What's a white woman to say?

Cross-posted at In a Strange Land

I have been a bit slow on the posting front recently, because I have been trying to get my head around a Flying-spaghetti-monster-Almighty stoush in the feminist blogosphere. That's a bit of an exaggeration; it's mostly to do with US feminism, but US feminism does dominate world wide English speaking feminism, and more than that, the problems thrown into stark relief by the incredible dust-up are not just American problems. It's a complicated story, and I don't think that I can tell it well, nor do I even want to tell it. But as far as I can tell, it hasn't made its way into the wider blogosphere, much, except on some leftie blogs - see for example, this thread at Larvatus Prodeo. So I want to bring this to the attention of my New Zealand e-friends and readers.

Where to start? Probably with a very general statement, that the stoush was, very roughly, between American women-of-colour (WoC) feminists, and American white feminists. Even the use of that term, WoC, tells you that this is a US-centric dispute; the term is not much in use in the parts where I live (that would be in Australia and New Zealand). And there's history here. There have been disputes between American white feminists and American WoC feminists before, and disputes in the blogosphere. I'm not so aware of the previous history in the blogosphere; I read just a very few NZ-based blogs until about 18 months ago, and I only started blogging myself about nine months ago, so I know nothing myself of these old disputes, but I can see that the rumbles go on, and on, and on.

The basic cause of conflict lies in the extent to which feminism is a white, middle-class movement. Very roughly, white women are inclined to see feminism and gender issues as the base issues, and they subsume all other issues to them; WoC (correctly) point out that racism is one hell of an issue too, and the intersection of racism and gender is particularly vexed. Moreover, the way that white women approach feminism is itself racist.

No one (or at least, no one I know) likes being called racist. It's a charge we reject, and for the most part, if someone calls us racist, our instinct is to get defensive, and to defend our behaviour, rather than to stop and examine what we have been saying and doing. So I'm guessing that if you are a white woman or a white man reading this, then you will be inclined to stop listening around about now. But please don't.

Given this account of the types of discussions there have been in the past, you can imagine that the US feminist blogosphere was well-primed for a conflagration. So what went down?

Three things.

(1) Amanda Marcotte, a prominent feminist blogger, posted material on the intersection of feminism and immigration. It looked like her own work, but Brownfemipower recognised her own ideas in Amanda Marcotte's posts. However Amanda Marcotte had not linked to Brownfemipower, nor given any recognition to her. So she seemed to have appropriated Brownfemipower's ideas, and presented them as her own. Not plagiarism, exactly, but at least using someone else's ideas without acknowledgment. Some people defended Amanda Marcotte, some people supported Brownfemipower, and other WoC bloggers chimed in. (I haven't done a detailed textual analysis of Marcotte's work and BFP's work, but it does seem to me that Marcotte must have been at least influenced by BFP's ideas. So, educated as I am in the academic tradition, it does seem to me that Marcotte ought at least to have acknowledged her sources, even if she didn't quote them exactly.)

(2) Black Amazon put a single comment in a post, saying "Fuck Seal Press." (I would link to the particular post and the follow-up comments, but Black Amazon has taken her blog private - see below - and although I suppose I could hunt around and find a cached copy, that seems to be a bit damned rude just now.) Seal Press is a feminist press, but they had been called on racism in the past. The Seal Press editors visited Black Amazon's blog, and said something to the effect of, "We get that you engage through negative discourse" (I forget the exact words, but it was something to that effect), and then invited WoC to tell them what they should be doing better. (Umm... like it's good to tell people that they are negative. And on top of that, why should people who are already subjected to racism have to turn around and educate people who are being racist. Surely it's up to the people who are acknowledging that they may have gotten it wrong to do the hard yards of finding out how to fix the problem.)

So things were rumbling along under the strength of these two issues. BFP took down her blog and gave up blogging altogether (farewell post), and other WoC were at least unhappy, and in some cases renouncing feminism. The overall point was that a white feminist was appropriating ideas from WoC, WoC were being told they were negative, and then they were being asked to fix the mess up. In general, white feminists promised to try to do better.

Links for all of this - far too many to post! But the F-Word (UK feminist blog) has a post with helpful links, as does Feministe.

In the midst of all this, Amanda Marcotte published a book, with Seal Press. Some of the other leading feminist blogs put up posts advertising her book, and publicising her book-reading appearances. So despite all the furore, they still supported her (despite having earlier promised to try to do better). Understandably, WoC were upset by this. I guess it looked to them that white feminists, despite having read all their blog posts and comments, and despite having promised to try to do better, nevertheless turned around and supported the very person who had been at the centre of the storm.

Then (3). Amanda Marcotte's book came out, complete with these images.







(Images lifted from Feministe, who lifted them from Dear white feminists: quit fucking up.)

Faaaarrrrrccccckkkkkk!!!!

I find these images incredibly racist. "Good white woman" will defeat "wicked black / brown / other people".

Amanda Marcotte apologised, Seal Press apologised, Black Amazon quit blogging, one of the Feministe bloggers has quit blogging, and everywhere, or at least, everywhere in the US feminist blogosphere, people are upset and angry and unhappy. It's a mess.

Which is why I haven't been posting. I just can't get my head around all this. Maybe that's because identity politics doesn't play out in the same way in New Zealand as it does in the US. The whole topic seems like something "over there" to me. Except that thinking that the problem is "over there" would be an easy way to duck thinking about it altogether.

So, I have been thinking long and hard about white privilege, from which I benefit. Here's the original essay about white privilege. It's something that I think is worth reading, and re-reading, and re-reading, to remind myself about the extent to which being born white means being born privileged.

As for the feminist blogosphere in New Zealand - well, there aren't too many of us explicitly claiming feminism. There's those of us blogging at The Hand Mirror, and THM has a list of other NZ women blogging too, but not all of these explicitly claim feminism. Of course, I'm not in New Zealand anymore, 'tho for the time being, my heart is still there. (You can take the woman out of New Zealand, but...) I think it's telling that I can't explicitly identify any Maori women blogging, although I know that Maia at least has been explicit in her condemnation of the racism on display in the police raids on Ruatoki last year. I would like to think that we would do better on thinking about the intersection of race and gender, if only because our race and gender history is different from the history in the US, but that may just be a forlorn hope.

Some final words on this, from a WoC in the US, and a South Asian woman in Australia.

And I thought the point of insurance was to make money for insurance companies

Just when you think the debate on whether a foetus is a baby or not couldn't get any more heated someone steps in with a great idea to make themselves some money - insurance for birth defects (e.g. Downs syndrome), ectopic pregnancies, birth complications, and stillbirth.

I heard a woman from the company concerned talking about it on the radio news and she said (I paraphrase) that "insurance exists to help people out when bad things happen."

Gee it must be great workingon the cutting edge of the insurance industry, finding new ways to profit from encouraging people's fears of the highly unlikely. Expectant mothers are a particularly good group to stress out. Congratulations Capitalism, I think this may be a new low.

(Yes, I am grumpy today).

Monday Funday - A Little Funeral Humour

Hat Tip: Mistress Vaginificator

Women Blogging ANZAC Day

When we established The Hand Mirror one of our central aims was to promote NZ women's blogging, whether political or otherwise. In line with that purpose, here is a round-up of all the ANZAC related posts I can find by NZ women, be they mothers, crafters, ex-pats, immigrants, feminists, socialists, National Party supporters, or even all of the above. Hopefully it will provide a bit of a snapshot of what NZ women bloggers were thinking on or around April 25th 2008.

• ANZAC Day - Art and My Life
• ANZAC Day Jelly Wrestle and Clever folk at Google - Lita of Bits on the Side
• Possibly they mean 'Lest We Remember' - Maia of Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty (and The Hand Mirror)
• The market's great big dirty paw grabs Anzac Day - Anne of Elsewoman
• When do we remember the women who died in childbirth? - Deborah at The Hand Mirror
• On whom we remember, and what - Harvest Bird
• Lest we Forget - Jannelle at Heart Felt
• ANZAC Day Atheist - Deborah of In A Strange Land (and The Hand Mirror)
• Anzac Day - Helen of Show Your Workings
• Anzac's Not a Marketing Tool and Other Choice Links - Ana at Spare Room
• anzac day - Anjum Rahman of stargazer
• Anzac biscuits on Anzac Day - Nikki of Tales of the Red Headed Devil Child

If I have missed your post please do add it in comments and I apologise for the omission - it will definitely be cock-up rather than conspiracy!

---

My own thoughts on Anzac Day were, as ever, about the horror and futility of war. When I utter "lest we forget" it is a fervent plea for a present and a future without violence. I didn't attend an Anzac service this year but I will take Wriggly to them in the future - with the hope that he too will reflect on the stupidity of war. It disturbs me that there are some who see April 25th as an opportunity to reinvent history, to glorify state-sponsored violence, and to push for more funding for the War Machines of New Zealand and Australia. Wriggly will definitely know, because his parents will tell him, that the original event that inspired Anzac Day involved New Zealanders invading someone else's country, not defending our own.

It strikes me that Anzac Day remembrances are usually very male-dominated. There is much discussion of "our brave boys" and "the men who died for our freedoms". Parades of veterans are, by their very nature, XY-only. There is rarely any discussion of the role of women in any of the wars NZ has sent its citizens to die in (and of course no mention whatsoever of the war on our own soil). Yet even in those conflicts where women have not fought themselves they have served in non-combat positions, and of course hundreds of thousands of women have been victims of the violence of occupying forces. The so-called weaker sex has played a vital role at home when most menfolk were away, and often, as Deborah eloquently puts it "[their] dreams, conventional though they were, of marriage, home and children, were ruined," as a result of war.

To remember the damage war has done to women is not to minimise the harm it does to men. Instead I reckon a more holistic view of the impact of state vs state violence would bring most to the conclusion that war really is good for absolutely nothing.

When do we remember the women who died in childbirth?

I wrote a long post about Anzac Day at my own blog, mostly focusing on what I perceive to be the religious nature of the day. But I also briefly mentioned this issue:

Even if there were to be peace for ever more, I would find ANZAC Day difficult. We revere the men who died in battle, but where is the reverence for the women who died in childbirth? There is none, because after all, giving birth is just ordinary old women’s work, part of the quotidian round. Who cares that so many women have suffered in giving birth, so many have died, along with their babies, leaving young children behind them? No one, it seems, honours those who die in giving life. We only honour those who die in the battle to give death.

The whole post is here, and there has been a long dicussion about it. But perhaps THM readers would like to chime in on this particular issue here.

The F-word has a report about a project focusing on women who die in childbirth, now, in the 21st century, because they do not have decent healthcare.

The Odds & Ends Drawer

Here's a few reading suggestions for y'all:

Miss Politics muses on a relationship between a biological father and daughter in South Australia, which has resulted in offspring.

Grant Robertson celebrates the third anniversary of the passing of the Civil Union Act.

Lyn writes about the frequent online assumption that those who aren't openly female are indeed of the XY variety, and the impact of coming out as a woman in internet forums.

Anne Else takes on Bond & Bond's bad ANZAC specials advertising.

Harvestbird shares her experience of (high functioning) depression.

Kakariki has some amazing pics of a craft project which takes quilting to a whole new place.

Thanks to Deborah for the name suggestion. Feel free to add in comments links to posts of your own, or by others, which you'd like to plug.

Friday Feminist - Marilyn Waring (again again)

Part 2 of Who's Counting




Part 1 posted here; Part 3 will be posted next Friday.

Marilyn Waring

Carnival reading for the weekend

The 58th Carnival of Feminists is up on Be a Good Human.

The 13th Carnival of Radical Feminists is up on Shut Up, Sit Down.

There's plenty of fantastic reading in both carnivals.

The Bearer of Good Tidings

One of the wonderful things about being pregnant is the smiles it spreads. Everywhere I went, whilst in that rotund state, people I did and didn't know grinned when they saw my bulge. It constantly reminded me of the day I graduated from university and spent the day in robes. Many strangers would smile and congratulate me. It was nice.

I often used my pregnancy to diffuse tension, particularly at work. A colleague was griping to me about something that was really getting him down and I knew nothing I could say would help him to feel better. So I told him that I had just felt some kicking (which I had) and his face changed instantly. From the wrinkled forehead and the lowered brows, the tensed jaw and the moody eyes, his brooding countenance cleared, a big smile appeared and he went away happy. It was lovely to have that ability to change someone's mood from pugilistic to pleased.

There is a down side. Many people, particularly those who have not recently experienced pregnancy, think you, the gravid one, should be joyfully blissed-out all the time. I call it The Madonna Syndrome (as in Mary, not Ciccone). It is a completely unrealistic expectation. You are carrying around extra weight, extra blood, and a little kicking machine that at times aims right for the painful parts. You are also experiencing odd hormonal surges, strange discharges, aches in muscles that have never complained before, and often near eternal hunger. You may also be ambivalent about the coming baby and the changes it will create in your life, particularly if this is your first child. These are not things that generally result in a constant state of bliss.

On the whole being the bearer of good tidings is fun. It becomes less fun when it transforms into bearing the burden of judgement, which The Ex-Expat wrote about a while back, and no doubt that issue will be canvased here again and again in the future. But I hope in times to come that I remember this post, and the experiences that inspired it, and recall how rewarding it was to be the bearer of good tidings.

Cartoon from xkcd.

The world is crazy

Ever wondered why women obsess about their weight, their appearance, whether their clothes make them look too fat or too thin?

Turns out, no matter what, women are held to an impossible standard of beauty, with the goal posts always shifting. According to the Telegraph, fashion mags have started to round out models who are too skinny. Because, it's okay to be skinny, as long as you still have boobs and rounded hips.

Hat tip: the fabulous Shakesville

Men who explain things

Every woman knows what it's like to be patronized by a guy who won't let facts get in the way.

Just so.

Friday Feminist - Marilyn Waring (again)

I can't get enough of Marilyn Waring! I have been reading her book, Counting for Nothing, and it turns out that there's a documentary based on it. Here's part 1. I will post the next two parts over the next couple of weeks.



Marilyn Waring

Bits and Pieces

I seem to be doing this mid-week most weeks, so perhaps it should become a regular feature? Suggestions for names welcome.

• bluemilk starts a list of advice for medical professionals, aiming to improve their interactions with female patients. Can I please second point 2?
• An unnamed single mum muses on her own journey to realising she is beautiful.
• Jill at Feministe has a round-up of some of the posts in Monday's Blogging for Women in the Congo effort.
• Anjum points out the rather gender-based differences between personal attacks on Helen Clark and personal attacks on John Key.Australia gets a female GG, and even better Quentin Bryce is a feminist!
• The Standard reports on the insanity that is the Smackathon planned for October 1st.
• The Legal Eagle writes about the increasing expectation that women will be back at work quick smart after popping out their sprogs.
• Joanna of The Wellingtonista covers "fiercely feminist" magazine Bust.
• The 45th Carnival Against Sexual Violence is up at abyss2hope.
• And this Friday, April 18th, is not only the birthday of my dear friend Ang it is also Blog for Equal Pay Day. Although the blogswarm is US-based, issues of pay equity are definitely an issue in NZ too and I hope to churn a post out for it.

Please feel free to promote your own posts, or those of others, in links.

Talking of Hypocrites...

Paul at The Fundy Post has written about Bridget Saunders' latest gossip column in About Town*, in particular a rather alarming piece of tittle tattle that Saunders' shares with her readers:

[Saunders' wrote:] Which very married media presence took a 22-year-old hooker to Asia with him? This is nothing though, compared to the 15-year-old hooker he enjoyed one day while the family were out. (He rang a knock shop and ordered in and when the girly arrived he was concerned at how young she was and asked her age. When she said 15, he first thought, "Oh dear" and then thought "Oh, what the hell, you're here now!")

[Paul comments:] Oh dear. It's all fun and games until someone violates a minor. Or rather, no: it's still fun and games because the story is about a celebrity. It doesn't matter that what he did is illegal and appalling. It doesn't matter that it is illegal for a "knock shop" to employ a girl of 15. Nah, it's all about gossip. Pause for a moment and consider the terms used: hooker – knock shop – girly. Bridget, she was Fifteen. Do you remember when you were Fifteen, about the time your prose style stopped developing? She's not a hooker or a girly, she is a child prostitute – a victim of men, including your very married celebrity.

So what we appear to have here is a Sunday Star Times journalist who is aware of not only illegal under age prostitution, but also someone who has sex with a minor even though he is aware she is under age. But it's not in the News section, it's simply gossip. Why is this? Why isn't this news? Why isn't Saunders' dobbing this "very married media presence" in to the cops, rather than protecting him and belittling the crime he has committed?

Paul also points out that in the same column Saunders also defends Philip Sturm (found guilty of several counts of sexual violation of men). Are famous people (or the friends of famous people) somehow unable to commit crimes of a sexual nature?

In her typical I-know,-you-don't,-and-I'm-not-telling style, Saunders asked her readers:

Who is the biggest hypocrite the New Zealand Media has ever known?

May I humbly suggest that calling yourself a journalist yet treating major news stories, such as under age prostitution and sex with a minor, as mere gossip has a certain stench of hypocrisy to it?



* Part of that frequent source of irritation for The Ex-Expat, The Sunday Star Times.

Cross-post: Why don't you just call it a promiscuity virus?

Cross-posted at the Ex-expat

For a change it's the Herald's turn to piss me off. The byline telling us that 11 year old girls will be vaccinated against the HPV virus is missing from the online vaccination but I am still annoyed enough to blog about it.

Which perhaps is why the byline is there. It is guaranteed to get conservatives frothing at the mouth while it sounds like nails down a chalk board to liberals like myself.

Mostly because I don't understand why immunizing against a virus that is spread by a certain behaviour would be seen as a government mandate for children to engage in the behaviour. The New Zealand health system vaccinates against a whole host of diseases. Some are vaccinations are given to children to protect them their future self, like for instance Hepatitis B. Which in developed countries like New Zealand is primarily transmitted through intravenous drug use and unprotected sex, two behaviours we don't encourage adults let alone children to partake in. To my knowledge Rubella was until fairly recently only given to 11 year old girls to protect their future children from the disease. Yet I haven't heard of mass cases of 11 year-olds getting pregnant nor hosting heroin parties as a result of their inoculation.

But the thing that pisses me off the most about the 'sex virus' tag is that it is also making judgments about all those who have contracted cervical cancer. The women chose to get it through *shock horror* having sex. I am sure that for the women who suffer from this horrible disease if they had the choice between being protected from the virus that caused their cancer or letting morality dictate medicine in such a matter, they'd choose the vaccine. Moreover consensual sex isn't the only way to transmit STDs. And despite society's best efforts we can't always keep our children safe from the stranger on the street or more likely the 'nice young man' driving her home after a party.

Monday Funday - Human beings

Cartoon from here.

Part-time smartschmuck-time

Cross posted on In a Strange Land. (It's taken me a few hours to cross post this here, because I was reluctant to dump a 2000 word post at the top of THM, and I don't know how to break posts over a page on the blogger platform. Sisters-in-THM, if we can do this, can you let me know how, so I can sort it out? I have posted the first couple of paragraphs of the post here, and then the link takes you to the whole post on my blog. Comments welcome at either place!)

The headline in Tuesday's Australian says it - Part-timers fail at work, home. Beaton Consulting surveyed 10,000 white collar workers, and found that part-time workers feel that they are falling behind in their careers, working just as hard as their full-time counterparts, but paid less, and at the same time, they feel they simply don't have enough family time. It's a lose:lose situation.

You can get a PDF of the entire report here (2MB), or you can go read Penguin Unearthed's excellent summary. Penguin Unearthed gives a measured analysis - I recommend reading it - but me, I'm going to be a little more rant-y about the whole flaming issue.

Click to read the rest of the post.

Friday Feminist - Marilyn Waring

Tell Me a Riddle: Who Works and Who Doesn't?

Consider Tendai, a young girl in the Lowveld, in Zimbabwe. Her day starts at 4 a.m. when, to fetch water, she carries a thirty litre tin to a borehole about eleven kilometres from her home. She walks barefoot and is home by 9 a.m. She eats a little and proceeds to fetch firewood until midday. She cleans the utensils from the family's morning meal and sits preparing a lunch of sadza for the family. After lunch and the cleaning of the dishes, she wanders in the hot sun until early evening, fetching wild vegetables for supper before making the evening trip for water. Her day ends at 9 p.m., after she has prepared supper and put her younger brothers and sisters to sleep. Tendai is considered unproductive, unoccupied, and economically inactive. According to the international economic system, Tendai does not work and is not part of the labour force.

Cathy, a young, middle-class North American housewife, spends her days preparing food, setting the table, serving meals, clearing food and dishes from the table, washing dishes, dressing her children, disciplining children, taking the children to day-care or to school, disposing of garbage, dusting, gathering clothes for washing, doing the laundry, going to the gas station and the supermarket, repairing household items, ironing, keeping an eye on or playing with the children, making beds, paying bills, caring for pets and plants, putting away toys, books and clothes, sewing or mending or knitting, talking with door-to-door salespeople, answering the telephone, vacuuming, sweeping and washing floors, cutting the grass, weeding, and shovelling snow, cleaning the bathroom and the kitchen, and putting her children to bed. Cathy has to face the fact that she fills her time in a totally unproductive manner. She, too, is economically inactive, and economists record her as unoccupied.

Ben is a highly trained member of the U.S. military. His regular duty is to descent to an underground facility where he waits with a colleague, for hours at a time, for an oder to fire a nuclear missile. So skilled and effective is Ben that if his colleague were to attempt to subvert an order to fire, Ben would, if all else failed, be expected to kill him to ensure a successful missile launch. Ben is in paid work; he is economically active. His work has value and contributes, as part of the nuclear machine, to the nation's growth, wealth, and productivity. That's what the international economic system says.

Mario is a pimp and heroin addict in Rome. He regularly pays graft. While Mario's services and his consumption and production are illegal, they are, nonetheless, marketed. Money changes hands. Mario's activities are part of Italy's hidden economy. But in a nation's bookkeeping, not all transactions are accounted for. A government treasury or a reserve bank measures the money supply and sees that more money is in circulation than has been reported in legitimate business activities. Thus some nations, including Italy, regularly impute a minimal value for the hidden economy in their national accounts. So part of Mario's illegal services and production and consumption activities will be recognised and recorded. That's what the international economic system says.

Ben and Mario work. Cathy and Tendai do not. Those are the rules. I believe that women all over the world, with lives as diverse as those of Cathy and Tendai, are economically productive. You, too, may believe these women work full days. But according to the theory, science, profession, practice and institutionalisation of economics, we are wrong.

Marilyn Waring, Counting for Nothing:What Men Value and what Women are Worth, 1988

57th Carnival of Feminists

The 57th Carnival of Feminists is up on pandemian. Julie's and Maia's excellent posts on the ALAC "rape is all the fault of drunken women" ad are in the carnival. Nice to see THM starting to make a bit of a mark.

Bits and Pieces

For your reading pleasure...

• Anjum writes about the lack of women in the higher echelons of policing.
• Lauredhel rebuts a British GP who reckons there are too many women in medicine.
• Ruth gives her thoughts on Bridget Saunders' definition of Real Men.
• The International Lesbian and Gay Association has produced a map of state-sponsored homophobia (hat tip: The F-Word).
• Feministe's Feedback column encourages readers to discuss what a feminist relationship looks like.
• Bluemilk highlights an article from The Australian which examines the rash of novels about bad mothers.
• Lyn points the necessity of spending Vote Health money on work done by non-doctors.
• Scientific American has a very interesting article about why women continue to live once their reproductive lives are over. Thanks to Helen for emailing this link to me.

Feel free to add in comments your links to posts and articles you reckon are worth a click-through.

Actually, She Wasn't Asking For It At All

This morning I heard a Nine to Noon interview about the latest adverts in the Had Enough campaign from ALAC. They outlined the stories of the three ads - man drinks too much gets in several fights ("Danny"); man drinks too much, makes dick of himself at party and unintentionally hurts small child ("Mark"); woman drinks, dances, has good time, then finds herself in a dark alley, quite out of it, and gets taken away by dodgy looking man ("Lisa").

The interview didn't focus on the Lisa advert at all. It was instead about the shock nature of the ads, and mainly discussed the violence of the other two stories, in particular when Mark accidentally smashes his young nephew against a wall. They are brutal ads, and actually I tend to think that the Mark and Danny ones are appropriate - they show very real consequences of binge drinking, and they tell real stories. But all three adverts play the blame game. In two they get it right - Mark and Danny are responsible for the pain they cause themselves and others because of their drinking. But Lisa is not. She doesn't hurt anyone, yet she is hurt herself, in a horrible way (although, unlike the harm in the other two adverts, the violence she suffers happens off camera). ALAC however choose to brand Lisa as responsible for her own violation.

Since I heard the interview, I've been itching to get to the keyboard and rant about ALAC pulling out The Rape Myth That Won't Die - namely "she was drunk so it's all her fault." Maia beat me to it, and you should go read her excellent and succint post.

I won't go over the points that Maia has made, but I did want to add one more issue about the ad and the rape myths it perpetuates - namely that stranger rape in a dark alley (whether you are drunk or sober) is How Rape Happens. Actually most rapists know their victims, often already very intimately. Strangers are not usually the real danger.

This post isn't about how mad the ad makes me, or how wrong it is that ALAC is repeating and reinforcing falsehoods about rape in what would otherwise be a timely and necessary set of ads. This post is about what you can do if you feel the same way I do.

There are two avenues of complaint that I am aware of at the present time. (Please feel free to add more in comments if you have details):

A. Write directly to ALAC. Their contact details are here and for those who can't be bothered with the click-through, their main email is central (at) alac (dot) org (dot) nz. Make sure that you make it crystal clear you are making an "official complaint". I heard the ALAC man interviewed on the radio say that they had only had 2 "official complaints", and I believe those are about the violence towards a child in the Mark ad.

B. Write to the Advertising Standards Authority. The ASA deals with any complaint, from any person who feels that the ASA's Codes have been breached. Personally I think the Lisa advert breaches two parts of the Ethics section of the Codes, namely:

3. No advertisement should be misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive the consumer.
4. All advertisements should be prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and to society.

The process for writing a complaint to the ASA is very simple:

Complaints should be addressed to the Secretary, Advertising Standards Complaints Board, PO Box 10-675, Wellington. Complaints should be in writing, dated and signed by the complainant. Complaints can also be made using the online complaints form at http://www.asa.co.nz/complaint_form.php. Where the complaint involves a print advertisement, a copy of the advertisement should be included. Where a television or radio advertisement is the subject of a complaint, the approximate time, date and station of broadcast should be specified.

The Board then deals with it in the manner outlined here.

I'll be writing to both bodies hopefully in the next few days, and will put a copy up here once I've done it. The more people who express their outrage the more likely it becomes that ALAC will re-think the Lisa ad, and hopefully replace it with something that sheets home the blame for rape correctly - to the rapist, not the raped.

It's the victim blaming; it's not how you victim blame

I saw one of ALAC's new advertisements last night. These are supposed to be hard hitting advertisements, to show the real consequences of binge drinking. The one I saw also blamed a woman for being raped, because she was drunk.* You can see the advertisement here; it's the first ad, the one called Lisa. IT's the only one that involves a woman, and the message is, don't binge drink, because you might get raped.

Anyone who believes the rape myth that women are responsible for rape if they have been drinking can do real harm to women who have been raped. This advertisement is one more reinforcement of a myth that is already way too prevelant. By itself it's not enough to change anyone's mind. Those of us who think that rapists are to blame for rape will continue to believe that, no matter what ALAC tells us. But for people who are unsure, this is just another reinforcement of an awful, dangerous idea. People who watch these ads will be friends, family members, doctors, of women who have been raped. But, worst of all, women who have been raped will watch these ads, and see, yet again, that it's their fault.

Obviously my voice is very little, compared to ALAC, but I will say (again and again and again) no matter where she is, what she's taking, what she's wearing, who she's with, no woman is responsible for being raped. Rapists are always responsible for raping

* This is completely irrelevant to my main point, but one of the things that really pisses me off about these advertisements is it's superfluousness. That's the one women get, constantly: "Don't drink/walk out alone/go here or there/unlock the door/wear that/exist you might get raped". The threat of rape is the one consequence that is already firmly established in most women's lives. ALAC aren't going to shock or surprise anyone with this.

Feminist Events: Aotearoa Anarcha-Feminist Gathering

An anarcha-feminist gathering will take place in Otautahi / Christchurch over ANZAC weekend.

Dates: Friday 25 April – noon Sunday 27 April 2008 (ANZAC weekend)

Starts at 10am on Friday. The programme goes til noon on Sunday (for those who need to leave) but we will stay to 4pm (for those who can) to fit in all the bits that no doubt spill over, and cleanup.

Venue: The Old Vicarage, 8 Governor's Bay-Teddington Road, Governor's Bay (On Banks Peninsula, 30 mins drive from central Otautahi / Christchurch). We will be surrounded by gardens, with hills all around and a view of the sea. Close to a very lovely swimming beach

Full details can be perused here, and you can email anarcha-fem (at) live (dot) com to register ($30) or make queries.

---

If you have a feminist event that you would like The Hand Mirror to promote please feel free to contact us and we will put it up (as long as it is in New Zealand somewhere).

Monday Funday - Sigh

Image source.

Blog of the Week: 2 B Sophora

I've been reading 2 B Sophora for quite some time now. Sophie is a New Zealand feminist and dairy farmer. I've learnt a little about dairy farming from her posts, recently she wrote about the effect of the drought on her farm. I've also learnt about rural women's lives.

Her post about childbirth and the experiences of women she knows is incredibly powerful:

My mother is in her fifties. From her I've learned that stitches *hurt*. That being shaved feels horrible as it's growing back. That enemas are standard procedure (my child mind said 'ugh!'). That she was put under intense pressure to be surgically sterilised after every birth until the third "I think they gave up on me at that stage".

I visited Katie with her newborn and she told me how she 'behaved like a bitch' because she didn't want the nurses to touch her, but they told her it had to be done anyway (putting a monitor on her stomach).
That was her third birth. She 'slept through her second', terrified of repeating the trauamatic long labour of her first. For months approaching the third she was unable to relax, expecting once again the nightmare of her first delivery.

I'm not sure her comparison with cows is valid; my understanding was that walking on two legs meant that our pelvises were a lot smaller than other mamals, and made child-birth more dangerous. But the issues she raises are really important

She also has a amazing post for Blog Against Sexual Violence Day.

Go check her out out

Cupcake Porn

We promised you cupcakes and we deliver!

And a close-up:

It's the first time I've ever really iced anything, and due to an oversupply of icing I have to make a second batch of cupcakes. Life is tough.

Boarding Houses

Cross-posted from Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty

I haven't read the listener much since it became available in a soothing gel. The cover story of this weeks listener screams insipid nonsense, so you wouldn't know that one of the stories is so important it's worth buying the entire magazine (or reading in the supermarket). The article begins (the article will be available on-line after April 11):

In the winding backstreets of Mangere, where most New Zealanders will never go, there is a shameful secret. Here, in a South Auckland cul de sac, almost 1000 people live in a cluster of buildings that was once the Mangere hospital for the insane and intellectually handicapped, closed in 1994.

In an area of about a square kilometre, the buildings of the former institution have been turned into privately owned boarding houses.

Entire families – some with up to four children – live in rooms little more than three metres by four metres that were originally designed for single patients. Each boarding house has about 30 rooms, branching off long, lino-covered institutional hallways. There are a handful of toilets to cater for as many as 100 people. Showers are shared, as is the single stove in a communal kitchen

There has been a lot of media reporting recently about the housing crisis, and it almost entirely focuses on couples who each have a higher than average income, and yet still can't afford to buy their own home. The reality is that rapidly increasing house prices and rents mean real hardship.

The article is a fine piece of investigative journalism. David Fisher, the author, puts the stories of people who have no choice but to live in this foul accommodation front and centre. He also holds those who are responsible for the situation to account. He talks, in some detail, about the people who own these boarding houses, giving their names occupations, and their attempt to interview him. He also holds various government agencies who recommend these boarding houses to people, and advance money to pay for the bond. He lets the government condemn itself, with Maryann Street blaming the previous national government for selling off state houses (you can build quite a lot of houses in nine years).

Go find a copy of this weeks listener and read the article.

Friday Feminist - Gloria Steinem on Marilyn Waring

I have only one remaining worry in the invisibility department: the author herself. Though her value is evident throughout this book, her impact may not be. Here is just one example. As a Member of Parliament in New Zealand, she crossed the floor to vote for transforming that country into a nuclear-free zone (including a refusal to harbour or fuel nuclear ships), withdrew from the government caucus, and thus was the lone voice that brought the government down and forced a successful national election. She also had been the major architect of the parliamentary political strategy that brought the anti-nuclear movement to that crossroads. Ironically, Prime Minister David Lange, who became enthusiastic about a nuclear-free zone only after its political victory, was nominated for a Nobel prize as a result of this successful effort; clearly a case of female invisibility in itself.

Gloria Steinem, "Preface", in Marilyn Waring, Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What Women are Worth, 1988

Bits and Pieces

A few quick hits:

• You know for someone who is an immigrant himself, Peter Brown is behaving remarkably like a xenophobe. Maybe if he doesn't like it here he should, you know, go back where he came from? Anjum Rahman has a great post up expressing her concerns that Mr Brown is having difficulty integrating into his adoptive country. The Standard has the video of John Campbell char-grilling Brown on the goggle-box last night.
• Screaming Lulu's creations are seriously amazing. Reminded me a bit of the artwork in the Lolly Leopold books, but totally unique at the same time. Thanks to Helen for the heads up.
• Lyn responds to The ex-expat's spot-on rant about women bearing the "blame" for childlessness.
• Bluemilk shares her three recent minute-long bursts of activism.
• Up there in the Kingdom Where Doctor Who is Made, Catherine blogs about the novelty of having a female companion in the Tardis who is actually over 30.

Okie dokie, make with the clicky!

BASV: The Importance of Louise Nicholas

I originally wrote this in October 2007 and it seems timely to publish it now, for the first time, for Blog Against Sexual Violence Day 2008.



I went to hear Louise Nicholas talk about her book and her experiences this week. I didn't just go to hear her, but to see her without the filters of television or newspaper or internet, and also because I wanted to thank her. I doubted I would have the opportunity to actually squeak my meagre "thanks" at her in person, but I hoped that by being in the audience, by standing and clapping her at appropriate moments, I would communicate my gratitude.

I clearly wasn't the only one with this thought, as the crowd gave Louise a standing ovation on two occasions, and did a lot of other supportive clapping besides. It was a great feeling to be able to show our appreciation, and to be amongst others who felt as angry and as determined to achieve change as I am. Rape, violence, injustice and abuses of authority all tend to isolate a woman and make her feel alone. Attending Louise's talk was a collective activity that underlined to me how shared this experience has actually been; the public playing out of the search for justice begun by journalist Phil Kitchin, carried on by Louise Nicholas, and picked up by many other women who have raised their complaints, laid their charges, marched and written and rung talkback to exhibit for all to see our outrage and to hear our call for change.

Louise Nicholas is obviously a key figure in what has happened in our country in the last few years. Her strength and perseverance has been an inspiration. I once heard someone compare Louise to the pivotal patient in the "unfortunate experiment" at National Women's, Ruth. I admit I don't know much about that situation, but I can see that Louise, like Ruth, lit a flame that has burned brightly and widely, and which I sincerely hope nothing can now extinguish. It is a fire that should change our rape laws, change our police culture, hopefully even change our culture around sex itself. It is an inferno that is stoked by many women now, in particular the two anonymous complainants who have also raised rape charges against ex-policemen, one with success, one sadly without.

Shipton and Schollum are branded rapist by our legal system, Rickards joins them in the court of public opinion, and Dewar is considered by most to be their accomplice. But in many ways this is the least of what Louise Nicholas, and the other women involved in these cases, have achieved. Louise has inspired many, women and men, to be clear and public in their denounciations of rape and of abuse. While the trial Louise has faced may have traumatised many rape victims, and discouraged others from coming forward, particularly as the hubris of Shipton, Schollum, Rickards and Dewar continue, to keep silent would have been worse. To keep silent would have continued the culture of ignorance, and allowed many New Zealanders to continue the delusion that rape is something that happens Elsewhere, not in my neighbourhood. Silence would have denied the experiences of so many women, who know their rapists and often still encounter them in their everyday lives. By challenging this acceptance of rape Louise has tapped the righteous anger that was there all the time, and given it a forum for expression.

She has also created a discussion about our rape laws and the change that needs to happen to deliver justice. It is outrageous that in this country it seems to be nearly impossible to convict anyone of rape, in particular those who are arrogant in their denials and quite ready to abuse their positions of authority to avoid scrutiny. There is no one in court to advocate for the victim of rape, and the protection the prosecutor can offer is limited, especially when the law itself is against the objections they raise.


Louise talked about how the prosecution team did raise numerous objections to the way that she was cross-examined by the defence, in particular the scrutiny of her sexual history which belies the fiction that "rape shield" laws are working in New Zealand. The judge simply overruled these objections and allowed the defence strategy to continue. Nevermind that the judge would have been aware, as was almost everyone else in that courtroom (except the jury), that Shipton and Schollum were already in prison for a remarkably similar rape. Nevermind the awareness in the legal community of the charges Dewar would face of obstructing the investigation into Louise's complaints in the mid 1990s. His subsequent condemnation and sentencing bring a bitter smile to many women and men, but it is not enough.

It appears that Shipton, Schollum and Rickards genuinely cannot understand that many New Zealanders consider that what they did was rape. There is something fundamentally wrong with the moral compass of a person who sees no potential conflict, no possibility for abuse, in using their position as a police officer to get sex. As members of the police force you would think they would have been particularly aware of issues around consent, and that when consent is dubious the likelihood of rape is increased.

The impression I've formed is that they simply didn't care. And that lack of caring is at the core of the injustice that is rape. Sex without consent is sex without caring, sex without seeing the other person as a human being; sex without consent is rape.

Louise has become an eye around which the whirling maelstrom of all these discussions has turned in recent years. I thank her for all that she is doing, all that she continues to do, for justice in our country.

No power greater anywhere beneath the sun

Cross-posted at Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty

Today in Wellington there was a picket outside Spotless headquarters. It was attended by 60 people, 30 buckets, a brass band, members of 7 unions and 1 students' association, 1 MP, and 2 people the police wanted to charge as terrorists.



[The photo comes from The Standard who were also represented]

The picket was part of a day of strike action against Spotless. Nine months ago the DHBs and sub-contractors settled with the Service and Food Workers Union. This settlement meant a significant increase in the payrates. Spotless still haven't paid the new rates or the back pay. This was the same company that held up bargaining last year, and locked workers out illegally. Now they're flying non-union workers around the country to scab, rather than giving the workers their damn money.

Spotless's behaviour isn't abnormal or an example of 'one bad apple'. The ability to screw workers like this is the reason that subconracting was introduced in hospitals. As I wrote last year:

Theoretically businesses, and government organisations, contract out services. They contract a company to clean, or to perform a certain task. But in reality they're contracting out employment.

Cleaning is a really good example of this. It's a low capital industry, and large cleaning companies don't get huge economies of scale. Companies get their printing done by a contract because they don't print enough to justify having the equipment sitting around all day. It takes about the same amount of equipment to clean a hospital whether the equipment is owned by Spotless or the Hospital, and neither of them can use the equipment elsewhere. In fact, by contracting out companies, and government organisations have to pay extra, to cover the profit that any cleaning company is going to make.

So why do hospitals (or businesses or anyone else) contract out their cleaning? Because they can use the tendering process to drive down the cost. To win tenders, and bid lower than other cleaning companies, the winning company has to either pay their workers less, or get their workers to do more cleaning in less time.

Contracting out is so effective, because everyone can claim that they're not responsible. The cleaning companies aren't responsible, because they can't afford to pay any more than they're given. The hospital that contracts out its cleaning isn't responsible because it's up to the sub-contractor how much money to pay.

It's important to understand this as a feminist issue. The workers on the picket line were mostly women, and they work they do, cleaning and cooking, is undervalued because it's women's work. Supporting these workers is a vital way of closing the pay gap.

Wellington hospital workers have already won the battle to get rid of Spotless, they've already got their payrise, and they're not on strike. Still, lots of union members from Newtown hospital attended this protest to show solidarity with workers at other hospitals who had not. That solidarity is the reason they won last year, and the reason they're going to win again.

Spotless workers are on strike at: Kaitaia Hospital, Bay of Islands Hospital (Kawakawa), Whangarei Hospital, North Shore Hospital, Waitakere Hospital, Middlemore Hospital, Manukau Superclinic, Pukekohe Hospital, Franklin Hospital (Waiuku), Tauranga Hospital, Rotorua Hospital, Gisborne Hospital, Palmerston North Hospital, Wanganui Hospital, Hawke's Bay Hospital, Southland Hospital, Wairarapa Hospital, and Timaru Hospital. If you live near any of those hospitals go along and show your support, and stand together with those fighting private profit within the public health system.

And I wish you weren't this much of a jerk

Driving around town I've recently encountered a very unpleasant phenomenon. First I thought it was just a one off, but I've now seen it five times, on different SUVs (which are bad enough to start with). Everytime I see it I cringe and hope that it'll be the last time.

It's quite a simple thing, but it's incredibly sexist. I'd never imagined I could be so offended by a spare tyre cover, but there you go, you live and you learn. The cover has on it, in brown for some unfathomable reason, the phrase "I wish my wife was this dirty."

Well I wish the person who bought that cover wasn't such a total and utter jerk. Why would anyone think it is ok to announce to the world your dissatisfaction with the sexual practices of your partner? Where is the dignity or the respect for the woman who has consented to be your life partner, possibly the mother of your children, someone you are supposed to be in love with?

Yes, I do realise it is a "joke". I use the speechmarks deliberately. Because it's not really very funny, is it? Would it be ok to have a wheel cover that said "At least it's not as dirty as those bloody Maoris"? Or how about "I'll clean it when the homos clean up their filthy minds"? No it wouldn't be ok, and nor should it.

Maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas.