He said/she said: Aaron Smith

Part one of a probably-eternal series where Rob and Stephanie each share their thoughts on a topical, annoying issue.

[Content note: discussion of assault and non-consent]

Rob says:

Oh for god’s sake rugby union. You just don’t get it do you? It’s not sex that’s the issue – even airport toilet sex – it’s misusing power and ignoring non-consent.

If anything this business with Aaron Smith shows you haven’t learned a thing. Regardless of how Jersey Shore consensual sex in an airport toilet is, it’s consensual.

And disciplining a consenting adult for having sex with another consenting adult is ridiculous.

Honestly, mistaking feminist (actually humanist) concern for abuse of power (ie what happened with the Chiefs) for some kind of Victorian prudishness only shows how dangerously out of touch and unqualified to provide role models to young men like my son, you are.

Maybe you should take a deep breath and have a cup of tea:

Stephanie says:

I started off yesterday, hearing about the Aaron Smith incident, rolling my eyes. Of course NZ Rugby was going to respond far more immediately and drastically to a dude having consensual sex in a public bathroom than they ever would to a group of players being accused of outright assault against a stripper.

But, you know. “Obviously it was silly of him to do that, what was he thinking?”

By the end of the day? I was saying “you have all the bathroom sex you like, mate.”

Because the headlines – WHAT THE WITNESS SAW! SMITH’S PARTNER ASKS FOR PRIVACY, HERE’S A PHOTO OF HER ON OUR FRONT PAGE! OUR CAMERAS INVESTIGATE THE TOILET IN QUESTION! HAVE YOU HEARD FAMOUS PEOPLE HAVING SEX? CONTACT OUR NEWSDESK – were so prurient and predatory that I felt like I’d been transported directly into the pages of the defunct News of the World.

Yes, it’s incredibly shit to misuse accommodations provided for people with disabilities. And if Smith were cheating on his partner at the time, it’s awful for her to have this played out in the media.

But you know what? As a nation, we’ve completely lost the right to cast aspersions on anyone else’s lack of judgement.

A great few days for sexism in New Zealand

Team, I can’t.

But who needs feminism any more? Let’s just lean in, amirite?

If you haven’t been keeping a keen eye on the ongoing

I’m talking about this headline:

revenge-headline

And the perpetual nudge-nudge joking tabloid tone taken in almost every headline about Colin Craig’s sexual harassment of a person who worked for him – “Colin Craig’s love poem!!! More love letters to press secretary revealed!!! Details of explicit text read in court!!!”

And then there was this (thank God once again for The Spinoff’s cutting snark):

Good news: The Chiefs scandal didn’t really even happen!!!

… There was an apparently rigorous investigation into the events of the evening conducted by the general counsel of New Zealand Rugby – a guy who loves his job and has been on the NZR team for over a decade. Which means that one branch of New Zealand Rugby investigated another branch of New Zealand Rugby and found that everything was basically okay.

This is a little bit like Colonel Sanders being put in change of an inquiry into the 11 secret herbs and spices and pronouncing them delicious. At a press conference today three blokes delivered the verdict: everything is fine, none of it really happened and wow isn’t fried chicken the best.

Look, ladies, it’s easy to stay out of trouble in New Zealand. Just don’t break up with men, don’t work for men, don’t call out men for assaulting you, and generally just don’t be in the vicinity of men. Especially if they’re someone you know, someone you loved, someone you worked for or a team of someones celebrated as the peak specimens of your country’s masculine prowess.

Now let’s all get back to overcoming sexism by asking for payrises. Or alternatively, listen to some good angry music.

[Content note: sexual violence]

Rugby culture does not have to be a toxic dump of bigotry

Sigh.

Chiefs players also hired a stripper on the night one of them was caught chanting a homophobic slur toward teammates.

Franchise bosses have confirmed a stripper was engaged by players for their post-season get-together at a Waikato hot pool and said he was “Very disappointed” and conceded the two incidents weren’t a good look for the professional sports franchise.

I agree. It’s not a “good look”. But not for any of the reasons Chiefs CEO Andrew Flexman thinks.

Because the problem is not, in fact, “the Chiefs hired a stripper.” Hiring a stripper, taboo and saucy as it may seem, is a very common, dare one say “normal” part of Western culture.

The problem is that the Chiefs hired a stripper, then crossed her professional and personal boundaries – and yes, those boundaries are still valid, even more valid, for sex workers.

And there’s a wider problem, but it’s not “the Chiefs hired a stripper, which is embarrassing and unprofessional, the very same night Michael Allardice was a homophobic git to his teammates, which got bad headlines.”

The wider problem is that the Chiefs in particular, and our rugby culture in general, has been (once again) exposed as a hotbed of sexism, homophobia, and small-minded bigotry.

What we’re dealing with here is the concept of toxic masculinity. No, it doesn’t mean “all masculinity is toxic” or “all men are sexist pigs”; it’s a very specific set of assumptions and attitudes which are incredibly harmful to everyone in a society. A few completely random examples of these attitudes are:

  • Real Men are heterosexual.
  • Real Men are sexually aggressive.
  • The worst thing that could happen to a Real Man is for someone to think he’s weak. Or gay.
  • Therefore, a Real Man will treat women, especially sex workers, as objects rather than human beings.
  • And also deflect attention and undermine other men by implying they’re gay, especially if they engage in non-strictly-masculine behaviour.

selena gomez just saying

Now, people may say “oh, nobody at the Chiefs intended to reinforce awful narrow-minded notions about women, masculinity, sex work and sexuality” but those people need to re-read the excuse Andrew Flexman came up with to excuse his players’ obnoxious behaviour:

But Flexman strongly denied the allegations of improper behaviour, saying the franchise had independent witnesses who saw nothing untoward toward the woman.

“You have got to remember this is one person’s accusation and her standing in the community and culpability is not beyond reproach,” Flexman said.

“Her standing in the community is not beyond reproach.” On what basis does he make this judgement call? Well, obviously. She’s a stripper. Not a real human being who can be trusted to say whether or not her professional and personal boundaries were transgressed.

It’s the basic sexual double standard. Women who strip for money? Deviant, unworthy of protection or dignity. The men who pay money to watch a woman strip? Phwoar, yeah, red-blooded, pure testosterone, etc.

Men who use homophobic slurs and abuse sex workers? Especially when they’re rugby-playing men? Well, look, obviously it’s not a good look or anything but obviously nothing serious happened. They were just doing what Real Men do.

You can see this whole attitude reflected in the article. “Chiefs in hot water” – not “Chiefs players disgrace themselves”. Why? “Over stripper fracas”. Not “Over acting like pigs.” Not “By assaulting a sex worker.” This headline practically screams, “this is not a serious story.” Its subtext is simple: sure, yes, the PC Brigade are going to complain but there’s no big story here, it’s just a little PR boo-boo.

Still, maybe we should hold judgement until that well-known arbiter of sexism in sport, unrepentant convicted abuser Tony Veitch, gives us his two cents on the matter.

Like the headline says: our rugby culture does not have to be a toxic pool of radioactive misogyny and homophobia. It is entirely possible to enjoy sport, or play sport, as a competitive athletic endeavour of teamwork and skill and not act like a pack of vicious insecure bullies. Men don’t have to prove they’re Real Men through aggressively signalling “I AM A PERFECTLY NORMAL HETEROSEXUAL” by groping sex workers and shouting homophobic slurs.

There’s no such thing as one true model of A Real Man.

But if there were, it wouldn’t look like Andrew Flexman or his sad little rugby team.

Tony Veitch is a danger to women

[Content note: violence against women, intimate partner violence, graphic images]

Things you can see on Tony Veitch’s Facebook page right now

This image, shared by Tony Veitch himself:

veitch 1

This comment by Tony Veitch himself:

veitch 3

This image shared by a fan of the page, liked by 11 people, and not moderated or removed 12 hours after it was posted:

veitch 2

And this self-pitying tirade by Veitchy, referring to his struggles “rebuilding his life and career” after “what was a hideous relationship”:

veitch 4

Then there’s this post (now deleted; see below) accusing media who are reporting this story of just being jealous because he turned down a job offer.

veitch media attack

Things you can’t see on Tony Veitch’s Facebook page right now, or ever

  • Any kind of acknowledgement that he committed an act of violence which broke a woman’s back and put her temporarily in a wheelchair
  • The fact that the “hideous relationship” he’s claiming to be the victim in may have involved long-term abuse and physical violence committed by him.

This cannot surprise us. This is how our society treats violent men who have the privilege of whiteness and an association with the cult of sport.

Take this 2013 article about how awesome Tony Veitch’s year was. It never mentions that he broke a woman’s back. It talks about a “bombshell” – but only in reference to the hush money he tried to pay his ex partner. And only after 8 paragraphs painting him as a tragic hero, fighting so hard to rebuild his whole life after … well, nothing really, just “one charge of injuring with reckless intent.”

And check out this bio on the Newstalk ZB website:

veitch bio

Do you see the problem? I see the problem.

Maybe Tony Veitch is no longer the kind of guy who allegedly chases his partner through a house, pins her to beds and punches her. But he is a man who casually uses violent language. A man who is utterly, utterly unrepentant about his own violent history. A man who jokes about violence and encourages jokes about violence. A man who stands as an example of what you can get away with if you’re rich, famous and white enough.

Not only was his “apology” a litany of excuses. Not only was he almost immediately granted “a second chance”. He now, unapologetically, deliberately, defiantly encourages people to joke about violence, including domestic violence against women. He is an active creator of toxic masculinity.

He may not be a direct threat to the women in his life, now. But he’s a danger to every woman in society.

Mils Muliaina, rape culture, and sharpening my pitchfork

The news that a former All Black had been arrested in connection with a sexual assault case did not surprise me in the slightest.

It cannot surprise anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to professional sports. Whether it’s rugby, league, soccer, the NFL, it’s seems there’s never a week without a player, a group of players, or an entire team being accused, and sometimes convicted, of assault or rape.

There are almost no details of the charges against Muliaina so far. But that hasn’t stopped people rushing to pre-judge the case.

And no, I don’t mean me and my merry band of evil Twitter feminists.

This is the thing with high-profile rape and assault cases: you don’t actually see people saying “oh he definitely did it” (unless, you know, he admits to doing stuff which is quite clearly rape). But you might see people pointing out that this kind of thing happens a lot. And you might see people like me pointing out that the rate of false reports is very low. Or that the public response is usually antagonistic towards victims. And that this antagonism makes it incredibly difficult for other victims to step forward.

We’ll probably say those two words which are a red rag to a misogynist bull, “rape culture” – which is really nothing more than a way of summing up all the above.

We don’t say a thing about Mils Muliaina, whether he’s guilty or innocent.

But we’re obviously the people doing the pre-judging of the case.

Not the people who say the accused is “a gentleman and a family man” but the complainant is “probably a gold-digger”. Not the journalist in the story linked above who talks about what a “great job” Muliaina has done. Not the people who accuse feminists of “getting out their pitchforks”.

Before we even know the slightest detail, the framing has already begun. He’s a hero. No one could possibly believe he’d do it. He’s a great man. Everyone likes him. Pillar of the community. Role model for young men. There’s got to be an explanation for this, and the only credibly one involves him being completely innocent. There are clearly two sides to every story (and we will only discuss his one!)

And the unnamed, unknown complainant is at best written off, and at worst already being castigated as a villain intent on bringing Our Man Mils down.

Maybe this is mistaken identity. Maybe this is a mix-up. Maybe Mils Muliaina is as pure as the driven snow, and maybe this is the incredibly rare case of a malicious false complaint.

It’s far too early, and we know far too little, to say yet.

So why are so many people – people on his side – already jumping to conclusions?