The Peter Roebuck story: we must be careful of the dots we connect

Front page of today's Fairfax Sunday papers is the exclusive "The Roebuck tragedy: a tale of love, beatings and blackmail".  This is a remarkable piece of investigative journalism, reporting on the enigma who was Peter Roebuck, both respected cricket commentator, and now also known as alleged child sexual offender and benefactor.  A paradox indeed.

Yet, within what appears to be a factually diligent reportage, there is a disturbing connection.  The connection is not made deliberately, and in this particular case, the connection is fair.  Unfortunately, it also enables those who are not so fair-minded to extend the connection in directions where it has no right to go.  This connection is that as Peter Roebuck was a homosexual, that homosexuals are likely to sexually assault young boys.

Some people commit sexual assaults - race, class, sexuality, religion or any other characteristics has no relevance

Whenever sexual assaults are reported, there is understandable community concern, even outrage.  This heady emotion can often combine with prejudices against various groups in society, so that an offender who is of a particular race, class, sexual orientation, even religion is seen as representative of all of their kind, rather than representative of sex offenders.

Within the article, cricket commentator Jim Maxwell explained that:
"he was "taken aback" when he gave his statement to police shortly after his friend's suicide, and the second question they asked was "Did you know he was a homosexual?"

For those who have a predilection towards criticism of gays, this offers them the opportunity to say "see, he was gay, no wonder he did it to those boys".

All of the evidence is to the contrary.  Pedophiles are pedophiles, not because they are black men raping white women, Catholic priests interfering with altar boys, or gays assaulting young men. These three cohorts have had the misfortune of attracting widespread media attention, as a result of certain cases that have enabled myths to be perpetuated.  None of these groups deserved those connections.

Myths related to sexual assault are damaging myths

There are so many myths relating to sexual assault, which have been disproved by many studies (see a list of reliable references below).  These include the myth that sexually provocative dress means that women are "asking for it", the myth that most assaults are by strangers, that most assailants are old men, and so forth.

When these myths are allowed to perpetuate, our society suffers.  We distrust priests (most of whom are well meaning people).  We discriminate against women for the way they dress.  The US criminal justice system has been shown to discriminate against black men. And there are many more impacts on our society.

The Roebuck legacy must not be about gays and boys

The Peter Roebuck legacy will be many things.  It may be about the need to support youths reach their potential in Africa.  It may be about the need to be more aware of abuses against vulnerable children.  It may be related to cricket. It may be other things entirely.

What the legacy must not be is an excuse for bigots to accuse all gays of being pedophiles, nor an excuse to be suspicious of all white men in Africa.


For when we engage in unfounded bigotry, it hurts us all.


Let me know what you think.

Mark S

References on sexual assault myths:
http://www.thewomens.org.au/SexualAssaultsMyths
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/csa_myths.html
http://www.stanford.edu/group/svab/myths.shtml
http://www.malesurvivor.org/myths.html
http://www.mnsu.edu/here4you/assault/myths.html

Hat-wearing etiquette's time to enter the modern era

Recently I walked into a lawn bowls club on match day wearing my black fedora-style hat.  I was told that I had to remove my hat as it was club rules. I looked around and there were the ladies sitting there with their hats on. Of course, the rules are that ladies MUST keep their hats on in the club. Hmmm.

John Brack: Collins St 5pm, 1955

Now I'm not completely opposed to etiquette, or "when in Rome..." type standards, but I am opposed to standards that are imposed that make no sense at all in 2011.  This hat issue is certainly one of those.  According to all writers on hat etiquette, when the wearing of hats was commonplace until the middle of the 20th century, there were a long list of hat wearing rules that men and women followed.  John Brack's famous painting reflects that era in "Collins St 5pm".

It's important to remember that during those times, issues of gender inequality along with class/status issues were integral to Australian, American and British culture (one might argue it hasn't much changed in Britain!). So, a man removed his hat to deference to a superior or to a woman.

If I wear a hat, do I have to relinquish sexual equality?

So, the etiquette of the mid 20th century has been largely forgotten, and now hats are making a comeback.  Those who are old enough to remember the traditions of 50 years ago expect that the same protocols should apply now. As a man, I am expected to remove my hat in the club, but the women are expected to leave theirs on.  Huh? It no longer makes any sense.

If the etiquette is about a hat being an outdoor item, then men or women should take a hat off when indoors.  Or, a more modern take on hat etiquette is "if you are in transit, leave the hat on. If you’re stopping or sitting or staying for a while, take it off." Again, that would make equal sense for men and women.

Fashion - it's the new thing

The fashion advisers are telling us guys that hats are in.  The retailers are selling us lots of cool hats, and the paparazzi are happily snapping the models indoors with their hats on in the spring carnival marquees.

Of course, the ladies wear their hats all day, but it's just as sensible if it's a men's fashion item that they should wear their hat as well.

Don't make me fight you, old bowls and RSL clubs

I'm not going to shame the bowls club I entered or the RSL club with this published policy

At no time is the following allowed -

- Hats/beanies, including bandana’s

            (ladies are allowed to wear hats when worn as a 

              fashion item, not caps etc)

But needless to say, these clubs are now out of touch with modern society. If they don't want hats worn inside - then, fine - for men and women alike.  But, hanging onto their sexist rules are just anachronistic, like some of the committee members.

OK, so hat etiquette isn't the most important topic in the world, but it still shines a light on how old traditions can undermine modern equality

Let me know what you think

What we wear is a personal choice. Simple as that.

Recently, the issue of what people should be allowed to wear has been raised in Australia, yet again.  The range of arguments are always based on some pre-conceived idea that one person knows better than another.  Frankly, I can't fathom why anyone would have the arrogance to impose their views on what people should look like.

The burka - it's the woman's choice - like any other dress code

On Q&A on Monday, muslim woman Susan Carland was asked her view on women covering their face.  Her response reflected a mature, balanced view.

" in the end I think a person or a woman should be able to choose how much of her body she shows to other people and if she wants to cover her face and she feels comfortable with that and the laws of our society say that she can, then get over it. You know, I might not feel comfortable looking at people with a face covered in tattoos and a Mohawk but that’s their prerogative. If they want to dress like that, then that’s my issue if I can’t deal with it.

So, Carland is saying that it's the responsibility of the person viewing the individual.

I don't like tattoos, but that's my problem

Like Susan Carland, I'm not a big fan of tattoos, and like her, I agree that is my issue.  I have nothing against Collingwood footballer Dayne Beams, or Miss Bombshell, with all of their ink.  Yes, of course it projects an image - and they are entitled to project that image, and dress their bodies in that way.

Who cares what Kate Ellis wears? Other women apparently

Kate Ellis in Grazia

Last year, Kate Ellis appeared in a fashion spread in Grazia magazine, and last month she appeared on the front cover of the Fairfax press Sunday Life section.  In both shoots, she was dressed in what would generally be called fashionable clothing - including tall heels.  Now Kate Ellis is the Minister for the Status of Women, her appearances in those magazines have attracted scores of comments - mainly critical.

Today's Sunday Life carried a follow up article on the controversy. Women had written in with comments such as "the wearing of super-high stiletto heels represents women as vain, attention-seeking, foolish and potential victims".

Really?? Kate Ellis responds in the article that she wears similar clothes to the office as she wore in the Sunday Life shoot.  So, because she is tall and attractive, women are imposing their own biases.  Again, it's their problem, not hers.

How many times do we need to say it - no woman is a "victim" because of what they wear.  Praise be the Slut Walks

Boston Slut Walk, May 2011

The more times we read comments that accuse women of being victims because of what they wear, the more respect we should all have for the Slut Walks. I've blogged about the issues of dress codes and the Slut Walks before, but the message isn't getting through.

When strong, intelligent women such as Kate Ellis are criticised for dressing as she does, women certainly need a strong voice to stand up for their rights.  Slut Walks are continuing around the world - in cities as diverse as Boston, Seoul and Delhi, and long may they continue.


People will judge you based on what you wear, but that's their problem.  Be who you want to be.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Respect the dress code - whether it's teenage boys, hijabs or sluts

Discrimination against people based on their dress code continues in so-called civilised societies such as America, Canada and Australia.  Teenage boys with their pants too low, women dressed like Lady Gaga, or Muslim women in a hijab.  There's no excuse for discrimination - but worse, there's no excuse for violence.

Student says cops used Taser, broke his arm because of sagging pants

Last month in Kansas, USA, a 17 year old student was tasered and had his arm broken by school resource officers who work for the police department.  According to the Wichita Eagle, Jonathan Villarreal, said he was walking with friends to the bus after school on Wednesday when one of the officers ordered him to pull up his pants. He told them he could wear them how he wanted because school was out. (You can read the full article here.)

There is absolutely no justification for this sort of action.

Discrimination against women wearing the hajib - you better believe it

While Australia is a nation of migrants, attitudes towards people who look different continue in our "tolerant" land.  Here is a shocking quote from a report by the Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria.

Muslim Village

“I was going shopping with my son, he is blind. These men followed us, and one extinguished his cigarette on my head. I felt it burning. I started to run with my son. They came up and surrounded us, 6 of them, Australian and white …”



This level of intolerance, of people of a particular religion, is made obvious by the hijab.  Whatever you may think of this dress code, the discrimination and violence towards these women is shocking and unacceptable.  I remember Jewish friends of mine being discriminated against when I was playing footy as a child because they wore a jarmulkah.  We must not accept any racism against any groups as a result of their religious dress codes.

Slutwalks - supporting the rights of women to be safe from sexual violence

On 24th January this year in Canada, a member of the Toronto police force stated that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”.  The women in attendance were rightly insulted as this wrongly implied that the dress code had some bearing on sexual attacks.  It does not. As a result the Slutwalk movement was born. http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/

On 3rd April, the Toronto SlutWalk was held to support the rights of women to dress how they choose and not to be subjected to sexual violence.  There is simply no justification for sexual violence against women, and what they dress is irrelevant.  Honestly, do we think that Lady Gaga deserves to be sexually assaulted?

The SlutWalks are also reappropriating the phrase "Slut", as the word has always been used to wound, whether dished out as a serious indictment of one’s character or merely as a flippant insult.

SlutWalks are now spreading around the world, and are being held in Australia.  I encourage you to attend to support all women.
Melbourne - May 28
Sydney - June 13
Adelaide - June 11

Dress styles have often been at the front line of discrimination.  In a civilised society, we must be proud of the diversity of dress styles. Our only intolerance should be against those who use dress standards as an excuse to villify others.

Let me know what you think


Mark S