Deadline's looming

The Down Under Feminists Carnival is into its second year. After a magnificent 1st birthday hosted by Chally, the first carnival of the second year will be hosted by THM's lovely friend Demelza, at SAHM Feminist. Demelza is not staying at home - she and her family have just moved home, into their very own place. Congratulations, Demelza.

It's time to send in some submissions for the carnival. Go through your posts for May, or go through the blogs you love, and pick out some pieces. Any feminist writing, by any down under blogger, can be included. Don't be shy! And don't be shy about recommending other bloggers' posts; it's a lovely way of letting another person know how much you appreciate their work. NZ bloggers - the Queen's having a birthday on Monday, so you are having a holiday, and I know that the weather is ghastly up and down the country, so how about spending some time searching out some great material for the carnival, and sending it to Demelza.

Demelza is aiming to get the carnival up by 5 June, so get your posts into her in the next day or two. You can send them via the carnival submission form, or if the form won't work for you, send them to demelzagf at yahoo dot com.

And if you think you would be up for hosting the carnival yourself sometime, contact carnival founder Lauredhel, either via the Hoyden about Town contact form, or at her gmail dot com address, where she uses lauredhelhoyden as her handle.

Treat as a criminal

Family First are at it again, proving their love of teh children by advocating for hitting them. They've got full page ads in the Sunday papers today [PDF] calling on the Prime Minister* to make good on his promise to change the law (back) if "good parents" are "criminialised for lightly smacking their children for the purposes of discipline."

They give four examples of how the law is being enforced in a manner that has criminalised some parents. I see they have stopped using the example of the ear-flicker father who punched his four year old child in the face.

Now to my mind criminalised means treat as a criminal; find someone guilty in a court of law and sentence them for the crime (warning, diversion, community service, prison sentence, home detention, reparations, that kind of thing) in a manner designed to dissuade others, punish the guilty party, rehabilitate the offender and hopefully deliver some justice to the victim.

In the examples Family First were any of the parents found guilty of a crime and then sentenced?

1. Investigations were undertaken and no charges laid.
2. The parent was charged and then chose to plead guilty. The sentence is not mentioned.
3. Charged, convicted (does not say whether he plead guilty or not) and discharged without penalty (which I assume means a s19 discharge, ie no conviction on his record either?)
4. Charged, police offered no evidence, case dismissed when it got to court.

So actually we can rule out examples 1 and 4, as the parents concerned were not convicted (and thus criminalised). In the case of example 2 the parent plead guilty himself, which makes it hard to argue fully that it was the law that made him a criminal, rather than his actions (either hitting a child and/or pleading guilty to a charge of assault).

That leaves us with example 3. Without knowing more about the facts, in particular whether the parent plead guilty or not, it's pretty hard to say much about whether this person was really "criminalised" or not, but a discharge without penalty is what some in Family First would dismiss as a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket in other circumstances.

These examples are not presented in a strictly factual manner, but are coloured by the cause that Family First uses them for, i.e. to reinstate the defence s59 previously gave parents who hit their children. These four cases still don't show the law is criminalising good parents, despite all the wordsmithing of the Family Firsters.

There are many many people who believe physical punishment of children is not necessary. Family First are trying to create the impression that the law isn't working and that all those child advocacy agencies that continue to support the changes to s59 are wrong. If these four examples are the best Family First can come up with then they've got a long way to go to make their case.



* John Key. I still can't get used to this.

fighting against silence

sophie foster, the associate editor of the fiji times, gave a speech recently at the fiji women's rights movement's "emerging leaders forum" graduation ceremomy. i thought i'd share some excerpts here:


There is no doubt that the media industry is facing a tremendous challenge trying to defend the right of people to freedom of expression....

It’s of vital importance that the truth be known, that the truth be reported widely and that there be free discussion around matters of community or national interest....

But it takes courage to be able to look real issues in the eye. It takes courage to be able to sustain threats, bullying, intimidation, and even firebombing.

So why do we do the job we do? Why do journalists continue to turn up to work every day? Why continue to report on stories as they always did – even if it means the stories could be crossed off with a cheap black pen every night? It’s because we cannot and must not stand silently or idly by. Our duty is to continue to uphold the right to freedom of expression, to gather a variety of views, to provide our people with information with which they can make informed choices.

And that’s where the good news comes in…

Across the world, women have over the decades developed very personal knowledge of the challenges that face us today… the culture of silence, the lack of a voice. And yet despite these challenges women continue to celebrate small victories every day. You may not know it, but the core of our news team – the reporters who go out every day and seek out the truth – are mostly women, and young women at that. We have seen these young women tackle issues that directly affect our readers with tenacity, courage and compassion....

In the words of one prominent female academic: “Are women better leaders than men? Not necessarily. Nor are men necessarily better leaders than women. But in many ways women bring experiences and capabilities that are unlike men when solving tough problems. And considering our current state, we could stand an infusion of this type of leader.”

It was Albert Einstein who said “Insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.” Unless a wider set of views, opinions and approaches are taken into account, unless more young women are mentored into leadership, we may find that our future cannot be any different to what has always been.

hat tip to karlo mila-schaaf who posted this on the aotearoa ethnic network.

Domestic Violence and Economic Abuse

There is an interesting piece over at TomDispatch about the economic crisis and women in New York city. In particular, the piece highlights the pressure wider economic insecurity is placing on women to remain in situations characterised by partner violence.

When "domestic violence" is mentioned, people usually think of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, but experts say that another form of domestic violence has been on the increase since the global financial meltdown hit. They call it "economic abuse." It not only goes largely unnoticed by most Americans, according to Shugrue dos Santos, but is "not sufficiently explored in the press." Namey concurs, adding, "Financial abuse is something that may not be on the radar for most people, but it is a serious problem."

Sanctuary for Families points to "Jen," a battered client who came to them in the fall of 2008 just as the financial crisis was beginning to sweep the country. According to its staff, she represents an ever more typical case. Speaking of her partner, she put her dilemma this way:

"Sometimes I think it would be easier just to go back to him. I know that he could possibly kill me but... when we lived with him he always had the refrigerator full and I never had to worry about what my baby was going to eat or what we were going to wear. It's just really hard to watch my baby live like this. Sometimes I don't think it's worth it."

The article points out that the vast majority (75%) of those who have lost their jobs in US private sector since December 2007 have been men, and this has put additional pressure on women in the household who are already working. In fact, women now make up the majority of the employed in the US due to the extreme job loss in male-dominated industries. However, the wider economic situation and insecurity means that the prospect for those who consider leaving an abusive partner is additionally grim:

Tyrie's situation highlights the terrible bind that affects so many victims of domestic violence. Her husband was a danger to her and yet, even with only irregular work, a second source of income in the family provided a small protection against the abyss. Now he's gone, as is the abuse -- and the income. Gone as well is Tyrie's immigration security and with it her other job -- and now there are three more mouths in the house to feed.

Tyrie understandably chose to trade increased economic insecurity for personal safety, and as a result, her life threatens to crumble at any moment. For many domestic violence survivors, however, the prospect of economic ruin is more terrifying than physical, emotional, or sexual abuse.

Read the article here.

Friday Feminist - Mary Daly

Cross posted

NAMING THE ENEMY

This will of course be called an "anti-male" book. Even the most cautious and circumspect feminist writings are described in this way. The cliche is not only unimaginative but deadeningly, deafeningly, deceptive - making real hearing of what radical feminists are saying difficult, at times even for ourselves. Women and our kind - the earth, the sea, the sky - are the real but unacknowledged objects of attack, victimized as The Enemy of partriarchy - of all its wars, or all its professions. There are feminist works which provide abundant examples of misogynistic statements from authorities in all "fields" in all major societies, throughout the millennia of patriarchy. Feminists have also written at length about the actual rapist behavior of professionals, from soldiers to gynecologists. The "custom" of widow-burning (suttee) in India, the Chinese ritual of footbinding, the genital mutilation of young girls in Africa (still practiced in parts of twenty-six countries of Africa), the massacre of women as witches in "Renaissance" Europe, gynocide under the guise of American gynecology and psychotherapy - all are documented facts accessible in the tomes and tombs (libraries) of patriarchal scholarship. The contemporary facts of brutal gang rape, of wife-beating, of overt and subliminal psychic lobotomizing - all are available.

What then can the label anti-male possibly mean when applied to works that expose these facts and invite women to free our Selves. The fact is that the labelers do not intend to convey a rational meaning, nor to elicit a thinking process, but rather to block thinking. They do intent the label to carry a deep emotive message, triggering implanted fears of all the fathers and sons, freeing our minds. For to write an "anti-male" book is to utter the ultimate blasphemy.

Thus women continue to be intimidated by the label anti-male. Some feel a false need to draw distinctions, for example: "I am anti-patriarchal but not anti-male." The courage to be logical - the courage to name - would require that we admit to ourselves that males and males only are the originators, planners, controllers, and legitimators of patriarchy. Patriarchy is the homeland of males; it is Father Land; and men are its agents. The primary resistance to consciousness of this reality is precisely described in Sisterhood is Powerful: "Thinking that our man is the exception, and, therefore, we are the exception among women." It is in the interest of men (as men in patriarchy perceive their interest) and, in a superficial but Self-destructive way, of many women, to hide this fact, especially from themselves.

The use of the label is an indication of intellectual and moral limitations. Despite all the evidence that women are attacked as projections of The Enemy, the accusors ask sardonically: "Do you really think that men are the enemy?" This deception/reversal is so deep that women - even feminists - are intimidated into Self-deception, becoming the only Self-described oppressed who are unable to name their oppressor, referring instead to vague "forces," "roles," "stereotypes," "constraints," "attitudes," "influences." This list could go on. The point is that no agent is named - only abstractions.

The fact is that we live in a profoundly anti-female society, a misogynistic "civilization" in which men collectively victimize women, attacking us as personifications of their own paranoid fears, as The Enemy. Within this society it is men who rape, who sap women's energy, who deny women economic and political power. To allow oneself to know and name these facts is to commit anti-gynocidal acts. Acting in this way, moving through the mazes of the anti-female society, requires naming and overcoming the obstacles constructed by its male agents and token female instruments. As a creative crystallizing of the movement beyond the State of Patriarchal Paralysis, this book is an act if Dis-possession; and hence, is a sense beyond the limitations of the label anti-male, it is absolutely Anti-androcrat, A-mazingly Anti-male, Furiously and Finally Female.

Mary Daly, Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, 1979

Quick hit: Good news from Kuwait

Earlier this month Kuwaitis elected female Members of Parliament for the first time in their history:

A significant crack has appeared in Kuwait's glass ceiling after four women emerged winners in the Gulf state's parliamentary elections at the weekend.

The victory marked the first time women have won parliamentary seats since given the right to vote and run for office in 2005. For the past 50 years Kuwait's parliament has been the sole preserve of men.

In an election that saw fundamentalist groups lose ground, Massouma al-Mubarak, who was appointed Kuwait's first female cabinet minister in 2005, two US-educated professors, Salwa al-Jassar and Aseel al-Awadhi, and an economist, Rola Dashti all won seats in the Kuwaiti parliament.

"Frustration with the past two parliaments pushed voters to seek change. And here it comes in the form of this sweeping victory for women," al-Mubarak said today.

Read the rest of the article at The Guardian.

Last time I checked (sometime in 2007), Kuwait was the most recent country to extend the franchise to women.

Brooooom broooooom

Can we please please stop calling them "boy racers". My reasons are thus:

• "Boy" denotes a biologically immature male - ie under the age of say 16-ish. Therefore almost any "boy" involved in street racing would already be doing so illegally. Most of the individuals whose auto habits seem to be causing concern are actually adults, not "boys."
• "Boy" of course assumes the group is male-only, when clearly this is not the case.
• There is a perfectly suitable alternative label which is actually more accurate, ie "illegal street racers." This also makes it clearly that those in auto clubs who might happen to have car convoys from time to time are not perceived as problematic in and of themselves and that it is actually the behaviour that is troubling John Key, Judith Collins et al.

Oh and this:

In which my cake geekery reaches new levels...

For the past few weeks I've been doing cake decorating classes and finally got around to doing my 'graduation' aka 'let's put everything you know about cake decorating on the same cake' cake.

10 feminist motherhood questions, from Blue Milk

I've posted this over at my own place, but I thought that people here might be interested too. Blue Milk writes a great feminist and parenting blog. As part of that blog, she has posed 10 questions for feminist mothers, and she has invited people to answer them, either as a guest post at her place, or on their own blogs, where she will link to them. So even if you don't write your own blog, you might care to answer the questions, and send your responses to Blue Milk.

In the meantime, here are my answers to her thought-provoking questions.


1. How would you describe your feminism in one sentence? When did you become a feminist? Was it before or after you became a mother?

My feminism is about empowering women as they are, not telling them what they ought to be. I've been feminist since I was a girl; I learned it at my mother's knee. I think one of the earliest manifestations of my feminism was a poem I wrote at school when I was about 14. We were studying ballads, and we had to write one, so I chose to write a protest ballad. A judge in New Zealand had given a man a more lenient sentence for physical violence against his partner, because she was living with him, and thus she was no good trash anyway. I can't find the case on the web, and I don't have the poem any more, but I think that was one of my earliest experiences of being feminist. So I was a feminist long before I became a mother, but my motherhood has informed and changed my feminism.

2. What has surprised you most about motherhood?

The huge and unconditional commitment to another person.

3. How has your feminism changed over time? What is the impact of motherhood on your feminism?

I've become more accepting of the differing ways of being feminist and less doctrinaire. I think that's in part because of the huge compromises I have had to make, as most mothers do, between my ideals and my reality. I've had to learn to become much more flexible, much more inclined to go with the flow, to adjust to what my children need.

4. What makes your mothering feminist? How does your approach differ from a non-feminist mother’s? How does feminism impact upon your parenting?

Perhaps because I am a mother of daughters, I have focused on helping my girls to learn to stand up for themselves, and to be independent. As they've gotten older, I've started working on deconstructing fairy tales and media stories and social events, talking about the way they create and reinforce stereotypes. I've encouraged the girls to choose for themselves. I have avoided, as much as possible, all the "girly" things, but sometimes my girls have overridden me. That's been a little difficult; on the one hand, I loathe Barbie, but on the other, when one of my girls chose to spend her carefully saved pocket money on a Barbie doll, I didn't want to stop her, because it was her choice, and at that stage, I was pleased that she was asserting her independence.

I'm not sure that all of this would differ from a non-feminist mother. I guess that most mothers want their children to be able to stand up for themselves. Perhaps the big difference is in the content of independence; in our house it's about being able to look at the society we live in, and choose to go our own way, rather than being strong in that society.

I'm a feminist every day, all the time. It permeates my parenting, so I find it hard to work out how it impacts on my parenting. It just is.

5. Do you ever feel compromised as a feminist mother? Do you ever feel you’ve failed as a feminist mother?

Yes. I feel compromised right now; I'm not working much, and I tend to describe myself as a housewife. I don't think that models independence and self sufficiency very well. On the other hand, I think that we do quite well in modelling an equitable relationship of give and take, where what we are working to create is a family.

Failed as a feminist mother? Of course! I'm a human being after all. I occupy a very traditional role - I run the house, and do most of the cooking and cleaning and child care. That all enables us to function as a family, but it also enables my partner to go full tilt at his career and his job, but my career is non-existent, for the next few years at least. What we are doing is good for us, but it may not be so good for me in the longer term. On the other hand, I think it will be good for the girls in the longer term.

6. Has identifying as a feminist mother ever been difficult? Why?

No. I've been feminist for so long that it was never even an issue.

7. Motherhood involves sacrifice. How do you reconcile that with being a feminist?

I've already talked about that a bit, I think because the compromises are what occupy me most at present. Yes, it is a sacrifice in some respects, of some of my own ambitions, but motherhood is my own chosen path too. I value being a mother, and I value motherhood. I think we need to value what women do, not just what we think women ought to do.

8. If you have a partner, how does your partner feel about your feminist motherhood? What is the impact of your feminism on your partner?

He's supportive, and involved, and committed. He's happy to rear our daughters as feminist, and he very much sees our parenting as a partnership. Early on, he spent about six months at home with our eldest daughter while I worked on my thesis, and that was tremendously empowering for him. It gave him, and me, a lot of confidence in his parenting.

9. If you’re an attachment parenting mother, what challenges if any does this pose for your feminism and how have you resolved them?

Hmmm... that's a long time ago now. Those early years passed in such a haze that I can barely remember what we actually did. As my daughters have gotten older, I've found that they need me more, and I have tried to respond to that need, and to be here more for them. Physically here - just about and present in their daily lives, collecting them after school, making a snack for them, supervising homework, cooking dinner. It's no longer "attachment" parenting, just "present" parenting. I feel happier about going down this route than the alternatives, for the time being, but it does mean compromising my own ambitions. Mind you, I'm not sure what my ambitions are.

10. Do you feel feminism has failed mothers and if so how? Personally, what do you think feminism has given mothers?

I don't think mothers are valued yet, by wider society, if not by feminists. I've seen some pretty nasty stuff about mothers and mothering on some feminist blogs (none on blogs down under in Australia and New Zealand!), and that has astonished me. Feminism is a large tent, so I don't expect all of us to agree with each other, but I find it very distressing when some feminists attack other women for doing and valuing one of the most important jobs there is, that is, bearing and rearing children.

I think feminism has given mothers confidence to stand up for themselves and their children - the pro-breastfeeding protests in Western Australia recently were fantastic. I think it has also given women the freedom to choose to be mothers, or choose not to be, 'though of course, they still get criticised no matter what they do. It has also enabled women to choose to do something as well as mothering. But of course, that's easier said than done, and I know that I have ended up, for the time being, in an uneasy compromise between autonomy and meeting everyone else's needs first.

Political Geekery Lazy Budget Live-Blog

I'm trying to get lots done at work today, so we'll see how this goes. Chances are you'll get better live-blogging at The Standard, but I can't see that from here, so I'm listening to the Budget Speech on Radio NZ National and will list the bits that occur to me as possibly important. Feel free to add your thoughts in comments as we go!

2.06pm Mentions that they will maintain Working For Families, does this mean the current levels are safe?

2.10pm Lots of waffling about the Bad Times we are going through. Setting the stage for a Grey Budget.

2.14pm "We will continue to support public services and help NZers through the downturn..." Bill English setting out the aims of the Budget.

2.15pm Going over past measures they have brought in eg bank guarantees, JobStart, small business relief package, state housing upgrades, roading projects, 9 day working fortnight, increasing education options for young people, national cycleway (big cheer for the last).

2.17pm Thorough review of Govt regulation, incl RMA, Overseas Investment Act, review of Electricity industry, telco review, water management and environmental review, building act reviews. Acknowledges Rodney Hide's role as Minister for Regulatory Reform.

2.19pm National infrastructure plan to be delivered by end of 2009.

2.20pm Commentary (sorry missed who) says they will be spending $3B more this year, however still quite constrained.

2.22pm Anne Tolley has a release out about ECE, basically saying they will extend the 20 Hours scheme to playcentres, kohanga reo and 5 yos, and removing the 6 hour daily limit.

2.24pm $1.45B new spending apparently. English states: "Considerably less than in recent years... it would have been imprudent to continue spending [at the same rate as recent years]" Reviews have saved money, which has been redirected.

2.28pm $70M to increase health staffing for electives. Also increase training places in health. Money for increased maternity needs. Increase elective operating theatre capacity.

2.29pm Started talking about education. He's not talking much detail, v frustrating. Schools operating grant goes up, but the release says it's just the level of inflation?

2.32pm Health reporter notes extra money for medicines but no extra money announced for increasing number of midwives in training. Gayle Woods notes education part of Budget more about what's not there. Smallest increases in many years for schools' operations grants, little for tertiary institutions. Community education given least. Reduction in money for university salaries, also getting rid of a lot of student scholarships and training programmes.

2.33pm Primary Sector Innovation programme to be launched for agriculture.

2.34pm Law and order a priority. 600 more police by 2011. Half in Counties Manukau, rest spread nationally. Also focusing on crime proceeds and laundering. Money for community probation, improve quality of parole management. Increased prison capacity and planning for further potential expansion (that means more prisons).

2.36pm Public sector will face smaller or non-existent increases in the future. "considered decisions now will avoid harsher decisions later"

2.37pm Increased investment in roading. Big claps. Surely this is not news? $115M for new trains (!) and $90M additional support for Kiwirail (no claps for this). Internet broadband roll-out funding (lots of boring numbers).

2.38pm Sounds like that is it in terms of the lollies? Now talking about debt management. "There will be ongoing restraint on future spending increases". $1.1B in 2010, +2% per year in future budgets, for extra spending in coming years.

2.39pm Govt's commitment to future Super contributions is absolute. Big claps, biggest to date, some heckling too?

2.40pm Suspending contributions to Superannuation Fund. Here's the Govt's Fact Sheet about the Super Fund.

2.43pm 2010 and 2011 tax cuts deferred. Lots of heckling. No clapping. Talks about the total value of over $1B of tax cuts delivered since being elected. Here's the Fact Sheet. So that's a broken promise. RNZN's political editor points out it was as late as February that English guaranteed them.

2.45pm I note Richard Worth has a release up about $2.4M more to fight child pornography.

2.47pm "This Budget ensures NZ maintains one of the lowest debt levels and one of the strongest balance sheets in the OECD."

2.49pm Commends the Budget to the House.

Group sex: let's have another go

The media has recently promulgated an example of gang rape as group sex. In doing so, it instilled a particular definition of group sex in the minds of the public - one which seems to regard consent as optional. There's been plenty of voyeuristic interest in the Matthew Johns case, public support for the players, and derision of the woman they attacked.

The line between consent and rape has been deliberately blurred for misogynist reasons, and subsequent reporting of group sex has to be read in that light. Neither of the articles I've recently read, claiming that women are up for group sex, have significantly challenged current public understandings around consent. Neither has talked about the importance of feeling comfortable with your partner/s, discussing consent, or articulating what you do and don't want to do sexually. I think that's dangerous - I believe many people will read this reporting uncritically, as an affirmation of the recent sexual behaviour of the rugby league team.

Many a time throughout history, consent has been defined in such a way that it is difficult for women to prove consent wasn't given, and to include activities that are harmful to women. The long-standing belief (thankfully, less common now) that a woman who stays in an abusive relationship must like the abuse is one such example. The non-existence of marital rape as a crime until the 70s and 80s (depending on where you live) is another example - until criminalisation, a woman was deemed to have given consent for her husband to have sexual access to her body whenever he pleased. By definition, she 'wanted' it.

None of this is what I want to talk about, mind you. I want to discuss the cultural context in which people give consent to sex. I can imagine some circumstances in which group sex would be fun (or might have been before the onus of getting up to kids in the night put a very effective damper on my lustful impulses). I can also imagine situations in which consent is 'technically' given - but in a situation of the patriarchal power imbalance that characterises our society.

That's why I find it hard to believe that the events involving the Christchurch women and the rugby league team could have been meaningfully consensual. There was no discussion of consent between the woman and the players - no discussion of how she'd like to proceed, or what activities or the other participants felt comfortable with. The woman was 19 - for many, this is an age at which the confidence to articulate your sexual desires and boundaries eludes many. There was booze involved, and no reason to believe that the male participants took a particularly respectful view of women, or had a great interest in the welfare of this woman in particular. To me, these sound like a bunch of factors that militate against meaningful consent, or, for that matter, enjoyable sex.

For me, growing up was in large part a process of coming to terms with the idea of consent, and developing the confidence to articulate what I do and don't want and like, rather than going along with what's suggested because I felt like I had to. (This may not be a typical female experience, but I think the impulse to use sex as a way to be accepted or valued is familiar enough to young women who've come from less than happy backgrounds. Technically, it's consent, but ultimately, these are choices conditioned by a culture which places little value on women - and the upshot is sex that isn't rewarding, physically or emotionally).

In one case, I got involved in a group activity that started out fine, and ended with me being sexually assaulted in a public place. Scared, I fled to public toilets and cried - partly because of the assault itself, and partly because I couldn't make sense of the situation. At some point, one of the guys in the group had abandoned any notion of consent or my welfare, and had simply chosen to take what he hadn't been offered.

It wasn't the activities that were the problem. Another woman might have consented to what I didn't want - but I think that most woman would be unlikely to want sexual activity in a situation characterised by male aggression, booze, and no discussion of consent or the activities that different individuals might enjoy. The thing that upset me most, barricaded in the loo, was that I thought that by consenting to activities earlier in the evening, I had also given consent to later ones - and that I had myself to blame. I thought that wanting to withdraw consent midway through an activity made me somehow sexually 'abnormal' - that's certainly how it would have been percieved by the men in the group I was with. I didn't at that time understand consent as a thing that must be given and withdrawn freely, without repercussions for the woman involved; and that a respectful sexual partner or partners understands and respects the right to withdraw consent.

So it makes me very deeply uncomfortable to see the media suggesting, even indirectly, that women are 'up for it' in situations where the ability to give and withdraw consent is constrained by alcohol, male aggression, and a disrespectful view of women's sexuality which places low value on making sure women are comfortable with the activities involved. A bunch of people who are into group sex and agree on the groundrules can have fun, lively sex of the sort a fuddy-duddy like me can probably only dream of. A situation in which a woman gives head to a rugby team looks to me like a situation where it is more difficult to express consent meaningfully.

The ideas our society promulgates about 'what women want' - what is sexually normal for women - have a powerful effect on women's ability to withhold or withdraw consent, or to seek redress when they have been raped. Some months ago, I blogged about an incident (different to the one above) in which I was raped when drunk. All the elements of a power differential were in place: I was away from home staying with people I didn't know well, I was disorientated, I was too pissed to defend myself, and a bloke I didn't know but who was renowned for predatorial sexual behaviour followed me to the place where I was staying and showed himself into my room.

It's possible that a woman could give consent in that situation, but it doesn't seem likely to me - if she did, it would likely be the consent of someone who lacked the confidence to articulate anything else. That is a form of value judgement - you could read it implying that only a woman with poor judgement would consent to this - but our ability to consent, our ideas of what consent is, and the contexts in which we give consent are determined in a patriarchal culture that is happy at times to interpret rape as consent for the gratification of men. I doubt there are many women who can honestly claim never to have been influenced into a bad sexual decision.

I made the decision not to go to the police, because I knew their definition of consent (and that of a jury) would likely differ from mine. A great many people think that when a woman gets drunk (and, in my case, gives a random bloke a random drunken pash), she is signaling consent to sex - that's the idea of 'normal' female sexual behaviour many people choose to invoke, for reasons that I think are rather self-serving. I am quite comfortable making a value judgement about women's 'normal' sexual behaviour here - I do not think that a woman signals sexual interest by getting drunk. This may be oppressive to the sexual diversity of women who think differently to me (and a great many of us have used alcohol as the timeless aphrodisiac it is) - but to celebrate a sexual situation characterised by power imbalance as an example of women's sexual agency is to ignore a cultural context which so frequently justifies violence against women with misguided notions of consent.

Good sex is consensual, and good consent is meaningful. To those who like group sex, and make sure that the participants involved are happy to be there, good for me. Perhaps you'll consider inviting me to join you. But I can't go down the road of suggesting that a woman might theoretically be comfortable sucking off a room full of drunk sportsman - because I don't see that as a situation in which a woman could feel respected, valued, and confident enough to give free and meaningful consent.

I'm not going to allow comments on this post, because I really, really don't want munters speculating on my sexual history.

Equal Opportunity Employer does not mean what you think it means, Mr Emmerson

From the Herald today.

Equal Opportunity Employers don't cancel pay equity investigations. Their leadership wouldn't belittle those fighting for pay equity. And they don't abolish pay equity investigation units.

Hope that clears that up for you Mr Emmerson.

Leisure inequality alive and well in New Zealand

Men in all 18 countries examined by the OECD (including NZ) have been found to have more leisure time than women. Original Economist article here.

Women like group sex, apparently

I'm more than a little dubious about this 'research', reported on in Stuff, suggesting that Australian women are as keen on group sex as men.

Hmmm. I make no judgement at all on women who do enjoy group sex, but I find it hard to believe that they're large in number. Group sex seems to me something that might seem like a good idea in theory, or when you're drunk, but in practice could actually be unpleasant or scary - the kind of situation where a woman might change her mind, but be afraid to say so, or not be listened to. (I could be completely wrong about all this, mind you - maybe everyone's doing it except me?)

Leaving aside the fact that this 'research' has been produced by an on-line dating service, and probably reflects a fair amount of desperate e-bravado, it seems rather strange that it should come out so soon after the Matthew Johns story broke. By portraying group sex as a fairly ordinary event in a woman's life, it could be seen call into question the claim of the woman victimised by rugby league players, that she wasn't a willing participant.

Johns and his teammates aren't the only ones struggling with the concept of consent, though. As the article puts it, 'Australian women are as keen as men to take part in consensual group sex'. This seems to imply there's such a thing as non-consensual group sex - ie, that thing that killjoys like me call 'rape'.

This article ultimately makes me wonder this: do women actually like group sex, or do some men want to believe that women like group sex? And does wanting to believe that women 'want it' make it easier to overlook teeny details in the heat of the moment - like ensuring you've got consent?

I need to share this quote from the article: "If you participate in group sex, you might feel like you are a little bit out on your own". Bless.

I need to qualify this post before it causes any more offence to those who enjoy threesomes or other consensual group adventures! My concern is that this article (and another I've seen recently) have been reported to imply that the woman in the Matthew Johns case was a willing participant. That's the definition which 'group sex' has been given in the media recently, and which is uppermost in people's minds. I don't believe that most women would want to suck off a boozed rugby team, but I may be wrong. (9.30pm)

Friday 29th at 11.44pm, from Julie: I've closed and hidden comments on this post for reasons that will be obvious to those who were reading it.

Ktnz

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

Quick hit: Competent Children, Competent Learners report at 16 years of age

An NZPA report in today's Herald:

...Female 16-year-old school leavers were the unhappiest group surveyed , the report found.

Boys of the same age who left school were much happier.

The boys went to a specific job or training and left school because they were bored, head researcher Cathy Wylie said.

The girls' main reasons for leaving school were because they found it too hard, or they were depressed.

They were less likely to be following other interests, more likely to be hanging out with peers who were into drugs, or thought unsafe sex was okay, Ms Wylie said.

"About two thirds of the female school leavers said they never spent time on an interest or hobby."

That only applied to 14 per cent of the male school leavers, Ms Wylie said.

Click through for the whole article, which also covers other findings of the study, including that a mother's qualification had the largest association with the child's "cognitive and attitudinal competencies".

cuts to sexual abuse crisis line

and here's another cut in services, to the sexual abuse crisis line run by the auckland sexual abuse help foundation:

"ACC has funded the service to the tune of about $350,000 a year, but has recently advised it that this funding will not be continued.

“The money is used to fund the 24 hour telephone crisis and rape call out service in Auckland. Counselling, advocacy and information service are also provided....


it's such a relatively small amount of funding, i can't understand why this has been cut. better to cut funding to the plunkett helpline, which is simply duplicating the healthline service already provided by the ministry of health.

NGOs currently working to support victims of sexual abuse and assault are chronically underfunded already. it's appalling that funding is being cut further.

Louis Theroux and 'A Place for Paedophiles'

I caught last night's Louis Theroux doco (or as much as I could, around children who refused to go to bed), and found it really though-provoking. 'A Place for Paedophiles' documented Theroux's visit to Coalinga Mental Hospital in California, a place where about 500 sex offenders are incarcerated. Most have already served prison sentences, but continue to be held at Coalinga (a fortified, secure unit) because they're deemed too dangerous to release.

A treatment programme is made available to Coalinga inmates, but only 30% of them have opted to take part - perhaps because over the hospital's history, only 13 graduates of the programme have been deemed able to be safely released. The majority of the inmates will be there for their whole lives.

I don't have any philosophical objection to preventative detention, if there is no other way to keep the public safe, and if the conditions the detainee is held in are humane. But the thing about the documentary that set me pondering was the way the hospital treated the sex offenders, not by teaching them to resist and deal with their sexual attraction to children, but by trying to train this attraction out of them altogether (with varying amounts of success).

For a start, I wondered if it's actually possible to force yourself to no longer be attracted to something. That's not my experience of sexuality - but then, I don't have illegal sexual desires. Secondly, I didn't understand why therapy didn't focus on equipping offenders to choose not to offend, rather than getting rid of the urge to offend. This implies that the powers that be think of paedophilic urges as a sort of illness that can't be controlled; and if that's the case, paedophilia can't really be considered a crime. People with acceptable sexual urges are deemed to be able to control their behaviour, and are usually expected to do so (although the 'boys will be boys' defence for rape still occurs far more often than it should).

Deep philosophical questions about human sexuality aside, the thing that really struck me about this doco was the inmate who was given the OK to be released into the community. So strong was his commitment not to reoffend that he'd had himself surgically castrated. His social worker had made over 1000 applications to find him a home in the community: no one would have him. I had a great deal of pity for him - but I'm not sure I'd be willing to risk having him as my neighbour, either.

Quick hit: Dowry abuse in NZ on the rise

From the Herald today:

An ethnic women's shelter has found the number of Indian women being subject to dowry abuse has nearly doubled in the past year.

Shakti, which runs four refuges for Asian, African and Middle Eastern women, says an increasing number of callers to its crisis line are from women of Indian origin - and two of every three reports made by these women were linked to dowry abuse.

"There has been a huge increase," said Shakti spokeswoman Shila Nair. "Last year, the number would probably be just one out of every three."

"It is also worrying that the intensity of abuse is also getting worse."

Dowry abuse occurs when the husband or his family continues to press the wife's family - sometimes with threats of physical violence - for more money or other gains after the marriage.

Although dowry has been illegal in India since 1961, it was still widely practised by many ethnic Indians, Ms Nair said.

It was becoming a widespread problem for Indian women in New Zealand because it had no laws against forced marriages or dowry abuse here.

Shakti receives about 600 calls a month on its crisis line, and a "significant number" were woman of Indian descent.

Dowry abuse cases being referred to Shakti included women who were sexually violated, made to live in slave-like conditions and were threatened with prostitution by their Kiwi-Indian husbands if they could not get more dowry money from India.

Click through for the rest of the article, including quotes from three women who have suffered dowry abuse.

Found via a friend's Facebook linksharing.

Female infanticide = FREEDOM!

Oh this is so hilarious, you are going to laugh and laugh, there will be lizzing galore I'm sure, I can hardly contain my mirth to type this myself. /sarcasm

Anjum wrote earlier today about the research that came out yesterday showing that men with daughters tend to be more left-wing, and those with sons go rightward. That's not the funny bit, but do get ready to guffaw, because it's coming up in just a few seconds.

David Farrar of Kiwiblog fame decided to post about the research. That's not the funny bit either, hold your funny bones just one more moment.

After titling the post "We need more sons", Farrar cuts and pastes from a media article, adding in his own commentary (are you ready for the hilarity? do not take a sip of coffee at this point):

No wonder China is becoming more free gradually!

and

Fascinating. So maybe this eugenics stuff is worth considering :-)

(Because a smiley face makes everything ok.)

Hilarious! ROFLMAO!!11!!

Not.

Of course the comment thread from this flamebaiting is odium personified, including these stunners:

Christopher: ...Ever noticed how girls rely on emotional bullshit, whereas men are logical? More men = more logic and reason = more right wing. More women = more hormonal and emotional = more clouded judgement and illogical thinking = more left wing. Makes perfect sense to me.

tvb: Sons have to be schooled to go out and work, daughters are looking for someone to support them. A little old fashioned perhaps as many women want the security of a career. One cannot rely on being supported and married forever. But the left/right divide may still be relevant. Going out and working and earning a living is right wing. Finding someone to support you is left left left.

Murray: Conservatives have balls. Deal with it.

And this lovely one which is somewhat scientifically challenged:

david: Cause and effect people. It’s Labour supporters who lack the X gene thus producing more daughters

I know many bloggers say Farrar himself isn't sexist, he just has readers who are. I beg to differ.

When Farrar posts in such a fashion, which he has to know (unless he doesn't read his own comment section) will incite such flamebaiting and women-hating, then frankly I think he has misogynist tendencies too. He doesn't moderate these comments, he doesn't challenge them, he just lets them sit and fester and spread. And that's what a sexist would do.

"daughters and left-wing voting"

if you were listening to the panel today on radio nz, you would have heard a little item towards the end about research which shows that "having daughters makes people more likely to vote for left-wing political parties. Giving birth to sons, by contrast, seems to make people more likely to vote for a right-wing party." thanx to the wonders of google, i've found the original research paper, should you wish to wade through the whole thing.

some of the literature review was quite interesting:

• support for policies designed to address gender equity is greater among parents with daughters (and particularly for fathers)
• people who parent only daughters are more likely to hold feminist views (for example, to favor affirmative action)
• congressmen with female children tend to vote liberally on reproductive rights issues such as teen access to contraceptives
• the gender of children appears to affect both labor supply decisions and parents’ attitudes to their own roles in the family
• the single most important concern to males is that of low taxes. For females, by contrast, it is the quality of the National Health Service

as to their main thesis, the research data came from great britain, and they have many graphs and tables which i will leave for you to assess. sue bradford was a guest on the panel, and totally pooh-poohed the findings, on the basis that she is a parent of four sons, and that other green MPs also have sons.

there is the fact though, that women are more likely to vote left than men. the authors of the research give the following reason for this:

because by assumption
• there is pay discrimination against women, and
• females derive greater utility from public goods like community safety,
it transpires that unmarried women are intrinsically more left-wing than unmarried men. When compared to males, women prefer a larger supply of the public good and a greater tax rate on income: the reason is that their marginal utility from the first is relatively high and the tax penalty they face from the latter relatively low.

in other words, because women are lower paid, they are less likely to benefit from tax cuts but more likely to benefit from social services. i'm a mother of daughters, but i was already a strong lefty from my university days. i can't imagine that my views on (for example) social justice and equal opportunity would have changed if i'd had sons.

so, i'm not sure if i agree with this overall, and would be interested to hear the experiences of others.

More boob-related controversy!

THMers recently had a lively debate over a poster aimed at promoting breastfeeding, featuring a mum breastfeeding her toddler in a park. As you'd expect in a debate, some were for, and others against. I concluded that I have no problem with breastfeeding toddlers, but somehow I found the poster confronting - as if it was asking me to make a political statement with my body, when all I ever wanted as a breastfeeding mum was to be able to feed comfortably wherever I needed to.

What, then, to make of this poster? You'll excuse the quality of image - it features a little girl pretending to breastfeed her doll. The handmade poster carries the caption, `It's Normal - children copy their mothers, teenagers do it! Celebrities do it!'.

Locals of Manchester, where the poster originates from, seem to find it terribly offensive. Said one woman, "The picture is shocking and it isn't normal. Children copy their parents but I don't think any little girls should be breastfeeding their dolls." (I had to chuckle at this - this disapproving woman is a 39-year-old grandmother according to the article, and there are plenty of busy-bodies around who would tut-tut at that.)

I actually don't find this confronting in the same way as the previous poster - and I don't think it's any sort of 'shock tactic'. In fact, I think it's cute. My daughter imitated me when I breastfed her baby brother, and I'm sure little kids all around the world do the same. And why would we find this offensive? Is there some sort of 'little girls + pretend breasts = sexualisation' type of equation going on in the minds of Manchester residents?

For me, growing up around a breastfeeding mother and aunt was important to my own decision to breastfeed. In fact, it never occurred to me that I wouldn't - I didn't lack confidence in the way that a woman with no experience of breastfeeding might do.

Is this poster offensive? Personally, I don't think so. But is it an effective pro-breastfeeding campaign? That's a whole different argument...

Mt Albert By-election Survey: Judy Turner (United Future)

The first response to our candidate survey for the Mt Albert by-election has come in and it's from former United Future MP Judy Turner. We have a further three responses waiting in the wings and two other candidates have emailed to say they will fill out the survey soon.

Candidate: Judy Turner
Party: United Future

Q: What particular issues do you believe women in Mt Albert face?
A: A large percentage of woman in this electorate are immigrants facing all the challenges that resettlement involves. Better resourcing of migrant services to better assist families is a blaring need. Immigration policy should be under-girded by a clearly articulated population strategy that considers both our needs as a country and the needs of immigrants to integrate comfortably. Family pressures are of real concern for many woman in Mount Albert. There are many experiencing real hardship and the electorate has beneficiary numbers that are higher than the national average.

Q: How do you think women's representation could be preserved and/or enhanced if the proposed Auckland Super City proceeds?
A: The input and ongoing voice of women at every level of government is vital and of particular interest to United Future is the role of community boards under the new structure. Local grassroots elected representation must be given real teeth to ensure that the distinctive needs and strengths of each neighbourhood and suburb are addressed and protected. Woman must be proactive participants in this.

Multi-choice questions (candidate's answer is in bold):
Should the Ministry of Women's Affairs be:
Abolished OR Decreased OR Continued at the current level OR Increased
Candidate comment: the ongoing work programme is relevant. United Future also believes that there should also be resourcing for mens issues but not at the expense of the work of the existing Ministry

In considering allegations of rape the law should:
Require the defendant to prove sex was consensual OR require the victim to disprove sex was consensual (status quo)
Candidate comment: Actually both should be required to give evidence in this regard

Should access to abortion be:
Abolished OR Restricted OR Continued as currently provided OR Increased to on demand
Candidate comment: restricted to the correct interpretation of the current law

Should paid parental leave be:
Abolished OR Decreased OR Continued at the current level OR Increased
Candidate comment: I agree with the recommendations of the Families Commission

In the forthcoming Child Discipline referendum New Zealanders should:
Vote Yes OR Vote No or Abstain (no option chosen)
Candidate comment: Unclear what the exact wording on the referendum is

Pay Equity measures by Government are:
Necessary OR Unnecessary

Social change advertising campaigns, such as It's Not Ok, should be:
Abolished OR Decreased OR Continued at the current level OR Increased
Candidate comment: very effective as demonstrated by the increased numbers of self-referrals to anger management courses

--

Thanks Judy for your quick response, and if you are reading this please feel free to take part in the comment thread conversations.

(Also if there is someone out there who filled in the survey as an independent but didn't put their name in, please get in touch. Not you Mr Salient Editor, your's is clearly marked).

The Wellington Hand Mixer debrief

Last week we held a Hand Mixer in Wellington and it was fab. About 25 people came and went over the course of the evening, cupcakes, cake and drinkies were consumed, and much good conversation was had amongst Hand Mirror readers and writers. Yay!

Big massive thanks to Rebecca for doing most of the organising in Wellington, Karen for her able assistance, Anabel for making cupcakes even though she couldn't come, one of the Annas for making a cake and Sophia for icing it, NZUSA (my favourite national student body) for hosting, and another Anna and her whanau for coming along and helping me with my Wriggly-withdrawls.

Here are a few pix, sorry for the poor quality they were taken on a cellphone:

The historic array of badges NZUSA dredged up for us on women's issues.

Mmmmmm, cupcakes. Here they are up close. My attempts at cupcake pron are stymied by the substandard nature of the camera, but you get the idea.

It was great to meet new people and catch up with old friends too. We're definitely keen to have another one in Wellington later in the year.

Monday Funday: with geekcakes

Now that is cupcake art! I don't know if I could bring myself to eat them.

More laydeez in Blogland

Rivetting Kate Taylor (found at Homepaddock)
Small Town Stories by Tom and Emma, plus Emma Makes (found on SAHM Feminist's blogroll)

*thud* goes my head

The Herald is running a weight loss story on a young woman who lost 45 kgs. What was the secret to her dieting 'success?' Drinking nothing but 10 to 14 cans of Red Bull, a heart attack and other ongoing health concerns.

FYI Hearald subbies, drinking only red bulls isn't a diet it's an eating disorder.

Argh.

Meatheads update

Earlier this year, the aesthetic marvel that is this ad appeared in D-scene, a Dunedin newspaper, and was kindly emailed to THM by Keely, a reader. It promotes Dunedin's Huntsman Steakhouse restaurant.

The ad prompted complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority, which upheld the complaints on the grounds that the ad degraded women. So far, so good - but what I don't get is that the ASA seemed to partially accept the Huntsman's excuse that the ad was part of an Orientation week promotion aimed at students. The ASA commented that, although targeted at students, the ad reached the broader community; as if to say that, if the ad had denigrated women to a student audience only, it might have been OK.

I'm confused. Is the ASA suggesting that students already have a low opinion of women, so sending degrading material in their direction doesn't matter?

Requiem

My friend's wife died on Thursday. I never met her, but I believe she must have been a remarkable lady.

She was only 31 when she died, but it was the third time the cancer had come for her. The first time, she was pregnant with her little boy, now two and a half. She raised and loved her child, ill all the while, and undergoing terrible treatments to try to slow the encroachment of the cancer through her body. She knew she probably wouldn't get to see her baby's first day at school, let alone all those other special milestones which mums and kids are supposed to share.

I don't know how a mother can reconcile herself to the knowledge she must leave her child. To go on in the face of that, using the little strength you have to make your last months with your child happy and special, takes a kind of strength that seems extraordinary to me.

My thoughts and aroha are with my friend and his son, and with anyone who has lost their own mother too soon.

Mt Albert musings

So fixated has the media become on Melissa Lee's oopsies - waiting like vultures for her next fuck up, and ignoring the competent things she must surely have said and done on the campaign trail - that political issues have become rather secondary in the Mount Albert by-election.

In an attempt to bring some balance to its shallowness, the media recently focused on criticism copped by David Shearer, for a remark linking unemployment to crime. Sign of the times, I thought to myself in a curmudgeonly way. Shearer was simply suggesting that unemployment produces poverty, which can drive crime. He was alluding to a point that the Keynesian welfare state was founded on - the opportunity for paid work is a basic right, a social good, and important to human wellbeing. When people who want work can't find it, they are effectively being told that they are a redundant part of their society - and this isn't conducive to their psychological or material welfare. That's why, until twenty or so years ago, the state believed it had moral duties to strive towards full employment, and to support those who couldn't find work to live with some measure of dignity.

Shearer's comments have been construed as an attack on the dignity of the unemployed - as if unemployment is simply a different, if less lucrative, lifestyle choice to working, and something which must be put up with. Unemployment is an attack on the dignity of the unemployed. Encouraging the unemployed to feel more comfortable with the injustice of unemployment is a pretty poor substitute for jobs.

Friday Feminist - Ursula Le Guin

Cross posted

“Will you be about the house?” she asked him, across some distance. “Therru’s asleep. I want to walk a little.”

“Yes. Go on,” he said, and she went on, pondering the indifference of a man towards the exigencies that rule a woman: that someone must not be far from a sleeping child, that one’s freedom meant another’s unfreedom, unless some ever-changing, moving balance were reached, like the balance of a body moving forward, as she did now, on two legs, first one then the other, in the practice of that remarkable act, walking…

Ursula Le Guin, Tehanu, 1990

Diversity Deficit: SuperCity Oligarchy

The Minister for Local Government that you appoint when you don't want to have any local government, Rodney Hide, has announced the transitional agency for the Auckland SuperCity, which Idiot/Savant has labelled an oligarchy.

Of the five people who will play a radical role in shaping the future of the Auckland SuperCity there is one woman, Queen's Counsel Miriam Dean. Here's a profile of Dean that I found via my friend Google:

Ms Dean is a senior barrister who specialises in commercial litigation and dispute resolution, with particular expertise in competition and consumer laws. She has previously served as Deputy Chair of the Commerce Commission, Director of the Competition Law and Policy Institute of New Zealand, member of the Civil Aviation Authority and Chair of Lawyers Engaged in Alternative Dispute Resolution.

(Miriam is the woman in the blue jacket on the left)

Lots of experience, but I'm not seeing much in the area of local government or other areas that require high levels of community engagement. You can read a fuller CV here [PDF]; I'm getting a picture of someone very strong in the commercial law area, but this is more about public law, which is a different beast entirely.

The group is to be headed by someone with a conflict of interest the size of Cosseys Reservoir, namely Mark Ford, the CEO of the wholesale provided of much of Auckland's water, Watercare. But don't worry folks because he is going to stand down from that, and the chair role at the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, and assumedly leave any ambitions for a commercial monopoly in Auckland's water market in his old swivelly chair on his last day. /sarcasm

Here's Ford is all in his grey-headed suited glory:
Then we have accountant John Waller who currently heads the BNZ:

Mr Waller has vast commercial experience with more than 20 years involvement in mergers and acquisitions, corporate advisory services, business reviews and a wide range of corporate activities. He is also a member of the Takeovers Panel, on the PWC New Zealand Board, Chairman of the Eden Park Redevelopment Board for the Rugby World Cup 2011 and has been appointed to join the Fonterra Board in 2009. He has a Bachelor of Commerce and is a Chartered Accountant

Wayne Walden brings his experience as chair of Maori TV and running Farmers Deka to the table. I imagine there is some hope that he will be able to assuage the huge concerns Maori have about the proposed structure. I know basically nothing about him, and would be interested in readers thoughts.

And finally there's someone with actual local government knowledge from having been there and done that; John Law was mayor of Rodney (whose people want out of all this Super nonsense) in a past life:

(John is the guy on the right signing the car for reasons unknown to me)

So to steer the Great Ship of Auckland to an Exciting and Vibrant New Port, carrying all of its many and varied peoples on board to their final destination, where there will be ponies and broadband in every home and we shall all live in harmony and prosperity for every more, we have:

• a competition lawyer,
• a bank accountant,
• an ex-mayor from one of the smaller components of the future Superness,
• and two CEOs.

There's one Pakeha woman, one Maori man, and three white men of above average income and above average age.

I don't know where they all live yet, and will be interested to find out which of the current TLAs they hail from. But I do know that these five people do not look all that much like Auckland. Or rather they do look like the caricature of the Auckland region that some people have, based largely on perceptions of our CBD. Shame Epsom's Member for Parliament seems to think that is ok for determining the democratic future of Manukau, Waitakere, North Shore, Auckland, Franklin, Papakura and Rodney.

Diversity? U haz FAIL.

Guest post: Trans 101 – or how I came to celebrate sex/gender diversity

Louise, THM reader and academic, has generously written a guest post on trans issues - enjoy!

Lately, The Handmirror and other blogs have commented on trans issues in the media, and by default, trans people. The media has increasingly become interested in the trans community; therefore a dialogue is opening around trans subjectivity. However, media attention also draws out misunderstandings, ignorance, and the issues of language and power in being aware of the trans community. I’m a trans ally and have spent considerable time working with the trans community.

Recent media reports on the case of ‘Alex’ highlighted on this blog and others show how sex, gender identity and sexuality are often confused, and mis-construed by the media and general public.

Generally the following definitions are used:

Sex: A person’s biological make-up…can cover chromosomes, genes, bodies etc. Sex is generally assigned at birth on the basis of the configuration of the genitals. Terms often associated include male, female, intersex, etc.

Gender identity: how someone identifies their sense of gendered self…may or may not align with their assigned sex at birth. For example, assigned female at birth but live as a man.

Sexuality: linked with desire and eroticism, words include homosexual, lesbian, bi-sexual, queer, pan-sexual, heterosexual, straight…

The language often associated with trans identities is influenced by medical science. The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) contains a category for gender identity disorder, and there is a long history of medicalisation of sex/gender identity in medicine. There is debate around the validity of categories in the DSM. This is not to say that medicine doesn’t help some trans people…it does. The ability to medically transition (move along the continuum of one sex/gender to another) relies on developments in science and medicine. However, be aware of the power of medicine to define bodies and influence self- identification. I believe in the importance of being aware of the influence of medicalisation; remember homosexuality was once a disorder in the DSM. Some trans people re-named gender dysphoria as gender euphoria!

So we know that gender identity does not always match the assigned sex of a person. A number of terms are used to describe trans people…for the purpose of this post I use ‘trans’. Why? Trans (used instead of transgender or transsexual) reflects the diversity of the trans community and individuals’ life narratives. Often the terms ‘transsexual’ and ‘transgender’ are used interchangeably without respect for their different meanings and associations. I could give definitions here; however the most important emphasis should be on individual identity. There are a number of words that people use to self identify; these can include genderqueer, gender neutral, whakatane, gender-free, bi-gender, fa’afafine, whakawhine, transsexual, intersex, man, woman, male, female…the list goes on.

However, and I can’t stress this enough, it is up to the individual to chose and use the language that suits them best. I can only give an overview of terms you may or may not be familiar with. In order to understand and support trans people you first need to realise trans people aren’t all the same. Think of sex and/or gender as a line…male/masculine one side, female/feminine on the other…not all trans people will transition (move along the continuum from one sex/gender to another – either socially or medically) and what is considered a transition varies between individuals. Trans people may not feel the need to transition; there may be a lack of money or support; they may face violence or isolation from family and friends; or they maybe happy with their place in life.

Various debates between trans communities and feminist communities have, at times, caused damage to solidarity within and between people. Perhaps one of the most well-known, and long standing, is the Womyn Born Womyn policy of the Michigan Folk Festival. I believe it is important to look at the common ground between feminist and trans people and start a dialogue…remember, feminists can also be trans; trans can be feminists! The trans community have and are fighting for the right to marry; to not be discriminated against in the workplace; to have their identity validated by law…any of this sound familiar? Last year the New Zealand Human Rights Commission put out ‘To Be Who I Am’, a report on the discrimination and lives of trans people in Aotearoa. I believe the report is a document that all feminists in New Zealand should read and understand.

There are various dos and dont’s that circulate the web on how to discuss trans people’s lives and experiences as well as talking to trans people. To be clear, everyone is different and diversity is great! And what suits one person may not suit another – but there are some basics:

1. Respect and use the name and pronoun that an individual chooses. For example, it doesn’t matter how you may read someones gender/sex identity, if they are called Bob and he…call them Bob and he. This isn’t just a trans issue…this is for anyone.

2. If you find out that someone was assigned a birth sex different from how they present and live, respect that identity. Don’t ‘out’ someone as trans, that is an individual’s choice…not yours.

3. You can’t ‘spot’ a trans person. Trans people are from all walks of life…and you may not know if the person on the bus next to you has a trans background. If you meet anyone whose sex/gender seems ambiguous and you feel uncomfortable about not being able to immediately find a pronoun or name…just sit with the feeling. Take cues off the person. Work on not jumping to assumptions about people due to your own expectations of sex/gender.

4. Respect that there is diversity in the way people see sex and gender. Some people will talk about their sex being wrong, their ‘brain sex’ being right, so they are changing their bodily sex to match their brain. Other people will talk about a ‘knowing’; and some people don’t fit into a binary system of sex/gender and prefer other identity terms, such as genderqueer, to describe their identity.

5. Don’t assume that all trans people are white and heterosexual. As obvious as this may sound, part of understanding trans people is to understand diversity in general, similar to ‘women’ not being a static category.

6. Don’t ask about surgery, hormones, legal sex of trans person…unless you are given really big indications that conversation is ok. I don’t tend to ask someone whether they have an appendix scar first time I met them. Also don’t ask why someone changed their name, or what their previous name was.

Question the legitimacy of prioritising birth as what makes someone a man, woman, genderqueer or any other preferred identity. Question the default assumption that biology is destiny. Question what it means to be part of the debate around trans identities. Also question your own assumptions about sex, gender and how you experience these categories. Overall, be open, be aware of your own assumptions and be willing to learn… and celebrate and affirm sex/gender diversity.

Resources:
Although the Documentary film festival has been this is a wonderful film that is a must see and is a wonderful New Zealand based trans film.
http://www.docnz.org.nz/2009/ak/film/assume-nothing

http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/hrc/humanrightsenvironment/actiononthetransgenderinquiry/actiononthetransgenderinquiry.php

Swan R., Assume Nothing, Boy Tiger Press, 2004.

Stryker, S., and Whittle, S., (eds) The Transgender Studies Reader Routledge, 2006.

For support:
http://www.genderbridge.org/
http://www.agender.org.nz/

just keep quiet

don't know about you, but i was less than impressed with the "no-moan-zone" idea voted up at the entrepreneurial summit in auckland yesterday. not that i have any problem with the power of positive thinking, it's certainly more helpful than negative thinking.

however, this idea seems to be a way to stifle dissent. if people protest for example, against the a failure to raise the minimum wage, is that going to count as moaning? if they want to raise issues arises from funding cuts to disability services, does that count as moaning? if there attacks on the collective bargaining provisions in the employment relations act, we should keep quiet for fear of dubbed as "moaners"?

it's a worrying concept particularly in times of recession, higher unemployment and a government that may be looking to privatise crucial services. public dissent is crucial for our own protection - as can be seen with the whole supercity charade. pushing aside that dissent as "moaning" would be very helpful in ramming through measures that would be harmful to the country and to particular communities.

choices

i've been having arguments in both the real and virtual world lately about individual choice. i get so tired of people acting as if individual choices happen in a vaccuum, as if there is no environmental or cultural influences that affect the choices people make. and as if our individual choices will have no impact environmental impact.

a pretty clear example is of a person who had grown up in afghanistan, during the war with the soviet union, then lived through years of civil war and then the invasion of 2002 and resulting instability. such a person would have a very different view of the world and make vastly different choices than one who has grown up in a prosperous country with political stability and overall peace. even within a country, different environments will lead to vastly different choices.

the focus on individual choice removes the need to push for cultural change. and without cultural change, people's lives won't improve. we see this in so many areas of political debate - poverty, parenting, sexual violence, and so much more. one of my pet hates is poverty as an individual choice - if only the poor would work harder or make better choices, the poverty would go away. which allows us to ignore low wages, lack of educational resources in poor areas, lack of support at home, discrimination in employment. and any number of other issues that, were they addressed, could lead to improvements in people's lives.

we have the same argument around issues of importance to women, the same tensions between individual choice and societal influences. i guess it's all the second and third wave stuff. we want respect the choices of individuals, yet we need to recognise that choices are made because because of influences external to the individual. unless we push for change to the external, the choices available to individuals (without costs such as ostracism, shaming etc) will never be expanded.

and it's made more complex when we want to hold individuals to account for acts of sexual violence, but we also recognise that that violence is happening in a culture, an environment that is a contributing factor. that was particularly brought home with the ABC documentary on abuse of women by rugby players. although it was individuals who perpetrated the violence, it happened in a culture that enabled the violence to occur.

Thursdays in Black: The Amokura Family Violence Prevention Strategy

From the NZ Family Violence Clearinghouse:

The Amokura Family Violence Prevention Strategy is an integrated community based initiative to address family violence and promote whanau wellbeing in Taitokerau (Northland). The initiative is led by the Family Violence Prevention Consortium, which is made up of the Chief Executives of seven iwi authorities who have made a long term commitment to preventing whanau violence: Te Aupouri, Te Rarawa, Ngati Kahu, Whaingaroa, Ngapuhi, Ngati Whatua and Ngati Wai.

Amokura provides strategic leadership and co-ordination of violence prevention and early intervention activities across Taitokerau. The Amokura project involves a community awareness campaign - the 'Step Back' campaign – which conveys simple messages and strategies for change, and includes original music performed by young people on local radio and at community concerts, as well as a range of other resources. Also part of the Amokura strategy is a research programme including research on kaumatua insights into Oranga Whanau, a project that explores ‘Mana Tane’, ways that men contribute to the welfare and development of nurturing violence-free families; action research with Whaingaroa rangatahi (youth) on their vision of Oranga Whanau; and a literature review. Other aspects of the Amokura Strategy include support, training and professional development for service providers; and community activities, such as a project to build and use a waka tete (a canoe for women and children, symbolising the divinity of women and promise of safety).

To find out more and/or receive the Amokura newsletter email admin@amokura.net.nz.