A Woman's Place: The Progressive's Party List

Jim Anderton's Progressive Party (henceforth referred to as the Progressives, or even the Progs when I am getting really lazy) released their list today, so here's my now obligatory post on the representation of women therein.

Historical representation of women:
This gets a bit tricky, because Anderton has been in Parliament for some years now, but not always with the one party. First it was Labour, then the New Labour Party, then the Alliance, and now his current (ultimate?) vehicle, the Progressives. It's had a few names even in that incarnation (you can read the saga on Wikipedia), and it's only ever had male MPs - Anderton and Matt Robson from 2002 until the 2005 election, and Jim on his own since then.

Current representation of women:
Well one MP out of one MP being a man means...

2008 Progressive Party list:
Women represented across the whole list: 12 out of 27 (44%)

Top 5 - Two (Josie Pagani at 3 and Paula Gillon at 4) 2/5 = 40%
Top 10 - Four (plus Viv Shepherd at 6 and Brenda Hill at 8) 4/10 = 40%

The list is ranked alphabetically from the spot the 12th spot onwards, so not much point in typing all that out!

Idiot Savant's analysis notes the radical shift in ethnic diversity from 2005, with the non-white candidates largely relegated. I would add that a friend told me, after I gave Amiparu my electorate vote in 2005 (as there was no Green or Alliance candidate in my electorate), that shehe was known to not be particularly friendly to the queer community. No idea what that is based on, so take it under advisement.

I should also share that due to my history in the Alliance I'm probably not able to be totally objective about Mr Anderton or his party.

Likely future female representation for the Progressives:
Well Jim will be back, and on a good day they might be able to bring Robson back too, but it'd take a pretty long shot I'd think to pick up a third MP, and thus add a woman to their caucus for the first time ever.

In a way this is one of the curses of the really small parties, who rely on an electorate MP to get them back in. Only if they rank a woman at 2 do they have a chance of bringing any females to the House.

I wonder if we will ever see a party like UnitedFuture, or Act, or the Progressives that is based around the certainty of a safe electorate that is held by a woman. When Turia split from Labour to form the Maori Party she might have ended up in that waka, had it not been for the widespread Maori support for her stance on the Foreshore and Seabed legislation, and some very savvy Maori seat selections in 2005. I tend to think that MMP may have matured sufficiently for splitting to become less prevalent, but it does seem to be one of the only ways for new parties to make it into Parliament.

Other posts in this series to date:
- Act's Party List
- Green's Party List
- National's Party List
- The Maori Party's candidates (list and electorate)
- Labour's Party List
- UnitedFuture's Pary list
- National's electorate candidates

Update: Edited this morning (3rd Oct) to reflect the fact that Suki Amiparu is in fact a man, oops! See the comment thread if you want to see some Progs getting all frothy about it (or possibly just one Prog). The way I determine whether people are male or female is to look at their names in the first instance. Where I am unsure I will look at the information the party provides, which in this case was none (they only put up information on candidates outside the top 5 after I wrote the post), so then I do a google search for the name and see if I can identify the particular person, and if not I will then take a punt based on what appears to be the gender of most people with that name from the Google result. This is not a fool proof method. So there you go, now you know.

Ending the demand

There was a chilling story on Checkpoint tonight (hopefully up in podcast form here sometime soon) about the sentencing of a man found guilty of raping a 12 year old girl. She and a friend had posed as prostitutes, got into this man's car, and then tried to escape. One did, the other didn't. Both their lives were ruined as a result.

I don't want to go into too much detail, because I'm aware that this kind of thing can be triggering. You can read the Herald article about the sentencing judge's comments if you want more detail.

I was impressed that in the Checkpoint interview they looked not only at the actions, both prior and subsequent, of the victim, but also detailed the total lack of remorse from the rapist, and spoke to spokespeople from both ECPAT and Rape Crisis (aka Rape Prevention Education). They talked about the need to end the demand for sex with children, rather than falling into the trap of asking why the child was on the street, where were the parents, why did the Government legalise prostitution etc.

Because ultimately those who should take responsiblity for the rape of children, whether they are posing as prostitutes or not, are the rapists; the people who want to have sex with children, and the people who want to have sex regardless of whether the other person is consenting or not. Children are simply not capable of consent, whether they are sex workers or otherwise. They should be absolutely and without exception sexually off limits in the mind of any adult.

No one asks for rape, ever.

Shame on you Bridget Jones for being smart and stuff

Apparently the British Conservative party has got its granny panties in a knot about all these university-educated career women like Bridget Jones that are denying men their 'right' to be breadwinners for their family. Shame on these women indeed. We all know that if that man doesn't earn more than his wife, how on earth is he going to demand his woman get in the kitchen and cook him some fucking eggs and pop out them sprogs? Society is going to hell in a hand basket I tell you!

H/T: Liberty Scott

But women just get paid less because they are less skilled don't they?

Hmmmm, research shows otherwise:

The Education Ministry's Adult Literacy and Life Skills survey found women who were highly skilled at maths and reading earned at least $18,000 less than their male counterparts on average.

Salaries for women with high literacy and numeracy skills ranged between $39,000 and $46,000 on average, while men received between $57,000 and $75,000.

Men in the lowest skilled bracket earned between $24,001 and $30,000, while women received $10,001 to $17,000.

The article doesn't seem to quite make the connection between the gap and the possibility of a whole heap of subtle sexism, so let's make it for them.

The evidence here is that women are paid less even when they have the same skill level as men. To my way of thinking this can only partly be explained away by the whole "women take more time out because of their biological urge to breed" argument. Low-paid (not necessarily low-skilled) occupations are dominated by women, not because they have uteruses and sometimes like to fill them, but because women's work has been undervalued for eons - not just the work of individual women who are underpaid, but also the lack of recognition of the positive contribution that traditional "women's work" makes to our society.

And speaking of work, my lunch break is nearly over. Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves, especially Megan who I must tip my hat to on this one :-)

Immigration

I'm not big on writing about the elections. But sometimes the jokes just write themselves. Those times usually involve New Zealand First in this Peter Brown:

New Zealand First says it will not welcome immigrants if they come from societies with a "class system" or where women are treated as subservient to men.

The obvious joke is then how did Peter Brown, who like me is an immigrant from England, get it?

But the more important question is that if you lived somewhere without a class system where women have free and equal lives, then why would you move to new Zealand?

madam speaker's final speech

i thought this part of hon margaret wilson's valedictory speech might be of interest, particularly as she has been one of the most effective campaigners for women in nz:

I noted in my maiden speech a concern for the rights of women. The struggle for equality has been a main thread throughout my life. It cannot be denied that progress has been made. It also cannot be denied that progress has come with women adapting to the system. There is still no fundamental recognition that equality means equality of difference, not equality for women to be like men. This will be the next major challenge. Can the experience of women be incorporated in such a way that they have real choices which extend beyond survival within a system still controlled by the male experience? A practical example is the way we organise the business of Parliament. We have made progress here by trying to accommodate school holidays and we now at last have a room for breast feeding and a child care centre. All good progress but we have not fundamentally looked at a work/life balance that would benefit both women and men. That is one of those big scary ideas we have yet to have the courage to face.

Fairy bread and roses

Two weeks have passed since my daughter's seventh birthday party, and my post-traumatic stress syndrome has started to wane just enough that I feel I can begin to talk about it.

Children's birthday parties are a source of profound angst for me - political, social and moral angst. I have a cousin who, as a boy, had some mild behavioural and developmental difficulties, but was a fundamentally good kid. A child in his class threw a birthday party, and invited every single one of his classmates except my cousin. It was a shitty, cruel thing to do, and clearly the birthday child's parents should have known better. You can imagine the effect it had on my cousin and his parents. From the day I heard about this, I vowed to avenge birthday-related injustice whenever it arises.

My daughter's sixth birthday was the first on which she'd ever had a large bunch of friends to invite. My philosophy is that you must either invite a very select group of friends, so the omitted friends know that it's nothing personal, or you have to invite everyone so that no one feels excluded. My daughter and I couldn't agree on the select group, so we ended up inviting her whole class plus her non-school friends. (A fundamentalist Christian family had the audacity to send along a non-invited smart arse of an older sibling while the parents themselves did not attend, which flies in the face of all birthday party etiquette I know of.) So as not to discriminate against low-income families, I instituted a 'no presents' rule, which the well-to-do families ingored, thus drawing even more attention to the low-income families who didn't bring presents. (I had to chuckle, though - my daughter's best friend gave her a submarine she'd made herself out of her mother's empty Winfield packets).

It took me a full year to recover from the sixth birthday, which was logistically more challenging to organise than the Beijing Olympics. My friend has a baby daughter with a birthday close to my daughter's, so we decided to hold a joint first and seventh double birthday party extravaganza. Both being busy working mums, we liked the economies of scale this was sure to generate. Both being crazy left-wing feminists, we didn't know how combine our radical outlook on life with the demands of children's partyage.

Me: 'Should this event have some sort of girly theme?'
Friend: 'Like Barbie?'
Me: 'I was thinking more along the lines of suffrage, but Barbie is good too'.
Friend: 'Suffrage Barbie it is then'.

So far, so good - we'd thematically combined frivolity with strong feminist role modeling (kind of). But now there was the fraught issue of presents to attend to.

Friend: 'What's your take on presents?'
Me: 'Hate them. Orgiastic capitalism at its worst, environmentally ravaging wrapping paper all over the place, shite plastic toys made by child labourers in oppressive regimes, low socioeconomic birthday attendees placed under needless pressure to enter into mindless consumption'.
Friend: 'Fun though'.
Me: 'Yep'.

We agreed there would be sustainable gifts only: recycled or home made. Or that's what I thought we agreed. I told my guests that the rule was sustainable gifts; my friend told her guests there was to be no presents at all. (As it turned out, both sets of guests generously defied the instructions, and brought the girls a lovely array of pressies.)

And then there was the issue of entertainment. Nobly, my friend wanted to do some science tricks for the children, and organise a treasure hunt based on decoding anagrams. I recognised the intellectual merits of this, but cautioned my friend that the kids would probably want to shove their gobs full of junk food and run about like nutters. In my experience, that's what kids like to do. Hell, some grown ups I know like to do it too.

My friend and I compromised. We'd have some structured activities, but nothing too cerebral. A pinata would add some vigorous activity to counter the junk food and encourage healthy lifestyle habits, we thought - but my friend expressed some concern at the possibility of a Barbie pinata. I wholeheartedly agreed. After all my criticisms of Tony Veitch, we were not going to let our children grab a stick and thump an effigy of a woman - not even a fictional, plastic woman. (In fact, I was mildly disturbed by the prospect of any pinata at all. We settled for a colourful donkey in the end, and I was deeply disturbed at the level of clobbering it took to yield a handful of crappy hard lollies.)

The party came and went, and the kids had a great time. And was this anything to do with the sound ideological basis of their birthday party? Not at all. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how austerely feminist and left wing your parents are - kids are kids. They like to shove their gobs full of junk food and run about like nutters. As I cleaned up the wrapping paper afterwards, I just took comfort in the fact that no one had eaten until they threw up.

Monday Funday - with skirt-wearing sons

This is truly weird. It's all kinds of homophobic, woman-hating and mostly also pretty incoherent. But I don't think it's a parody...



Anyway, sometimes laughing at them is the best medicine for us all.

Found here.

Sexual Violence Discussion Document

Back in August, Anjum alerted us to the discussion document, "Improvements to Sexual Violence Legislation in New Zealand." You can download a copy of the d.d. from the Ministry of Justice.

We have worked up a submission on the d.d., which is over the jump. I've turned off comments on this post, but we are sending a message about it to members of our Facebook Group, Readers and Writers of The Hand Mirror. The submission is due on 30 September, and we are hoping that some of you will want to add your names to it. So please, chime in via the Facebook group, and let us know if you would like to add your name to the list of people making the submission.

If you're not so keen on making a comment via Facebook, you could send an e-mail direct to me. My e-mail address is on my blogger profile. I may put up a post of the messages I get (if any!), with identifying material removed, of course. However, I promise faithfully that if I get any misogynist messages, I will publish them in full, with the writer's e-mail address and IP address.

Click through to read the submission.

Submission on

Improvements to Sexual Violence Legislation in New Zealand

Government of New Zealand and Ministry of Justice Public Discussion Document

August 2008

This submission has been prepared by (names of people who support the submission).

We are writers and readers of a feminist blog, The Hand Mirror. The Hand Mirror aims "to encourage and promote women bloggers, primarily those who identify as from Aotearoa New Zealand, and not just those writing specifically within political blogs."

The Hand Mirror is ranked as one of the top political blogs in New Zealand. It is the only group feminist blog in New Zealand.


Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the discussion paper, Improvements to Sexual Violence Legislation in New Zealand.

We endorse the commitment to taking innovative approaches in respect of sexual violence (paragraph 20). We note that the paragraph suggests that legislative change alone will not be sufficient to make a difference to sexual violence in New Zealand. This should not be taken as a reason to do nothing.

PART ONE: CONSENT

Issue One: The legal definition of consent

As discussed in the paper, behaviour that indicates "consent" is a continuum, ranging from behaviour that indicates total non-consent, such as saying, "No," to behaviour that indicates full consent, such as saying, "Yes." As with any continuum, it is easy to make judgements about each end of the continuum. However in between there is a grey area, where behaviour may or may not indicate consent.

The continuum can be illustrated like this.



Until recently, the absence of denial was treated as consent. That is, any behaviour that didn't fall between A and B, explicitly denying consent, was taken as giving consent.

Attitudes and the law are now changing. Consent is now taken to entail a positive process, not just an absence of a particular behaviour. However, it needs to be made very clear that, "She didn't say no," does not mean she said, "Yes." That is, behaviour in the grey area, from B to C, does not mean that consent has been given. For there to be consent, there must be behaviour in the area from C to D. Consent must not be just the absence on non-consenting behaviour, but the actual and unequivocal presence of consenting behaviour.

For this reason, we endorse option 2: that the Crimes Act 1961 be amended to include a positive definition of consent to sexual activity to sit alongside the list of circumstances where consent is deemed as not being present. We agree that the definition should include concepts of freedom, choice, and the capacity to make choices. The particular models we prefer are the United Kingdom model which includes freedom, and capacity, and the South Australian model, which refers to sexual activity, not just sexual intercourse.

We agree with the drafters of the discussion paper that this may be difficult to put into law, and that the law change alone will not change behaviour. However, given the appalling rate of sexual violence against women, and the outrageously low prosecution and conviction rates for sexual offending, there should at least be an attempt to improve matters through changing the law. The fact that law changes alone won't effect attitudinal change indicates that an education program is required, not that the law change should not be made.

Issue Two: The reasonable belief test

Roughly, there are two defences to a rape charge. The first is that the rape did not take place in the first place, that is, there was no sexual activity, either because there really was no sexual activity, or if there was, then it was a different person (the charge is a case of mistaken identity). With the increasing use of sophisticated DNA testing, this defence can often be tested against actual physical evidence.

The more difficult defence is one of consent. That is, there was sexual activity, but the complainant consented. The alleged rapist believed that consent had been given, or made a mistake about whether consent had been given.

The defence of "mistaken belief about consent" is abominable. Even though other legislatures allow this defence, albeit in limited circumstances, being mistaken is not normally a defence to crime, or even more minor offences. For example, when it comes to traffic offences, motorists are not allowed to claim in defence that they made a mistake in reading their speedometer. It is hard to understand why this sort of defence is not acceptable in respect of traffic offences, but is permissible when it comes to women's autonomy in respect of their own bodies.

The discussion paper proposes reinforcing the reasonable belief test. That is, objectively, based on the evidence available to the accused, a reasonable person standing in the accused's shoes would believe that consent had been given. In support of this, the United Kingdom law says that the reasonableness of a belief must be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including the steps (if any) that the accused took to make sure that the complainant had consented.

The discussion document emphasises the difficulties of the "reasonable belief" test. It claims that juries are already required to consider the circumstances and the steps that the accused took, that the judge can already direct the jury's attention to these matters in her or his summing up, and that in any case, this will still result in a focus on the behaviour of the complainant, because the accused is not required to take the stand.

These are all known difficulties in rape cases. What they suggest however, is not that we should do nothing because changes to the "reasonable belief" test won't have any effect. Instead, we should be looking for a real change to the test, that without reversing the presumption of innocence, nevertheless makes it clear that simply saying, "I thought she consented" is not enough to constitute a defence.

We suggest that if an accused raises the defence of consent, then the accused must show on what grounds he believed that consent was given, including the steps he took to ensure that consent was given. That is, the burden of proof rests with the person raising the defence of consent.

This simply requires that the person who uses the defence gives proof of it. Presumably, if consent can't be proved, then the charge is appropriate. This will necessarily mean that men must be a lot more careful with respect to their sexual behaviour. We fail to understand how this can be regarded as anything other than a good thing.

Failing changing the law so that the accused must show on what grounds he believed consent was given, then we endorse option 2, that the Crimes Act 1961 be amended to require that, when determining whether the accused had reasonable grounds to believe the complainant consented to the sexual activity, the court must have regard to all the circumstances relevant to the case including any steps the accused may have taken to ascertain whether the complainant was consenting.

Finally, we are a little surprised that after noting the need for innovative approaches (paragraph 20), the entire discussion about reinforcing the reasonable belief test is couched in negative terms about why particular approaches won't work. The overall effect is one of rejecting change because it may not work, rather than attempting to actually do something about the horrifying level of sexual violence, and shockingly low prosecution and conviction rates for sexual violence in New Zealand.


PART TWO: EXTENDING THE RAPE SHIELD

The "rape shield" is the law that means that a person who has complained of rape can be cross-examined on their sexual history. In New Zealand, the rape shield applies to sexual experience between the complainant and any other person, but the sexual history between the complainant and the accused can be brought into evidence.

As a matter of logic, if consent must be obtained for every sexual act, then whether or not the complainant had consented to sexual acts with that person in the past is irrelevant.

This means that the rape shield should be extended to the previous relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant.

We endorse option 2, that the Evidence Act 2006 be amended to extend the rape shield so that evidence about previous sexual experience between the complainant and any person, including the accused, is inadmissible without prior agreement of the judge.


PART THREE: ALTERNATIVE MODELS

The third part of the discussion paper asks alternative models.

We have chosen to concentrate on one area that is covered in the discussion document, the investigation and prosecution of rape cases, and one area that we believe is important, education.

We believe that there should be specialist units for investigating and prosecuting rapes and sexual violence cases. Further, these units should have a high proportion of female officers.

One of the known difficulties of rape cases is the reluctance of police to investigate and prosecute rape cases. Furthermore, in recent years we have seen some very disturbing cases in New Zealand, where men have been convicted of raping young women while they were serving police officers. It is hard to believe that a police force in which some officers themselves rape women will also rigorously investigate and vigorously prosecute cases of rape.

Over time, specialist units would develop considerable expertise in investigating and prosecuting acts of sexual violence. In the shorter term, it would be worth having as many women officers as possible working in the area, to create a less threatening atmosphere for complainants, and because women may be more likely to believe other women when it comes to investigating rape cases.

There should be an extensive education campaign to accompany any law changes. The discussion document itself refers repeatedly to the small likelihood that any change in the law will lead to changes in behaviour. As we said earlier, what that should suggest is not that the law should remain unchanged, but that there is a need for serious and on-going education of men and women about sexual violence, and in particular, about the nature of consent.

There should be a comprehensive media campaign about sexual violence, similar to the current campaign about domestic and family violence. In addition, education about sexual violence, and in particular about the nature of consent as a positive process, not just the absence of denial, should be included in school sex education programmes.

Bus Drivers

Last Wednesday morning, the Wellington bus drivers went on strike for an hour. GoWellington (which is owned by infratil) responded by locking the bus drivers out indefinitely and cancelling all services.

Obviously, none of this qualifies as news. As most people probably know the bus-drivers were completely solid in their resistance. As Graeme Clark said ‘People ask us how long we can go without pay; we say one day longer than they can go without buses.’ The bus drivers also had heaps of solidarity. Even though Morning report gave most time to the bosses, every single commuter they talked to supported the drivers. Unions swung into action straight away, organising solidarity meetings and collecting on the first day of the lock-out. Even in Auckland collectors raised $130 in less than an hour.

In the face of this, the bosses crumbled .

I didn’t write about it at the time, because I was too busy texting Wellington friends trying to find out what was going on – grumpy at being stuck in Auckland. I wanted to be down at the bus station; I would have even joined the picket line at ungodly hour of 5.30am (for an awesome first hand account check out Nick Kelly's on indymedia).

But I wanted to pay tribute to the strength and unity of the bus drivers, and the solidarity they received.

I also wanted to remind everyone that the struggle is not over. The lock-out has been lifted but there has been no settlement and the starting rate for Wellington bus drivers is still $12.76 an hour.

It's coming up again

There's just two days until the end of the month, and that means there's just two days to submit a post for the Down Under Feminists Carnival.

October's carnival is being hosted by Hell on Hairy Legs, a radical feminist who is still at school. She has some stunning posts on her blog. This one on the difference between liberal feminism and radical feminism made me laugh out loud. And it made me think.

Support the growing network of feminist blogging down under, and send a submission in to the carnival. It can be a post on your blog, or a post from someone else's blog. Any feminist (broadly interpreted) post from any down under (either living down under or from down under) blogger is eligible.

Friday Feminist - Dora Montefiore

Cross post

When I moved to Australia at the start of this year, I knew very little about the history of women's suffrage here, except that after the country of my birth, New Zealand, my adopted home, South Australia, was the next place in the world to allow women to vote in parliamentary elections. Of all the legislatures extant today, the then Territory of Wyoming was the very first to extend the vote to women, in 1869.

I've just started to read about women's fight for the vote in Australia, beginning with a text that looks as though it was written for secondary school students. I found this extract in it. It's undated, unfortunately, but the incident which is related in the extract took place in 1889.

One lawyer remarked to me, when explaining the terms of the will: "As your late husband says nothing about the guardianship of the children, they will remain in your care." I restrained my anger... and replied, "Naturally, my husband would never have though of leaving anyone else as their guardian." "As there is a difference in your religions," he continued grimly, "he might very well have left someone of his own religion as their guardian." "What! my children, the children I bore, left to the guardianship of someone else! The idea would never have entered his mind, and what's more, I don't believe he could have done it, for children belong even more to a mother than to a father!" "Not in law," the men around the table interjected... "In law, the child of the married woman has only one parent, and that is the father" ... I could hardly believe my ears when this infamous statement of fact was made, and blazing with anger I replied... "You don't know how your horrible law is insulting to all womanhood." From that moment I was a suffragist... and determined to alter the law.

Dora Montefiore, quoted in Audrey Oldfield, Australian Women and the Vote, Cambridge, 1994

Update: To record Wyoming as the first place to extend the vote to women. NZ still claims to be the first country to extend the vote to women.

Guest post: What National is planning for your littlies

Here's a guest post from Anita, who has also guested on The Standard and No Right Turn, and is frequently to be found fighting the good fight in comment threads on various blogs of note.

National's Early Childhood Education policy – while appearing to be no more than a few tweaks to 20Free – signals an intent to shift away from professionally provided quality education for all children toward subsidised play groups for the middle class.

There are five key clues in the policy document:

1) The renaming of the policy (20Free becomes 20ECE) – not hard to tell where that's going :)

2) "Make the scheme more flexible" – clear code for moving to a voucher-style approach, a child is assigned a certain value of subsidy and the parent spends it wherever and whenever (and for whatever) they want.

3) "Maintain existing subsidies" – ok, so as costs rise subsidies stay the same and fees have to rise, over time people on benefits and low wages can no longer afford to pay for their children's education so while the current wave will get education, in the future the children of the poor will have no early childhood education.

4) Encouraging on-going use of unqualified staff – it's not education (at least unless you can pay the extra) just a partly qualified play group. Sure it's great that ECE students get an opportunity to experience the classroom, but we don't use student-teachers in the place of teachers (and count them in the teacher:student ratio) or med students in the place of GPs.

5) Making it easier for big centres to operate – factory production line style childcare for the low-middle incomes earners who can afford it, while the wealthier get focussed education and attention.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly we can see in here how little value National places on kids, parents, teachers, and families; ECE should be real education with real skills for all our kids, not a semi-skilled drop-in play group for a few.

Milk

I've been avoiding the melamine milk powder disaster. I just can't think too much about the dead babies, the damaged babies, the parents who thought they were sustaining their children, nurturing them, when in fact the formula they were giving them was poisonous. It's too sad, so I turn away. I suspect I shouldn't, but I do it all the same.

I'm disappointed that much of the media coverage has focused on the business outcomes for Fonterra, in a manner that ignores the personal element. This is tragedy that has grown from the inexorable greed for bigger and bigger profits, I have no doubt, and I wish that there was somehow a balance between reporting what it means for Fonterra's balance sheet and what it means for the thousands of families affected. Mostly it seems to be relegated to the business news now, in our country at least. Homepaddock, a farmer herself, has been writing a lot about this story, so you might want to check out her blog for more detail on it all.

We've got Wriggly down to three milk feeds a day now, each one almost always delivered via the time-honoured method of breastfeeding. On Monday I go back to my full time job, which means my boobs won't be here at lunchtime. I'm going to try to express, however given how exhausted I've got recently I'm not sure that will be a realistic option. So that means a formula feed a day (and sometimes two) for my son. I was quite relaxed about it until the San Lu story broke.

Rationally I know that the formula supply in New Zealand is safe. But we're not always fully rational beings all the time, are we? We're emotional too, and having an emotional response, as much as many people try to degrade it, is still valid.

There's enough guilt attached to using formula already, without this; without this horrible trepidation. And if I'm anxious, thousands of miles away where the milk powder is always tested and we have a rigorous food safety scheme, I can only imagine the fear of Chinese mums and dads.

Sigh

You might remember on Monday morning that I posted about Kate magazine, the women's mag at the University of Auckland which came out this week as an insert in Craccum (AUSA's student rag). Sophie Klinger, Women's Rights Officer at AUSA, had told me before it came out that she had heard the editor, Dan Sloan, intended to surround Kate with sexist content, but I didn't see it for myself until last night. And it's pretty full on.

The cover, which I've included a photo of with this post, possibly against my better judgement, is a pair of disembodied breasts, and according to this comment on Cactus Kate's blog it appears to have been taken by Meg Sloan, who I am assuming is some relation of the editor (although I do find it odd that he didn't acknowledge her contribution as photographer in the credit list next to his editorial...) The cover seems designed to turn women off from picking up the magazine in the first place.

And if they did grab it, they'd have to wade through a number of misogynist articles before reaching the lovely pink edged pages of Kate in the centre section. Lord Jacob of Mussfordshire has contributed an article entitled "Women as Property" on p17 (a "satirical" discussion between a number of men at the Northern Club), a page and a half of ranting arguing "It's a privilege for women to be in pornography" from next year's AUSA Media Officer Thomas Carver on pp18 & 19,* a piece about stripping as empowerment which isn't actually all that bad (albeit predictable) on p20, then two full page (inoffensive) ads before the glorious Kate begins on p23.

Following Kate's cryptic crossword, and the return to the parts of Craccum controlled by Sloan, we have two pages of purported letters to Craccum sharing sexual experiences (because we all know that any magazine that has a significant portion of feminist content needs to be "balanced" up with a sizeable portion of smut to remind us that really it's all about sex), an article on why men are better than women (including an insert box on why women shouldn't be allowed to vote) whose authorship is not revealed, and a short piece by one Scoop Chang on why the women characters ruin a number of movies (actually I think George Lucas could take a significant portion of the blame for Episodes I - III of Star Wars).

Later in the magazine there is the usual, interesting, Arts section (books, films, CDs, comedy etc), and four pages of AUSA-centred content which is mainly about the Cultural Mosaic on this week. I venture to suggest that if the editor had decided to surround the stuff about Cultural Mosaic with racist content on a par with the sexist content Kate is almost subsumed by there would have been an outcry.

Sloan tries to cut off the complaints about the content by stating in his editorial:

The point is that a good portion of this magazine is tongue-and-cheek. So before you come knocking at our door or flooding our inbox with an assload of "well done guys, women and porn and period jokes, hurf durf" emails, it's not serious. If anything, we hope we've drawn attention to how incredibly stupid some of these assertions are.

That's right ladies - Get A Sense of Humour Already!

Now my understanding is that because the advertising manager of Craccum made it pretty clear he wasn't interested in selling ads for Kate, the 12 page insert was funded by the WRO's budget for the project, and was effectively treated the same as paid advertising. Yet I somehow doubt that Craccum's editor would have treated any other advertiser in such a way - surrounding the content they had paid for with stuff that so ridiculously denigrated what they had put together. I'm not saying they should have only had articles that were nice to girls, far from it, but they didn't have to so deliberately try to basically sabotage Kate, and the hard work of all those women who contributed to it.

I hope there are some positive outcomes from this situation, and I hope that Kate's target audience do get to read it despite the obstacles in their way. It would be great if this incident creates discussion on campus about how to put challenging points of view side by side in the media without treating people like crap. Maybe it will even give next year's women's magazine editor the support to do a stand-alone publication, and be less reliant on the whims of elected editors who, in my experience, often end up quite isolated from their readership in the Boys' Club that Craccum seems to become each year.

Big ups to Sophie and all those involved in putting together a great Kate. Don't let the bastards get you down.


* Maybe this is satire too? It's hard to see how anyone could seriously believe in the statement "We all know that women are wothless pieces of meat whichdeserve no respect and simply exist to meet the needs of males. And by that logic, I am honouring a woman by allowing her to be involvd with porn; I mean, as a male it is my right to go out and have sex with any womanI want without her consent (call it rape it [sic] you will, you fucking feminist Nazis) and to do what I want with her." At the end Carver kindly offers to "drill some sense into you free of charge." Urgh.

Feminist Event: Auckland Women's Centre Election Forum

A message from Leonie at the Auckland Women's Centre:

Come and hear the Greens, Labour and National party policies that particularly relate to women.

Date: Tuesday 14th October
Time: 12 pm – 2 pm
Venue: Auckland Women's Centre, 4 Warnock Street, Grey Lynn

Following the first successful Women and the Election Forum in June, we would like to invite you to this follow-up forum where we will hear from three women candidates for the Auckland Central electorate:

• Nikki Kaye (National Party)
• Denise Roche (Green Party)
• Judith Tizard MP (Labour Party)

They will talk about their parties’ policies that particularly relate to women and education, domestic violence, sexual violence, motherhood and women’s health, including eating difficluties.

Please feel free to pass this invitation on to women who might be interested. There will be plenty of time provided for discussion, so bring your questions and concerns.

Please contact Leonie (email akcentreATwomenz.org.nz, taking out the obvious spam block and replacing it with the appropriate symbol) at the Auckland Women's Centre for more details, directions (we are hard to find) and to RSVP by Thursday 9th October. Bring your lunch, tea and coffee provided.

If you have an upcoming women-focused/feminist event that you would like us to promote please email me via my Blogger profile.

News brevities

A few articles that may be of interest to you:

• The Herald reports on the radical move by a number of exclusive men's clubs in Melbourne to allow women to join. Apparently women don't want to be allowed to join, or something.
• Richard Boock writes about the inequalities women face in the sporting world, with some startling examples like the prize for the top sports journo in the Qantas Media Awards being your weight in beer... (Thanks to Joanna for emailing me about this).
• The Herald's sub-eds strike again - the headline implies Bill Clinton thinks Palin is sexually attractive, but when you actually read the article it doesn't come out that way at all.
• Parliament opens their "Rainbow Room," a select committee room dedicated to recognising the contributions of lesbian, gay and transgender MPs.
• Profile of National's departing woman MP, Katherine Rich, here. No doubt there will be more to come on this once she delivers her valedictory, does anyone know when that will be?

Feel free to add links to articles you've noticed in comments.

bird of peace?

after news of a female majority in the rwandan parliament, i thought it might be useful to look at another emerging woman leader. tzipi* livni has become the leader of the kadima party, and has just over a month to form a coalition government in israel.

i'd say that this is one of the more powerful leadership positions in the world, in terms of the impact her decisions will have on the whole region should she become prime minister. ms livni is known as a centrist (although she was involved in substantial privatisation of government organisations when part of a likud-led government), and the kadima party calls itself a centrist party. however, it will be the parties that it will bring into government via coalition arrangements that determine whether the new israeli government will be left, right or centre.

apparently ms livni doesn't identify as a feminist**, but:

... she is on the record saying that "guy issues" undermined Israel's prosecution of the 2006 Lebanon war and, "Not only in the war. In all kinds of discussions, I hear arguments between generals and admirals and such and I say: "Guys, stop it," she told The Times of London last year. This has occasionally earned her contemptuous treatment from the elite male Israeli punditocracy.

yes, the sexist put-downs are as common in israel as they are in every other part of the world:

“Livni proved that she was a good candidate for the chair of women’s organisations, at best,” the columnist Ben Caspit wrote...

but no doubt ms livni has the ability to rise above it. although she has only narrowly won the kadima leadership (by 431 votes or 1.1%, based on an approximately 55% turnout), she has done so on a platform of pushing the peace effort. if she succeeds in putting together a coalition, she will have been one of only three prime ministers in recent times to not have a military background (other than compulsory military service). true she did work for mossad, but apparently at a low-level position, "hired to live in a Paris apartment to maintain the appearance of a regular residential property".

what we know of ms livni is that she supports an israeli-syrian peace agreement (even though the bush and mccain do not) and is not keen on an israeli airstrike on iran. she has beaten shaul mofaz, who opposes both peace with the palestinians and with the syrians.

however, ms livni will have to deal with the extreme right in israel who continue to oppose any kind of concession. settlor groups will resist any dismantling of settlements on the west bank. she will face major obstacles even in trying to stop the new settlements that continue to be built on disputed land. any significant concessions made by her will surely result in bejamin netanyahu becoming prime minister at the next election and what kind of disaster that will be, we can only imagine.

in any case, here is a woman leader who appears to have some substance. whether or not she can translate that into substantial progress remains to be seen.

*tzipi is apparently short for tzipora, which means bird.
**these quotes and a couple of the links are from a piece by joel beinin, professor of middle east history, stanford university. it was sent to me by email and unfortunately i can't find a copy available on-line.

She works hard for the money

Two readers have independently contacted me about a North American study just released in the last few days which shows that men who take on non-traditional roles earn less than men who stick to the more archaic public/private division of labour. You can read about it on the BBC's website here, or peruse Little Mis Brightshine's thoughts over here. The guts of it (dollar amounts are US$):

The study, carried out by researchers at the University of Florida, was conducted on a large scale, with 12,686 men and women interviewed in 1979, when they were aged between 14 and 22, and three times in the following two decades, the last time in 2005.

The researchers asked them whether they believed a woman's place was in the home, or whether the employment of women was likely to lead to higher rates of juvenile delinquency.

Predictably, more men tended to hold these views than women, although the gap has narrowed significantly over time.

However, when the men were asked about their salaries, another gap emerged, with those holding "traditional" views earning significantly more.

Conversely, women who held the opposite view did earn slightly more, on average $1,500 (£833) more than women with "traditional" views.

All sorts of theories abound about why this might be; men who wield power in their relationships also do so in their jobs and thus end up more highly paid; women in the workplace, and men who take on non-traditional roles, are subtly discriminated against; work that has historically been done primarily by women is significantly undervalued whether it is paid or unpaid; men who are the only source of income for their family are more likely to get promoted because their employer recognises they need the money (I find that one a bit bizarre).

For my family this potential pay gap is about to become highly relevant. After nine months off from my paid job, while my partner worked full time in the job he's had a while, we are about to swap places; swivelly chairs for high chairs, pant suits for sleepy suits, that kind of thing.

I don't have any particular worries about my workplace, or my employer's attitude to mothers. They've certainly been great so far, and made it clear they are looking forward to having me back on Monday.

But I am starting to get the impression I'm lucky. I have observed other employers treating mothers who work less kindly than fathers who do so, particularly when mum first comes back from maternity leave. Anyone who has read I Don't Know How She Does It cannot escape the observation Reddy makes, that men who leave early to attend a child's sports event are Fathers of the Year, while women who are a little bit late because their offspring vomited all night are letting their home life get in the way of their work.

I'm sure this attitude is changing, for the better, and many women, in New Zealand anyway, don't face frequent and open disapproval for not staying home full time until their child is at school. But it's the subtle stuff that dismays me still. In my office there are a number of fathers of young children, and in some ways they have blazed a trail for me. One has an arrangement that he comes into work a bit later so he can take his kids to school; another takes off a week in each school holidays to look after his three children; a third took a month off at the birth of his daughter and negotiated a day a week working from home. My hope is that as more men ask, and are granted, arrangements like this it becomes easier for mothers too.

I guess I'll be finding out in the coming months...

World's first female majority Parliament

In New Zealand we are pretty proud of leading the way for women's electoral representation, or at least being near the front of the pack. But when it comes to women in Parliament Rwanda has us beat hands down. As Idiot/Savant reports, they've just elected the world's first female majority Parliament, and the current figure of 44 women out of 80 seats may increase further if women are elected to quota seats put aside for youth and the disabled.

How have they done it? Well they've used quotas - Little Miss Brightside has more on how this works in the Rwandan context, and it seems to have been a move that evolved out of the ruins created by genocide in their nation in the recent past.

Which raises the question in my mind; are quotas the only way to achieve a break-through of this nature? In the analysis I've been doing of the place of women on party lists the Greens have stuck out so far, and they do have a firm commitment to a (loosely) quota-based system for women's representation.

What do you think dear readers? Do we need a women's (or indeed Maori, or Pasifika, or non-hetero, or indeed any other) quota in our Parliament? Would such a move be a good idea as an interim measure, or on a permanent basis, or do you just think it sucks the big kumara beyond belief?

None of our business

Nope none at all.

This teacher is having sex. Lots of teachers have sex. Some teachers have straight sex, others have gay sex. Some teachers have more sex and some have less. Some teachers indulge in practices that are different from what you do. And apparently some are getting paid to do this. In the end it is none of our business so long as they are getting the job done in the classroom.

Some of the pupils fathers may well be her clients as are men in a whole variety of 'respected professions.' But hang on. We never talk about the customers do we, just the prostitutes and their morality.

*Bangs head against desk*

Monday Funday - with cougar lust

Kristen Schaal on The Daily Show, talking about demeaning names for women and generally making Jon Stewart squirm a lot.

Ok, the flashplayer embed didn't work, but here's the link, sorry about that!

Hat tipped to A Funny Feminist.

Kate magazine available at UOA today!

Those who frequent the University of Auckland might want to grab a copy of this week's Craccum (despite the disemboided breasts on the cover and the higher than usual level of misogynistic content) because there is a fantastic insert that is worth holding your nose for.

Kate has been put together by feminist women involved in the Auckland University Students' Association, with Women's Rights' Officer Sophie Klinger in the editor's swivelly chair, and content includes:

• Are women-only scholarships necessary?
• An examination of minority feminism
• Startlingly good poetry
• The Campaign for Equality underway in Iran
• Why ALAC's Lisa ad is unneccessary and insensitive
• And even a cryptic crossword on the back!

Go grab yourself a copy today!

The Culture of Pink

Cross-posted

Do you know how hard it is to find anything that isn't pink for your little girl? From day one girls are forced into the culture of ponies and fairies and pinkness. Parents become eager to buy into it too it seems, probably because it is what is deemed to be 'normal'.

Recently I stumbled on Heelarious, a site where you can purchase high heeled shoes (made of foam) for your newborn, to help them get that 'shoe fetish' underway. I can see the amusement factor in them. But mostly they just make me cringe.

Why? Because it is another step towards the indoctrination of the culture of pink.

The shoes, the clothes, the fantasy pink bedroom with the dreams of handsome princes, the bras and undies sets for tweenies, the early sexualisation of girls, the hero worship of such worthy icons as Paris Hilton, the springing up of Playboy shops (anyone want a t-shirt for their daughter with 'made for men's entertainment on it? No? Well actually, yes it would seem) and general acceptance of the Playboy label (bed linen for single beds in pink playboy bunnies - bought by parents for their young girls. Do they think it is funny?) are all part of the same thing.

It worries me that if you ask young girls who they admire and who they wish they could be like, they are likely to say Paris Hilton or someone similar. Children have always had dreams - there are plenty who would also say Hilary Duff or Miley Cyrus I am sure, at least they are dreaming there of being a singer or an actress. But we are creating a pathway that leads directly to a person who is famous for doing very little except being a society girl.

I am sure that Paris Hilton is in fact a perfectly intelligent person who does a lot of things behind the scenes. (Her recent video mocking the republican candidate points to a good wit). But it not those things that make little girls want to be her (and older girls attempt to be her).

Little girls can wear pink - and should wear pink if you want them to or they want to. There is nothing wrong with loving butterflies, and pinkness and fairies and castles and dreaming of girliness and having big eyes staring up at people. It just shouldn't be a career option.

That Bothersome Business of Equality

Over at No Minister Psycho Milt laments a Third of women still believe they don't have equal rights in New Zealand (interestingly 16 per cent of men believed that women did not have equal rights either). He believes that the respondents didn't definition of rights, or just that the respondents who did not believe equality had been achieved in New Zealand were, in his words, just into 'special pleading.'

Homepaddock touched briefly on the reason for this perception gap, formal versus substantive equality. I suppose today is a good day to reflect on the differences between the two types of equality given that today New Zealand women achieved a formal right to vote. However it wasn't until 1919 that New Zealand women were eligible to stand for election to parliament. So the question of the day is when democratic equality for New Zealand was been achieved if in indeed it has been achieved at all?

Those who believe in formal equality might say it was 115 years ago today or maybe when right to stand for parliament was enshrined in which case the date pushes out to 1919. Some who believe in substantive equality might say 1933 was a watershed day as a woman stood in our house of representatives as an elected member, or perhaps the day the first woman took her seat in Cabinet or became Prime Minister.

But in general most who believe in substantive equality would point out that 75 years after the first woman took her seat in parliament, the proportion of numbers hasn't increased to a point where we can say New Zealand has achieved substantive democratic equality when there are only 40 women MPs elected to our parliament out of a total of 122 seats and 7 female cabinet ministers of which only 2 made it on to the front bench.

So in answer to Milt's question, even in the case of democracy where New Zealand women have had formal rights to vote stand for parliament enshrined for decades the question of whether we have achieved 'equal rights' is still very much up for debate and very much coloured by individual ideology.

Friday Feminist - Kate Sheppard

Cross posted

The news is being flashed far and wide, and before our earth has revolved on her axis every civilized community within the reach of the electric wires will have received the tidings that civic freedom has been granted to the women of New Zealand. ... It does not seem a great thing to be thankful for, that the gentlemen who confirm the laws which render women liable to taxation and penal servitude have declared us to be "persons"... We are glad and proud to think that even in so conservative a body as the Legislative Council there is a majority of men who are guided by the principles of reason and justice, who desire to see their womenkind treated as reasonable beings, and who have triumphed over prejudice, narrow-mindedness and selfishness.

Kate Sheppard, September 1893

Suffrage Eve and all that

Thanks so much to everyone who helped with our first event last night, the Inaugural Suffrage Eve Debate. The highlights for me were the honest and open-hearted speeches by our four women candidates (Sarita Divis from the Alliance, Nikki Kaye from National, Anjum Rahman from Labour, and Lyn Murphy from Act) and the interesting discussions around health rationing (in the context of the herceptin debate) and why women are still under-represented in politics. Oh and the cupcakes! Mmmm cupcakes.

There were a few lessons to learn for next time (lesson 1. check the urn at home first!), and I'd be interested in any constructive criticism that people have to offer, by email or comment.

I've included below some relevant extracts from the introductory speech I gave last night, and I hope that Anjum posts her speech, as the bits I heard were fantastic, and there was a lot of positive feedback about it afterwards.

Before I turn over the podium I’d like to reflect a little bit on the event that we are commemorating this evening. One hundred and fifteen years ago tomorrow NZ women were the first in the world to win the vote. Today we take that vote for granted, but in the 1890s the world was a different place for women.


NZ society was very much bicultural – Maori or Pakeha – will few immigrants who did not come from British stock. Women were still outnumbered by men, as they had been since colonization by Europeans began, although the gender gap was closing. The public sphere was almost exclusively a man’s world, and many considered the idea of women voting unnatural. It was widely believed that the weaker sex were naturally suited for domestic affairs such as keeping a home and child-rearing, and that only men should have a role in politics.

In 1893 many men in Aotearoa were without work as a result of an economic depression. Many Maori whanau had recently lost their land, through confiscation, war or sale, and were living in temporary camps, trying to get seasonal work. Our economyspan id="fullpost"> was very much based around primary production, and women rarely worked outside the home. Most occupations were not open to women and for most ownership of assets was only possible through the male head of the family – usually a husband or father, sometimes a son or brother.

As women became active in the Temperance Movement, and became more highly educated pressure mounted for women’s legal and political rights to be granted. Suffragettes agitated for the vote, and called on the networks and credibility women had built through their work in church and charity groups. There was a focus on women as a force for the moral reform of society – that once we had the vote we would clean up politics, and by extension the country.

Opponents, including some women, decried the idea of votes for women as not only unnatural but also unnecessary – arguing that women had a vote through the men they influenced. The liquor barons feared that giving women the vote might lead to prohibition, and poured considerable resources into opposing the suffrage movement.

Luckily for all of us they were unsuccessful. And the world we live in today is different as a result of the victory of our fore-mothers.


The New Zealand of today is a multicultural society, particularly in Auckland, where immigrants come from all over the world to settle. The idea of denying women the right to vote seems fanciful now, when we have had 2 female Prime Ministers, women serving as Governors General and Chief Justice, and our first female Speaker of the House. We are found in all professions, although not always in large numbers, and discrimination on the basis of sex is now illegal.

We have many battles still to win, and many struggles ahead of us – equal pay for equal work, securing and improving reproductive rights, building women’s political and social representation, and enhancing the value of traditional women’s work, for starters. But we have built significantly on the legacy of those suffragettes of a century past. I hope that in one hundred and fifteen years time our great grand daughters can look at their world and see the contributions we have made to a fairer society for them.

Happy One Hundred and Fifteen Years Since Women Got The Vote Day everyone!

New men's anarchist zine - From The Kitchen

Now you might be wondering why I'm mentioning a men's mag on a feminist blog, but kindly read the following message from the organisers of the zine...

From The Kitchen: Issue one of Aotearoa anarchist men's zine now out!

In what is perhaps a first for Aotearoa Pakeha anarchists (please let us know if that isn't the case) 'From the Kitchen' is a zine devoted to the discussion of anarchist mens relationship/ response to the feminist movement(s) and our own sexist behaviour. The zine isn't about pointing fingers but instead is done in the style of critical self-reflection by the authors about sexism in their own lives.

Topics in the first issue include:

• Me(n) and Pornography
• Slugs in the Sandpit - The Gendered politics of the garden
• Meat Robots Unite
• Some thoughts on masculinity, authoritarianism and emotional intelligence
• What is to be done- some reflections on current sexism in the anarchist movement.

If you want to get you hands on a copy (I know you do!) then try the Freedom Shop in Te Whanganui-a- Tara/Wellington, Cherry Bomb Comics in Tamaki-makau- rau/Auckland, Black Star Books in Otepoti/Dunedin, or if you are outside of the main centres then through Katipo Books. It is hoped that the zine will be on going so if you want to contribute to the next one or help distribute this one then contact menshuizine@ katipo.net. nz

out of fashion

fashion week. yawn. i'm so not into fashion, to the despair of my teenage daughter who thinks she has the most boring mum in the world. actually, she may be right on that one.

it's not that i don't like pretty clothes. when i buy things for myself, i look for nice colours and styles. i like to co-ordinate my headscarves with my outfits, and co-ordinate my scarf pins too. i must admit to being terrible when it comes to shoes, don't bother to co-ordinate those at all.

it doesn't help that i hate shopping. i actually like the spending money part, and i like having new things. it's just the tedious wandering around shops and trying to make a decision part that bores me. which is why i tend to make quick decisions. if i like something, i buy it immediately without looking at what's available elsewhere. after all, time is money and the less time i spend shopping, the more time i can spend on something productive.

there aren't too many clothes i can buy in nz, as the short skirts, tight pants, t-shirts etc aren't things that i'll wear. and because i'm short, alot of the stuff just doesn't work for me - it a top fits nicely at the shoulders and waist, you can be sure the sleeves will be way too long. my favourite place for clothes shopping is malaysia - cheap and pretty, what more can you ask! i also enjoyed clothes shopping in saudi arabia when i was there a couple of years ago.

i've stopped doing jewellery altogether, mostly because i have sensitive skin that will break out into an awful itching rash with the slightest provocation. also because you can't see hardly any of it under the headscarf. and i find rings and bangles just seem to get into the way both at work and at home. of handbags, i have one practical backpack style, and make-up went out the window a few years ago.

so, no wonder i have little interest in fashion week! there are very few clothes that i would even consider wearing. most of the stuff looks so outlandish that i can't imagine other people wearing it either. the models are so far from my body shape that i can't imagine those flowing lines looking good on my frame. i'm sure the same goes for many other women.

my biggest objection to fashion week though is the consumerism behind it. i just get really annoyed by the amount people are expected to shell out for labels. yes, i know a lot of work and effort goes into the design of clothing, the selection of fabrics and colours etc. but i always think of the opportunity cost. this is money that could have been spent on something productive, like irrigation projects in poorer countries, or on medical research to cure serious/terminal diseases.

but even if you're not into those nobler motives, keeping up-to-date on fashion means you have less to invest for retirement, less to build up your capital base and ensure your financial security. this is an area where women are considerably worse off than men, and if we stopped spending money on fashion, make up, beauty products and procedures, we could at least start to change that trend.

i hate the waste of it. fashion constantly changes, so that clothes that could otherwise be worn for several years (it's not like they aren't pretty or practical anymore) are discarded much sooner because they're out-of-date. in a world of limited resources, constantly changing fashions are just not environmentally friendly.

then there is the whole competitive mentality that the fashion industry engenders. it's about being one step ahead of everyone else, about showing off and feeling superior. i'd love to see a world where we had a stronger sense of community, where we identified with each other as friends and allies. it's just a little bit harder to feel friendly towards a person when you're competing to see who has the best, the latest, the most expensive wardrobe. it's harder to identify with her troubles or care about her well-being when you're looking down on her lack of fashion-sense.

as i said at the beginning, it's not that i'm against nice clothes and looking good in what you wear. i guess it's the obsessive attention to ever-changing fashions and designer labels that just doesn't work for me.

Nerves

Tonight is our first event, The Inaugural Suffrage Eve Debate. I'm really looking forward to meeting Anjum for the first time. And I'm a bit on edge.

When I organise something I'm always worried that no one will come. Or that people will come but they will hate it. And that the hate will result because I said or did something stupid or ill-informed (or because hardly anyone else came). In this case the risk is increased as I am putting my Domestic Goddess credentials on the line by daring to cook some cupcakes. I'm reasonably secure about my baking (as long as I remember to put the baking powder in), but my icing, well, it's not that hot.

Anyway, I just wanted to share my nervousness in the hope that getting it out there would mean there was a little less inside my head. And my belly.

If you're in Auckland and can make it along it would be great to see you. If not, we intend to have some pics up in a few days, and will provide links to the video and radio coverage that two media outlets intend to produce in due course (Darpan-The Mirror's telly show and Women's Voices on Planet FM respectively).

And at about 8pm I'll be feeling a lot less nervous and a lot more relieved.

Comments on this post are disabled deliberately, I'm not sure why, I guess because I don't want to be fishing for reassurance. Thanks to those who've circumvented my cunning plan and sent their kind thoughts anyway ;-)

Feminist Event: More Suffrage Day goodness in Christchurch

Thanks to kakariki for not only blogging about this but emailing me too :-)

Do join us to celebrate Women’s Suffrage Day with an evening of craft at Manuka Cottage!

7pm onwards
Friday 19 September
Manuka Cottage (45 Dickens Street, Addington)

Please B.Y.O stitching!

The evening will also feature a guest speaker sharing a woman’s perspective on Addington life.

A light supper will be provided.

All welcome!
Why not bring a friend or two!

Please forward this message to others who may be interested.

Why wrapping a woman in duct tape is not a good way to get people to enrol to vote

Like Deborah, I've been unable to find anything on the American feminist blogs* about the Declare Yourself campaign, and specifically the image of Jessica Alba which I blogged about briefly last night. Have a look at that post if you want to see what I'm talking about; I'm not really interested in reproducing it more than is necessary for discussion.

The rest of the shots used for the campaign show various celebs (many I didn't recognise, I am so not down with the kidz) with their mouths sealed though a variety of methods - sewn, nailed, stapled, stuffed with a bow tie, you get the idea. All have tears tracking down their face, showing their deep sorrow at the silence they suffer.

So I understand the point of the campaign is to encourage young people to enrol to vote. And I know that there seems to be a general belief in Media Land that in order to get through to the youf one has to employ "shock tactics" and be "edgy". But aren't there other ways to be inventive and get cut through that don't involve wrapping an apparently naked woman in duct tape?

The Alba ad seems to be the one the campaign has used to launch their enrolment drive, and it just comes across all wrong to me. When I see an image like that I don't think of electoral matters, I think about domestic violence, the subjugation of women (particularly in some places overseas where the restrictions women face are far more aggressive than in Aotearoa New Zealand), and actually I think about slavery. I would have thought in a country where the history of the civil rights movement, and everything that went with it, is still within living memory, they would have thought a little longer about this, and come to the conclusion that such an image was not a good idea, even if the woman they use is not African American.

I'd love to see the focus group research on this one. I can only assume that they sat a group of young hetero men down in a room, showed them the image, and then asked them if it would encourage them to enrol to vote. Sex sells yet again, seems to be the conclusion they came to. And even better than just sex; sex in which an attractive young woman is tied up, crying and vulnerable. That must sell Christmas to turkeys (or, voter enrolment to the apathetic even).

Finally, the whole campaign completely ignores the fact that actually there are external barriers to voting in the USA. There's the difficulty of enrolling in some states (or indeed staying on the roll), the practical realities of getting some bosses to release workers to cast their vote, the difficulties some people face in making it to a polling booth for reasons of cost, time, childcare, and access. It's not as straight forward as the message "only you can silence yourself" suggests.

P.S. I also noticed that in all but one of the male celeb pics in the gallery you can clearly see that they are clothed. But in all three female shots, guess what?


* I did find this post at Australian team feminist blog The Dawn Chorus.

Feminist Events: Another Suffrage Day event in Auckland

Further to this (Auckland, tomorrow), this (Auckland) and this (Christchurch), I've also discovered the following, via The Standard's Campaign Hub 2008:

Friday 19th Sept, from 5.30pm - Suffrage Day celebrations at Trades Hall, 149 Great North Rd, Grey Lynn (opposite the Lamborghini dealership I believe)

I'm assuming, due to the time and location, that this is probably organising by the Working Women's Resource Centre, and is likely to be a rather jolly gathering of union women and men. Might try to get along there myself, seeing as how it's likely to be baby-friendly.

Hmmmmm

Found this at The Standard tonight, and don't have time to check if the US feminist blogs are writing about it.

Is anyone else disturbed by this imagery in a campaign encouraging people to vote? It just seems pretty gratuitous to me, but maybe I'm overreacting?

Anyway, more tomorrow, hopefully.

Feminist Events: Suffrage Day in Christchurch

"SUFFRAGE DAY CELEBRATIONS: WOMEN PAST & PRESENT

Just a reminder to phone Ruth Todd for tickets NOW for our celebration of Suffrage Day - Friday 19 September- White Camellia Day - the Day the Vote was Won! And this year, with the general elections coming up, very important that we use our vote, won for us by those amazing women in 1893. We always like to mark this day with a WOA event in the evening & this is it! See details below.

We will also have some wonderful BOOK RAFFLES too! You can win packages of 5-6 new books for $2

MEGAN HUTCHING has produced 6 books of oral histories of WW2, and in her new book, Over the Wide and Trackless Sea, she has chosen 11 pioneer women and girls of NZ, who came here from Dalmatia, Britain & Denmark. Some will be familiar - Lady Barker & Betty Guard - do you know about Amey Daldey, Juliette Daniell & Catherine Ralfe?? These are wonderful stories,full of humour, soul-searching & exasperation, about their trials & triumphs, told as much as possible in their own words. A wonderful gift for younger women too.

VIRGINIA PAWSEY from North Canterbury & JANICE MARRIOTT from Wellington, will have a conversation that brought about COMMON GROUND - the letters written to each other for a year - two very different women & their friendship - both with a passion for gardening & letter writing, who met up at a school reunion after many years.
A real delight - their gardens & daily lives couldn't be more different.

And one of our favourite Canterbury poets, BERNADETTE HALL, will end the evening reading some of her recent poems.

You will be able to hear interviews with Megan Hutching & Janice Marriott on WOA on Sat 13 Sept after 10am

If you are a Friend of WOA, the ticket price is $10 from Ruth or Morrin. If you would like to bring a student - $5 - with ID

Just send a cheque to WOA Trust, Plains FM, PO Box 22297, ChCh & enclose a stamped addressed envelope & we will post the tickets back to you.
Tell your book groups & bring your friends or just come yourself

Also CELEBRATE by coming to the Kate Sheppard Memorial at 12.30 on Suffrage Day - bring spring flowers or camellias & join with other women to remember the women who came before & talk about the present & the future."

Thanks to Heather for leaving the above comment about this on a previous post, and bringing it to my attention. If anyone has any feminist events, for Suffrage Day or otherwise, please feel free to email me (address is available through my profile).

Monday Funday - With tiny baby wheelchairs

Some parents just amaze me - they are already dealing with the normal difficulties of a baby in their lives, but they don't let that stop them and instead they go above and beyond for that child. When this new dad was told his daughter Sophie wouldn't walk for at least a year he didn't just sit around, he did something. And filmed it all for us. (It's a little longer than 6 minutes and NSFW if your work isn't ok with a bit of cussing).

Hat tip: Jezebel

Lateness

I endured a few days of the time that every sexually active woman who is not actively trying to conceive dreads, a late period. If there is one thing worse than your period showing up, it is not showing up for four whole days. Despite having two negative at-home pregnancy tests and being on the pill, I still spent many hours fretting about the ramifications of an unplanned pregnancy because even though I've had that uncomfortable conversation with my partner going from theoretical decisions to actual ones can throw up some unexpected surprises. And although this particular problem was resolved when my period came with a vengeance of cramps, nausea and vomiting, next month will be more of the same; waiting anxiously to see if that birth control did its thing for another month.

Urrgh.

So yes perhaps all this angst is the reason I get a little pissy when politicians, no matter how insignificant, start talking about abortion laws in the context 'family' and why I get even more anxious when right to life groups seem all to vigilant to be naming names on the abortion supervisory committee. And perhaps why I get concerned when beat-ups about small number of underage abortions are reported in the context of 'parental rights' rather than asking why there was such a break down in family communication in the first place and why the wishes and concerns of the teenage girl are not even thought of as an after-thought rather than the central concern. So yes I find myself irrationally angry about this state of affairs because more often than not these people aren't the ones who are peeing on a stick hoping to hell that ugly blue cross sign doesn't show up three minutes later and perhaps they need to step back and ask 'how can I help?' rather than 'you should do this.'

Reminder: Suffrage Eve Debate this week!

WHAT: The Inaugural Suffrage Eve Debate, featuring women standing for Parliament, political discussion, and cupcakes

WHEN: Thursday 18th September, 7.30pm (that's this Thursday!)

WHERE: Lecture Theatre ENG3402, School of Engineering, University of Auckland, 20 Symonds St

WHO: Four female candidates discussing whether centre-left or centre-right approaches are better for women, one each from Labour, National, Act and the Alliance (see here for more info), and organised by the bloggers at The Hand Mirror, with the graceful assistance of AUSA.

For a fuller rant on this, see my last post on the matter. And there's a Facebook page for this event. Hope to see you on Thursday if you are in Auckland.

this is my home

i had this request from my post a couple of days ago:

Thanks for your post.

I am interested in this comment:"it's hard not to feel that you're siding with the bigots and giving them more cannon-fodder to attack a community that is already feeling beseiged"

This isn't an area I know a whole lot about, how do you see that bigotry manifested in the NZ context??

Genuinely interested and keen to learn more, cheers.

i thought i'd share my response as a separate post, as it was getting a bit too long for the comments section.

i did a speech at the diversity forum this year regarding discrimination faced by muslim women in nz. it took me 10 minutes to tell it, and would take several pages of writing if i were to share it with you. they were stories i'd accumulated from talking to several muslim women about their day to day experiences of life in nz.

it would be hard to summarise the hate we face so often, just going out shopping or walking in the street. the insults hurled out by strangers, the unfriendliness of shop assistants, the careless comments. add to that the absolute nastiness of talkback radio, many very harsh letters to the editors, a lot of negative press centred on overseas bombings, and politicians who are happy to play up people's prejudices in order to drum up votes (remember that "end of tolerance speech" in 2005?).

the very worst experience would have to be a talk i attended by one jacob prasch, an overseas speaker. it was 90 minutes of pure venom, about how evil muslims were, how our religion preaches violence and murder, how we have no conscience or ethics or mercy. how there backward all muslims are, how resistant to change and totally irredeemable. this speech was delivered to a room full of over 100 people. by the end of his talk, even i hated myself and i can only imagine how the others would have thought of us. this speaker had been up and down the country, invited here by ariel ministries, hosted in hamilton by the calvary tabernacle church.

i could only think of how this group of people would go out into their communities, thinking they knew us, and spreading what they knew to their friends, their families and their workmates. i could imagine how they would react if they had to teach muslim students or make a decision to employ a muslim. i felt so sick in my stomach, so very helpless, because we had no right of reply to that audience. we never had the opportunity to provide an alternative view.

that was about 4 years ago. since then i've had plenty of experiences that have been nowhere near as antagonising, but nonetheless they create an environment where it becomes almost impossible for our community to be self-critical. this is because the vast majority of our efforts are spent on trying to counter the misinformation and to establish our humanity and our right to be treated with dignity and respect.

of course, i must also point out that there are many wonderful people in this country who don't buy in to the bigotry. people who are warm and friendly. and due to a lot of efforts by the muslim community (eg islam awareness week) and others (eg RAM who organised the george galloway visit last year; the office of ethnic affairs with the building bridges programme and the efforts of the race relations commissioner), things are getting better.

and of course there are places like the hand mirror, where i've found i have a voice that really is treated with respect. i can't even begin to tell you how much that means to me.