The Odds & Ends Drawer

Here we go then:

• barvasfiend writes about the horrific abuse suffered by Nia Glassie, and our laws around such abuse.
• ludditejourno gives her own thoughts on Clint Rickards, lawyer.
• frog pointed out (a while back, forgive me) that Aotearoa is not necessarily a paradise for women, be they immigrant or no.
• Russell Brown says nice things about Judith Tizard, formerly the MP for Auckland Central.
• lisa tells us all about the manly make-over of board game Risk. This has to be seen to be believed.
• Tim Watkin takes on Deborah Hill Cone's criticism that he's ageist and gives her a serve for labelling Palin a feminist icon.
• Deborah shares her family Christmas cake recipe.
• bluemilk passes her penis identification exam.
• Hat tipped to sas for the link to this post with amazing pics showing the impact of make-up and photography on our perception of age.
• Make Tea Not War lets Holly the Cate take over.
• And Joanna Spratt tries to blog.

New to the blogroll:
Ragged Earth

The strange art of cheerleading

Yesterday, my family and I went to the local Santa parade. It was kind of lacklustre. Highlights included a disgruntled middle-aged guy on a small, comical bicycle and a greyhound wearing festive shoes. Enough said.

But what really gave me the willies was a large troupe of little girl cheerleaders, forty or fifty of them, aged from about seven to twelve. They were a slightly sad spectacle. The baking sun meant that very few of them were able to go about their cheerleading with any enthusiasm during the laboriously slow parade, which lasted over an hour. A couple of them looked distressed, as if they might faint in the overwhelming heat. Many will have formidable doses of sunburn. Climatic conditions aside, though, there was something more than a little unsettling about a bunch of little girls dressed as adult women, flouncing past with their knickers and midriffs showing to the crowd.

I can definitely see the appeal of cheerleading for girls, little and big. With its mix of dance and gymnastics, there's no doubt that it involves a lot of skill. It's a chance to hang out with other females and be girly. In fact, it's the sort of thing I would have begged my parents to let me try, had the opportunity been available when I was a kid. (In those days, though, cheerleading was regarded as something mildly ludicrous. Perhaps it's the evolution of professional sport which has brought it to our shores since then.)

What I don't like about cheerleading, however, is that it is such a nakedly (pun intended) sexualised activity. Very few people (or men, at least) watch cheerleaders to admire their skills. Allowing little girls to enter into this sort of activity seems like giving them an apprenticeship in being treated primarily as sexual objects. There are a bunch of activities girls can do to express their athleticism and dance ability - why choose the one that seems to come from a high school social caste system that sets out to divide the popular and pretty from the rest?

It's not the potential sexualisation of kids that worries me here. It's a mistake to attribute adult understandings of sexuality to children - the little cheerleaders may not perceive what they do as being sexual at all, and I've no reason to believe that the adults looking on saw the girls in a sexual light. Rather, I feel concerned by the message it sends girls about what adult female sexuality is. Inducting kids into this sexualised activity suggests to them that female sexuality is about being looked at, putting yourself on display to be appraised by onlookers. The skill you bring to your cheerleading doesn't much matter to bystanders at a sporting match - it's about your body.

And to be attractive, to be worthy, to enjoy sex, your body must be perfect. That, to me, was the saddest thing about watching the little cheerleaders pass. With their bellies and thighs showing, they'll be learning to scrutinise their bodies, fretting about their bums being too big, the boobs they don't yet have being too small.

Amongst the girls in the parade, there were a couple who were quite chubby; whose bellies protuded between their tank tops and the waist bands of their short skirts. I knew that some onlookers in the crowd would be sniggering. It won't be long before these little ones become old enough to understand that cheerleading - and the ideal of female sexuality it promotes - is not for girls like them. 'Imperfect' girls need not apply.

Down Under Feminists Carnival coming up

It's the 29th, and that means there's just two days to get submissions in for the Down Under Feminists Carnival. This month, it's being hosted by the prickly, scratchy and oh so sharp Queen of Thorns, at Ideologically Impure. QoT needs your submissions NOW! So set aside some time this weekend to go through your blog, and through the blogs you read, and pick out some interesting material for the carnival - your own writing, someone else's, someone new, someone whose voice is perhaps not so widely heard, but should be. Submissions are due by 30 November, and you can send them in via the carnival submission form.

Friday Feminist - Iris Marion Young (again x 2)

Cross posted

... the institution of marriage is irreparably unjust. Its original and current meaning is to solidify male power in relation to women, and to draw an arbitrary line around legitimate relationships. Its historical function has been to use women as a means of forging alliances among men and perpetuating their "line." Today, when these functions are diminished but hardly absent, marriage's injustice consists primarily n its discriminatory granting of privileges. Marriage privileges specific ways of living and variously inhibits, stigmatizes, and penalizes other ways of living. A basic principle of liberal justice is that societal norms should regulate the rights and obligations of exchanges, relationships and institutional structures, without privileging some particular ways of life. The institution of marriage violates this principle, with oppressive and disadvantaging consequences for many people. If we are not to privilege particular relationships of ways of life, then what it means to be a family must be redefined and pluralized.

Iris Marion Young, "Reflections on Families in the Age of Murphy Brown: On Justice, Gender and Sexuality", in Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy, and Policy, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991

Lucy Lawless and the politics of gay marriage

"I grew up being taught that marriage was sacred... Then I would look over at a relative with a black eye meted out by her husband in the privacy of their sacred matrimonial chamber and the bruises on her child, and I knew that was bullshit. There was nothing holy there."

So said Lucy Lawless during the recent anti-Proposition 8 rally in California. She is one of those campaigning in favour of gay marriage, although with some reservations: 'I can't think why gay people should necessarily want it, but if they want it with all its strictures and ownership over one another, then let 'em have it.' Lawless has called marriage a feudal institution which ought to be phased out.

Some feminist or other once made a point that got me thinking. She argued that, in the political movement advocating that gays should have an equal right to marry, a more radical critique of marriage has been lost. Only thirty years ago, feminists subjected the institution to stringent scrutiny - particularly the unequal relationship of financial dependence that tends to be part of marriage.

Feminist criticisms of marriage go something like this. Marriages often produce babies, and the need for a whole lot of unpaid work. This work tends to fall to women. There are a bunch of reasons for this, ranging from inconsiderate individual husbands through to a workforce which doesn't do much to accommodate pregnant and breastfeeding women - but the net result is that women tend to become financially dependent on men.

Once you're dependent on your husband in this way, you're reliant on him to be nice to you. If he stops being nice - if he can't or won't support you adequately - you're in trouble. Your only option is to leave the marriage, and if you're taking the kids with you, you face doing the work of two parents by yourself and a high likelihood of poverty. These structural problems of marriage don't go away simply because spouses are the same sex. If there are kids involved, someone still has to take care of them, risking financial dependence in the process. Lawmakers in the US are explicitly aware that marriage is in large part an economic arrangement. Tax incentives for married couples aim to encourage solo mums to get hitched, because once they're married, they become the financial problem of their husbands. Whether or not their husbands meet their financial needs is a whole different matter, and no concern of the state.

All this being said, it's hard not to empathise with gay and lesbian couples who want the right to get hitched. I'm not gay. I don't know what it's like to feel anxious about holding my partner's hand in public. I don't know what it's like to get quizzical looks when I introduce the person I love to friends or family. I don't know what it's like reading hateful letters to the editor about the kind of person I am and the kind of moral decay I supposedly cause. But I can understand the symbolic appeal of marriage, especially for those who have been denied it. Marriage is an institution thousands of years old. As its proponents laimc, it is integral to the fabric of society.
To get married is to make others see and acknowledge the validity and the worth of your love for your partner.

In my ideal world, gay people wouldn't need to claim the right to marry in order to have their relationships or sexuality accepted - no one would. In this ideal world, getting married would not entail signing up for the possibility of dependence or mistreatment which can be incredibly difficult to escape. If the right to enter into the sacred union of marriage is to be extended to gay couples, we ought to ensure that it is a right worth the having. In the words of Lucy Lawless, 'Only love is sacred, and heterosexuals don't own that'.

Re-imagining work - part 1

Cross posted

Conversations
My mother gave up her thesis when my brother and I were born. She found she just couldn't do it. She never got back to it.
Fellow PhD student

A few years after I became a mother, I realised that I don't have a career any more. I just have a job.
Senior HR professional

That break we took in Fiji was so good. It have me a chance to reconnect with my children again.
Senior public servant

People want me to come and talk about work life balance because they think I have solved it. But I haven't. All that has happened is that my husband has taken on the stay-at-home role.
Senior public servant

I really didn't get a chance to do anything until my children were in their teens, and by then it was almost too late. I'm glad I had my children early, even though it was hard going at the time.
School principal

I haven't been able to do any research since my children were born, even though my husband is the person who is working a part time job.
Senior academic

I don't think I'm looking for a career anymore. Interesting work with interesting people will do.
Senior public servant

I think I might see if I can go part time in a few years, down to 80%. I know I will still have to work full time, but at least I won't have to work weekends too.
Young academic

These are all conversations I have had, over the past few years. I can't guarantee that the words are strictly accurate, but they are more-or-less right. I've certainly remembered the spirit of what people have said to me, because the particular sentiments have stuck in my mind. I can remember exactly who it was who said each of those things: there's a real name of a real live woman to go with each of those quotes.



Discussion

I've been engaged in an on-going conversation about work-life balance, with so many people. I virtually always talk to mothers in paid employment about their childcare arrangements, trying to work out what it is that makes paid work viable for them. Some of them have nannies, even when their children are all at school, but then, they feel that they don't really know their children at all. Others have pre-schoolers, so although they regret the lost hours, they haven't yet struck the after-school and school holiday juggle, which is another whole nightmare. Others have found that if they want to parent their children, then they must abandon their careers, or at least, put them on hold. Some women work a shortened year, but not as short as would suit me.

My own chequered employment career is testament to an on-going struggle with work-life balance. I've worked in business, in the academy, and in the public service, and nowhere have I been able to find balance. Business bored me, at least at the low level I was working at. The academy was poisonous, for reasons, some to do with me, some to do with the particular institution at the particular time I was working there, some to do with the nature of academic work in general, some to do with my discipline. The public service was rather better, at least in my unit, where my single, childless, male boss (go figure!) made a big effort to create an environment where parents could work part time, and flexibly. Nevertheless, that is the environment where I heard one woman talking about reconnecting with her kids, and where Mr Strange Land and I became convinced that we needed a wife. The fact is, I have been able to find no solution to the problem of ensuring that my children are cared for, and loved, and parented, and nurturing my own career, and me. If I pursue a career, my children suffer; if I leave paid employment, then not only do I go quietly mad ('tho Mr Strange Land likes to point out that it ain't so quiet), but in the longer term, I may lose out, and so too may our daughters.

Of all the childcare/parenting/working possibilities, the shortened year is the one that would work best for me. I'm starting to think that my ideal job (NB: job, not career), is 20 hours per week, in school term time. But that means there's no management track for me. (And yes, I really would like to run something, some day.)

Even then, the shortened year only works for some people because other people continue to work full time. Someone is there to answer the phones, clear the e-mail, clean the kitchens, resupply the photocopier, talk to clients, just do what needs to be done to keep the organisation ticking over. The fact is that our societies and our work structures are organised around 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday, and the shortened week is an exception to that. As long as we continue to organise work around that 9 to 5 structure, some people will have to work far longer than they want in order to make flexi-hours possible for the rest of us.

I see no solutions other than a total re-imagining of the way we work.

More to come, in a few days - it's taking me a while to pull my thoughts on this into coherent form.

put the blame where it belongs

a final excerpt from the speech by deborah mackenzie, of which you will find the first two posts here and here. this section of her speech covers an abused woman's lack of agency and the unrealistic expectations placed upon her.

...the mistaken belief that victims of domestic violence have agency within the relationship leads the court to often wrongly involve the victim in the response to the violence thereby seeing the couple as the problem rather than the violence. I’ve sat in the criminal court on many occasions and heard judges recommend the couple attend couple counseling. This action affirms the belief that women are somehow responsible for the violence - the violence is a result of a communication problem or a problem in her like gambling, her drinking or drug use or her mental illness.

Couple counseling is mostly unsafe for women in violent relationship. A woman described her experience of counselling to me:

So from the beginning the violence was ‘played down’. I don’t want to
sound like I was completely clueless and unable to speak, because I was able to
articulate carefully what the problems were, it was just that I moulded what I
would say to make it seem more palatable to my boyfriend, and also to the
counsellor –It was far too unsafe for any real disclosure.

There is more and more talk out there about using restorative justice as a response to domestic violence crime. Once again there is a presumption that if women would only participate more in the justice system the problem of the violence would be solved. As with couple counseling there is a presumption that participation in restorative justice is safe. I doubt its ability to end domestic violence and the risk is greater than the potential...

What seems more important and safe to me is for NZers, particularly those in decision making roles to explore the beliefs they hold about women in violent relationships. I think it’s really important to isolate exactly why we want women to participate more...

We tell women to disclose, to come forward and yet how do we protect them? We try and force them into programmes to change their attitudes and behaviour, we force them to come to court and tell a room full of strangers about how they feel and what they want to happen to the offender who is sitting there in front of them and will most likely turn up at their house after court, we tell them to go and get help for their part of the problem, signaling that their symptomatic behaviours, like drinking, drug abuse or mental health issues are a cause of the violence rather than a reaction to it.

We place the blame for the violence on women’s shoulders when we openly expect them to manage the violence, control the violence and end the violence...

But when we know that intimate partner violence and controlling behaviours engender confusion, isolation and a loss of identity for women why on earth do we carry an expectation that women will be able to get away from the violence, control the violence or change the violence…?

Having a tertiary qualification is not enough to safeguard women against domestic violence as domestic violence crosses socio economic barriers. However, being educated about domestic violence, controlling behaviours and warning signs might make a difference, but it is a rare experience for most girls and women in NZ.

Nowadays young women report that cultural messages abound that undermine women’s identity, sexualize them for the benefit of men, denigrate them and value them as trophies rather than as full human beings.

Women and girls are educated but we are educated to be available to men, to appeal to men and to be passive and this education through media representation and common discourse does nothing to prepare us to ‘resist’ or to challenge controlling or violent behaviour in our male partners. Why then do we expect victims of domestic violence to be able to:
1/ identify a relationship as being abusive
2/ know what to do
3/ get out of the relationship

It needs to be the responsibility of the community at large to respond to the violence while simultaneously supporting the victim... [T]he focus of domestic violence responses should stay on the violence against women and not on women’s supposed role in its continuation.

One woman's crusade against impractical footwear

I'm not one of your trendy types with glamorous shoes. I almost never wear heels as a matter of principle - they're bad for the body. I like to walk a lot, since it's pretty much the only physical exercise I get; and since I'm late for the train almost every morning, I also need to be able to run from time to time. So I'm forced to wear untrendy shoes - the sort that your nana might wear, only a step up the fashion ladder from orthopedic ones. I can stride to work with great swiftness and purpose, but I look kind of gammy.

I'm not the only woman whose life is somewhat blighted by shoe-related issues. When I'm commuting each morning, I notice that many women wear running shoes, which they presumably change when they arrive at work. A friend of mine recommends this approach strongly. Late for the train one morning, she broke into a run, only to trip over her own trendy shoes and end up face first on the platform. There she lay, hoping that a) no one would notice, or b) she would quietly and inconspicuously die. It was not to be. Another punter grabbed my friend's shoe, which had flown off and landed some two metres distant, and brandished it helpfully at my friend, while berating the train conductor shrilly for no obvious reason. The other commuters looked on in amusement at the dishevelled Cindrella sprawled across the asphalt. In a far less amusing story, another friend of mine sustained an awful compound fracture, running to catch up with the parade to her own graduation. Ouch.

To me, wearing comfortable shoes to work - only to exchange them for impractical shoes - is as annoying as wearing uncomfortable footwear all day long. The idea of hauling a stinky pair of shoes about with me during the day is downright unappealing. What if I wanted to go to the pub after work? I'm hardly going to want to take my Plan B shoes with me. Clearly, I'm a bit of a throwback to second wave feminism, because I can't help but ask, why wear uncomfortable shoes in the first place? Heels still look to me like tools of the patriarchy - false consciousness for the feet - and no amount of third wave reclaiming makes them easier to run in.

I don't expect to gain enough sympathy to start a mass movement around sensible shoes, even from those many other women who have sustained needless and embarassing shoe-related injuries. So it looks like I'm going to be wearing dowdy shoes by myself. I'll look kind of funny, but I'll pace confidently past you on Lambton Quay as you tap along in your aesthetically pleasing heels. Just as well I'm not the Prime Minister's wife, or the media would be mocking my fashion sense even as I type...

the MRA mirror

what he said. totally.

Tony Ryall and the Chamber of A&E

A few days ago Tony Ryall announced that he was going to institute the maximum time should be six hours and that no patient should be left waiting in an emergency department corridor.

Holy crap. You'd think that someone in the hospital sector would have thought of putting targets in place before. Well it seems some DHBs already did. But it seems the biggest productivity drives haven't come from management telling medical staff to treat them or turf them but from medical staff themselves.

But the system will only stretch so far and this weekend I was reminded why. It was pretty shitty weekend. First I had to pay for they clutch in my car to be replaced which was an expensive proposition and then was struck down by some god awful virus. The reason I went to the doctor immediately was not because I worried about myself but I had been looking after the Child on Sunday and if I did have something serious which I might have passed on to her I wanted to the Mother to have a heads up.

Now here's the rub, my PHO (otherwise known as a GP practice) is open from 8 to 5.15 weekdays and 2 hours on Saturday. After that I have a choice between an after hours clinic where they payments are high ($75 in my case) or I can head along to the emergency department where you can be seen for free even though the wait might be long. Obviously for me it was a no-brainer, you swallow the cost of the clinic visit even though your savings have just been depleted by a 4-figure car repair bill. But I'm lucky, I have no dependents and money in the bank. Some people don't have that luxury. I hazard a guess that along with a lack of resources, too many people are ending up at the ED department because of the restrictive hours most PHOs operate and the high costs of going to those after hours clinics.

I hadn't been this sick since my infamous bout of food poisoning in Cambodia where I spent the last 36 hours of my trip lying on the toilet floor in between bouts of puking my guts out. In this case suppose I could have waited until the mid-morning to get an appointment at my PHO, but that's the thing with sickness, it doesn't alway fit nicely into a 9-5 work day. And when there's kids involved, you do tend to want health problems addressed urgently when things are looking nasty.

So wave your wand oh health wizard. But perhaps to make spell more effective, you need to talk to the medicial staff in the ED to find out how and why the system has blockages. It's what us muggles call consultation.

Update: Since the last post I just spent 2 hours at the GPs office being pumped with fluids and antibiotics since the first doc missed that I had a kidney infection.

"changing" women won't solve the problem

following my earlier post, below is a further excerpt from the speech made by deborah mackenzie. this section deals with the myth that somehow women can stop violence against them by changing their own behaviour or engaging more fully with the system.

It seems to me that within the criminal justice system and in wider society there exists a presumption based on a myth about male violence against women that can put women in greater danger when polices and practices are developed from it. The myth is that women choose violent men as partners and do this because:
a/ they like it
b/ they are uneducated
c/ it’s all they know

Underlying this myth is the most poisonous notion that the real way to end domestic violence in our country is to ‘change’ the women who are seen as active in the continuation of domestic violence.

I get to travel the country and talk to a lot of people about domestic violence and time and time again I hear people getting stuck on this idea. More often I hear genuinely concerned people claiming that victims should be made to attend courses to teach them not to choose bad men. I hear judges and lawyers comment that the women mostly want the violent men back anyway so its best to respond to the violence in ways that do not ‘hurt’ the family. I read in the paper that women stay in relationships or return to them even though the man has hurt them, without any analysis of why they might return and this implies that the women must like the violence. I see in government policy such as the review of the Domestic Violence Act a proposal that women be mandated (forced) to attend change programmes.

Underlying all of these responses is the idea that if we can fix the woman we’ll fix the problem. Now hang on a minute! Isn’t it the violence that’s the problem? Isn’t the person who perpetrates the violence the only one who has the ability to stop using it? Certainly that’s what we teach in our men’s stopping violence programme.

But this belief that women in abusive relationships need to change is alive and well out there and in no other place is it more obvious than in the Court response to domestic violence currently, despite there being people who work there with the best of intentions in terms of safety of women and children. There are many ways that institutions discriminate against women in violent relationships, but I’m going to focus on the court today.

Based on the assumption that women are safe when the court becomes involved because now people know about the violence, and on a belief that women need to be part of the change process it is then thought and required that women victims need to be more involved in the court process.

I have spent a lot of time in courts. Last year I sat for 3 months in the Auckland family violence court and wrote an evaluation of it. What I’ve seen is that women are being asked to participate much more and in the following ways
· Tell and update the judge regularly about what they want to happen
· Comment on the offender’s progress in the stopping violence programme
· Be asked directly in court in front of the offender about whether he should get bail or not.

These practices are dangerous and place women in a dreadful predicament. Sometimes women will use the spotlight placed on them by the court to protect themselves for the future. It’s safer to say you want him back and you want the charges dropped and be seen to be his supporter, than to say you are completely terrified, he’s going to hurt you and the children when you know he is coming home after court and the judge won’t be sitting in your lounge keeping you safe.

In my view the court should not put women in this risky position, but it should accept safety and risk assessments from community advocates who then take responsibility for supplying information to the court instead of the women having to shoulder this burden.

Feeling hopeful on White Ribbon day

I was delighted this morning when I got off the train, and was greeted by a uniformed police officer handing out white ribbons to raise awareness of violence against women.

The reason I was so pleased was that, a few weeks ago, I heard a senior Police officer speak candidly about his experience trying to get his colleagues to take domestic violence seriously. He'd had a hard road. For a long time, the Police scarcely registered domestic violence as a crime; and when they did, they began to count the incidence, but did little else. Violence committed in the home were less likely to be recognised as such by Police than violence which took place outside it.

However, over the last few years, the Police have overhauled their approach to domestic violence, implementing a range of new procedures two years ago. These include much improved training for officers, mandatory reporting procedures and follow up after domestic violence call outs.

These changes may not sound like much, but they're a vast step forward from the predominant view of twenty years or so ago, that what happened behind closed doors was no one else's business. Having a woman in a blue uniform hand me a white ribbon is a clear statement that domestic violence is everyone's business.

Of course, the most crucial change in thinking needs to happen amongst those who perpetrate domestic violence. To that end, it was great to see men involved in White Ribbon day, and appearing on the promotional posters. Thanks lads!

White Ribbon - interesting linkage

I've been sick as a dog the last few days so haven't had much energy to blog. So instead of a blog I'm being lazy and doing some linkage.

Domestic violence: Your coworker's dark secret Looks at corporate America's response to domestic violence.

Busted Blonde reflects on her own abusive relationship.

Hanging in there

I've been back at work almost two months now, and it's gone by so fast that I keep telling people my baby is a month younger than he really is.

I'm enjoying being back in paid employment. I find work so absorbing that most of the time I don't even miss Wriggly too much. Perhaps this is because I only took about nine months off, so when I returned to my day job much was as I had left it and I naturally fell back into old routines that existed before my son was even a twinkle in the eye.

As the day grinds towards 5pm I tend to look forward to driving home, because I know that Wriggly will be there at the other end with a ready smile and a loving heart, keen to see his Mummy and have a cuddle. It's even better than having that Fresh 'n' Fruity yoghurt pottle welcoming you into the house each night. Although possibly stickier, as my arrival usually coincides with dinner time for the short one.

I thought I'd miss the milestones and get quite uptight about it, but I'm coping, so far. He's started that dragging pre-crawl movement some label "commando", and he's far more vocally communicative than in the past. I make an effort to spend as much time as possible with him on the weekends, around attempts to sleep. On Saturday I got to see my little boy pull himself up to standing for the first time ever, while his dad had a well deserved lie-in. I realised being home full-time isn't any guarantee that you get to see every development first.

Swapping roles with my partner has been good for us, as well as for Wriggly. We've got a much better understanding of what it's like to wear each other's slippers now and we're much kinder to each other as a result. I'm convinced that those with babies really do need someone to act as "wife" so they can get by; I love being released from cooking and cleaning most of the time and it means that when I'm home I'm there for my son, my partner and myself.

I'm not sure where this will go next. My work is changing, in ways I find exciting but also exhausting. Contemplating a near future that might involve more travel is less attractive than it would have been two years ago; the one night I've spent away for work so far was really hard.

Like so many mothers, and no doubt many fathers, before me I'm just going to hang in there and see what happens. I'm learning that adaptability is possibly the most important skill a parent can possess.

knowing is not enough

below are excerpts from a speech i heard on saturday morning by deborah mackenzie, of preventing violence in the home. she was presenting at the pacific women's watch annual conference, to commemorate white ribbon day and the 60th anniversary of the signing of the universal declaration of human rights. i'm posting these excerpts with her permission.

there are various aspects of deborah's speech i found interesting, so i'll break it up into separate posts. this first one deals with her organisation is facing in the provision of services, as well as the lack of safety as a result of court processes.

I think it’s fair to say that domestic violence is being talked about more and challenged in everyday ways. But in amongst this fantastic work at a public level I’ve watched an increasingly noisy preoccupation with victims’ behaviour within a violent relationship and beyond.

What I want to focus on today in the lead up the White Ribbon Day is a caution in expectations about what women can safely undertake when they are in or are trying to leave a violent relationship. It seems to me that at various levels in society, in government policy making, in media reporting, in NGO discourse and in informal exchanges that because we all talk more openly about domestic violence, some people conclude that this openness has changed the real and perceived climate of dangerousness in which women in violent relationships live to one of safety.

I don’t think that the NZ landscape has become more safe for domestic violence victims just by talking more about it. In reality the resources and practices to support abused women to safety are as scarce as they ever were.

We receive on average 125 referrals from the police each week, for Auckland City, not the region. We are told by Police that this level of reporting probably only represents about 18% of all domestic violence incidents in our area. Our team of advocates is always working tremendously hard to support the women... There are never enough advocates...

In addition there is often a serious shortage of refuge space in Auckland. In Auckland region there are around 17 refuges operating. Often these are full and it is difficult to find crisis accommodation for women on a regular basis. From time to time... we pay for women to stay in motels when we cannot find anywhere else for them to go. This is definitely not ideal.

But alongside a gross shortage of resources to help women and children it is also incredibly difficult to keep violent offenders away from them. Of the 125 police calls outs in Auckland City each week only around one quarter of offenders are arrested, the rest face no formal or legal follow up and are free to go. The offenders that are arrested are taken to the cells, appear in court the following day and are then bailed to a different address to that of the victim and are usually ordered not to associate her.

However, at Preventing Violence in the Home we know anecdotally that in many cases offenders go straight from court to the victim’s home and often times will blame and punish her for police/court involvement. A recent report released by Leigh Combes and Mandy Morgan based on interviews with women whose partners had all gone through the Waitakere Family Violence Court found that in many cases the women were being re-assaulted shortly after the offender was originally arrested and while he was on bail. These women were not made safer initially by the police/court knowing about the violence.

Sadly knowledge of the occurrence of domestic violence is not enough to prevent it happening again. And yet it is so often the case that the court and others have a false presumption that because the court knows about domestic violence the offender wont dare hurt the victim again and that suddenly women have the ability to safely work with the offender to end the violence.

Good Girls and the Business of Losing

Following on from the FIFA U17 success the Herald featured a girls' soccer team that plays in the boys' league. The team performed well with six wins, a draw and three losses. But what interested me the most was the typical gender roles at play.

"Neither of them like losing. The boys hate it - sometimes they don't even shake hands, they're just gutted."

Yup. Apparently there is still nothing worse in sport than losing to a girl and the way to show your disrespect of their abilities is to not offer congratulations to your opponents on their win.

The girls were not too macho about the matches. They become cheerleaders before kick-off - proudly singing out their rousing team cheer - which "the boys get a bit peeved about".

Yup showing emotion and singing before a game is clearly very girly and has no place in real sport. Our top sportsman never perform any show of pride before a sports game. None whatsoever.

Monday Funday: with mind-reading

You may have already seen this, as I found it in a 2006 post at Spare Room. But I hadn't seen it before so...
For myself I can say that this is absolutely spot on. With the exception of the hat.

She isn't the First Lady

Since when have we referred to the Prime Minister's husband or wife as the "First Lady / Gentleman"? Absolutely bloody never, as far as I can recall.

But the Herald is doing it, in an article in which it criticises Bronagh Key's fashion sense, and then twitters on about the alleged fashion faux pas she committed by wearing the same garment twice.

Oh noes.... sensible woman makes good use of her wardrobe! Global credit crunch looming, busy woman with children to rear, more-or-less on her own for practical day-to-day purposes because her husband has one of those more-than-full-time jobs so she has precious little time for fluffing around shops (NB John Key seems to be a loving and devoted daddy, so this is not a criticism of his parenting, just a simple acknowledgment that his job means that his time with his wife and children is limited), presumably no clothing allowance from the NZ government for the PM's spouse, and yet, the fashionistas are criticising her for wearing the same garment twice.

I can't recall any criticism of Peter Davies' fashion sense - why is it open season on Bronagh Key?

We have not elected Bronagh Key, she is not paid by the NZ government, and there is no position of "First Lady". Moreover, whatever job John Key has, Bronagh Key is a private citizen. Leave her alone, fashion police.

*****

Udate: Ele at Homepaddock and Kiwiblog are onto this too. (The comments thread at Kiwiblog is priceless - one commenter alleges that the NZ Herald never criticised Labour in 9 years of government. You would think that DPF would sometimes feel embarrassed by the people who turn up to his place.) Perhaps the NZ Herald might take note that criticism of this fashion nonsense is coming from both the left and the right.

Further update: Idiot/Savant is unimpressed too.

Parenting classes?

Normally this sort of thing is anathema to lefties like me - the repressive bourgeois state poking its nose in, telling poor people how to raise their kids. According to the Dom Post (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4767579a6479.html), the Ministry of Education last year began running parenting classes, where the parents of kids exhibiting antisocial behaviours are referred, often by the courts or Probation Services. Hundreds of parents have attended these group classes since they began, and the Nats have indicated their support for increasing these numbers as a means of addressing child abuse and a range of other negative social outcomes. The Dom Post reports that, so far, the classes have resulted in improved behaviour from 75% of kids whose parents attended.

I can't bring myself to disagree with the idea of parenting classes. It's not that I think there's a sinister underclass out there - a seething horde of useless parents breeding dysfunctional children. Rather, it's that no one is born naturally knowing everything about how to be a good mum or dad. Everyone learns a little bit along the way, myself included. Other parents, public health messages, even crappy Supernanny-type TV programmes, have got me thinking - reflecting on how I can do a better job. But not everyone gets the same opportunities to learn about parenting as I've had. And not everyone is set a good example by their own parents.

Initiatives like parenting classes are often criticised for taking one idea of what constitutes good parenting - usually a middle class, Eurocentric idea - and trying to impose it on everyone else. Most often, mothers bear the brunt of schemes aimed at better parenting, and these schemes can be punitive. These are fair criticisms. When the state gets it wrong, the consequences can be dreadful. I'm reminded of Plunket's policy of insisting that mothers put their babies to sleep on their tummies. When they changed this policy, the cot death rate was slashed, suggesting many babies needlessly died because of Plunket's poor advice.

The devil is, of course, in the detail. What kind of values and techniques should parents be taught in parenting classes? Contrary to what our PC-gone-made-get-the-nanny-state-out-of-our-lives friends may argue, how you parent is not a matter of personal choice, where almost anything goes. Society has a right and a responsibility to be assured that kids are being raised healthy and happy. There may be no single 'right' way of parenting, but there are certainly some wrong ones. Child abuse, whether or not under the guise of 'discipline', cannot be tolerated. Everyone should be able to agree on that much.

If we accept there's a need to intervene to ensure parents raise their kids well, we're faced with two options: the carrot or the stick. There's plenty of 'stick' available in the law already - for example, the ability to fine parents whose kids are truant. Parenting classes could potentially be carrot or stick. They could be a stigmatised affair, with connotations of failure, surrounded by the nasty racist discourses which surge after events like the terrible death of Nia Glassie. Or, they could be an expression of the truism that no parent knows it all: that every one of us needs, and deserves, a bit of help and a pat on the back from time to time, and there's no shame in asking for either.

Giving parents the support of the community is vital. Parenting classes - offered in a spirit of encouragement, not punishment - have the potential to be one way of providing support. It's important, though, not to pin all our hopes for children's wellbeing on a few state-run courses. Poverty, health and education - all crucial factors in how we care for our kids - need our urgent attention too.

Friday Feminist - Melissa McEwan

Cross posted

For the first time in my Friday Feminist series, a very-much contemporary feminist, and blogger. Melissa has a page full of Feminism 101, which you should read in its kick-ass entirety, and she is blogmistress of Shakesville, a diverse community of progressive writers.

On Periods: Let's put this shit to bed right now: Women don't lose their minds when they have period-related irritability. It doesn't lower their ability to reason; it lowers their patience and, hence, tolerance for bullshit. If an issue comes up a lot during "that time of the month," that doesn't mean she only cares about it once a month; it means she's bothered by it all the time and lacks the capacity, once a month, to shove it down and bury it beneath six gulps of willful silence.

Melissa McEwan, "On Periods"

FIFA u17 Women's Final

As per Bevan's request, I've decided to write about the FIFA u17 final since I went along to the match. I must admit that my reason for going along to the game had very little to do with my love of the beautiful game or even supporting women's sport, North Korea were playing in the final against their mortal enemy the United States. I accept that for normal people a North Korean team isn't exactly going to be a major drawcard to a sporting event. But after a few years in the South, I became obsessed with the country and even visited it earlier this year so figured I might as well put some of my tourist souvenirs to good use and support my favourite communist dictatorship's national team. The Suit, who is obsessed with sport and didn't have much to do on a Sunday arvo, was happy to tag along and support the Norks since there was no way in hell he was going to support the Americans. So off to the soccer we went.

With the dominance of men's rugby and league in the sports media in New Zealand, soccer, let alone girls' soccer, was never going to sell out the 25,000 seat North Harbour stadium. Nevertheless there was still a fairly respectable crowd of 17,000. Lots of local Dads out with their kids, young Americans on student exchange and the sizable South Korean community on the North Shore turned out with their drums and the cheers for their Northern cousins. Unfortunately there was a group of British Soccer hooligans who had stayed on after their team got thrashed by the Germans in the battle for 3rd place yelling out to the Americans that they had great tits, how much they loved player number 6, demanding players' phone numbers and yelling 'fuck you' in Korean to the Korean players. A charming sexism in sport in action. But for the most part the crowd was highly supportive of the players out on the field.

Soccer has an interesting place in New Zealand sport. It is extremely popular, especially for young people who make it the most played sport for kids under 16. However many kids either move onto the oval ball games or give it up by the time they hit high school. Perhaps the sport's low profile is because of the attitude that it is a kids' game and real men play rugby or at least watch it. At junior level, one in three players is female and the sports governing body, FIFA, has put considerable effort into developing the game after the president declared the future of football is feminine. That effort has paid off. Women's participation in the game has more than doubled since 2000 and there are now an estimated 26 million females playing soccer worldwide.

But that day I was watching the two giants of u17 soccer, the United States and North Korea, fighting it out for the title. The Americans have a strong women's soccer scene due in part to the Title IX legislation of 1972 which mandated that any school receiving state funding had to ensure that equality of funding and opportunities to participate in extra-curricular activities. For it's part the North Korean state devotes a considerable amount of the country's resources developing educational and after-school facilities for children and young teenagers. In the absence of cellphones and the internet, North Korean children devote many hours to practicing their chosen hobby whether it be sport or cultural. The women who played in Auckland were beneficiaries of that programme.

Things looked ominous for the Norks after a throw in by one of the Americans bounced off their goalkeepers hands into the goal two minutes into the game. The Suit informed that had the goalkeeper not touched the ball, the goal would not have stood. The North Koreans were gutted and after many near misses, a substitute scored a goal half way through the second period and then it was all on. The drums of the Korean supporters started to be louder, matched in intensity by the 'USA! USA! USA' chants of the American team. The game went into extra time with plenty of shots at goal from both sides but still no success. Finally eight minutes before penalty shoot out, another North Korean substitute scored the winning goal. At full time the North Korean substitutes charged onto the field to join the rest of their ecstatic team in a group embrace and a victory lap of the field. The Americans were gracious in defeat forming a guard of honour for the victorious Koreans.

From an uninformed spectator's point of view, the final was a brillant game. The players played tough and also with the kind of raw spirit that is missing from the professional rugby games. The Suit told me that the soccer itself was far better than he had expected and showed two contrasting styles of play. The Americans were clearly individually brillant players but the North Koreans were a far more cohesive team who passed to each other and changed direction far more than their American counterparts.

New Zealand's successful hosting of this tournament might see New Zealand make a bid for the 2015 Women's World cup. Hopefully these high-profile events will encourage more girls and for that matter boys to take up the game.

just apply the law as it stands. is that really so difficult?

i saw this press release from the national council of women on the scoop site today, regarding the prostitution law reform bill:

“NCWNZ is alarmed by the passing down of lenient sentences for men convicted of having sex with girls under the age of 18 under the Prostitution Reform Act 2003,” says NCWNZ National President Elizabeth Bang...

“NCWNZ is disturbed that there seems to be no disincentive for men for their actions when they are getting name suppression and receiving light sentences for buying sexual services from girls under 18, this makes a mockery of the law,” says Mrs Bang.

NCWNZ is also concerned that the judiciary have shown little concern about what is going on when recent convictions show men being given a community service sentence only.

“NCWNZ would like to see tougher penalties currently in the Act, applied in the very near future, so men are held accountable for buying sexual services from minors under the age of 16, that in any other circumstance could be considered statutory rape,” concluded Mrs Bang.

i can only second these comments. it's appalling that the law is not being applied, and perhaps the fact that the judiciary continues to be predominantly male is having an impact.

like NCWNZ, i also don't "condone prostitution or the purchase of sexual services", in that i hate women being treated as a commodity, even if they are willing to put themselves in that position. i would have much preferred us adopting the swedish law which sees men being prosecuted rather than women.

there was an interesting discussion (3 minutes in) on radio nz about proposals in the UK, which seem to be a strange and impractical combination of legalisation and criminalisation. basically, it seems they want to prosecute men using prostitutes who are controlled or influenced or under pressure from someone else. the main problem is that it will almost impossible to find out if the woman is being coerced or abused without some kind of in-depth investigation prior to purchase of services, which is more than your average john is going to bother with. under the proposal however, ignorance will no longer be an excuse.

but no matter what you're thoughts on that, the prostitution of underage girls remains illegal and the men who use them must be brought to account. this is child-abuse, and needs to be treated as seriously as any other form of abuse.

If you go down to the city tomorrow

You might get a bit of a surprise (in Auckland anyway).

National Distribution Union members who work at Farmers stores in Auckland have called a stopwork meeting and intend to meet at 11.30am at QE2 Square, Downtown.

It's not often retail workers, who are predominantly women, take such a step. These workers have been riled by a measly 20c wage increase offer by their bosses. They'd much rather have a $15 minimum wage thanks very much.

So if you're in Queen St tomorrow around lunch time and you see a bunch of loud and proud union women, and men, protesting for fair pay please consider offering them your support.

I <3 Hayley

Ok I'm not so much of a fan of her music, but I'll give the songstress some blog love for giving the finger to music execs to requests to sex up her image to boost sales. In a world where female singers are routinely told to lose weight and then lose their clothes in order to boost sales, it takes some gumption to tell them to sod off. But it seems so fucked in the head that the record execs would even be making that request given her fan base tends to be *cough* older people plus some younger kids. Are they lazy or just plain stupid?

H/T: Homepaddock

Bored with the bard

This week's minor furore over whether Shakespeare should appear in the NCEA curriculum (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4761440a23918.html) took me right back to studying first year university English literature. One of the papers I did was a survey of English literature across the centuries, from Chaucer through to Samuel Becket. The bard featured; but so, too, did Aphra Behn, Jane Austen and Virginia Wolff. Both the latter were taught by a feminist lecturer. Her approach to these texts, and the choice of the texts themselves, were greeted with a level of hostility from students which I found surprising. Students grumbled about the inclusion of female authors 'for the sake of it', as if they were being cheated out of 'real' literature by some sort of affirmative action policy.

I quite enjoyed studying Shakespeare, but as I progressed through my English degree, my eyes were opened to a wonderful world of 'non-traditional' literature. New Zealand writing, post-colonial writing, indigenous writing - stuff of tremendous quality, by whatever 'objective' measure you might like to compare it with Shakespeare, but stuff which is also worth reading because it reveals those 'other' voices historically marginalised by the traditional literary canon.

I think the issue is not about whether Shakespeare is a good writer. He is. Rather, the question to ask is what makes him better, or perhaps more relevant to NZ school pupils, than the hundreds of other fine authors throughout history and across the world? Could pupils develop the same analytical skills, glean the same insights into human nature, by reading something which they enjoy and perceive as more relevant?

Shakespeare's proponents call his possible loss from the curriculum a form of 'dumbing down'. By implication, studying Shakespeare is more intelligent than studying an author from another time, place or culture. It seems to me that some people who hold this view may be harbouring a lingering elitism which views (male) European heritage as superior to other sorts. It's this very elitism which has kept 'other' voices out of the canon for so long.

Ugly crime, ugly response

I don't have much to the ins and outs of the Nia Glassie's death than what was mentioned in Julie's post. It was a horrible, horrible crime.

But so to has been the response, let's blame the mother, she's brown and probably on welfare after popping out children to multiple fathers. So let's introduce reproductive licenses and sterilize all those not fit to breed, take children away from alcoholics (hmm perhaps the SST might want to look into the welfare of the children of its legal advisor?) but by golly don't take away my 'right' to hit my child because that is the state interfering in my life and I won't stand for that.

Except here's the rub, Nia's mother while brown wasn't on the DPB. She was working and her partner was the one who left to shack up with a thinner woman after removing his son (but not daughters) from that overcrowded and toxic environment. And while we all tap into our keyboards in anger at this horrible crime scratching our heads at how this tragedy could of occurred we make judgments on the basis of our own family life which might be very different from the abuser upbringing. By the sounds of things, the perpetrators of this abuse had a miserable existence. While this does not excuse their actions, it does seem to me that we can't just magically expect everyone to become a kind and loving parent or caregiver when they have no experience of what a kind and loving caregiver is.

But perhaps more than apportioning blame and theorizing about what went wrong we actually need to do something about child abuse. Because after reading all the analysis about this case, the best response I heard was from my mother when the story first broke, "I want to make an offer to care for her."

OMG! The girlz are turning into boyz!

Girls behaving like boys

Like Deborah, I get a bit hot under the collar when terms like 'lady' and 'ladette' are bandied about. A lady is someone who's behaviour needs to be regulated, she must act a certain way and needs a big strong man to take care of her. Likewise terms like ladette and blokette also piss me off. Ladettes and blokettes are silly girs who have crossed the line from empowerment and are acting a little too much like men engaging in behaviour that is a danger to themselves and others. The thing that urks me the most about this sort of behaviour isn't so much that girls are behaving badly but that somehow it is still accepted with a nod and a wink for the boys, who we all know, will still be boys.

Bitch please ... I'm from WEST AUCKLAND

HOLLA! To all fellow Westies out there, stand up and be counted! ... not to be confused with "Shore Girls" (sure thing), "South Side" or "Eastern Suburb" peeps.

You know your in west Auckland when...

"your house gets robbed but they cook them a feed and watch your tv b4 they steal it"

"your neighbours have more cars in their backyard that dont go, compared to the amount of people who live in the house."

"Your childhood friends were called Shontelle Rochelle, Rachelle and Rachael."

"you take a swappa crate to a party. You can also use it as a seat. Genius!"

Apparently westie is the new hip minority judging by how many Right wing bloggers engaging in the cyber circle jerk over West Auckland MP's Paula Bennett promotion into cabinet.

At the moment I don't have any qualms with her appointment and genuinely wish her well. From what I've seen of her in the media, she's someone who can back up a rich personal history with a warm presence in the media and a bolshy presence in the house. But what will be more interesting is what happens to her political career as the party's support inevitably takes a dive when unpopular decisions need to be made or she has disagreements with some of the more conservative members of the caucus over policy. Will those who so quickly rushed to embrace her cast her aside when it is politically convenient or will they stick with her? An interesting question given the Republican Party's recent foray into identity politics.

And question that will undoubtedly be asked of a number of National's recent intake in coming years. It is very easy to have a commitment to diversity when the party is experiencing a swing to them it is another to keep that the commitment when the tide is going out and there aren't enough seats on the electoral lifeboat. The cynic in me thinks that National's commitment to diversity isn't something that the party as whole is an entirely comfortable with (given that old-time racists like Lockwood are still deemed worthy enough of jobs rather than being shown the door) and the 'new face of the National party' will be short-term political gimmick rather than a long-term commitment to a more representative democracy. But if National sticks with these new MPs when the tide is going out, then John Key deserves credit for finally dragging the National Party kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Something that many on the Left believed would be impossible after Orewa.

It's okay to force a girl to have sex if she has been flirting with you

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

New Cabinet Open Thread

Not sure what time today Key will announce his full Cabinet line-up, but the speculations to date are a bit light on the woman front.

So far we know (due to support agreements with the Maori Party, United and Act):

• Heather Roy (Consumer Affairs, Assoc. Defence, Assoc. Education)
• Rodney Hide (Regulatory Reform, Local Govt, Assoc. Commerce)
• Tariana Turia (Community & Voluntary Sector, Assoc. Health, Association Social Development & Employment)
• Pita Sharples (Maori Affairs, Assoc. Education, Assoc. Corrections)
• Peter Dunne (Revenue, Assoc. Health)

All of the above will be Ministers outside Cabinet.

Speculations on National Cabinet Ministers are:

• Anne Tolley (Education)
• Tony Ryall (Health)
• Simon Power (Justice & Commerce)
• Chris Finlayson (Attorney-General)
• Murray McCully (Foreign Affairs)
• Tim Groser (Trade)
• John Key (Tourism, plus the usual PM stuff)
• Bill English (Finance, Infrastructure)
• Wayne Mapp (Labour)

Plus Lockwood Smith for Speaker (what size hands do you need for that job?).

So thus far we have one woman from National, and another two from other parties. We already know that there will be 28 Ministers in total. Judith Collins is conspicuous by her absence from speculative lists, and I think surely Georgina Te Heu Heu would be in there. Edith reckons Pansy Wong could be Immigration.

Feel free to comment here about your thoughts about what the Cabinet might look like, in particular in relation to the proportion of those outside the dominant demographic. And as time overtakes us and speculation becomes reality I hope to get back and update this post with the full list, but I've got a busy work day today so that might not happen.

Monday Funday: with rat (or possibly mouse?)

Spotted at Shapely Prose:

The undeniable selfishness of the breastfeeding mother

Lauredhel has a fantastic post at Hoyden About Town on the strange case of Salma Hayek's breastfeeding. Apparently the fact that she is "still" breastfeeding her daughter at 14 months of age is not only news-worthy it is also cringe-worthy for many many people. Harsh judgements have been made; that Hayek is somehow unhinged, abusing her child, and of course (most importantly) not keeping her breasts available for their much more important role, namely being a passive and willing recipient of lustful gazes. Actually, judging by some of the comments Lauredhel has gathered, many are still indulging in said leering, but somehow the idea that there is a little girl also accessing those boobies gets in the way of their mental masturbation. It must be hard to be them.

Like Undomestic Goddess before me, I'm now in the land of "why haven't you weaned yet". Wriggly is over 10 months old and while we've significantly reduced the feeds since I went back to work, and a lot of people are keen that I give up altogether for my own health, he's still getting his breakfast drink from me. We had a lot of trouble to start with and now I really want to make it to a year. I'm not sure quite why, I just do. I don't think Wriggly would mind much either way; he gets very excited now when he sees the milky bottle coming his way at lunch and dinner times.

Having read Lauredhel's excellent summation of the situation for Salma Hayek I'm now wondering if there are people I know personally who think I'm somehow abusing my son by continuing to breastfeed him. :-(

class and colour

there was an interesting interview on radio nz with dr edwina pio, who wrote the book "sari: indian women at work in nz". also interviewed were two of the women who were the featured in the book: ex-dunedin mayor sukhi turner (punjabi) and wellington nurse naema chhima (gujarati). as the pre-interview blurb says, dr pio wrote the book because she found when she moved here that "many nz'ers thought the typical indian woman speaks broken english, reeks of curry, works in a dairy, and is completely under her husband's thumb".

i can so totally relate to her experience of "professionally qualified women and women with a wonderful treasure of skills and experience" having trouble finding appropriate jobs, because they were held back by such stereotypes. it's very hard to be seen as confident, assertive and competent when the predominant view of women of your ethnicity is one of being victimised and passive. of course that has an impact when employers are trying to assess your capabilities.

therein lies the difficulty for women of colour. in many of our countries of origin, inequality and abuse of women exists at high levels. the moving piece by eve ensler (linked to by the ex-expat here) shows there are some seriously appalling issues faced by women in developing countries. none of us wants to downplay that, nor ignore it.

but the reality is that, unless they are coming in on the refugee quota, this is often not the experience of women of colour who migrate here. simply because these days, they have to be well-educated, english-speaking and pretty much from the upper class in order to get in. that's the way our immigration system works.

and i'm not saying that domestic violence doesn't happen in these households. sometimes it does, most often because of the financial pressures and the lack of social support networks that is the hallmark of the migrant experience.

but violence and vicitmisation is not the universal experience for women of colour in this country. many of us are empowered, educated and ready to contribute. to automatically be seen as victims is not only insulting, but also takes away our power and confidence. it makes for a hostile external environment, in which it is that much more difficult to achieve.

that's why this book is important. because it tells the positive stories of women who have succeeded, and tries to break the stereotypes that hold us back. it provides strong role models and hopefully will change the way others see us.

and yet, in my heart i know that eve ensler's story is the more important one. it's the one that needs to be shouted from the rooftops, to try and shake us from our complacent existence so that we will be moved to act. the suffering of those impoverished women suffering from extreme sexual violence is much greater than the discrimination faced by privileged migrant women of colour here in nz. so i have this sense of guilt that highlighting the latter somehow diminishes the former. a sense that really, we in this country have no right to complain.

except that injustice anywhere does need to be called out for what it is. does need to be highlighted and attended to. because if we let the little things go, then how will deal with the bigger issues.

(Mis)using the haka

Update: so people will stop thinking I'm a redneck, I want to clarify what I mean upfront - I don't have a problem with the haka per se, but with the way teams sometimes use it to antagonise their opponents. Peace!

I'm sticking my neck out here, and I'll probably get called a heretic, but here goes: I don't like the way haka are sometimes used before sporting events.

Most people will remember that when the All Blacks adopted the new haka, Kapa o Pango, there was a minor controversy centred on whether the throat-slitting gesture featured in the haka was over the top. Despite feeble arguments to the contrary, the throat-slitting gesture made clear what the haka is intended to do: intimidate the opposition.

Last weekend, the Kiwis (NZ's rugby league team, for the uninitiated) played Great Britain in Australia. When the Kiwis did their haka, the opposition huddled in a group, doing their own thing and refusing to engage with the intimidation ritual. They weren't rude about it. They just didn't want to play. Miffed, the Kiwis came towards their opponents, crossing the centre line as they did the haka. The Kiwi team complained afterwards that Great Britain were disrespecting New Zealand culture.

About twenty years ago, Buck Shelford lead the All Blacks against Ireland. On this occasion, when the ABs performed the haka, their opposition took the opposite tactic, facing the New Zealanders staunchly with eyeballing and chests out. This, too, was decried as disrespectful to New Zealand culture. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I feel incredibly uneasy with the idea that a ritual designed to intimidate, which the opposition are just supposed to stand and take, is seen to be part of New Zealand culture. Increasingly, the performance of the haka before matches has moved away from an expression of national pride, and towards something that is both a spectacle for an internationalised television audience, and a routine designed to get the testosterone and aggression flowing. Irrespective of the origins of the haka, which are not exclusively in warfare, the sport-as-war metaphor is played up.

Is there any particular reason why aggression and sport have to go hand in hand? Is it impossible to play sport well unless you enter into it with a warlike frame of mind? I don't know of any national women's sports teams who use a warlike ritual to prepare for a match. Other sporting codes - swimming, cricket, golf, to name but a few - don't use these rituals either. Neither do competitors in these codes hit each other during play.

Whether the haka as it's currently performed is an authentic expression of culture or not, I just don't think it's sportsmanlike or necessary to behave threateningly towards people, on the field or elsewhere.

Family First still not letting the facts get in the way of a good story

Argh!

Usual story. A 'good' parent due to be dragged before the courts for exercising his 'Christian right' smack on the bottom to his defiant and verbally aggressive child due to that draconian anti-smacking law but the case was dismissed just before the trial.

But just like a startling number of these 'good parents' cases, we find out that Family First conviently forgets a few facts to the story. First up the case wasn't dismissed the Crown had decided not to offer any evidence in the case, which was different from saying it did not believe the alleged offences had taken place because the interests of the child had to take precedence. Next up we find up out that he was actually up five charges of assaulting his son and also one charge of assaulting a female. But wait there's more, it isn't just a 'loving' smack on the bottom, there was also a wooden spoon used and he also 'clipped' him around the face. Yikes. I'm not sure of the specifics of this case, but clearly there is something going on to cause the child's negative behaviour and the father clearly isn't as angelic as Family First would paint hime to be.

Let me be clear that I abhor the use of violence on children. I don't care whether it is dressed up as a 'loving smack,' the only difference between assualt and 'smacking' is that kids are the only people in society we expect to endure such an indiginity and we prefer that when parents assualt their children they try not to use an implement and ideally don't leave any marks. I realise that right now my opininon is a minority. The majority of people in New Zealand seem to think that the parents have the right to use 'some force' against their children, but I often wonder how many of those parents that smack would condone the behavior that is so often used to advance their 'rights.'

Friday Feminist - Jennifer Temkin

Cross posted

If the police have behaved brutishly towards, rape victims, it is the courts which may be said to have set the tone. Indeed, it is often claimed that in rape cases the complainant rather than the defendant is on trial. Certainly the focus of the court's attention is frequently upon her and rather less upon him. Yet the complainant generally has no legal assistance. ...

Much criticism of the treatment of rape victims in court has centred on the use of sexual history evidence to blacken their character. But other strategies commonly employed against them are equally oppressive and invidious. Newby identified three distinct tactics utilized by defence counsel in rape trials in Western Australia. They are also in frequent use elsewhere. The first is continual questioning as to details of the rape incident... The purpose is to test her story for inconsistencies and to attempt to twist her interpretation of events so as to make them consistent with an assumption of consent. The second strategy relates to cases where the victim and accused were known to each other. In such cases, questioning will be particularly detailed and the most intimate aspects of any pre-existing sexual relationship will commonly be rehearsed in court. Finally, the defence may seek to challenge the general character of the witness. This may include by goes far beyond references to her sexual past. The idea is to suggest to the court 'that this sort of woman, who behaves in this kind of way, in these circumstances is quite reasonably to be taken to be consenting.' Thus attention will be drawn to behaviour such as hitch-hiking, excessive drinking or smoking, the wearing of 'seductive' clothing or the use of bad language.

Jennifer Temkin, "Women, rape and law reform", in Sylvana Tomaselli and Roy Porter (eds), Rape: A Historical and Social Enquiry, Oxford, 1986

The Odds & Ends Drawer

I've been slack about this during election season. So maybe its return is another silver lining?

• barvasfiend reflects on Key's victory and the reality for New Zealanders who have shifted to Australia.
• Amy has the goss on comfortable high heels.
  
• sophie considers the Scottish response to their abortion rate.
  
• Anjum was at the US embassy for the American election party.
• the ex-expat is annoyed.
  
• amandaw writes about the reality of the hard work of being sick. Hat-tipped to lauredhel of the Hoydens.
• Nikki has a very cool graphic representation of Newtown's election night results.
  
• ludditejourno points out that the attractiveness of our Prime Minister wasn't an area of discussion when Lange or Muldoon were in charge.
  
• anarkaytie responds to critics of the Greens' election campaign.
• Carol gives her views on Chris Trotter's post-election column and his assertions Labour lost because of a "crisis of masculinity".
  
• bluemilk has some girl dolls that actually look like real girls.
• Anne Else is also annoyed.
• Here's something that may annoy you - the largely misogynist response from ad agencies when asked to create an advertising campaign to promote homosexuality.
  
• And finally, regular readers who are familiar with the shall we say "difficulties" The Hand Mirror has had with Trotter in his blogging incarnation, may be interested to know that he and blog-mate Matthew Hooton have both decided to vacate Blogland.
  

New to the blogroll:
Pundit
Anarkaytie's Weblog

Remorseless

The ex-expat has pointed out Clint Rickards' admission to the Bar. If you thought Clint Rickards was one of my least favourite people you'd be right.

My issue is not so much with what he did in the 1980s, although I do think that was awful, unacceptable, and a total abuse of his authority. What concerns me now though is that he is totally and utterly without remorse. He doesn't seem to have accepted that what he did in the 1980s, and his actions more recently in defence of those actions, was wrong.

Rickards seems to be happy to be friends with convicted rapists, and to defend them too. Perhaps in some ways it is appropriate that he's looking to the legal profession for his future career. Like Idiot/Savant, and others who have commented here recently, I really really hope that he is never in a court room cross-examining a woman. I can imagine that he might be used as a threat by some who want to intimidate those they have raped, abused or assaulted: "if you go to the cops I'll get Clint Rickards as my lawyer."

The rape cases associated with ex-police officers Rickards, Shipton and Schollum have probably already had a chilling effect on the reporting of rape. While the Police have done considerable work to encourage complainants, the media coverage and the treatment of Louise Nicholas, and let's not forget the verdicts, would all have discouraged people from coming forward. Even if Rickards never works on a rape case in his legal career, there will still be people put off reporting in part out of fear that they'll have to face him.

What does Rickards hope to achieve by becoming a lawyer? He told the Herald on Sunday:

"With my 25-28 years' experience, I am in a unique position to give back to my people because it's got to stop [he means abuse, violence]."

But does Rickards really get what it means to stop abuse and violence? The first step surely is to recognise that what you've done is wrong - how can he be a role-model in that regard when his notoriety comes from not admitting fault?

Here's hoping he has a hitherto unknown passion for the minutiae of copyright law or maybe real estate transfers. Even then I'd hate to ever have to deal with him, and I suspect many other women would feel the same way.

Oh and by the way, the NZ Law Society's Council has three women on it. And twenty-one men.

And now I feel sick again

urgh.

Something to be ashamed of

Both NRT and homepaddock have blogged about New Zealand being the fifth most equal country in the world for women's rights according report by the World Economic Forum. This is an achievement to be proud of but I find myself feeling despondent about the state of the world after reading a powerful speech by Stephen Lewis, the former Canadian opposition leader and ambassador to the UN about the plight of women who live at countries down the bottom of the list.

The audio of the speech is here while the transcript of the speech is over the break. I give a warning that this is not easy reading but should be mandatory as is the Eve Ensler piece I linked to in the text.


I live in a feminist family, I love it. I believe to the end of my days that the feminist analysis of the exercise of male power is probably the most insightful analysis to explain much of what is wrong with much of this difficult world. And I must say that the more I’ve had the privilege of working in the international community, the more I have come to the conclusion that the struggle for gender equality is the single most important struggle on the planet. You cannot continue to marginalize 52% of the world’s population and ever expect to achieve a degree of social justice and equity: it’s just not possible.

And when you look at the damage that is done to the women, particularly of the developing world, through so many perverse realities whether it’s international sexual trafficking or female genital mutilation or child brides or honor killings or an absence of inheritance rights or an absence of property rights or an absence or laws against rape and sexual violence or an absence of microcredit to give women some sense of economic autonomy or a lack of political representation – whatever the panoply of injustice, discrimination and stigma visited on women it seems to have no end, and it so profoundly compromises their existence.

And what has happened through the developing world latterly in many parts and which is so unsettling, unnerving, so profoundly compromising are the patterns of physical and sexual violence. The World Health Organization just did a quite astonishing study. It interviewed twenty-five thousand women in fourteen countries about physical and sexual violence. It found that the lowest levels of violence were in Japan at 14%, and the highest levels were in rural Ethiopia at 71%. And when they looked at the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada they found interim levels of 30-35%. So they saw that this was a pattern so deeply entrenched, whether it’s marital rape or sexual violence from intimate partners or domestic abuse, these patterns are overwhelmingly entrenched.

And then when you get destabilization in countries they are further accelerated. A country like South Africa is a good example, where you have 5,700,000 people living with HIV and AIDS in a population of somewhat over 40 million. Incredibly enough, South Africa is a country where eight hundred to a thousand people die every day of AIDS-related illnesses. And in the most recent year for which statistics are available, which is 2006, there were 52,000 reported rapes. And everyone knows that reflects only 5-10% of the actual number because women are so reluctant, for a whole range of reasons, to actually, formally, to report the rape and begin to engage in a police and judicial process.

And it gets worse still when there is conflict. When there is conflict it goes right out of control. I don’t understand what these berserk lunatic predatory male sexual behavior – how it happens under conflict – but it happens and it never seems to end. And it’s not merely on the continent of Africa which I admit is a continent I love, but throw your minds back to the rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The President of Indonesia just apologized to East Timor for the sexual violence that was unleashed by his forces when they tried to prevent the independence of East Timor. In the Balkans, I remind you a white, Western country, or countries, in the Balkans you have several military commanders who have come before the International Criminal Court charged with crimes against humanity rooted in sexual violence. The same is true for Colombia. There seems to be no part of the world which is exempt.

But in parts of Africa it really is astounding what is taking place. In the post-election violence in Kenya, suddenly more and more women were turning up at the hospitals, raped and subject to the most grotesque sexual violence. In Zimbabwe, an organization which I am involved with and to which I will refer at the end, AIDS-Free World, that Lisa mentioned in the introduction, I can’t go into details, which you will understand, but we have been over the last few weeks in an unnamed country in Africa, interviewing and taking affidavits under formal legal terms from the women who have been raped by Mugabe’s Youth Corps as Zimbabwe has ground down over the last several months. And Terror Camps were created --that’s what they’re called – to subject women associated in any way with the political opposition to insensate sexual violence.

And I was recently in Liberia, meeting with the President of Liberia and the Minister of Gender and the Unicef representative and they were telling me that the majority of rapes now in Liberia – after the civil war is over but the raping continues – the majority of rapes are committed against young girls between the ages of ten and fourteen. And everybody knows what’s happening in Darfur, that need not be explicated at length. For five years now the entire world has agreed that there is a genocide taking place and for whatever unconscionable reason we’ve never been able to bring it to an end. I mean, forgive me but this is not the Taliban in Darfur. These are Janjaweed militia commanders on horseback! And it is entirely possible to have subdued that and brought it to an end if the world cared a tinker’s dam for what was happening in that country.

And in the case of the Congo, you have a war on women. You know, if I may make a somewhat more intellectual observation, rape is no longer a weapon of war. Rape has become a strategy of war. You rape women in such numbers, so savagely that you humiliate entire communities through the women. The women hold the communities together. On the continent of Africa, nothing happens without the engagement of the women, particularly at the grassroots, particularly on the ground. And what happens is that the entire community is subdued, oppressed, overcome by these roving bands of marauding militias, who rape the women, move the community off the extractive resources, which is what they want, or turn the women into sex slaves and the men into the laborers who do extract the resources. And it’s hideous, the consequences, and it’s been going on since 1996. More than a quarter of a million women have been raped. And what is so unfathomable about it is everyone in a position of power knows, and it continues. I’ll never never comprehend.

In August of last year, Eve Ensler, the magnificent dramatist and writer of the Vagina Monologues went off to the Congo to see for herself what was happening and she spent a month or more and she came back and wrote an immensely powerful essay, the first words of which were, “I have just returned from Hell.” And I do not have the emotional equanimity to read to you the case histories that Eve set out. But after she came back suddenly the Undersecretary General of the United Nations, John Holmes, goes off to the Congo, comes back, writes an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times and calls it the worst place in the world for women. The Undersecretary General of the United Nations, who appears before the Security Counsel on a regular basis, and then suddenly there’s a front-page piece in the New York Times, and a front-page piece in the Washington Post, and a front-page piece in the Los Angeles Times, and Anderson Cooper of CNN does a twenty-minute segment on 60 Minutes, and everybody is caught up in the anxiety and urgency of what is being done to the women – it’s impossible to say in a way that can be absorbed what is happening to the women.

In the city of Bukavu in the Eastern region of the Congo there’s a little hospital called the Panzi Hospital where a lovely group of surgeons attempt desperately to repair the reproductive tracts of the women. This is rape that isn’t merely the gang-raping of eighty-year-olds and eight year olds, although that takes place. It’s rape with mutilation and amputation and guns and knives. Guns shot into the vaginas of women. I’m speaking to a sophisticated audience that cares about human issues – there is a medical term in the Panzi Hospital in Bukavu which I never in my adult life expected to encounter: it’s called “vaginal destruction.” And Eve Ensler has appeared before the Security Counsel, and we had an ostensible peace agreement, part of which peace agreement provided an amnesty for the militias that were doing the raping. And the war never ended. And the raping continues. And the war is now resuscitated. And so bad have things become that Condoleeza Rice, on June 19th, at the Security Council, introduced a resolution branding sexual violence as a matter of international peace and security. That had never happened before. And we have seventeen thousand United Nations peacekeepers in the Congo, the biggest peacekeeping mission in the world, and we cannot protect the women. And everyone knows its happening. And everybody knows that if we increase the numbers of peacekeepers, or the United Nations agencies did their job on the ground, or we confronted the government of the Congo in a way that no-one has had the courage to confront, we could perhaps abate the violence. But I have to tell you it’s so monstrous, and it’s so rooted in gender inequality, that it makes one feel not just tormented but dismal about the prospects for human behavior.