spinofflive
flowers sympathy death
flowers sympathy death

SocietyDecember 10, 2018

Rules won’t save women

flowers sympathy death
flowers sympathy death

Karla, Kirsa, Kirsty, Teresa, Christie, Sophie, Grace. Every woman has the name of another who taught them it’s not safe to be a woman. But what are men being taught?

They were known as the Bega Schoolgirls but I’ll always remember their names. Lauren Margaret Barry and Nichole Emma Collins. They were 14 and 16. I was 12. They were raped and murdered 21 years ago.

I was only four years old when Leigh Rennea Mears was murdered on a beach, but a decade later at school we all talked about “Leigh Leigh”.

In the winter of 2000, I was 14. We knew that girls our age were being raped at train stations around Sydney by packs of men. And we learned to walk carrying sticks we picked up from the bush on our way to the school where a few decades earlier Chris Dawson had taught P.E before his wife went missing, presumed murdered. This week he was arrested.

Sticks wouldn’t have been any protection from us being added to the list of names we knew. I moved to New Zealand and new names found a place in my head and heart – Sophie Elliott was born on the same day as I was. I used to think often of her mum and dad and my mum and dad holding us both at the same moments in two different countries.

I still remember the number of times she was stabbed.

My friends of all ages have names they’ll remember forever too – Karla Cardno, Kirsa Jensen, Mona Blades, Teresa Cormack, Christie Marceau.

They all have one woman who taught them it’s not safe to be a woman. And we don’t just remember the names, the faces, how and where they died. We remember how they were talked about too.

I went to school with Jennifer Hargreaves. She was murdered by the side of the road in 2001, aged 17. I remember staring out of the church window at her funeral and seeing blossoms in the trees and desperately hoping her family would find peace somehow, though it seemed impossible without her.

When I returned to Wellington from Auckland after the funeral, I heard my new classmates talk about her: “Well, she was hitchhiking so that’s why it happened.” We told ourselves, and we were told by all the people in our lives, that there was a list of rules we could live by. If we followed those rules we wouldn’t become a warning to other girls.

Leigh Leigh shouldn’t have been at a party.

Those girls at the train station should have come home sooner, not stayed late – even if it was just to finish studying for their exams.

Jennifer shouldn’t have hitch-hiked.

Sophie had an older boyfriend.

If we followed the rules, we might be OK. Everyone talked about the rules. Don’t go out after dark. Don’t talk to strangers. Don’t talk to older boys. But Kirsty Bentley was just walking her dog. It was 3pm.

Still, we were told about the rules. We all knew them. So why did girls just like us keep dying?

Today, a new generation of girls will head to each other’s houses, to end-of-year school catch-ups, with Grace Millane’s name on their lips, they’ll talk about the rules. The rules Grace would have known too, because she surely had her own list of names from her own home country.

Things don’t seem to have changed for these girls. We learned these rules from the adults around us. They taught us, whether they intended to or not, that the men who killed girls just like us were not wholly responsible. They made us believe that even the youngest girls were somehow partly to blame. After all, they didn’t follow the rules.

I wonder as more information comes out about Grace’s death what will young girls around New Zealand learn from adults? What have they already been told? About backpacking? About being out after dark? About talking to men?

And what will our boys and young men learn? What message will we be teaching our sons, grandsons, brothers, nephews – if adults start talking about the rules? The rules that don’t actually protect women anyway?

What reinforcement will we be giving to the men who bash women for talking back, or rape women because they didn’t follow the rules? What will they hear when you talk about the rules?

When people talk about Grace do they teach young men that if a woman is backpacking alone, she’s partly responsible for whatever comes her way? That young women who go to hotel rooms alone, or talk to strangers, are “playing with fire” – all of which I’ve heard over the past couple of days?

Will these young men learn they’re just a match ready to be lit – that their destructive power lies just below the surface, ready to be ignited by women? That they, as men, can’t help but harm?

Many parents will be talking to their daughters about Grace; mothers will be thinking about the names of those who came before her.

But how many parents will talk to their sons?

How many will reject the rules and ensure they raise and know men who aren’t given a checklist of what good women don’t do? That they aren’t given a cheat sheet to view some women as compliant in their own brutalisation?

I’ve heard many people say about Grace’s death that this isn’t New Zealand. But it is. And it is Australia too. It’s every young girl growing up knowing these names, and young boys not knowing these names.

Rules won’t save women. Rejecting the idea that men aren’t entirely responsible for the destruction they enact on women just might save some women. Ensuring the next generation of young men know that there are no rules that exempt them from liability when they attack women would be a start.

If all boys knew the names of these women, knew the ripple effect of heartbreak of all of these young lives lost forever – knew their importance, instead of seeking to highlight perceived recklessness – maybe there might be change.

Young girls know always what they can’t do (not that it matters – they’re killed regardless).

Do young men know what they can’t do? What if they had rules? Like, no means no. Girls and women are not objects for you to use and abuse. You have no right. No right at all to hurt and harm and kill. Would that save lives?

Hope lives only in the idea that new baby girls born today might grow up without the names of other little girls weighing heavily on them in the dark. That they might survive to be adults who can tell their daughters that the rules are bullshit and that the rules don’t apply.

That they might have sons that they teach instead.

Keep going!
Alex Braae, played here by a model, confronts data. Image: Getty
Alex Braae, played here by a model, confronts data. Image: Getty

SocietyDecember 10, 2018

Data! Opinions! The results of The Spinoff’s major national survey with UMR

Alex Braae, played here by a model, confronts data. Image: Getty
Alex Braae, played here by a model, confronts data. Image: Getty

The Spinoff and UMR this year undertook a major research project, surveying 1000 readers and 1000 general population on a range of contemporary issues. Each day this week we’ll release a different set of data, beginning with Alex Braae analysing five graphs which collectively give an overview of scope of the project.

Earlier this year, The Spinoff embarked on a major (read: expensive) research project, in partnership with UMR Research. Within it we surveyed 1000 readers of The Spinoff and 1000 members of the general population to show the ways the two groups intersect, and where they differ. It ended up creating a tranche of fascinating data not only about the people who read our site, but about the country as a whole.

So over the rest of the week, we’re going to roll out a series of pieces on that data. It’s a big project, and frankly was a lot of information for us to get our heads around. But to get us started, here are five graphs that we’ve pulled out which show some of the attitudes Spinoff readers hold, and how they compare with the country at large.

Just a quick note on this series as well – some readers will look at the graphs and come to the conclusion that it’s a sign Spinoff readers are living in a bubble, compared to the so-called middle or real New Zealand. That’s a false narrative – all of our respondents for both sets of data are New Zealanders. We’re all as real as each other, living in a country where there is a diversity of opinion. It’s a really good thing to examine that more fully, and it would be cool to see data from other media organisations about what their readership skews towards as well.

So, without any further ado, here are some numbers.

The Spinoff readers are really suspicious of winning the generational lottery on superannuation

It’s one of the biggest single areas of expenditure the New Zealand government makes. In 2016, superannuation payments totalled $11 billion dollars. And at the moment, it’s universally available to everyone over the age of 65 – so it’s a huge number in part because that’s the age the baby boomer generation have now reached.  The standard rate for a single person is $370.03 at present, with proportionally less for couples where both are eligible. It’s not a lot of money for individuals if its their sole source of income, but taken together it really adds up, especially as life expectancies get longer.

So why might it not be such good a deal in future? There are a few reasons, over and above the system becoming so expensive it simply collapses. But to keep it affordable, economists warn the age of eligibility will simply have to start coming up – something that both John Key and Jacinda Ardern ruled out doing on pain of resignation. As well as that, some form of means testing might occur in future – as Gareth Morgan pointed out earlier this year, many of those 65 and over really don’t need the money. And if it does stay universal, it may be that payment levels come down, or stop being raised in line with inflation as they periodically are, which would effectively mean less money in the pockets of seniors in future.

There’s one big reason for optimism for all generations though on superannuation. Senior citizens are really, really reliable voters. In the 2014 election, over 65s had the highest turnout rates out of any age cohort, with the 2nd highest being 45-64 – i.e, those who are next in line. Woe betide any party that campaigns on killing the golden goose for the most solid voting constituency in the country.

The Spinoff readers are overwhelmingly pro-feminism, pro-environmentalism and pro-multiculturalism

Just look at those giant bars! You could look at both graphs as a whole and say in general, The Spinoff readers have a sunnier outlook on the world, given the graphs indicate strength of positive feeling. There are only two areas where there are stronger positive feelings among New Zealand at large – capitalism and religion. Even there, it’s not exactly an overwhelming vote of confidence in those structures.

A few stand out extremely strongly, and among the whole set of data these are possibly some of the starkest differences between The Spinoff readers and New Zealand at large. Arguably, all of these are a sign of the readership skewing younger, because these are all areas where cultural change has taken place over the course of decades, as it will likely to continue to do. Much of The Spinoff’s readership will have been effectively born into a world where these ideas had already started to permeate in a real sense – like going to more ethnically diverse schools than their parents did.

At this point, it’s probably worth ruminating on whether people with these views read The Spinoff because of how said issues are covered, or if The Spinoff’s coverage shapes their views. So rather than turning around at my desk and asking him, I sent Toby Manhire a slack message asking if he reckons the website has an editorial line. Here was his response:

“We don’t have an editorial line on any of those things per se, but we certainly have a centre of gravity, a kaupapa that is informed by the views of various section editors, by our writers, and absolutely by our audience too. We listen to readers all the time – whether that’s direct via email and social media or our own research – and what they’re telling us will certainly feed into editorial thinking, along with a bunch of factors. If readers are telling us we need to do more on, say, water quality or leading quiz show The Chase, then we probably will; if they’re saying they want some racist perspectives, probably not.”

What he’s really saying with this – expect a lot of Chase content in 2019.

The Spinoff readers are susceptible to generational shorthand, just like the rest of the country.

Looking at these two graphs, you’ll notice most people have a mostly positive view of most generations – except for a couple of high profile exceptions. For The Spinoff readers, that generation is the Baby Boomers. That greedy, grasping, snout in the trough lot who hoovered up free education and cheap housing, before pulling up the ladder behind them. Then for the country at large, millennials and generation Z are the villains. They’re ungrateful brats who ruin everything, spend all their money on smashed avo and all their time looking at the facebook on their telephones.

Now, both of these sets of stereotypes are exaggerated, but it’s notable that these are the generations that people actually talk about, as opposed to the blandly positive views of the now more obscure generations, like Silent and Greatest (who are admittedly also mostly all dead by now.) I wonder if there is an argument here that something like generational perception is one of those areas where media coverage is quite influential in shaping views, and what you read is more likely to reinforce existing prejudices.

Climate change might be the defining issue for The Spinoff readers, but audiences contain multitudes.

A full fifth of The Spinoff’s audience consider climate change to be the most important issue to them. Again, this probably reflects a younger than average readership, given that younger people will have to spend more years watching the planet turn into an increasingly god-forsaken hellhole. It rises to more than a third of the readership when the environment is rolled in as well.

Meanwhile, for the population at large, a third of people say the cost of living is the most important issue to them. That’s perhaps because it’s quite a large catch-all for a range of issues that haven’t necessarily been broken down into smaller parts, like prices for food, electricity and petrol.

But both graphs have a really long tail of issues as the most important. And if you have a look at the bonus graph below, you’ll see that the differences in overall importance ratings aren’t so vast.

The Spinoff readers are overwhelmingly get their news online, and so does everyone else.

This is quite a defining trend for the industry as a whole, and will get a full breakout story with more data later in the week. And for those in the newspaper game, the numbers on both graphs are absolutely dire. Once upon a time, we talked about ‘papers of record’ – the big, prestige broadsheets which set the news agenda for the country as a whole. But those days are long gone, and it’s reflected in the strategy of companies like Stuff, who are rapidly closing down or shrinking newspapers in their stable and going ‘digital first.’

For the country as a whole, TV news is hanging on, and in both graphs there are reasonable numbers for radio. This may be because they’re both mediums that allow consumers to do something else at the same time – driving for radio, or second-screening for TV, for example. One common conception is that the internet will kill legacy media formats. History shows that they never really die – just make room for a new entrant. The period of extreme growth for digital is likely over, and with it some of the extreme audience losses of legacy formats.

UPDATE: Based on feedback we’ve had on this so far, here’s the age demographics of the two groups who were part of the survey: 


The Bulletin is The Spinoff’s acclaimed, free daily curated digest of all the most important stories from around New Zealand delivered directly to your inbox each morning.

Sign up now