Equality, choice and Barbie the feminist hero

In this Guardian op-ed, writer Ellie Levenson defends her book, The Noughtie Girl's Guide to Feminism, from some fairly trenchant criticism, delivered in a previous Guardian review. Using Barbie as an example, Levenson hails freedom of choice as a goal of feminism, rejecting the 'self-appointed moral arbiters' of feminism who want to tell all the other ladies what to do and think.

Frankly, I think choice is over-rated - and Levenson shows pretty clearly why. There are aspects over a woman's life over which she absolutely must have individual choice - her sexual and reproductive life, and her right to live free from violence, for example. But Levenson seems to believe that a thing is inherently feminist if a woman happens to choose it, and she seems to not fully understand the fact that women can and do make choices which are harmful to other women. By my definition at least, the choice which harms other women is not a feminist one.

Here's a fairly dumb example. In a moment of utter tactless stupidity, I made a remark about my being fat.* It's my choice to buy into the culture of skinny if I want to. I can impose whatever standards on my own body that I please. Thanks to freedom of speech, I can choose to mouth off about my beliefs if I feel like it. A woman nearby me when I made this remark (and who was a lot fatter than me) was visibly hurt. Good one, Anna. I'd just used my right to choose to contribute to a cultural climate that makes overweight people feel stink about themselves. Feministic? I don't think so.

I'm not talking about abolishing choice of course, but I don't think feminists ought to be advocating a free-for-all. Levenson argues that feminism would attract more women if it didn't really have principles, and while she's probably right, there's clearly something wrong with this picture. My ideal world is one in which we can choose, but in which we have good analystic tools, based in a collective consciousness, to weigh up the value of the options we have to choose from.

* There was a context to my idiotic remark. I was about to go to a job interview, and was pregnant at the time. I was actually hoping to pass for fat rather than pregnant, since I thought I'd be less likely to face discrimination that way ... a whole other feminist issue I'll blather about some other time.

Today's the day to Vote Yes

And this is what Idiot/Savant's Yes Vote looked like:

Picture removed at Idiot/Savant's request, per advice he received from the Electoral Commission. For the record, it showed a "Yes" vote.

If you need any further convincing I suggest you check out The Yes Vote campaign site. Or indeed any of the posts we have written here supporting a Yes Vote...

I only want to say

ALASKA IS NOT A COUNTRY.

That is all.

For Kevin Rudd

From the website of the amazingly wonderful Michaela Reid.

some questions for nigel latta

ok, i'll be the first to admit that i haven't watched his tv programmes & have only heard about them second hand. some people who had watched it were not impressed with the advice he gives about not "mollycoddling" our kids, and allowing them to take more risks. so we developed a list of questions for mr latta:

in the event of my child getting injured because i followed your advice:
1. will you take the time to take the child to the doctor, including the time needed to sit in waiting rooms, stay at hospitals etc?
2. will you pay for any related medical costs?
3. will you take time off work to look after the injured child so that i don't have to.
4. if the child is injured during exam time, will you study and sit exams for that child?

if the child breaks a bone because i followed your advice:
5. will you come and shower the child every day?
6. will you do the share of household chores that this child can no longer perform?
7. will you carry the child up steps of inaccessible dwellings?

if the child sustains a permanent and disabling injury because i followed your advice:
8. will you quite your job to come and look after this child?
9. will you take all the emotional burden so that no-one who is connected to the child needs to cry a single tear or have a single sleepless night?

in fact the most basic question we had for mr latta was: will you take personal responsibility for all the consequences of your advice? because many of the tasks i've mentioned above will fall on women, and it's often women who are blamed for the "mollycoddling" (though i have no idea if you personally do so).

perhaps mr latta gives clear definitions of acceptable risk and over-protectiveness, so that we can all be absolutely sure when we're doing the first and not the second. personally, i don't think it's such an easy line to draw. but i would think it entirely reasonable for people to want to reduce the emotional and practical burdens of injury and to take reasonable care in regards to the safety of their children. if you expect me to be "politically incorrect" in raising my kids, then i expect you to carry the full costs if things go wrong.

Quick hit: McLeod on the status of women

From Stuff today:

It never pays to be smug about the status of women, and to imagine that everywhere in the world they enjoy, as we do here, ceaseless admiration and awe. Such may not be the case.

There are countries where women are treated quite differently, as reports of the past week testify; countries where women's natural superiority has yet to be generally acknowledged, and where men still call the shots.

In these countries women still do the housework, bear the children, look after the old, rear the young, plant and harvest the crops, milk the cows, cook the dinner, help the kids with homework, nurse the sick, do the household washing and ironing, and provide erotic entertainment after lights out.

Luckily they have men to do the difficult work more suited to their gender, like enforcing religious observance and traditional customs, swanning about, and general supervising. Come to think of it, this has a familiar resonance.

Click through for the whole article.

McLeod has some disturbing examples, such as floggings for extramarital sex and man-consecrated communion. Go have a looksie.

disclaimer

yeah, i'm reproducing anita's disclaimer thingy here as well, because i love it & because it applies equally to our posters and commentors:

On this blog it is likely that, from time to time, the authors and commenters will criticise government policy, speeches, and political tactics.

We would like to reassert that this is neither explicit nor implicit consent to release any private information about the authors or commenters that is held by any government agency, minister’s office, local government organisation, political party, or any other person, organisation or agency.
For the purposes of clarification this non-consent includes, but is not limited to, the following information:

• benefit status or history;
• family status or history;
• ACC status or history;
• health status or history – including information held by DHBs, PHOs, central government agencies and private providers whether directly or indirectly contracted by the state;
• interactions with justice or law enforcement – including complaints, interviews, interactions, documents supplied;
• employment status or history;
• any grants applied for or received; and
• tax payments, status or history.

In addition we would like to restate that posting or commenting here does not give implicit or explicit consent for any private information held about any author or commenter to be used for a purpose other than the purpose for which is was supplied. This non-consent includes, but is not limited to, the reuse of personal information for political purposes.

and i also love this, and this, and this. enjoy!

Quick hit: Cheapie junk food

From Stuff today:

Reduced To Clear has arrived in Wellington, selling products - some past their best-before date - at half the price or less when compared with supermarkets and dairies.

Rongotai's store, which opened yesterday, is the second in New Zealand.

Directors Sean Hills and Andy Vermeulen say they are helping reduce waste and offer cheap alternatives in a tough economic climate. "We see it as helping the manufacturers as well, because it's stuff they'd dump otherwise," Mr Vermeulen said.

Mr Hills said a lot of customers at their South Auckland store were from communities where treats were rarely afforded, and were happy to be able to buy novelties for children's birthday parties.

...Nutritionists and health activists have criticised the deal and the shop, saying it is irresponsible to offer cut-price junk food to an increasingly overweight nation.

Fight the Obesity Epidemic's Robyn Toomath, a Wellington Hospital endocrinologist, said the new store was sending the wrong message to consumers.

"It's an encouragement to buy food they wouldn't normally buy, because it's 'value for money'," Dr Toomath said. The Government should not allow market forces to make junk food a more attractive option than it already was, and should subsidise healthy foods like fruit and vegetables.

Click through for the whole article.

It's the whole "a bottle of Coke is cheaper than a bottle of milk" problem all over again :-( This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me sceptical about The Market Will Provide mantra.

Want the lifestyle? Do the job.

I am a Primary school teacher by profession. Over the years, if I had received a dollar for every comment from someone wishing they could have the cruisy teacher's life of the 9-3 hours and the 12 weeks of holiday a year I, well, wouldn't have to teach anymore.

I used to bite - seriously justify the realities of teaching, tell them why they had the wrong ideas about hours - until I realised that most people just wanted that reaction. It was then I started replying very simply: Want my holidays? Do my job! That got very interesting responses, usually along the path of hating children/days ending in bloodshed/not being able to cope...

Hey, that is fine, there are loads of jobs out there that I couldn't do, even with a great lifestyle promise I wouldn't love the work side enough to make it work for me.

With the recent exposure of the amount of money 2 women receive on the DPB, there is a lot of people blustering at the huge amount of money it is. Now you can argue the reasons behind their entitlements till you are blue in the face - the fact that a case worker doesn't look at a woman and say 'oh, you look like you like buying nice shoes, let's give you a bit extra than that other woman over there', the fact that there are strict formulas to entitlements that are applied, and the fact that we do not know what exactly makes up the money those women receive - and it still won't get through to people.

So what I now say to people who start talking about this wondrous amount of money these women get - want their lifestyle? Do their job. If it such a great sounding way of life, if you really think that it would be a great 'money for nothing' job, there is nothing stopping you from doing it yourself.

Personally, there is no way I would swap the support of my partner for 'free money'. I like having someone there to support me in raising my child, to have someone to moan to in the evenings when you have had 'one of those days', to have someone there to take turns getting up to the poos and spews of an ill child, to have someone to worry about things with me, to have someone to give me time out when I need to remember who I am as a person. I like having my partner's family there to lean on too (granted not all in law relationships are as rosy, but more hands on deck!) I like that I am not the only person making life long decisions that will effect how my child grows and develops. I like that should something happen and I do end up having to sole care for my child/ren, I am fortunate enough to already have the skills and qualifications that mean that I do not have to worry about where the money for living would come from.

Nothing in the world could make me swap that for a life on the DPB sole caring for my child, having to guide my child/ren through the trauma of a break up (no matter how amicable it is, children still have to process it), being the end of the line, often having absentee non-custodial parents... I could write a thousand reasons why I don't want that job. Most people in that job don't want it, it is something that happens for many complex reasons, not a career choice.

I read a comment from someone elsewhere saying that while privacy should have been maintained, they were taken aback to find that one received over $700 a week, while they, who had a degree received the same amount for a 40 hour a week job.

My response to that is that these women probably would LOVE the chance to get that degree and earn that money in a job - that is what they are arguing for. The support to progress in to a career that creates a better life for them and for their children and the generations that come after.

I don't care what Paula Bennett got when she was on the DPB

Apparently our Minister of Social Services is under pressure to reveal what she was paid as a DPB recipient who accessed the Training Incentive Allowance herself when she was at university.

I don't care what she got. She was entitled to it, she accessed it, and how much it was actually doesn't matter a jot. Harping on this theme is simply continuing the broader attack on those who are on benefits, particularly the DPB.

So let's get back to the actual issue here, which is not what anyone gets in the way of actual dollar figures when they are on a benefit that they are perfectly entitled to access.

Originally this was actually about the Government cutting the Training Incentive Allowance. That's a matter of public policy that is worthy of debate. Should we as a society support solo parents in tertiary education? I say yes, others, including Ms Bennett, clearly say no. We could actually debate that through the democratic institutions we have; in particular in the media. That's what the two solo mums who raised their concerns were trying to do.

But instead the discussion was shifted to the dollar amounts they've received from the Government, not through some kind of generous largesse, but as an actual entitlement. Just like the pension, or the invalids' benefit, or Working for Families, or subsidised doctors' fees. Accessing a benefit you are entitled to is not rorting the system, it is using the system as it is meant to be used. So who cares how much they got?

This has backfired a bit on Bennett though, as in amongst the predictable bashing of beneficiaries, particularly solo mums on the DPB, serious concerns have been raised by people with credibility about her abuse of power. So now we're talking about that instead. Which is well worthy of discussion, and frankly I think she should resign, but I do hope we don't forget what this was all about in the first place; yet another example of a Government cut that is extremely counter-productive, actually saves little money in the bigger scheme of things, and is driven more by ideology than practical reality.

missing the point

one thing that pisses me off about this whole thing with (not so) hon paula bennett releasing personal information about beneficiaries is the totally expected backlash against them in terms "look how much they're getting, the greedy b*tches, why should they get more". obviously, that's the reason the minister released the information - to get exactly that reaction.

and i don't want to buy into it, given that it's totally not the issue. the issue is the scrapping of the training incentive allowance which was helping these women to get off the benefit by getting tertiary education.

but. for all those people who have made comment on any talkback show or internet forum about how they raise a family on much less money than these two women are getting, i have three words. working for families.

if you have 3 kids and are earning less than the benefit these women are receiving, then you should be getting a working for families credit that results in you paying ZERO tax (if you aren't getting these credits, contact WINZ immediately). there is no room for error - you are paying no tax. whereas the benefit has tax deducted. so it is unlikely that your overall position is worse than the one these women are in. it also means that you are getting any number of public services free of charge.

and i personally am very happy that this is the case, because i think it's right that your family should have a decent level of income. if it means that i pay a bit more tax, then i have no problem with that, because i know that it results in a much better society.

so, can you please now concentrate on the issue at hand, being that the allowance that ms bennett has cut is likely to cost taxpayers much more in the long run. it's false economy, and extremely short-sighted.

Make the pie higher

My pie is too small, my pie is too small, oh woe-is-me, my pie is too small.

Back at the end of April my non-paid-work time started to be eaten away by my job. The pie that had been so neatly, if a little haphazardly, divided between work (about a third), family & friends (about a quarter), blog (about a fifth), and other (the rest), was suddenly too small.

At first I didn't think too much about it, I just let the work portion gnaw away where-ever it could. Family and friends were the primary losers in the first six weeks or so, until my partner called me on it and I realised what I was doing. Since then I've taken the extra hours for the job out of time for this here blog and the sundry other bits and pieces that is necessary to maintain a life. (Don't ask me how long it's been since I went to the dentist.)

This modest temporary promotion is creating work-life imbalance for me. I love the job; the actual work, the challenge of working differently and learning new skills, and the people I work with. But I want to be able to do more than just eke out a life around work's demands.

So last week, when they started talking about making this temporary position permanent I made it clear I probably wouldn't apply for the job, due to the hours. Noises were made that the issue of the extra hours, and the accompanying inability to take leave, will be sorted. Partly I just need to wait for a colleague to come back from time off (she's been having an awful year and it's not her fault). Which means I can forsee a proper return to the blog in the near future. My pieces of pie will hopefully jumble back towards their pre-promotion places.

But not entirely. I've decided to do the dividing a little differently. First and foremost I won't be blogging on the weekends. This will be time that is largely sacrosanct for whanau, friends and other stuff. Inevitably this will also mean I'll be blogging less in general, as I often used to write content on the weekends and schedule it ahead. No more.

I'm also likely to be present in the comments on other blogs a lot less. Well a lot less than I was two months ago. It would be hard to be around less frequently than in July.

And I think when I blog I'm going to be more focused on saying something, writing something, than putting together the bits and pieces like our monthly blog stats, tweaking the site etc.

Maybe in the future I'll be able to return to that kind of stuff. In the meantime, until I can inflate the pie, this'll have to do.

And this is why I get uncomfortable when people talk about 'fetus rights'

A New Jersey court fount the mother had abused and neglected their child, based on the fact that the she refused to consent to a cesarean section and behaved erratically while in labor. The mother gave birth vaginally without incident, and the baby was "in good medical condition." Then she was never returned to her parents, and the judge in the case approved a plan to terminate their parental rights and give custody of the child to foster parents.

Wow just wow. From here

Quick hit: Bennett tries to change the issue

From the Herald this morning:

Details of state benefits received by two solo mothers have been made public by the Government after the pair criticised cutbacks to a training allowance.

Staff from Social Development Minister Paula Bennett's office gave the Herald a tally of each woman's weekly income from the state - including benefits and other allowances - after the women spoke out in the Herald on Sunday and Labour used their stories in Parliament last week.

The details were handed over without the knowledge of the mothers, Jennifer Johnston and Natasha Fuller.

Ms Bennett said she had a right to release information on individuals if they left out relevant details when publicising their situations.

"If someone is deciding they're happy to use their case to speak about or against something we are doing, I think it's fair the full story be told."

Ms Fuller said she did not believe she had left out any relevant information and was "astonished" her details could be released without either her knowledge or permission.

Ms Johnston said she was "flabbergasted" but said it would not put her off speaking out about cutting the training incentive allowance.

Click through for the rest.

To me this looks like intimidation pure and simple - criticise the government and we'll put information in the media that'll make you look bad. You don't have to be lily white to have a genuine beef with the government over something. Yet that's the implication of this kind of response, as Neelima Choudary found out too.

How about the Minister for Social Development concentrates her efforts instead on explaining why the Training Incentive Allowance was cut and exactly what her Government plans to do to support solo parents to provide for their families?

answer the question

i was listening to question time in parliament last week (yeah, i know i'm a bit of a geek like that) and at the end of one question about the minister of social development, hon bill english (on behalf of the PM) tagged this line to the end of his answer:

What is it about female Ministers that irritates Labour so much?

this totally pisses me off. the implication that questioning a minister about her portfolio responsibilities, or questioning the prime minister about his confidence in any minister, is sexist simply because that minister happens to be female is rather pathetic. it speaks more to mr english's view of female ministers in his cabinet, that he can't see beyond their gender and restrict his comments to their portfolio responsibilities.

you can find a full transcript of the questions here, and it clearly shows that none of the questions regarding confidence in hon paula bennett had anything to do with her gender. so why did his answer include it?

Get your running shoes on!

I feel like a bit of blog sell-out for giving props to a commercial product but since I blogged about my experience of doing the half-marathon last year. I'm going to give some blog-love to women's running group run by the wonderful Ingrid out of Les Mills in central Auckland that is about to start training for this year's half and quarter marathon. You don't have to be the fastest runner to take part, in fact you could be as slow as I am and stil find the experience of group training to be as motivating and empowering as I did!

Quick hit: Positive consent =/= sign for sex

Generally I'm not a big fan of Emmerson anyway, but this cartoon over the weekend really ticked me off. How on earth are we supposed to have an informed and constructive public discussion about proposed changes to the law around rape with this kind of rubbish getting pride of place in our major daily newspaper?

New pro-choice blog

ALRANZ (who advocate for law reform in favour of choice in regard to abortion) now have a presence on the issues.co.nz website, and also a blog there.

Big thanks to captiver for emailing this through :-)

Monday Funday with believing

see more Funny Graphs

Is birth really *that* important?

A few weeks ago, Dr Denis Walsh caused no end of outrage both here and the UK for suggesting that women should endure the pain of labour without anaesthetic drugs - in particular, epidurals - because they undermine the mother's bond with her newborn baby.

Firstly although the man in question was an Associate Professor of Midwifery and probably knows more about childbirth than the average blogger, there was something about a man telling women how to give birth that really annoyed the hell out of females. I'm pretty sure that if the expert in question had been a woman, we probably wouldn't be so up and arms about the opinion even if we disagreed with it.

So I'm going to say that comments such as 'well you trying pushing something the size of a watermelon out of something the size of a lemon' probably aren't that helpful in birth politics.

And what a hornet's nest birth politics are. I think in our efforts to have the perfect birth, we forget that everyone wants the same thing, healthy babies and mothers at the end of it. I'm pretty sure that many mothers would happily have a good birth (one in which everyone lives) rather than tying themselves up in knots trying to have the perfect birth.

Also let us not forget that while birth is important it is not the only part of what makes a mother. Drying away tears, defusing tantrums or picking up your wayward teen from a party where they had too much to drink all seem to me to be just not as if not more important part of parenthood that the act giving birth. Because after all, at worst you labour takes a few days, raising your children and actually being a parent takes a commitment of at least 18 years. Some parents would argue that it never really stops until you cark it.

Contrast

The following advertisement aired on Israeli TV:

The following clip was filmed in Palestine:

Fantasy is a strange thing. (via Lenin's Tomb)

Quick hit: Provocation gone by Xmas? Oh and something about rape too, maybe

From Stuff today:

...Justice Minister Simon Power, in a speech to the Institute of Policy Studies in Wellington today, unveiled a raft of areas the government was looking at including updating the law around sexual crimes, better protection for children and the partial defence of provocation.

...Mr Power said the defence "wrongly enables defendants to besmirch the character of victims, and effectively rewards a lack of self-control".

He told reporters: "I think (the defence has) had its time, I think there are other mechanisms on the statute book that deal with some circumstances that may arise".

Once Cabinet gave approval a bill would be drafted.

Mr Key indicated Cabinet would be advancing it.

Click through for the whole article.

Most of the media coverage I've seen/heard (not much yet, too busy) has focused on the provocation issue, has anyone any links to articles mentioning more detail on the review of sexual crime, in particular how that might fit in with the review work already underway??

Reproductive rights discussion today at UOA

This event, this afternoon, sounds like a great idea. Sorry I haven't been able to get this up earlier. Big thanks to Anjum for holding the fort, and more on why that's been necessary later.

Message from the Campus Feminist Collective:

Attacks on Choice:
Reproductive Rights in the US and Abroad After the Murder of Dr. George Tiller

Thursday, July 23rd
4-5pm
AUSA Executive Chambers
(Student Information Commons, 2nd floor, sign-posted from Munchie Mart)
Open to all
Facebook event page

An open discussion of the state of reproductive and abortion rights in the United States and across the globe following the killing of Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors providing late-term abortions in the United States and a constant target of anti-abortion groups. We will be discussing the effect of Dr. Tiller’s murder on reproductive and abortion rights, the current atmosphere in New Zealand and abroad, and why reproductive and abortion rights should be a high priority.

Featuring an introduction by Tom Baumann, who will discuss the ramifications of Dr. Tiller’s murder in the United States as well as his first-hand experiences in the struggle for reproductive and abortion rights.

"Tom Baumann has been active in protesting against the May 31 killing of Dr. George Tiller and in campaigning for women's right to choose abortion. He is a leader of the Young Socialists in the United States and is a candidate for Manhattan borough president for the Socialist Workers Party election campaign. He lives in New York and is a student at Hunter College."

clayton weatherston found guilty of murder

i'll be putting up posts on my own blog for a little while, so feel free to head over there if you're interested. i've got one up on the clayton weatherston verdict, and another on the reveiw of the holiday pay act. please note that comments are moderated on my blog, and i put them up when i get the time :).

singing to save auckland's assets

another public announcement: the "not yours to sell" campaign now has a facebook page - i'm hoping the link comes through properly but i'm really not sure how facebook works, so yeah, i'm sure you can search for it if you're already on facebook.

anyway, one of the reasons i mention it (other than the fact that i'm opposed to the sale of public assets) is that don mcglashan has written a new song to support the campaign. and it's up on the facebook page if you'd like to have a listen.

if you want to read more about phil twyford's Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill which has been drawn out of the ballot, feel free to have a read of this.

supporting the yes vote campaign

hi all. just reproducing an email i got this morning from the yes vote campaign:

Now is the time to engage support for the Yes Vote

With the referendum so close, now is the time to reach as many New Zealand voters as possible with the Yes Vote message.

People have asked how they can help. Here is what you can do:

1. - Have a conversation. Encourage people to vote. A strong Yes Vote outcome will help secure the 2007 law – now and in the future. A Yes Vote is a strong statement in support of the law. Not voting or spoiling the ballot paper leaves the floor open to the No Vote.

2. - Visit the website – there is a wealth of information there about why New Zealanders should be voting yes.

3. - If you have not already done so sign up as a supporter – individually and also get your agency to join – this way we can keep in touch with you. The list will also be useful evidence of support for the law if we need to resist the reintroduction of legal assault on children in the future. Type your e-mail address in the box on the right of our web page.

4. - Visit our website and download the flyer. Print this off and give to friends, family and clients. Take a walk in your local neighbourhood and distribute the flyer in letter boxes.

5. - Tell your MP you are voting Yes by using our website to send the message.

The 2007 law change plays a part in reducing violence to children and within families in New Zealand. It will play a part in securing more positive outcomes for many children. Please help us keep this law secure by supporting a YesVote in the 2009 referendum.

identity

i was at a (rather fancy) dinner last night, and was in the position of introducing someone (who i'll call XYZ) to someone else. it turned out that the spouse of XYZ (who i'll call ABC) happened to be better known in that particular context. so my introduction went like this:

"you know ABC who holds such and such positions? well ABC happens to be married to XYZ".

well, XYZ was very happy with this introduction and appreciated it so much more than being introduced as "ABC's spouse". he felt that it gave him much more of an identity in the way that i put it.

of course i'd not made any kind of conscious effort to word the introduction this way, it just happened to come out like that. but maybe it's something that came about from watching other people introduced in a similar manner, and knowing how much they hated it. at present, the people who suffer most from this are my parents, who are invariably introduced and recognised as "anjum's mum" or "anjum's dad" in a variety of settings. they take it good-naturedly, but i know that they have their own identities and very considerable achievements, which tend to be denied with that kind of an introduction.

so it was nice to have done the right thing, be it ever so inadvertantly. and it was nice of XYZ to be so vocal in his appreciation. in fact, it was lovely evening all round.

random links

since i can't get those photograph thingies to work properly, & since i don't want to take over julie's trademark of the "odds & ends drawer", i'll just call this a few links to really good stuff i've read today!

brian edwards tells us why he doesn't care for nigel latta.
I/S on chief justice sian elias' speech yesterday (this correction of colin espiner is pretty good too).
and a great guest post up at public address by ken aldous about the end of consumerism.

that's all!

ETA: i thought i'd just add a belated link to this guest post on shakesville [trigger warning] that went up on monday, quite long but very moving and pertinent, about issues regarding rape culture.

that's really all.

kiran bedi

staying with the theme of wonderful women, i loved the interview of kiran bedi on radio nz (nine to noon, 10.10am) yesterday. ms bedi is india's "first and highest ranking woman officer", and is something of a legend in india. not that i have any extensive knowledge of her, but i remember relatives telling me that some bollywood film character was modelled after her (sorry, can't actually recall which film). thereafter, they had a prolonged discussion about what an amazing woman she was, particularly in terms of prison management.

this is from her wikipedia entry:

During her stint as the Inspector General of Prisons, Tihar Jail (Delhi) (1993-1995), she instituted a number of reforms in the management the prison, and initiated a number of measures such as detoxification programs, yoga, vipassana meditation, redressing of complaints by prisoners and literacy programs. For this she not only won the 1994 Ramon Magsaysay Award, but was also awarded the 'Jawaharlal Nehru Fellowship', to write about the work done at Tihar Jail.

i'm thinking that ms bedi should meet up with dame sian elias, cos they both appear to have some very sensible ideas when it comes to corrections policy! anyway, if you'd like to find out more about ms bedi's life, she is "the subject of award winning documentary Yes Madam, Sir screening at the NZ Film Festival, (narrated by Helen Mirren)."

j k rowling

we were a bit late in getting into the harry potter thing. i think the first 2 movies had already come out, but once i bought them for the kids, we were pretty much hooked. not that there weren't aspects of the stories that i didn't like, but on the whole they were a pretty good read. so much better than other popular children's books like the twilight series (puke) or the eragon novels (the third one particularly annoyed me).

about joanne rowling, i knew very little. i don't read gossip magazines or entertainment pages on the internet, so i was largely unaware of her personal life. however, it was a link to this speech she gave at harvard which made me admire her as a person, not just as an author.

last night on prime, there was a really good 1 hour programme following her life for a year, as she finished off the final novel of the harry potter series & the 5th movie was released. i thought it was really well done, and brought out her personality really well. the thing i most admire about her is her compassion and humility. the fact that she remembers the hard times in her life, and even though she is now phenomenally successful, she recognises that poverty is mostly circumstantial & is largely determined by the way society is structured.

also admirable is her sense of inclusiveness. that came out quite clearly in the books, but it's something that she articulates really well. given the popularity of her books, she is well aware of the ability she has of having a positive influence on many people. it seems to me that she is making the most of that ability.

an observation

just watched the second half of backbenchers on channel 7 tonight, which featured representatives from the youth wings of national, labour, greens, maori party and ACT. and the first thing i noticed was that, yup, all of them were male. not one single female rep put forward by any one of these parties.

which says what about the future of parliament and political decision-making in this country? nothing good, i'm afraid.

fiona's story

i was going to post about this on monday night, but got distracted with the 60 minutes interview. i watched the sunday theatre on tv1, which was called "fiona's story". if you didn't catch it, it was about a woman who's husband is charged with owning child pornography. the story is fictional, but very well told and much of it would mirror what many women in similar circumstances went through.

there were so many issues that were raised really well, but the ones that stood out for me were:

• the fact that her husband was so absorbed with the pornography that it damaged their sex life. he was no longer interested in her. this resonated with me, because i've recently heard that complaint from someone who is now separated. she said "i was right there, i was a ready and willing partner, but he gave more attention to the computer screen than he did to me." i think the damage done to some relationships by pornography is really sad.
• the way that husband's behaviour was trivialised and excused by his family members. in particular, there was one scene with the couple and (i think) the husband's brother where the latter couldn't really see the problem with viewing stuff that was "already out there".
• and sort of related was the way that fiona didn't want to mentally deal with the reality of what had happened - you could see a kind of denial in the way that she accepted the husband's initial excuse that he was a victim of identity theft; and even after he admitted what he had done, she still seems to shy away from the details and the implications of his actions.
• the consequences that the wife and children would have to face had the charges been made public - the anonymous threatening phone calls, the shunning of the kids etc. and the way that this was used by the husband to ensure that fiona ended up him even when she was appalled by what he did. if the film had a weakness, it was that the full impact on the wife and children of public naming and shaming through a trial and sentencing wasn't shown.
• the financial stresses that the family would have faced had the husband been jailed.

i don't know that we have any kind of formal system for supporting women and children who find themselves in this kind of situation. they have to suffer for actions that were not theirs, and the destruction of relationships is probably the worst of the problems they face.

this is a good review of the film, but i really want to share one of the comments at the bottom of it:

I was looking forward to watching Fiona's Story, I thought it would help people like myself who have been in the horrible situation Fiona found herself in. I was very dissapointed with the drama. I didn't think the BBBC covered the real effects it has on the wife, the children, friends and family. My children and I have been to hell and back. The impact it has on the children, knowing what their dad has done this terrible crime and viewed children their age is heartbreaking. Seeing your child being singled out at school, trying to protect them from the local headlines and billboards outside the newsagent. Trying to explain the crime their dad who has never commited an offence before was going to spend some time in prison. The visits of the social services, who stopped my husband seeing his children unsupervised immediatly after he had been charged. Telling the children they cannot be alone with their dad anymore, they couldn't understand because he had never abused them, he was their kind loving dad, yet he chose to see other children being hurt and abused. I was off work I couldn't leave the house I felt so ashamed and guilty somehow because I felt I should have known, yet had no reason to suspect for two years. My life now six months after he was given a six months sentence suspended for two years. I still fear people finding out and do my children, although I am seperated from my husband yet we still remain friends. He is on a sex offenders course and I am taking each day as it comes. There is very little help for the internet peodophile wife and their families yet lots of help for the peodophile! I wish the BBC had helped situations like mine and other families that are torn apart and shown the reality of a husband who was sentenced, the humiliation and guilt the wife has and the effect it really can have on the children!

Guest post: Allowing men to control our sexual imagination – an argument against pro-woman porn

Further to our ongoing discussion about pr0n, Anita from Kiwipolitico has offered this addition to the divergence of views we've been hosting. Big thanks to Anita for sharing.

In the midst of the posts debating porn a few weeks ago I offered Julie a post showing an anti-porn perspective from a sex-positive third-wave point of view. This is a somewhat challenging exercise for me as I believe that women who want to can and should make empowering pro-women porn, but my views remain conflicted.

This is my strongest area of conflict: can we reclaim porn for ourselves, or do we just give men another control over our sexual imaginations?

Imagine, if you will, your best case scenario for positive respectful pornography made by women for women. Perhaps that scenario requires that all profits are returned to the actors, or that there are no profits; perhaps that it is distributed only to friends and acquaintances, or free all over the net; perhaps that the actors as doing it as an act of empowerment, or that the stories are deliberately those of strong women; perhaps the set is full of laughter and joy as the make it, or what they make is really hot. Whatever it takes, imagine your best case scenario.

Then think about how those women will be constructing the shots, thinking about the lighting, the angles, the narrative, the sets, the stories, what to show and what to hide.

Their thoughts, however politically conscious they are, will be rooted in the male pornography paradigm. The male porn industry is so dominant it frames everything we think about porn. Even when we consciously work to construct something different it is framed as being not-like-that: the male paradigm remains the dominant force. A quick look at the photographers' guidelines of Filament demonstrate this: every explanation is grounded in a shared understanding of stereotypical male porn, every difference is an exception worth mentioning, every similarity unmentioned.

So the dominant exploitative anti-woman porn provides the frame for all pro-woman porn, either by providing norms we accept, or by being the norms we react against. So whether we want it to or not, by making porn we allow that destructive paradigm to control our sexual imagination.

It's an easy and obvious argument to make, but answering the question it poses is much harder: how then do we create pro-woman sexual images for us to share?

Rather than trying to bridge from anti-woman sexual images, perhaps we would be better to bridge from other pro-woman forms. There is a long tradition of strong pro-woman writing, and a younger tradition of pro-woman written erotica, perhaps we need to strengthen that tradition, then move from there to more explicit images of that erotica, then build out from there. Or strengthen our young tradition of pro-woman movies, then add more sex, and build from there.

Perhaps we wouldn't end up with something like the current male dominated porn, but isn't that the point? It's not so much that I'm arguing against porn altogether, as that I'm arguing against porn being the starting point to our development of pro-women sexual images, and against assuming that porn will be the end point.

The female sexual imagination at its truest and most powerful is not the exploitative imagination of the male porn industry, and we shouldn't be controlled by their damaging dominance.

Anita

reclaim/reframe

i've been thinking about this practice of "reclaiming" words, and i've decided that i just don't get it. what got me thinking about this is the upcoming "rising dragons, soaring bananas" conference this weekend. banana, just in case you haven't yet heard, was the term used by chinese to describe other chinese who had become westernised ie yellow on the outside but white on the inside. mostly used for first generation chinese kids growing up in western countries, who weren't deemed to be chinese enough.

this term has now been reclaimed by those described as banana's, who are celebrating the western culture they've adopted while also celebrating their chinese heritage. hence these banana-themed conferences they've been organising over the last few years, which are becoming increasingly successful.

the only other "reclaimed" word i'm aware of is queer. i'm sure there are plenty of other such words out there, but i remain ignorant of them.

i get the bit where you want to own and celebrate the aspect of the pejorative that you actually don't think is a negative. what i don't get is why you would want to adopt the language of those who are basically abusing you. surely, you'd want to bring another word into the culture which celebrates the essence of your identity, one that brings out positive associations for you rather than negative ones.

reclaiming words feels to me a bit like giving up, a bit like saying "there's no way we're going to stop people using that word, so we may as well just take it on board". but we know that changes in language do happen if there is sufficient pressure, the word "nigger" being the most obvious example. i know that such change takes a lot of effort, and is a burden on a minority group that is already under strain. but even so, it just doesn't sit well with me.

which is not to say that i don't love what they've done with the whole banana theme over the years, it's totally clever and is serving an extremely useful purpose in bringing two cultures together to celebrate some wonderful achievements. but it's just the theory behind reclaiming of words like this that bothers me.

maybe i'm just understanding it all wrong, and would be interested in hearing other views on this.

What could acceptable provocation look like?

I'm posting this in an honest bid for some good comment discussion. I tend to think we should just get away with the defence of provocation altogether, particularly given the bizarre verdicts in two cases where the provocation has amounted to one man coming on to another man who then kills in response, and of course the seemingly unending horror that is the Clayton Weatherston trial.

I've been trying to come up with imaginary scenarios in my head which would be the kind of provocation I personally would be ok with downgrading murder to manslaughter. I haven't succeeded yet. So I'm throwing it open to you, dear readers.

Can you come up with anything you would consider sufficient provocation to render someone who killed someone else not culpable for their murder?

Answers in comments (or blog posts with a link in comments) please.

kirsten dunne-powell on 60 minutes

i've just watched the kirsten dunne-powell interview on 60 minutes, and found it to be very moving. i think what this woman has had to endure is awful, particularly the intrusion to her private life that she talked about. as we've seen with so many women complainants, they are victimised by their abusers, then victimised again if they dare to speak out against the abuse. especially if they are unlucky to be abused by a man who is well-known.

i think ms dunne-powell has shown considerable courage and dignity in the way she has dealt with this issue. but the fact is that she shouldn't have had to deal with a lot of it. and it appalls me that the publicity around her would have been so much nastier and so much worse had tony vietch not accepted the plea bargain, and the full case had gone to court.

i'm not sure how mr vietch will respond to this interview, but the best thing for him to do right now would be to remain silent. i don't believe there's anything left for him to say, and if "team vietch" really cares about him, they'll put his well-being ahead of anything else.

i'm hoping this is the last chapter of this particular story, and that both of these people can now get on with their lives.

New to our Laydeez Blogroll

Boganette by the eponymous (and possibly original) Bogan Feminist Atheist
Self-Conscious Posturing by Ginger

Got a blog to add? Leaving a comment with a link is a great way to let me know.

Women's group shared lunch at Vic on Thursday

• Shared lunch, catch-up, and setting of regular meeting time for the Vic Women's Group
• 12noon - 1pm in the Women's Room, in the Student Union Building on the Kelburn Campus.
• Please bring some food to share
• And get in touch with Kim Dobson, the Women's Coordinator, kim dot l dot dobson at gmail etc, if you feel the need.
• Facebook event page here!

Quick hit: Folic acid in bread - maybe not?

From the Herald this morning:

Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson says she will seek a review of the use of folic acid in bread - but not until a month after bakers have started adding it.

Folic acid prevents some birth defects, and the idea of putting it in bread is so women who do not know they are pregnant get the protection. Ms Wilkinson has criticised the decision to use the additive from September, which was part of a joint New Zealand-Australia food standard. However, she says that since the Labour Government signed up to it she has no option but to let the implementation go ahead.

Click through for the rest of the article.

I have to say I'm personally a bit concerned about this idea of putting folic acid in bread, as it seems a lot like mass medication of pretty much everyone to get to a tiny portion of the population in what may be an ineffective manner. What do you think?

better to keep quiet

as i mentioned in my previous post, i don't bother much with "news" media these days, so i haven't heard (or seen) this case being reported in our media:

It was while Marwa el-Sherbini was in the dock recalling how the accused had insulted her for wearing the hijab after she asked him to let her son sit on a swing last summer, that the very same man strode across the Dresden courtroom and plunged a knife into her 18 times.

Her three-year-old son Mustafa was forced to watch as his mother slumped to the courtroom floor.

Even her husband Elvi Ali Okaz could do nothing as the 28-year-old Russian stock controller who was being sued for insult and abuse took the life of his pregnant wife. As Okaz ran to save her, he too was brought down, shot by a police officer who mistook him for the attacker. He is now in intensive care in a Dresden hospital.

apparently the case has attracted little publicity in europe as well, with what publicity there has been in germany "focused more on issues of court security than the racist motivation behind the attack". the backstory to the case is this:

Sherbini, a former national handball champion, and Okaz, a genetic engineer who was just about to submit his PhD, had reportedly lived in Germany since 2003, and were believed to be planning to return to Egypt at the end of the year. They were expecting a second child in January.

Unemployed Alex W. from Perm in Russia was found guilty last November of insulting and abusing Sherbini, screaming "terrorist" and "Islamist whore" at her, during the Dresden park encounter. He was fined 780 but had appealed the verdict, which is why he and Sherbini appeared face to face in court again.

so, this woman who had taken a human rights case against her abuser paid the ultimate price for daring to stand up against the abuse, using the legal processes available to her. it's a clear message to keep silent.

these kinds of attacks don't happen in a vacuum. in parts of germany, teachers are not allowed to wear headscarves. in neighbouring france, it's pupils in public schools who face the ban, and sarkozy has been whipping up hatred more recently with his talk of banning the burqa. unfortunately, it's never the sarkozy's of this world who have to bear the consequences of their actions. it's women like marwa el-sherbini who pay the price.

as per usual, let me make it extremely clear that islamophobic comments will not be tolerated on this post, so don't waste your time by making them.

how much worse is this trial going to get?

i avoid watching "news" on the tv these days. i get most of my news from radio nz and from various blogs. i'll often catch the 10 minutes news on the hour on channel 7. but i avoid the 6 o'clock news in order to preserve my sanity.

today was yet another reminder why. i've written previously on my own blog about how much i disagree with televised coverage of court cases, which was brought on by the bain case. but today went one step further, with tvnz basically advertising their news bulletin with the titillating coverage from the sophie elliot murder trial, in which the accused talks about intimate aspects of their sex life.

FFS. again, i have to ask: where is the public interest in this coverage? whose interests are served by showing the accused talking about details that ms elliot never gave permission to be made public? evidence that can't be challenged, because the only other person present was (allegedly) stabbed by the accused. it just made my blood boil to see the news networks exploit ms elliot even further, trying to improve their ratings without any care for her dignity.

frankly, this trial is bringing out the worst that is wrong with our justice system, our media and our culture. there's a whole other post to be written about the accused trying to present himself as the victim and her as the slutty (sorry, "very forward"), abusive girlfriend, but i'm just too sickened by this other stuff to be able to do it.

demographic imbalances

i thought this press release from the equal employment opportunities trust was of interest:

A new analysis of the age and gender profiles of more than 30 professions shows skews in various fields – which could pose problems in future.

The Equal Employment Opportunities Trust (EEO Trust) analysis of 1991-2006 Census data shows that professions currently dominated by older men and younger women – such as law, medicine, veterinary medicine and planning – are likely to experience a double blow over the next decade. As large numbers of older workers approach the traditional retirement years, some younger women may leave to have children.

the EEO trust singles out medicine, law and accountancy in its press release. it highlights the fact that both older males and younger women are more likely to want "more flexible options" to the current 50-60 hour working week, "such as working from home, part-time work and flexible start and finishing times." given the way the demographics lie, both of these groups will want these options at the same time.

depending on what the unemployment figures are doing, this could be a good thing in that there would be more jobs available. in terms of fairness and a balanced life, it would be an excellent thing that employers get only one person's worth of work out of one person's salary. on the downside, it is likely to mean lower wages because of the increased overhead costs involved in having more staff.

dr reed of the EEO goes on to say:

“These types of [flexible] options are not just for women. They support anyone with caring responsibilities, including the increasing numbers of fathers who want to be more involved in childcare. “They also support older people as they move towards retirement, and may help keep older people in the workforce for longer.”

the research is aimed primarily at employers, to alert them to issues they need to be planning for. i'm sort of hoping that along with the demographic changes, there will be social and cultural changes, particularly in the area of unpaid work, that makes things a little easier for everyone.

More Sarah Palin - Vanity Fair article

I was meaning to put this up earlier in the week but have been away for a few days for work. Seeing stargazer's thought-provoking post made me think it might be interesting to read in conjunction with that.

Some commentators are suggesting that it was this article by Todd Purdum in the August 2009 Vanity Fair that may have pushed Sarah Palin to resign as Governor of Alaska.

In terms of a feminist analysis of Sarah Palin, two quotes from the piece stood out for me:

In Evansville, though, Palin concentrated on the task at hand: an emphatic defense of the anti-abortion cause. But in doing so she made a startling confession about what she thought when she learned she was pregnant at 43 with her youngest child, Trig, who arrived in April 2008, as the world now knows, with Down syndrome. “I had found out that I was pregnant while out of state first,” Palin told the crowd. “While out of state, there just for a fleeting moment, I thought, Nobody knows me here. Nobody would ever know. I thought, Wow, it is easy to think maybe of trying to change the circumstances and no one would know—no one would ever know. Then when my amniocentesis results came back, showing what they called abnormalities—oh, dear God—I knew, I had instantly an understanding, for that fleeting moment, why someone would believe it could seem possible to change those circumstances, just make it all go away, get some normalcy back in life.” It is almost impossible not to be touched by the rawness of her confession, even if it is precisely this choice that Palin believes no other woman should ever have, not even in the case of rape or incest.

and

Another aspect of the Palin phenomenon bears examination, even if the mere act of raising it invites intimations of sexism: she is by far the best-looking woman ever to rise to such heights in national politics, the first indisputably fertile female to dare to dance with the big dogs. This pheromonal reality has been a blessing and a curse. It has captivated people who would never have given someone with Palin’s record a second glance if Palin had looked like Susan Boyle. And it has made others reluctant to give her a second chance because she looks like a beauty queen.

Read the full article here.

sarah palin no longer governor

it's old news now that sarah palin has resigned from her position as governor of alaska. all around the media and blogosphere, there is plenty of speculation about the real reason for her departure. these range from a hidden scandal yet to emerge from current investigations to the supposition that she wants to be able to spend more time campaigning for the next presidential race.

one of the issues raised was the negative and sometimes pretty nasty media commentary. there was some interesting discussion about this on an abc (american) panel. the one woman amongst five other white dudes response was "i have two words: hilary clinton". she then went on to talk about what hilary and chelsea clinton faced in the 1990s. her line was basically that if ms palin wasn't tough enough to take this kind of nastiness (she did mention that it was not a good thing, but that it was the current reality), then it was best she stay away from the limelight and not seek higher office.

of course, many feminists would rather that we work on changing the culture that savages women politicians with misogynistic putdowns. hence the sarah palin sexism watch at shakesville & also at the hoydens. and we've been pretty clear about that here as well - disagree with her politics as much as you like, but don't attack her just for being a woman. however, all feminists haven't taken that line, and one of the better posts i've read on the subject is here by violet socks at reclusive leftist (hat tip: hoyden about town).

so who knows what's next for sarah palin. even though i totally disagree with most of the policy positions i've seen her advocate, i'd actually like to see her on the republican team. if for nothing else than to watch the most conservative people defend from the kind of misogynistic attacks that they've been quite happy to make themselves.

What the hell is wrong with Palmerston North?

First we have the local Girls high school insisting that its students do not have the right to bare arms at the school dance, next up we have the local netball association saying women can't wear shorts while playing the game. I happen to think netball is a bit naff and a throw back to when ladies were seen as being too delicate to play basketball but surely we have moved on enough to let grown women wear shorts if they so desire.

responding to the economic crisis

just watched a really sweet interview on channel 7, with findlay mcdonald interviewing hon margaret wilson. as anyone who knows me will tell you, i'm a big fan of margaret, well before i met her. i didn't follow politics much at the time she was president of the labour party, but the work she did in establishing the waikato university law school was what won my admiration.

since then, of course, she's been a pioneer and had so many "firsts" that it's hard to count them. throughout her whole career, she has maintained her dignity, her integrity, and above all, her sense of humour. she's a woman who has not been recognised nearly enough in this country, and i'm sad to see her leave politics.

however, she hasn't left off activism, and i heard her speak earlier in the year at a seminar hosted by the waikato law school titled "responding to the economic crisis: a question of law, policy or politics". the speakers were margaret, prof jane kelsey & roger kerr. here are some notes i took from margaret's speech, which are probably disjointed, but i hope they make some sense and accurately reflect what she was trying to say!

the financial crisis led to the economic crisis, and nz's response has been pretty laid back. although we've avoided the worst excesses of the sub-prime debacle, there has been a knock-on effect.

one core question is whether or not there is a need for increased regulation of the financial sector. neoliberalism has resulted in a lack of deregulation, and nz saw this happening particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. the theory around deregulation was that economic prosperity would be best achieved from market forces.

but that thinking was then shifted to social policy. notions of community and society were no longer relevant. the one area that could not be controlled were the courts, so instead judges were accused of judicial activism when they made decisions that went against neoliberal policies. social and economic change are part of a democratic process, and it is not the role of the courts to be agents of social and economic change. polarisation on the issue of free market versus regulation should not be the role of the law.

there has always been regulation, there is no argument about that. the argument is over the nature and type of regulation that should be implemented. any attempt to move from minimal regulation leads to a lot of negativity. the neoliberal framework is still present as the basis of advice - privatisation has now been reinvented as PPPs.

but without the state to bail out the financial sector, we'd all be worse off. taxpayer money was used, although few benefitted. greed and the belief that the banks' self-interest would provide a corrective mechanism were also factors in the financial crisis.

in the UK, there has been much soul-searching. before the crisis, many had raised concerns: journalists, employees, academics. but they had not been listened to because financial institutions had been acting within the law.

proper analysis is required to address the cause of the crisis. there is a role for the market and a role for the state to regulate. it's very difficult to find an effective rules-based framework, because the costs of enforcement are prohibitive. the nz commerce commission has been under constant attack by players with significant amounts of money.

equality of information is required. the highest costs of litigation are the costs of discovery. there is a lack of transparency. conflicts of interest should be declared. a small cadre run nz businesses.

what is needed is a principled rather than a rules-based approach, which would lead to a lack of certainty. but then the current system has not given us certainty either. all participants must take responsibility for the good management of that system. an effective economy has checks & balances, information flows & cultures, accountability and responsibility. accountability can only happen when there is relevant and reliable information that has been independently prepared.

sufficient political pressure is required from those who have been adversely affected by the crisis if we are to see change in nz. there is a role for the law, that is not the issue. ideology must be put to one side. maintenance of trust is required by those who maintain the system.

Craccum goes Gender

You may recall something of a furore at the University of Auckland last semester over issue 12 of Craccum, with it's all-pr0n-all-the-time theme. Students expressed their concerns via the Media Complaints Tribunal and they got a great outcome, including an issue to be guest co-editored by the Women's Rights Officer and all about gender issues. And they're opening it up for content from all over the show, as long as you get it in by thisFriday (10th July).

Below is the message from the editors outlining the haps:

Greets all,

Hope this email finds you studying feverishly, or whatever. We don’t have exams. Haha.

So, semester two! As a result of the media complaints tribunal process (which was itself a result of the various contentious images and articles in issue 12) the first Craccum back after the break is going to have the theme of Gender. Caroline Fergusson, AUSA’s Women’s Rights Officer, will also be guest-starring as co-editor for the issue. We’re gonna be working with her to make sure this is the best darned gender-themed issue Craccum has ever produced. If you have a new or fresh approach to issues of gender (it’s a big umbrella, I know. Think: feminism, queer theory…basically anything to do with men, and women, and people who don’t identify with either label. Broad enough?). If you'd like, you can email contributions directly to Caroline at women@auckland.ac.nz.

Byte-counting

We seem to have reached a new plateau with June's results very similar to May's, when you take into account the fact May had one more day. Possibly also a result of a bit less posting last month. A lot of the discussion on-blog in June was about pornography, although there were dozens of posts on other issues too.

We completed our Mt Albert by-election candidate survey in June, with responses from all the parties currently in Parliament except National. John Boscawen's confusion over the Child Discipline Referendum question in our survey resulted in quite a lot of coverage on other blogs (and is alluded to in Lyndon Hood's fantastic guide to voting, hat tipped in the direction of Idiot/Savant). The Act candidate's survey response was the sixth most popular post in June.

We also sadly farewelled Deborah, who is continuing to write good stuff at her own place thank goodness!

June 2009:
Posts: 111 (average of 26 per week)

Average of four most commented posts: [45+44+42+35]/4 = 42

Most commented on post: Pornography: fostering and perpetuating demeaning attitudes towards women a rather ahem controversial guest post from Caroline Ferguson. (45 comments)

Also popular in the comment department: Enid's Pr0n Wars part I (35 comments), Deborah's Ground rules in the first, second and third person (42 comments), The ex-expat's Danger pregnant woman alert! (44 comments), Abortion provider murdered also by Deborah (33 comments) and Treat as a criminal by Julie (also 33 comments).

Guest posts: School balls, queer youth and Stonewall: How far have we come? by Louise, Caroline's aforementioned post on pornography, and The Silenced from Anna Ponnampalam. You can see all past guest posts here.

Page loads: 29,994 (1000 a day, slightly down on May)

Biggest day: 10th June (1600 hits)

Unique visitors: 20,603 (687 a day)

These last three sets of stats are all based on Statcounter, and have been for all the previous byte-counting posts. I'll be continuing to report the Statcounter ones because they require less effort on my part. Our Tumeke ranking is based in part on the Extreme Tracking daily uniques figure, which was 515 for April (Statcounter showed 585).

Our Tumeke blog ranking for April: 12th (May not out at the time of posting this)

Top 5 most popular posts in June according to Google Analytics:

1. Makeover for Dora by the ex-expat (still incredibly popular thanks to the Stroller Derby link)
2. Pr0n Wars Part I: Teh 4play by Enid which sparked off a flurry of other posts too.
3. Pornography: fostering and perpetuating demeaning attitudes towards women a rather controversial guest post from Caroline Ferguson.
4. Another good blog goes down by Anjum, about the break in blogging at Shakesville.
5. The Silenced a guest post from Anna Ponnampalam about the recent history of Tamil female combatants and the women of Tamil Eelam.

Coming up in July:

* On-blog discussion of the moderation and comment policy of the blog and a few other areas we want some feedback on
* Planning for an Auckland Hand Mixer in August - we are currently looking at possibly Fridays 7th or 14th, any preferences speak now!

Past byte-counts:
May 2009 stats
April 2009 stats
March 2009 stats
February 2009 stats.
January 2009 stats.
December 2008 stats.
November 2008 stats.

Thanks once again to you all for helping to make this happen!

Behind the Scenes winner 2009

And the winner was...

Her World by Fiona Young (embedded after the jump)

This 2 minute clip focuses on the contrast between the two parts of a young woman's life, highlighting that the difference is caused by domestic violence. I thought the shot where she pauses at the door was brilliantly done, very true. As with the runner-up, no violence is portrayed on screen, however this one does have the sounds of fighting which may be triggering for some viewers.

It would be great if the Behind the Scenes competition becomes an annual event. If anyone is interested in helping make this so, particularly in terms of the money-side of things, please do get in touch with the organisers.

not so delicate

one of the joys of freeview is that i've been able to watch a decent amount of tennis in the past week. it's one of the few sports that i enjoy watching any more - i used to love cricket, but have gone off it since the match-fixing scandals. and because i refuse to get sky for a number of reasons, there's not very much sport to choose from. no chance to see badminton, table tennis, volleyball...

the final between the williams sisters had some wonderful tennis, but was way too short. both the commentators and joseph romanos on radio nz (nine-to-noon, friday, 11.30am) were advocating strongly for 5-set games for women. mr romanos in particular was very articulate about the notion that the 3-set game was predicated on the outdated notion that women were too weak/delicate to last for 5 sets. he said the same thing had been said about women's marathons, but women now run a full marathon without any problems.

i'd certainly be interested in watching 5-set games for women, although i don't know if the players are interested in playing for that long. one of the commenters suggested that the finals should be 5 setters, and that's possibly a good way to start the transition to 5 sets.

in any case, i'm looking forward to the men's final as well. i'm a total roger federer fan, and by the time this goes up, the result will be known. my fingers are crossed!

carnival time!

ok folks, it's finally up. you can read through the 14th down under feminists carnival here.

Behind the Scenes second place winner

As promised earlier in the week, here's the runner-up in the Behind the Scenes competition (after the jump hopefully).

It's just over a minute and a half long, called A Mug's Game, and I thought it was very well scripted for the target subject (violence within boyfriend/girlfriend relationships) and audience (the youf). It looks to me to be shot in one take (Johnny the Red would know). The end left me feeling quite stunned, although there isn't any violence on screen.

Check it out, assuming I've managed to do the technical side correctly, and I'll put up the winner on Monday!

Complaint against Richard Worth withdrawn

From Stuff just before lunchtime:

Police confirmed this morning that the woman at the centre of sexual allegations against former National minister Richard Worth has dropped the complaint.

3 News said last night that the Korean woman had made the move on the advice of police. She felt the political damage to Dr Worth had been sufficient and that going through the courts would be an additional ordeal.

A Wellington police spokeswoman confirmed in a statement this morning that the complaint had been formally withdrawn, but said: "At no time did Police suggest to the complainant that she should withdraw her complaint."

The statement said police "will need to assess all the information we have to bring the file to a state of finality."

...Mr Key received an email from the complainant about the alleged incident. 3 News said it had seen the email and it described how she and Dr Worth had been drinking wine at a hotel. She felt tired and went to bed and was woken by a naked Dr Worth.

Other details in the email went some way to explaining why Mr Key lost confidence in him, the report said...

I think we should be clear here that when the woman who dropped the complaint says going through the courts would be a further ordeal I suspect she means for her, not for Worth. Given the current trial of the man who has admitted killing Sophie Elliott, I can understand why she would make that decision. I just cannot understand how Clayton Weatherston can even think any level of provocation, any at all, could be sufficient to justify what he did.

Don't even start me on the ridiculous defence argument in the trial of Nai Yin Xue. And the treatment of Neelima Choudray would also have given this woman pause. When oh when are we going to stop blaming those at the sharp end for harassment, stalking, rape, assault, even murder.

Worth made it clear he denied the accusations absolutely and that he would fight and fight. He has the wherewithal and the legal contacts to make that last a significant period of time.

Like Idiot/Savant, this doesn't smell much like justice to me.

Quick hit: Laydeez are enginuious

From today's Herald:

More female engineers are needed to design better futures, the University of Auckland told 240 Year 13 pupils at a girls-only Enginuity Day yesterday.

To encourage more women to choose engineering as a career, the engineering faculty hosted a day-long programme for female physics and calculus students from 38 secondary schools...

The faculty's equity adviser for women in engineering, Robyn MacLeod, said it hoped to achieve a 50/50 split in student gender. Females now account for 22 per cent of the 500 people who begin engineering degrees each year.

Ms MacLeod said it was important to have women engineers so females' needs were considered when designing systems.

...For example, early voice synthesisers could not detect women's voices because of their naturally high pitch, she said.

Ms MacLeod hoped parents would encourage their daughters to consider a career in engineering. "Parents don't realise it is such a fantastic career for girls. [They] don't necessarily encourage girls to be engineers."

...The Institution of Professional Engineers says there is only one woman to every 10 males in its membership.

Click through for the whole thing.

I was recently at a symposium about a different occupation in a different sector and there was a man there from Career Services who spoke about how people, particularly young people, make choices about what they want to do, and thus what they will study or train in. He said that the biggest influence on these decisions were the views of parents, and then the views of peers. School careers advice was one of the lowest influences. So it's good to see the faculty adviser acknowledging the role of parents, and focusing some attention on them.

The link between female employment and fertility rates

One of the most significant social issues in Japan and a topic of extensive soul-searching is the declining birthrate. The population in that country has now reached a point where it is not replacing itself and this leads to massive concern about what will happen in the future. However, while living in Japan it also became very clear to me that Japan's awful working culture seemed to have much to do with this. It is very difficult in Japan to be a working mother, and as the economic situation has deteriorated it has become more and more difficult for a family to get by on one income.

A recent special report in the Economist explores the issue of aging populations and declining fertility levels. In New Zealand, which has a relatively youthful population and good levels of immigration it is difficult to imagine the angst that this topic causes in countries such as South Korea, Italy and Japan. What does the Economist say is the reason for the decline?

[Florian Coulmas] reckons that the only way Japanese women can manage their difficult lives is by postponing marriage and having fewer, if any, children. Because of the country’s culture of long working hours, husbands with good jobs spend little time at home and expect their wives to cope with all domestic tasks. No wonder that 70% of Japanese women stop work when their first child arrives. If they return to it at all it is usually much later, and then mostly to badly paid and unchallenging part-time jobs. By then they may already be caught up in another domestic bind: looking after their husband’s old parents.

This is not just something being seen in Japan.

Japan is an extreme example, but many other rich countries have similar problems. One reason why there are fewer babies is that women everywhere are marrying and having children much later in life. Between 1970 and 2000 the mean age at which women had their first child in a range of OECD countries rose by more than a year every decade, and many more women now have their families in their 30s. The question is whether they have the same number of children as before but later, or whether they will have fewer overall.

Anna Cristina d’Addio, an expert on fertility policy at the OECD in Paris, thinks they will probably have fewer children in total than if they had started earlier, even though more of them now give birth in their 40s. Surveys show that women generally start off wanting bigger families than they end up with. If the children do not start arriving until later in life, there is less time to reach that ideal number. And once people have got used to smaller families, the number of children they say they want shrinks too. Demographers talk about a “low-fertility trap”.

The good news is that there is a proven solution to this problem: high female employment and high fertility do go together.

For a while birth rates were lower in countries where lots of women worked outside the home, but more recently that trend has been reversed: higher fertility and higher employment rates for women go together.

That may not be as counter-intuitive as it seems. In a modern society children are an economic liability, not an asset. They have to be fed, clothed, housed, looked after, educated and entertained. As a rule of thumb, economists reckon that a family with one child needs 30% more income than a childless couple to maintain the same living standard. The obvious way to keep the household financially afloat is for the mother to go out to work.

If governments anxious to rejuvenate their populations want her to do that, they can help in a number of ways. Extensive research in 16 OECD countries has shown that there is a strong correlation between high female employment rates and large government cash transfers to families, generous replacement pay during parental leave, the availability of plenty of part-time work and lots of formal child care. Where all these things are present, fertility rates tend to go up. France and most of the Nordic countries have embraced such policies and been rewarded with a rise in fertility close to replacement level. It does not come cheap: the OECD reckons that they spend 3-4% of GDP on direct benefits to families, far more than do Germany, Japan and southern Europe.

Full article here.

Thursdays in Black: Blanket appeal

Found in the Central Leader yesterday, Marist College in Mt Albert is coordinating a blanket drive to provide blankets and rugs to women's refuges and emergency housing.

Marist's social justice group of around 400 girls have come up with the idea, and project organiser Carolyn Phillips says "The students felt that with winter well and truly here, they would concentrate their efforts on helping women and children who no longer find it safe to live in their home and for families in emergency housingn facilities."

If you have any clean blankets or rugs to contribute you can take them into the school office or phone Ms Phillips on 09 846-8311 for more information.

an old girls network

very interesting interview this morning on radio nz (nine to noon, 9.20am) with mai chen and the rt hon jenny shipley. here is the audio, and here is the blurb from the radio nz page:

More than seventy of New Zealand's top women business leaders are joining forces to create a new organisation that will connect them across businesses, sectors and international borders.

Membership is by invitation only, and is limited to women who hold senior leadership roles in influential organisations. They must have demonstrated thought leadership and vision and have a track record of supporting other women to leadership positions.

London School of Business research identifies that creating supportive networks is critical to advancing talented women. Interviews during the development of Global Women revealed that even high-achieving women under-invest in their social capital, often due to multiple demands on their time. Global Women come from across the private and public sectors; from the sciences, arts and not-for-profit enterprises. They are based in New Zealand, the United States, Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and China.

the interview brought up some good points, discussing issues around keys to success and the importance of mentoring. the only thing that bothers me about this is that it's so elite, so will only help a very limited number of women.