMZ video here.

 

A Time to be Impolite

  

Image via: emaze.com

 

The other day, I saw the best Tweet. Thank you @XannieW.

It's funny how whenever there is a debate or clash of ideas, people suddenly become peace makers and fence sitters. Everyone scrambles madly for their high horse and self-righteousness, like the moral high ground is all of a sudden the place to be and the moral high road is the only way to get there. If only they really believed that. They only pull that card when someone stands up to their bullshit, because most of the time they're placing barriers to morality.

As I've said before and will say again, fuck that noise. No. I don't have to be respectful of lies. I don't have to respect bigotry, sexism, misogyny, racism, homophobia, religious delusion, hatred, child abuse, irrational, apologist, cowardly and vile ideas or behaviour.

If you support a sexist and racist arsehole like Donald Trump or Pauline Hanson or Tony Abbott or Scott Morrison or Peter Dutton or Miranda Devine or some other dipshit who's head is so far up their bum, they can't see the light of day....I DON'T HAVE TO LIKE YOU OR BE NICE TO YOU.

If you still believe there's a man sitting on a throne in the sky, telling people who they should be having sex with, telling women what to do with their bodies, asking for heaps of money that never gets to the poor, only to the fat, sexless, perverted priests in their delusional and untouchable cocoons....I DON'T HAVE TO LIKE YOU OR RESPECT YOU.

If you are more offended by me criticising religion, churches, politicians, injustice, people who don't 'get' science, people who are old fashioned, people who refuse to educate themselves, people who are more comfortable with what they have been brainwashed to believe than the truth; if that offends you more than the damage these idiots inflict on all of us.....I DON'T HAVE TO LIKE YOU OR TOLERATE YOUR IGNORANCE.

Opinions are an interesting thing. Everyone has their own view of the world based on their genetics, their upbringing, their education and environment. That is all well and good when it comes to some things. If you hate Skittles, good luck to you. I think they are the tastiest, fruitiest, sweetest lollies on earth. It doesn't bother me if you don't like them. That is a matter of taste and opinion.

If you hate women, people of colour, LGBTIQ, the disabled, think abortion is murder and think it's forgivable to lock up innocent people in detention or excuse pedophile priests; that isn't an opinion. That isn't a logical and acceptable state of mind. It isn't a matter of taste or upbringing or education. If you don't understand those concepts, your opinion is based in fear and ignorance. Not reality and not fact. And your reality and your idea of fact is harmful, destructive and wrong. If you hate Skittles, that doesn't matter to anyone, but you and your deprived taste buds, poor things.

So I'll make it clear. These days I am very comfortable with eliminating people from my circle of family and friends. Since having children in particular, I feel a very strong obligation to be very choosy about who I associate with, who I will allow into my sphere of influence and mutual love, who I expose my children to. I have no time for oxygen thieves. I don't have to be nice. I don't have to explain. It's not my job to accommodate your ignorance.

I am making room for people of like mind and heart. I know many others who are doing the same and we are gravitating towards each other into a force to be reckoned with. We are changing the world. One small step, one system, one decision at a time. 

I urge you all to do the same. No fear. Keep speaking out against the things that you know are wrong. The things that divide us. Look for opportunities to make those "opinions": that women are less, that people of colour are less, that LGBTIQ are less, that different-abled bodies are less; make those "opinions" as unacceptable as they are. Zero tolerance should be applied to those world views that are holding us back.

And try Skittles again. They're delicious.

This is what Racism looks like

Image credit: quickmeme.com

I just had an altercation with the secretary at our solicitor's office.

I had to go in and sign a document for the sale and purchase of our property. My signature had to be witnessed so I had to go in person, which was mildly inconvenient, but no big deal. It was the second such requirement and I'd happily go again.

She knew it was inconvenient and apologised profusely for having to get me to come in with the babies, but the excuse she gave me was what made me see red. She explained that all the bureaucracy and paperwork was a problem because of "all the Asians" buying property.

Pardon?

PARDON?

I rolled my eyes and gasped at my husband a few times to show her that that kind of language was not only absolute rubbish, it was unacceptable. She apologised and told me she wasn't racist, but that's what all the real estate agents were saying.

I chose not to let it go. I chose not to stay silent. I asked her which Asians she was referring to specifically - Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian... I asked her what she meant exactly. She flustered and blundered about how she wasn't racist and was in fact Indian and had an Asian family member. What? WHAT? Sound familiar? Sonia Kruger anyone? 

I told her that she sounded racist. That as someone with an ethnically diverse background, she should know how hurtful and inaccurate that sort of prejudice is. I asked her if she would have felt comfortable saying such a thing to me if I were Asian, or would she have been ok to say it to another Asian person or her Asian family member. She didn't respond. There's your answer. It's racist, I said. I told her I'm not the type to hold my tongue and when I deem it safe, I'm being that example to my daughters. If you see it, hear it and you aren't at risk, say something. 

This is the sort of racist rhetoric that has been acceptable in Australia since its colonial inception. Aboriginal people, Europeans, Asians and now Arabic people and everyone else who isn't white with an Anglo background has had their turn of being the outsiders. The trouble is, people with diverse ethnicity turn on each other too, to appease the dominant paradigm and maintain the status quo. To assimilate and massage their own egotistical fears. How soon people forget what it feels like to be on the receiving end.

We have to be better than this. We can't just sit there and take it when someone makes a stupid, uncalled for, ignorant and hateful comment that lumps people from a particular background together and demonises them. I thought to myself, since when did Australia become like this? But the more I thought about it, the more I realised that unfortunately there hasn't been a time when Australia wasn't like this. There was always some group of people getting in the way of Australia having a white Anglo identity and that is because Australia has never and will never have just a white Anglo identity.

Australia is a diverse country, but if you want to get technical, the original and current custodians are Aboriginal. Our national heritage is Indigenous. The sooner people accept and understand this, the better. Australia was colonised; brutally and without permission. Without negotiation. Without consideration for the people, their culture and systems, the land or the animals. The repercussions of this theft is still being felt today and continues to blight our national identity with shame, violence and injustice. Australia was then, as it is now, a place that is occupied by people from all over the globe. We come to work, to live in safety, to raise families and nurture friendships, to worship as we please; or not at all, to live full and productive lives and to prosper. 

The notion that one way to be Australian is the only way, particularly when that way was falsely and forcefully established is ludicrous. In saying that, there is a way to be truly Australian. And that is to be free. And freedom comes with responsibility.

Saying that we all have freedom of speech, or that everyone has the right to be a bigot is utter nonsense. That isn't freedom. Freedom isn't about your personal freedom, regardless of the impact it has on others' lives and minds. Freedom is about living in peace and enhancing that peace and all it encompasses for everyone, not just yourself. Freedom is about understanding the difference between your own indulgence, privilege and comfort and the space that everyone has a right to in order to live a life free from discrimination, persecution, judgement and prejudice.

Asians are not buying property and making the market difficult for everyone else. People who buy property for investment purposes, regardless of their race or ethnicity, aren't breaking the law. Maybe we need to look at who the law favours and advantages. Maybe we need to look at the politicians and the corporations who disadvantage home buyers in favour of the wealthy.

Aboriginal people don't break the law, aren't unemployed or addicts as though it's a cultural trait. What a nonsensical assumption. There are people from all walks of life suffering in this way. When people become criminals, use substance abuse to appease their pain and find it hard to maintain housing and employment, regardless of their race and ethnicity, they do so for a number of reasons and the colour of their skin, the language they speak or how they choose to worship, does not determine this. Maybe we need to look at the social systems that force individuals into cycles of despair. What does our education system look like and who has access to it? What are we doing to unite people with their families and their communities? How are we evenly distributing the wealth of the country? What equal opportunities do we give to the disadvantaged? And yes, we need to ask why Aboriginal people are more likely to be incarcerated, addicted and displaced. Just look at the history. What on earth would you expect? But look at the success too. Look at the Indigenous groups and communities who thrive. Who succeed and survive every single day in the face of such adversity. The Aboriginal artists, activists, community leaders, sports people, politicians, business owners, academics and elders.

Migrants and refugees aren't coming here to corrupt our society, cheat our welfare systems, terrorise our security and take over our country. They never did. They mostly come to work. To find opportunity and security for themselves and their children and families. They come to contribute and to enjoy the lifestyle many of us take for granted. And lately, many come to stay alive and as a direct result of the policies of terror that our government and their allies actually inflict on them. 

We can't just sit back and let bogans with a mouthpiece hijack our national conversation. If people like Pauline Hanson and Andrew Bolt continue to have free reign with their hatred, these misconceptions are not going to change any time soon. It gives people permission to be stupid. It is divisive and creates conflict. It does not solve the problem, it only feeds it. We must draw the line somewhere. Some things just need to be universally understood as unacceptable. Zero tolerance. No excuses. And this has to be reflected in policy, the law and through the mass media. You don't have the right to be free, if that freedom is at the expense of the freedom of someone else. It's that simple.

When Casual Violence Against Women Was Totally Mainstream

Video source: YouTube.com

The other day I saw an old music video pop up on my news feed online. It was for the Lambada, the forbidden dance from Brazil. Oh the joy of dancing sexily on the beach in the 80s. Dirty Dancing and Footloose were hit movies around that time too. I watched it for old time's sake. I remembered the two children who danced so beautifully. If you watch the video, you'll see them.

I'd forgotten about the 'plot'. The young girl is working with her dad at what looks like a beach bar, while the patrons danced to the band. A young boy makes eye contact with her and invites her to dance. They embrace and start doing the Lambada. A fast paced, close bodied, hip swiveling sway. The children dance with precision, innocently. Doing the moves well and being cheered on by the other dancers.

Suddenly, the dad catches a glimpse of his daughter and exhales cigarette smoke angrily. He storms over to her and whack! SMACKS HER ACROSS THE FACE, (around 1:35). What the fuck! I forgot that bit! The actor just flicks the young girl's hair, obviously, but it's clear it's supposed to portray a slap across the face. Here look:

I'd forgotten about the casual acceptance of violence against women in mainstream popular culture in the 80s, perpetrated by fathers or partners. I got to thinking about other instances I could remember. Footloose was definitely another one. Ariel, the lead character cops it twice. Father and daughter have an argument and WHACK, he slaps her across the face. She also has a fight with her boyfriend. It starts off verbally, then she takes to his car with a bat or something and he slaps her around a bit.

I can't remember if there's a similar scene in Dirty Dancing too. I remember the father being angry at Baby about some stupid shit and her begging his forgiveness while he looked out over the water sulking and her telling him in tears that she loved him and then running away. He stays stoic through it, angry, unforgiving, until his lips start to tremble and he succumbs to his emotions once she's left. 

Video source: YouTube.com

It was interesting to think about such iconic movies and music that casually portrayed violence against women by a person in an intimate relationship with her. When I say interesting I mean outrageous. I don't remember an uproar. I searched online for articles or criticisms. Even footage or photos were difficult to find. I couldn't find reviews that criticised these plots. I momentarily comforted myself about the fact that it was in the past and things have changed for the better. I mean there have been some incredibly empowering films about women who escape or confront violence perpetrated by men. 

Thelma and Louise comes to mind. Although at the end of the movie, they drive off a cliff in a suicide pact. The original story saw them escape to safety in Mexico, but that didn't rate well with test audiences.

Once Were Warriors was another excellent film that looked closely at domestic violence. It confronts the culture of silence and shame that exists around family violence and addresses patterns and cycles of abuse and reconciliation better than any movie I can remember.

Sleeping With The Enemy is a lesser known film about domestic violence, even though it stars a huge Hollywood actress Julia Roberts. I don't remember it getting icon status like Pretty Woman did, even though the story line was a more realistic portrayal of a woman's experience. A woman is more likely to live Laura Burney's life than Vivian Ward's. 

Despite such great advances in popular culture and its attempt to address misogyny and violence against women, Hollywood executives seem to still be missing the point. I wonder if it is a deep seeded and subconscious male privilege or blatant and deliberate sexism known to bring in the big bucks and sell movie tickets in some sick fetishistic way. 

Recently, an uproar did ensue over the poster for the movie X Men: Apocalypse, which portrayed one of the male characters Apocalypse played by Oscar Isaac choking the character of Mystique played by Jennifer Lawrence.  

 

Image source: Huffington Post

I mean really?! I don't care that it's a still from the movie. I'm sure there were other more appropriate images the studio could have used.  

You may be wondering what the point to all this is. I mean, surely we can all tell the difference between popular culture, entertainment and reality. We see all sorts of injustices in movies and on TV and in music videos. That doesn't mean we are declaring those things are acceptable. Or are we? What level of desensitisation are we experiencing. 

When a rapist gets 6 months jail for brutally assaulting a young woman while she was unconscious, because he was a college swimmer and the punishment to his heinous crime might have an adversary effect on his future (never mind the effect of his actions on the young woman in question's whole life), it does make you wonder how one thing (popular culture) impacts the other (justice systems). The victim wrote the perpetrator a letter and it says everything so much better than I ever could.

You can't boycott everything, but you can criticise it and see right through it's bullshit facade. And you can change the script. I hope to see more scripts turned on their heads and I hope to see those ideals reflected in reality.