what's it worth?

as a chartered accountant, i'm required to complete at least 20 hours of structured professional development every year. which means that i attend courses put on by various tax specialists, by the institute of chartered accountants and sometimes by lawyers - accountants are dealing with various aspects of the law after all.

today i spent a few hours getting a refresher on property relationship laws, particularly where they intersect with the setting up of trusts. i particularly hate going to these types of courses, because the underlying theme always seem to be that women are bloodsucking leeches (sorry, my girls have twilight fever & it must be catching!) from whom wealthy men must protect their property.

sometimes it's pretty overt, other times covert. but it tends to be pretty consistent, particularly in the way that case law is presented. today we had a woman presenter, so it wasn't as bad as usual, but still...

for example, we had a case of a man who loved antique cars, and bought a rundown old dump for some small amount (say $500) and spent another small amount on parts. the bulk of his input was the time he spent doing the thing up. lo and behold, when he had completed the task, the car ended up being worth $80,000.

and he had to pay half of this amount to his ex as part of the divorce settlement. and pretty much everyone in the room (even the women) shook their heads at how unfair this was. me, totally annoyed on the inside, said lightly "well, she was probably spending all her time raising the kids while he just mucked around in the garage", which got a couple of chuckles.

but i hate it. i hate the way these things are presented all. the. time. i hate the way that women's contributions are so undervalued because they happened to be unpaid, and that any large settlements they get are seen as undeserved. i don't have time to do the research now, but from what i recall, divorce settlements in the country are hardly generous towards women. it's one reason why single mothers feature so highly in our poverty statistics.

Kia kaha

This term, my daughter and her class have begun the Kia Kaha programme, an anti-bullying initiative run by the New Zealand Police. The programme involves officers visiting schools, teaching kids to think about the impacts of their words and actions on others.*

I heartily approve of any initiative that discourages bullying and promotes empathy and kindness. But I do have some misgivings about the fact that this programme is taught by the Police.

The behaviour of individual Police officers - Richards, Shipton and Schollum are but three examples - is one concern I have; but it's not my chief concern. My unease comes from the way the Police have recently been promoting themselves to potential recruits. There's the ad where a female Police officer is briefing fellow officers about to search for a missing child ... until she snaps out of her daydream, and we realise she's just a primary school teacher wishing she had a 'real' job. There was another ad which featured a male Police officer chasing a fleeing offender in the dark, tackling him on railway tracks - viewers were invited to text for more details on how to join up.

These 'Get better work stories' ads have promoted the Police as a career for those who want an adventure. Although Police recruitment and promotional materials are increasingly featuring female faces, the tone of their advertising remains blokey. By implication, other work - like primary teaching - is a bit dull, or maybe even for sissies. However, the so-called soft skills are essential to Police work. The ability to deal sensitively with a distraught victim, help an elderly person secure their home or deal courteously with inquiries from the public, is essential to the role the Police play in our society. It seems to me that the Police downplay the importance of these skills at their peril.

Both times my daughter has done the Kia Kaha programme, it's been taught by a female Police officer. I've got a suspicion that this is no coincidence - I'd guess that women officers are thought more suitable to do soft skills work than men, and that community policing like this is regarded as peripheral to 'real' Police work. I think that the Kia Kaha programme is laudable, but I feel that if the Police really want it to be effective, they have to show they're walking the talk. They, too, need to show they value the skills of communication, empathy and caring that the programme teaches: and that includes the blokes, not just the female officers.

* Paul Henry might consider enrolling?

28x more betterer

Apparently if Wriggly did X then he would be "better".

I heard this news second hand, from a reliable source, last week, and it stopped me in my tracks. As my chin headed floor-wards, and my eyebrows to the ceiling, I was without words to verbalise either the ridiculousness or the judgy-ness of the comment. It was so many types of wrong I didn't know which one to refute first. I settled for a withering stare, which my informant agreed with.

Why do we do this to each other, this Olympic mothering? Why do we make such hurtful and gratuitous comments, unleashing them from the smug confines of our brains to slash at others.

The identity of X is irrelevant. It's not something I'm against, but it's something that doesn't suit our family right now. X would not make Wriggly smilier or hugglier or happier. It might help him to develop in some areas faster than he is now, but it also might not. I'm quite comfortable to just let the boy grow and change as he will, without pushing or pulling or prodding. He's a child, and he will just develop as he does, to some extent regardless of what those around him do beyond loving and supporting him and giving him opportunities.

Note to the world at large: most mothers are going to bristle when you assert that their offspring could be better. Do so at your peril.

Quick hit: Soft love

The Herald reports on an initiative around parenting aimed at Pacific Islanders in South Auckland:

The Gladiators of Change programme aims to turn tough fathers - and now mothers - into encouraging and understanding parents.

Initiated by the Anglican Trust for Women and Children in Otahuhu, the event has been running for three years but tonight will be the first time a session aimed at mothers will be part of it.

...

Mr Tuitasi - who has been managing the Ministry of Social Development's Pacific Youth Development Strategy for the past two years - says the Gladiators event is about changing the view among Pacific parents that being tough is the way to raise children.

"A lot of Pacific kids are just scared of their parents. That's not good.

"There's been cases of parents saying: 'You will pass [exams] or else' and when they fail, the kid looks at it, is scared and hangs himself in the garage.

"Gladiators is about building relationships with your kids so they feel safe to approach you with their issues," Mr Tuitasi said.

The event - held at Otahuhu College - will address traditional cultural views and expectations on children as young Pacific Islanders growing up in New Zealand.

Around 500 men turned out to last year's event - which was originally aimed at changing tough attitudes of Pacific fathers.

But the programme has been expanded to include Pacific mothers and tonight Unitec's Linda Aumua will take to the stage.

Click through for the whole article.

The Anglican Trust for Women and Children does some great work in the community around family issues, and I hope this event is a great success for them.

Favourite carnival coming up

Some of you may have other carnivals that you love, love, love, but my favourite is the Down Under Feminists Carnival. I love the connections with other women from Aotearoa-New Zealand and Australia, and the sense of antipodean community. I love that even while we may disagree on detail, there is a great and joyful agreement on being feminists, on seeing the world through women's eyes, on picking up bloody great shovels and getting on with the work of making a better world for women.

Submissions for the next Down Under Feminists Carnival are due. The submission deadline has been extended slightly, to the 2nd of April - that's midnight, Thursday. I haven't been able to work out whether that's midnight NZ-time, or midnight two hours later in Sydney and Melbourne and Hobart, or half an hour after that in South Australia, or another half hour on from that in Brisbane (this time around at least; by next month when daylight saving time ends Queensland will be back in sync with the other eastern states), or one hour further on again in Perth. Whatever. Get your posts in by midnight on Thursday NZ time, and you should be fine. Anything feminist (broadly interpreted) by any blogger downunder, either here downunder, or from downunder, posted during March is eligible for this edition of the carnival. Nominate some of your own work, or make another woman feel appreciated by nominating her post(s) for the carnival.

To put a submission in, go to the blog carnival page, and fill out the form. If you can't get the form to work for you, you can e-mail this month's host directly at: sjmorris1987 at gmail dot com.

Carnival founder Lauredhel has hosts for the few few carnivals, including our own lovely Anjum, at her own place, and THM regular azlemed at her own blog, but she needs hosts for August and subsequent carnivals. If you can host the carnival, then contact Lauredhel at her g-mail address. She uses lauredhelhoyden as her g-mail handle.

democracy for some, but not for others

we live in an open democracy. which means that every person is free to join a political party, to join a protest, or to take part in democratic processes. or so you would think.

so why would CYFs staff be categorically told that they were not allowed to take part in a protest against the canning of the pay equity investigation? especially when the canning of said investigation directly affects their workplace? and when the protest is outside of their work hours?

can an employer forbid an employee to take part in a political protest? it's not like this particular protest will bring the employer into disrepute, because it wasn't CYFs that canned the investigation, it was the minister of state services ie it was not even the minister of social development who is ultimately responsible for CYFs. it's not like it's some kind of racist protest by the national front, or behaviour that is objectionable in any way.

i have a real problem with this, particularly in light of the redundancies across the public sector. at a time when jobs are being cut willy-nilly in an attempt to prove that the government is "doing something", obviously those who are visible activists or who make any kind of vocal complaint will be the first to go. fear of losing their livelihoods will mean that employees will be extremely reluctant to raise issues of injustice in their workplaces.

i've also had a doctor working in a public hospital not joining a political party because they believed they're not allowed to, as a public servant. even though they support that party's objectives and want to participate in policy discussions, they believe they can't do so because they are required to be neutral as public servants. even in their out-of-work time.

i don't know where they are getting this message from, but it really bothers me. sure they can't be political in their work time and as part of their work activities, but i don't see how their out-of-work time can be controlled in this way.

i had another experience tonight at an office of ethnic affairs workshop on making submissions to select committees. when we broke into groups for discussion, one member of our group told us that he was not allowed to make submissions because of his position. he wouldn't reveal what that position was - i'm wondering if he is a justice of peace who sits on some kind of legal tribunal. but again, it bothered me that he felt he was unable to participate in the democratic process.

surely, in a free and open democracy everyone has the right to participate, to associate with whomsover they please and to take part in legitimate protest action. but this is obviously not the reality for everyone in this country.

Daring to be different

Here at The Hand Mirror, we've given quite a bit of attention to Paul Henry's obnoxious comments about Stephanie Mills of Greenpeace and her physical appearance. I won't rehash what has been said but have decided to take a slightly different tact and write about what it is like to be different.


Most people don't know I live with a physical deformity. Why would they? I'm tall, reasonably slender and have all my limbs. I run half marathons and go to the gym. I have a beauty regime where I spend far too much time not to mention money on, shaving, waxing, make up and hair cuts. But underneath I know that I would still be seen as a freak of nature by people like Paul Henry. The accepted wisdom in fashion circles is that if you've got it, flaunt it, if you don't well then you best cover it up.

So cover it up I do.

I don't own any v-neck tops, bikinis, halter neck dresses or well anything that might give anyone indication that things aren't quite right with my chest. However you can't fool all the people all the time and thus shopping for bras is my own special form of hell. It's in the changing room that I can't hide that my sternum (breastbone) doesn't look like most people's, its buckled inwards creating a fist-sized hole.

I suppose in many ways I'm lucky from the poor blokes who also are blessed with a disfigured chest insofar as I've at least got a pair of breasts to cover most of the damn thing up. To the untrained eye I look like I was blessed with a far more generous cleavage rather than cursed with a physical disfigurement. But I've had a lifetime of reminders many of which have not been so friendly that I'm not normal. Finding a bra where my left breast doesn't fall into the hole is downright impossible so I'm stuck with finding 'sort of fits' and sometimes I've left a store without purchase because of stupid comments I've received from idiot saleswomen over the years.

But what the does all this have to do with Stephanie Mills's upper lip? Well if a little bit of facial hair is seen as legitimate excuse to express disgust and ridicule what the hell would Henry et al make of people like me who have to live with something far worse?

I'm pretty sure I'd get some rather nasty comments after which they'd probably tell me to get fixed.

Well by golly I wish I had thought of that.

I've spent years on waiting lists but so far our public health system is none too keen on funding a $30,000 operation on something that isn't lethal. And as for the private system no insurance policy in the land covers the condition because the condition is congenital, the very definition of a pre-existing condition. And although I'm now at the point where I could pay for the procedure out of pocket right now, there'd be months of agony involved and a large chance the correction could fail because my bones are simply too old to be bent back into shape.

But before I get accused of throwing myself a pity party, I've long since given up any hope of having normal chest and have accepted that these are the cards I've been dealt in life. Through my teen years and early twenties I thought I had been dealt a pretty shitty hand, but now that I'm honing in on 30 I've realized that my chest is an in-built 'asshole alert' that has served me well throughout my dating life. Those who choose the low route get kicked to the kurb because they were obviously an asshole in 'nice guy' clothing while those who accepted or better yet found something kinky to do with my weird chest get the reward of spending time with me. I'm not going to pretend there haven't been times where I've been rejected because of my weird chest and I have no doubt that I have been the star of many humorous one night stand stories. However I feel strongly that who I am crosses many roles, and my self-confidence is not wrapped up in being someone's girlfriend.

But sometimes I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle.

Girls and women are taught practically from birth to compete viciously with each other regarding appearance, as if physical attributes are the only traits we should value and treasure about ourselves or other females. Which makes Henry's comments even more depressing as they really are a small drop in a rather large ocean. But I like to think that this makes the Stephanie Mills of this world even more important than her detractors ever will be. They dare to be different because they choose to which in turn makes things a little easier for those of us who don't get much choice in the matter.

Monday Funday: with delusion

Because the last week has been too much about what women look like and not enough about what have actually said or done.

From the amazingly wonderful Jacky Fleming.

Early one morning in Mt Roskill

Thoughts of Public Address authors are not something that normally occupy my grey matter at 2.20am on a week day. Last Wednesday though Russell Brown came to mind after I was awoken by a very loud verbal conflict somewhere nearby. Much swearing from a man to a woman, and she was yelling back but not as clearly or loudly. Then there was an almighty crash.

I lay there wondering whether or not to call the cops. My partner, and Wriggly, and the cat for that matter, slept on. I thought about a colleague who had told me recently about a terrible fight she'd heard through her apartment wall, and that she had rung the cops. Still I dithered. What if there wasn't anything to it? What if I was just wasting police time?

Then I thought of the It's Not OK campaign and my mind was made up. I made the call, was dealt with very pleasantly by the 111 woman, and went back to bed, still listening. About ten minutes later a knock at the door, a brief chat with a police officer, I pointed at the house I thought most likely, and that was it. No one was concerned I had wasted their time, and both police personnel I spoke with took it seriously and were glad I called. Sounds like I wasn't the only one.

It worries me that social campaigns like It's Not OK could be casualties of this National-led Government. How can you measure "more likely to ring the police when hears a possible fight in the night"? Fewer injuries from domestic violence would surely deliver productivity gains, but no one turns up to work and says "before we changed our attitudes about beating our partners I would have been too battered to come in today."

These are the programmes that pay big dividends down the track, in much the way that the drink driving campaigns have had a huge impact on our road toll. Cut them now and we'll never know just how much good they could have done in ten or twenty years time.

Quick hit: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The Herald yesterday reported that women are suffering an "exhaustion epidemic":

Director of the Sleep/Wake Research Centre at Massey University, Professor Philippa Gander, said the expectation of working long hours is detrimental to our health.

"We talk about it as being an epidemic because it's dangerous and many, many people suffer from various sleep issues.

"Women will often work two jobs or work nights, which is where you are more likely to make an error because your body is less functional and sleeping through the day is harder because you are working against your normal body clock."

Bartle said those who found they only had two or three hours of sleep a night should try to take a nap during the day or catch up on "sleep debt" on the weekends.

"Our lifestyle does need to change and you need to make the time to sleep," he said.

Click through for the whole article.

Excuse me, I need to go nap.

Precisely why Paul Henry's judgyness is unacceptable to me

Because it's Henry and his ilk who make women fearful to speak in case their looks are picked apart.

Because a woman who is interviewed about something unrelated to her appearance should not have to put up with the discussion being refocused to that. Especially when what she has to say is too challenging for the host's mental abilities.

Because there is a gender element to this; I can never imagine Paul Henry reading out a fax about Don Brash being wrinkly and how he should get botox. Not that that would be ok.

Because there is also a right-wing bias to this; part of the reason Henry would never read out a fax criticising Brash's appearance is because he is a member of the same political club. He frequently belittles left-wing commentators on the show, usually after they are gone and can no longer reply. These are not the actions of a responsible journalist.

Because he didn't respect his fellow presenter, Alison Mau, when she pleaded with him not to read the fax out. Anyone else think he might have thought twice if he'd had a man next to him saying no?

Because I would really like my nieces to grow up in a world where what they say and do is more important than what they looked like at the time.

Because if Paul Henry seriously thinks that everyone else watching Stephanie Mills was only thinking about her facial hair then he needs to get out of the studio, out of the A List events, to where real people talk about real things, like climate change, and the recession, and workers rights, and putting food on the table, and even how to ice cupcakes, not whether or not someone else should wax.

Because Henry's revelling in the attention and thinks it's a huge laugh. I don't know what Stephanie Mills thinks about it but I do know what I think about it. His indifference is the most frustrating thing for me; he doesn't get it, he doesn't want to get it, he doesn't even get that he is so not getting it. He doesn't care, and we can't make him care.

Which is why I sincerely hope that his boss, or the BSA, or the advertisers on Breakfast might be able to get through to him precisely why he should care. Not because he could lose his job, or the show could lose ratings or advertisers; but because what he did was unacceptable. I have this nasty feeling that he's going to twist it all around until he's the victim, and the champion of free speech, when in fact his actions are part of a culture of stifling the speech of those he doesn't agree with.

The problem here is not the response of viewers to Henry. The problem is Henry.

Info for emailing TVNZ and others can be found here.

I don't get these people

In unionism there is a communication technique called Anger Hope Action. It is useful to talk workers who are dispirited through how they can change what is getting them down. The general gist is that anger is the antidote to fear, hope is the antidote to feeling powerless, and action is the stuff you do towards making the change you want.

I'm disturbed that there are people out there on the Left who do not get angry about stuff. Being angry does not mean you are incapable of a rational response. It does not mean that you can't contribute constructively. It does mean that you are passionate, and interested, and care. It means that you are probably prepared to do something, rather than nothing.

So I'm at a bit of a loss about some of the responses I've seen lately:

• Pay equity for women - apparently it's not a real pay gap, just a function of the market, down to individual women's actions, nothing to see here
• Paul Henry's obsession with Stephanie Mills' facial hair - can't you take a joke? let's just ridicule him by saying he was the first person in the world to lose an election to a transexual, if we pay this any attention then it'll just get him more ratings, he was just saying what everyone was thinking anyway, you don't write anything about Islamic oppression of women therefore you should just shut up
• Sexist attacks on Pauline Hanson via faked photos - you're just giving the issue more oxygen and making it a news story by discussing it in the first place, and also her politics are awful so she is getting what she deserves
• Female politicians being ranked for their beauty - it's just one facet of the way they are judged, they probably like that people think they are beautiful, besides I've had better

I'm sure I could go back further than the last week or so and come up with many many more. The underlying theme is one that is blind to the privilege of the writer, and often has to seek refuge in the idea that because New Zealand is "not as bad" as other places overseas we should just STFU.

To me it's an analysis that denies how change happens in our society. Changes happens because enough people say they want it. They'll express that differently, and they'll work towards the change they want differently too, but being silent and doing nothing changes absolutely nothing. Waiting for someone else to do it may work, but sniping at those who speak up for change is generally counter-productive.
This picture was a snap I stole from somewhere during the trials around Rickards, Shipton, Schollum, McNamara and Dewar. I can't remember where it came from, so I apologise that I'm unable to give that hat tip. The Louise Nicholas case, and associated trials, seemed to me to breakthrough to many New Zealanders who weren't normally roused to anger. The groundswell was slow to build, and underground for a long time, and for me it wasn't until I was present at Louise Nicholas's book signing in Auckland that I realised it wasn't just the circles I moved in who were outraged. I think that when we are silent about these matters many people think they are alone in their anger, when in fact they are not.

If we say nothing in opposition then Pakeha culture takes that as consent. It is different in Maori tikanga, on the marae and at hui, but out here in the mainstream to be silent is to agree. When we get angry here, and we say something, we're standing up and disagreeing. Why some others would rather sit down and "tactfully discredit" people like Paul Henry, using bigoted statements that don't actually challenge the world view he espouses, is beyond me.

Rough justice

Following Paul's Henry's infantile outburst this week, I didn't think the media could possibly irk me any further. I was wrong.

Today's Sunday Star Times reported that Kristin Dunne-Powell, whose back was broken in a vicious assault by her ex-partner Tony Veitch, is moving overseas. No surprises there: Dunne-Powell's life in NZ has become all but untenable. Her boss is quoted is saying it would be very hard for her to continue in her job. Veitch, incapable of admitting that his actions were simply and utterly wrong, has insinuated that Dunne-Powell was 'asking for it' by irritating him - and the media have cheerfully lapped up this apologist bullshit.

Today's article reported that, if and when Veitch comes to trial, Dunne-Powell will be flown back to New Zealand at the taxpayers' expense. To which I answer, so f*cking what? The woman was a victim of a serious assault which broke her back - should she have to personally meet the costs of the justice process in a country where she can no longer even live? The mere idea of treating a victim of crime this way is repugnant (and yet I don't see Garth McVicar up in arms about it - funny, that.).

The Sunday Star Times has published this with one intention: to generate ill-will against Dunne-Powell. If Veitch had shattered the spine of someone else - a relative, a colleague, a stranger - would the media try to undermine his victim? Of course not - because that would be a real assault, unlike 'lashing out' at your ex-girlfriend.

Calling Dunedin parents of pre-schoolers: Mind the Brain

Mind the Brain started up in Dunedin recently:

Dunedin’s new monthly forum is for parents who wish to remain connected to the world beyond the domestic sphere by meeting once a month to hear guest speakers talk on current affairs, politics, science to literature and the environment.

There's a Facebook group, and their next event is on April 21st, when local MP Clare Curran will speak.

The forum runs every third Tuesday of the month from 9am to 10am at Croque-o-dile in the Garden Cafe, Dunedin Botanical Gardens. For more info or to get in touch check out their website.

Usually I find myself wishing I lived in Wellington, but for once I'm thinking wistfully of Dunedin instead!

Paul Henry MCP round-up

There's been rather a lot of Blogland writing about this, including (in reverse chronological order):

*Paul Henry's views - james, Editing the Herald
*Precisely why Paul Henry's judgyness is unacceptable to me - Julie, here
*I don't get these people - Julie, here
Paul Henry defends his right to act like a child - Anna, here
You can has entitlement issues - Queen of Thorns, Ideologically Impure - a must read
Sack Henry Now. - Tane, The Standard
Moustachegate - Bridget Saunders (yes, you read that right), Stuff
Guest post: Paul Henry makes a bad bad choice - Gina, here
Morning Sickness: NZ's Real Life David Brent - Catherine Delahunty, frogblog
*Paul Henry Insults Breakfast Guest - Ana Samways, Spare Room
If I've missed your post please add in it comments.

*Also, there's a Facebook group, if that's how you roll.

Say Nothing and Nothing Changes
1. Make a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA)
You can do this online at http://www.bsa.govt.nz/complain-formstandard.php
(Thanks to Lex in comments for this info.)

2. Email the head of TVNZ with your views
Here’s TVNZ chief executive Rick Ellis’ email address - rick.ellis@tvnz.co.nz
(Hat tip to The Standard)

3. Let the relevant Breakfast advertisers know why you won't be watching the show and thus their adverts

• Heritage Hotels are the main sponsors and their media enquiries should go to susang@heritagehotels.co.nz
  
• Nivea recently gave away some stuff on Breakfast
• Telstra Clear have an ad on their webpage at the TVNZ site

Anyone have any idea who else advertises on the show?
(Hat tip to Anita at Kiwipolitico)

If you're not sure what to write I recommend the comment thread on Gina's post which has some great points. Even a sentence that says something like you are appalled at Paul Henry's irrelevant comments about Stephanie Mills' appearance and want Henry to apologise publicly/be sacked/whatever, would do the trick. Do remember to include what you want as an outcome in your message.

Meanwhile, over in other parts of Blogland Henry has his defenders (and Mills her nasty detractors):
The Houstache - Cactus Kate (rather unsurprisingly) knights Henry for his actions.
Paul Henry - King of Un-PC - Busted Blonde goes even further

I'll update this all as opportunity arises. *'s indicate newish content - most recently updated 2.20pm Monday 30th March.

Paul Henry defends his right to act like a child

TVNZ has received a number of complaints about Paul Henry, following his making fun of Greenpeace's Stephanie Mills for her facial hair. But this champion of free speech is unrepentant and refuses to apologise to the many people he has offended and upset.

In his capacity as a maker of profound social observations, Henry also added, "The thing that interested me wasn't the fact that she had facial hair. It was the fact that everyone can be amazed by it, everyone can be thinking about it, everyone can see it as an interesting thing, but no one can say anything". Good stuff, Paul. Thought-provoking. Could it be that most people, by the time they reach adulthood, develop a sort of filtering mechanism that stops them from saying every single dumb thing that pops into their heads?

The highlight of the linked article is the beautifully understated comment of the University of Otago's Dr Annabel Cooper, who said of Henry, "They should get grown-ups to host those shows". But the thing is, if someone's made it to Henry's age without working out why belittling and hurting other people is a bad idea, there's really not much hope for them.

Keeping house

I've updated the blogroll a bit this morning, from Tumeke's latest rankings list which came out earlier this week.*

This has meant adding in more than ten blogs which have women contributing to them, or writing alone. I've also shifted frogblog to the womanly portion of the blogroll, in recognition of reasonably regular posts from their female MPs. Just Left has gone back to the Other NZ Blogs section, as the swag of new posters there has yet to include a lady, and Jafapete's come off it as he has decamped to join Kiwipolitico.

We've had quite a few people emailing or commenting lately suggesting their own blogs (or those of others) and all of those have been added, even though I haven't posted a comment confirming that.

Anything to add, please do let us know!

I've also finally got around to adding a Google Calendar widget in the sidebar which lists upcoming events that may be of interest to readers. At the moment I've only been able to find one women's radio show (on VBC). It seems that other student radio stations have largely ditched these kinds of formats, in favour of having a massive variety of musical genre shows. If you're aware of anything, regular or one-off, to add to the calendar feel free to email me julie dot fairey at gmail dot com, and much gratitude to those who are already doing so.


* A massive thank you to everyone who has contributed to getting us to our highest spot ever - 12th. If you are reading this, that means you!

Mixing and matching

A woman I know invented a solution to the dilemma faced by some married women: whether or not to change their names.

This woman and her husband took a syllable from each of their surnames, and put them together. Each then legally changed their name to the new hybrid name. Any future debates on what last name their kids should have were also solved. Best of all, the invented name actually sounded like a real one.

The hybrid name isn't quite enough to lure me away from my own name or de facto status - but I thought it was egalitarian and rather clever!

Friday Feminist - Naomi Wolf

Cross posted

Feminism gave us laws against job discrimination based on gender; immediately case law evolved in Britain and the United States that institutionalized job discrimination based on women's appearances. Patriarchal religion declined; new religious dogma, using some of the mind-altering techniques of older cults and sects, arose around age and weight to functionally supplant traditional ritual. Feminists, inspired by Friedan, broke the stranglehold on the women's popular press of advertisers for household products, who were promoting the feminine mystique; at once, the diet and skin care industries became the new cultural censors of women's intellectual space, and because of their pressure, the gaunt, youthful model supplanted the happy housewife as the model of successful womanhood. The sexual revolution promoted the discovery of female sexuality; "beauty pornography" - which for the first time in women's history artificially links a commodified "beauty" directly and explicitly to sexuality - invaded the mainstream to undermine women's new and vulnerable sense of sexual self-worth. Reproductive rights game Western women control over our own bodies; the weight of fashion models plummeted to 23 percent below that of ordinary women, eating disorders rose exponentially, and a mass neurosis was promoted that used food and weight to strip women of that sense of control. Women insisted on politicizing health; new technologies of invasive, potentially dangerous "cosmetic" surgeries developed apace to re-exert old forms of medical control of women.

Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth, 1990

Diversity in science carnival

The second ever Diversity in Science carnival is up, at Thus Spake Zuska, celebrating women in science. I especially liked this post, Women scientists haven't exactly had a picnic of their careers.

While you're at it, make with the clicky and go visit Dr Isis and her blog, On becoming a domestic and laboratory goddess. She's got a deal going with the American Physiological Society, to fund an award for the undergraduate woman who submits the best abstract at a big experimental biology conference. She needs to double the clicks on her blog over a 30 day period (starting 19 March), and then she gets the money for the award. So if you have a moment, click through, even momentarily, and help out.

You go get 'em Portia

Portia De Rossi Apologizes For Getting Married



Here in Kiwiland I don't feel all that smug. I would much prefer legalized same sex marriage rather than the half-way house of civil unions.

Guest post: Paul Henry makes a bad bad choice

We've had quite a lot of contact from readers about this matter and one lovely soul, Gina, has offered up a guest post on the issue.

You really have to watch the video to appreciate what happened here.

For those who can’t get the video working- in summary- Paul Henry and Alison Mau were interviewing Stephanie Mills on Breakfast. After the interview Paul elected to read a fax out from a viewer about how they noticed Stephanie (a woman) has facial hair (who doesn’t?). But Paul makes it’s worse than that - watch the vid.

I can’t presume to know how Stephanie Mills from Greenpeace is feeling about this. Maybe she’s laughing it off somewhere. Maybe she’s devastated.

If you are reading this Stephanie and you feel like you want to take this issue further there are women here who will support you.

All I know is how I felt when I watched this. I started to shake with rage. Paul Henry- you had a choice. You had a choice about whether or not to repeat the crap on the fax.

Gina

Helen Clark to be no. 3 at United Nations

Here's a cartoon from Mike Moreu to spark discussion:

Quick hit: Morning-after pill may be leading to reduction in abortion rate

Much gratitude to Azlemed for the tip off on this one:

Initial findings indicate the trial of a free emergency contraceptive pill is behind a 13% drop in abortions in Auckland.

The Auckland District Health Board is five months into the $300,000 trial, which gives Auckland women the "morning-after pill" for free in a bid to reduce pregnancies and abortions. The pills can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of having sex.

The DHB was originally concerned the emergency contraceptive pill was being used instead of other methods of contraception, but says this study appears to show nearly half of the users had never taken the pill before.

It also shows a 13% reduction in terminated pregnancies since the start of the trial, which concludes next week.

That's the whole news brief, there may be more at other news sources?

The earlier a termination occurs the better, and it sounds like the emergency contraceptive pill may be doing a good job at aiding women to avoid the trauma and physical impact of an abortion further into gestation. It'll be interesting to see the full results of the trial in due course.

The Metaphors we use

I have been trying not to use 'mad' as a metaphor in my writing, but some posts are harder than others. I found it really challenging to write a post about holocaust deniers without saying "these people are batshit crazy". Over at Alas there's been some discussion of this and Donaquixote articulated the reasons for avoiding madness as a metaphor very well:

I also get the insane = disconnected from reality definition you were going with. But there’s a huge difference between an illness that disconnects you from reality as a result of neurochemical processes and the condition of being willfully disconnected from reality because you don’t want to have your opinions challenged. One is an illness, the other is a character flaw, and the two ought never be confused. The problem is a lot of our terminology quite purposefully does confuse the two.

Many of the derogatory metaphors that come most easily to us are about comparing something we don't like with the powerless.

Metaphoric language is powerful - even as cliched metaphoric language as 'batshit crazy'. I don't think we should give up metaphors, I think we should be creative, more precise and more true in the metaphors we do use.

I thought a way of doing that would be to open a thread for discussion so people could post their metaphors, and other derogatory language, that don't pathologise powerlessness.

I'm not suggesting we start calling everyone we dislike a futures trader, but I think there are lots of smart articulate people who comment on blogs I write on. We can do better than the derogatory terms we do now.

I'm posting this on Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty, Alas and The Hand Mirror, for maximum discussion.


Please don't post in this thread unless you're actually interested in developing new metaphors. If you're doubtful about the usefulness of new metaphors then go talk about that somewhere else.

land as woman

i came across this link to the personification of countries in my roam around the blogosphere today. i'm going to be naughty and not say where i got to it from, cos i found a lot of comments in that particular thread objectionable.

but anyway, what really surprised me was the number of countries who used a woman for their personification thing. for new zealand, we have zealandia, daughter of britannia, which i find more than a little problematic because of the clear colonial symbolism. i'd much prefer the use of papatuanuku as a more representative and evocative personfication.

apparently this personification of country thing is a western construct that was then taken up by eastern countries, so that in india they developed the figure of bharat mata (mother india). i found an interesting excerpt here about the use of the feminine to symbolise nations here:

Where territory is conceived of in its "natural state", that is as dirt, soil, earth, and so on from which its fertility arises, by and large the gender assignment is feminine.... Where land is conceptualised as a political entity under the jurisdiction of a nation state, the nouns referring to it are generally masculine.... Masculine personifications of countries, such as Uncle Sam for the United States and John Bull for Britain, represent primarily the country as state, government, and bureaucracy. Here land has been colonised and brought under male control. Yet other symbolic associations of these male-governed nations and countries as abstractions are still feminine, as one can see in the use of female figures to represent them, such as the Statue of Liberty, Britannia, her daughter Zealandia, and Marianne, the symbol of the French Republic, to name just a few....

These feminine abstractions serve as symbollic rallying points of affection and patriotism. As countries usually have founding fathers rather than mothers, the country itself as "one's native land" in which we are born, is linked with the fertility of the land itself...

hmm, not sure that i like the feminine being used as a symbol of patriotism, particularly when the context of rallying is often linked to violence and war. but i do like the symbolism of fertility and the land being linked to the feminine, as we do with the notion of "mother earth".

Guest post: Unleash Her

Many thanks to katy for this!

Who has been responsible for the construction of First Lady Michelle Obama?

"I come to this with a lot of interesting talents, but I think it would be unfair of me to say today what I would do in a couple of years. I need to be prepared to do what the country needs me to do at the time. Whether that’s baking cookies or serving as a wonderful hostess, that’s my job. I have to be prepared to do what’s necessary. And we won’t know what that’s going to be until we get there. I willbe staunchly invested. It is a joint project.” - Michelle Obama

The column Lexington in the latest Economist suggests that the US isn't ready for a First Lady who is both domestic and worth listening to on substantive policy issues. And so...

The White House has been doing its best to turn the first lady into a celebrity mother-cum-clothes-horse. Her White House website describes her “first and foremost” as “Malia and Sasha’s mom” before adding that, “before she was a mother”, she was “Fraser and Marian Robinson’s daughter”. The White House has even engaged in debates with the pressabout whether Mrs Obama ought to go bare-armed to formal events.

And whose fault is it? Hillary Clinton's of course!

But there is a danger that the White House is overreacting to Mrs Clinton’s failures back in 1993-94, and a worry that all this fluff is both demeaning to Mrs Obama and disappointing for some of her husband’s most passionate supporters, particularly professional women. Mrs Obama did not campaign as a traditional first lady, staring at her husband with dewy-eyed admiration and limiting her comments to bland
pleasantries. She criss-crossed the country giving her own speeches. And powerful speeches they were too: intelligent, substantive and well-delivered.

Read the entire Economist column here and Michelle Obama's White House profile over here.

Important memo for women of substance and achievement

Cross posted

Remember that when it comes down to it, all that matters is what you look like.

50 most beautiful women politicians

What an invidious position this places female politicians in. They're being judged on their appearance, not on what they have achieved, not on their policy goals, not on how effective they are in their jobs. All that matters is what they look like. Feh!

The newspaper says that the list is "light hearted." So there you are. If any woman objects to being judged by her appearance, the reply is already there. "Can't you take a joke?"

Quick Hit: Carrying Baby

I'm not sure what to make of the story of a Samoan woman who gave birth on a place and allegedly then dumped the baby in the rubbish bin. On one hand I'm shocked at the actions, but I'm not entirely sure criminal charges are going to secure a good outcome for anyone least of all the infant. There's been plenty of mudslinging about how this woman has tarnished Samoa's reputation, which again does little to make this situation any better

Perhaps the best comment so far on the case has been from Labour MP Su'a William Sio who said the case highlighted the need for better sex education among pacific woman. However perhaps another part of the story that doesn't get much air time is that she was on the flight to Auckland as part of group seasonal workers, presumably to earn some cash for not only this baby but her child back in Samoa.

Feminist Events: Seminar on Helen Clark's leadership and media construction at UOA

Those who were fascinated by Carol's great guest post on Helen Clark and the attacks on her sexuality will no doubt want to make it along to this if they can.

What: Political Studies seminar "Warrior Princess" to "Political Dominatrix":Gendered Mediation of NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark
Who: Linda Trimble and Natasja Treiberg, presented by Linda Trimble, Department of Political Science, University of Alberta.
Where: Federation of University Women Room, Old Government House, cnr Princes St and Waterloo Quadrant, University of Auckland
When: Thursday 2nd April, 3.30pm to 4.40pm

From the Faculty of Arts event listing:

Our paper performs content and critical discourse analyses of newspaper reportage of New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark during the five election campaigns she has contested as leader of the Labour Party. We contrast coverage of Clark with that of her primary opponents, the four men and one woman who have led the National Party. The analysis focuses on the media construction of gendered leadership personas, particularly representations of sex and sexuality. The evidence shows that Clark's persona has been heavily mediated by the norm of heroic, masterful, adversarial political leadership, her campaign behaviors described with hyper-masculine battle imagery. Clark has been depicted as more aggressive (and indeed even more "manly") than her male competitors. At the same time, characterizations of Clark's sex and imputations about her sexuality have served as central framing devices throughout the five campaigns, positioning her as sexually anomalous and even dangerous! We argue that Helen Clark's media representations reveal particular expressions of gender and sexuality that work to consolidate the perception of political leadership as a singularly masculine performance.

Straw hat with paisley hatband tipped to Carol, for letting me know about this by email.

Dutch, split, one or other; Who pays these days?

In the interest of helping my dear mother with a query she has, and given that she's been out of the dating game for nigh on forty years, and me for close to nine, readers I appeal to you for help.

Our question is simple:

When you go out on a date who pays?

Particularly in consideration of these factors:

1. Who initiated the date?
2. Is it a one-off date or is the relationship of some duration?
3. Is there a significant difference in incomes (and/or financial obligations) between those involved?

Thanks in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Cast your vote for Miss Hamilton 400!

Over the last twenty years or so, beauty pageants of all sort have gone steadily out of fashion, in NZ at least. People have realised that, despite the talk of building women's poise and self-confidence, these events are actually painfully naff.

But without any sense of irony at all, organisers of the Hamilton 400 motor race bring us the Miss Hamilton 400 competition - because no car event can be complete without boobs.

If you click on each 'girl', you get a quote, like 'If I could be anything, I’d be a Ligar (half lion half tiger) cause it sounds cool', or 'Best thing that’s ever happened to me is having a Hair Straightner'. This is to remind us that attractive girls are not smart, and vice versa.

I guess women enter events like this one for a bit of a joke, but I have a strong suspicion that the pageant's spectators will be laughing at these 'girls', not with them. The panel of identically dressed women invites voters to make denigrating comparisons: 'that one's got a big nose', or 'that one's a mutt', or 'why did she even enter?'.

Good on these women for feeling beautiful and confident - but can we not celebrate women's beauty in a more respectful way?

Guess Who IV

This one is dedicated to the truly lovely ex-expat who I suspect will get it in one:

Men's problems are traditionally dealt with by the criminal justice system. Women, on the other hand, get a bloody Cartwright Inquiry and get millions of dollars thrown at their breasts and cervixes.

The last nasty quote was from the one and only Rev. Jerry Falwell, now residing in hell or heaven, depending on your point of view. Probably if you are reading this blog, and you believe in an afterlife at all, you're tending towards the warmer of those two options.

Anyhow, he wrote in his book America Can Be Saved:

I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them.

God forbid!

Feminist Event: Seminar on 'The 5cm Rule' at UOA

What: Sociology Seminar on ‘The 5cm Rule’: Biopower, Sexuality and Schooling
Who: Louisa Allen, Critical Studies in Education, Faculty of Education
When: Wednesday April 1st, 11am - 12noon
Where: HSB 901, Human Sciences Building, Princes St, University of Auckland

From the Faculty of Arts event listing:

This seminar will explore ‘the 5cm rule’, a regulation around student contact discovered during an investigation of the sexual culture of schooling with 16-19 year olds in New Zealand. Implemented to stem ‘inappropriate and unwanted’ touching, it stipulates that students must maintain a physical distance of 5cm at all times. It will be argued that this rule represents a contemporary type of biopower which forms part of the sexual culture of schooling. As a technique of corporeal regulation it is characterised by a ‘loose’ exercise of power, that allows for student resistance while producing subjects’ ‘docility-utility’ (Foucault, 1980). I will contend that the rule contributes negatively to ‘the sexual culture of schooling’ by constituting student sexuality as ‘unruly’ and ‘problematic’. This stipulation also prescribes a set of gender relations that are inhibitive of mutually negotiated and pleasureable corporeal experience.

All Welcome!

Hardware for beginners

Every time I pass the monstrous orange behemoth that is Mitre 10 Mega, I feel a pang of nostalgic sadness for the Mitre 10s of old. They were blue and cheerful, well-presented, and had lots of kind, evuncular retirement-aged men, who would patiently answer any hardware-related question you threw at them.

I suffer from a condition I like to call 'hardware anxiety'. I'm relatively handy for a woman (unlike many, I had the chance to learn from my dad), but I've still got plenty to learn about the nuts and bolts, so to speak, of DIY. And I hate going into many of the major hardware stores to ask questions. They expect you to know what you're doing. Some practically refuse to serve you unless you have paint-splattered shoes and a builder's buttcrack. They demand to know what grade of tanalisation I want for my timber. If I knew that, I wouldn't be asking, for f*ck's sake.

I end up feeling silly for asking my amateurish hardware questions. My partner's hardware anxiety is worse than mine, though - being female is an excuse for lack of DIY knowledge, but blokes are expected to know such things by virtue of testosterone. At my local Bunnings Warehouse, being female is an accepted metaphor for DIY incompetence - they run basic skills classes for ladies only. This is the one downside of an otherwise great initiative. I proposed putting my partner in a wig and skirt so he could enrol, and he wasn't completely averse to the idea.

I just want the empowerment of power tools. I need advice on which grade of sandpaper to use. I demand to know whether I can use acrylic based paint over enamel. Most of all, I long for a day when a woman can ask her hardware questions without fear, shame or an exposed buttcrack.

Moral panic!

What would Family First make of this sad tale of family breakdown?

Learning from Fritzl

Earlier in the month we were discussing Josef Fritzl's trial. While much water has gone under the bridge in regard to that case in the last fortnight, I stumbled across this post at Editing the Herald (which I rather enjoy perusing) last night and thought this comment might be of interest to readers here too:

3) I know I'm breaking my own moratorium on reporting Josef Fritzl gossip, but I find the latest turn the case has taken to be grimly humorous. "Fears mount for Fritzl's mental health", says the article, which continues to say that his "mental health had deteriorated since the verdict".

So there are worries about the mental health of a man who imprisoned and sexually enslaved his daughter, keeping his second family locked in a secure basement?? In other news, Hitler may not have had all his marbles, and Einstein was rather clever.

I truly hope that someone, or a team of someones, are able to work with Fritzl to work out how he ended up so broken. If we can learn from that maybe we can save others in the future, or at least what to look for.

Which type of woman is Facebook then?

If you're on Facebook, and you're still assimilating the new layout, you may have been bugged by the profusion of quiz results for your friends which are dominating feeds.

One that's been particularly irritating me is the"Which type of woman are you?" one, which seems to have produced a singular result for most of my friends. They are considered "Lovely Ladies," defined as:

You are lovely and caring. You help others and spread out a lot of sympathy. Your life aim maybe is to serve the people. But your weakness is that you forget about yourself, your own needs. All your time is hold back for your friends and family. You are always there for people in trouble. Ready for any emergency. You make a lot of sacrifices just to be a good human. But every woman has her needs, her longings and a destiny. Don't loose yourself in work or curing other people's souls. You will have your own problems in your life. Another problem is that you don't say your opinion when it's right and important to say it. People trample onto your soul if you are always so kind and lovely and helpful. They will play on you. Though you should try to relax more and enjoy your life, you should not loose the gift that was given to you to help others . Not everyone is created this way... You are uniqe and rare!

The result is illustrated with a photo of a serene younger woman leaning on the edge of the bath.

On the other hand I am an "Action (Wo)man", complete with picture of Lara Croft (who I think it is fair to say I do not resemble physically):

Wow, you are so tough! Other women admire you for this trait. They look up to you because you can keep up with the opposite sex. They want to have your athletic body, your strength and willpower. And every woman needs this - that's true. But you are unreachable. No guy could ever capture your heart. Maybe also because your heart got too hard. But don't exaggerate. Remember: You are a woman and woman reflect god's beauty and inner (emotional) strength, but not his physical strength. Show your beauty AND your strength! Sooner or later you will be in the know that inner power and self-confidence are more important in a woman's life than muscles. :) If you think you have to prove to the males that you are as strong as they are you will not only fail, you will recognize that it's comletely senseless because this is not your destiny. Men have this little bullshit growin in their head that says they always have to be stronger than the other men. Don't descend to this level. You're more worth than that. BUT: The world needs strong women, womankind needs you! Establish your strengths in the right way.

Give me, ah, strength.

I knew I shouldn't have done it, but I just wanted to see if I got Lovely Lady too, like most of my friends. I've yet to see any results other than Lara or Bathtime, has anyone got anything else? And have any of our male readers taken the quiz to reveal their inner woman?

Guest post: “I think it's pretty obvious that women have different ways of telling a story than a man”*

This guest post has been lovingly crafted by Luddite Journo, in further response to Tim Selwyn's remarkable assertions about female journalists and their inferiority. Thanks so much to Luddsy J for this fantastic contribution!

Tim Selwyn at Tumeke is a provocative writer who seems to enjoy the cut and thrust of rhetorical battle. He’s often an enjoyable read, particularly if you agree with his base assumptions.

Some people probably feel the same way about Michael Laws.

But there are times when provocation can fall into a tedious post-modern trap of bigotry-pretending to be irony-or is it serious really-who knows? His post earlier this year about female journalists falls into that category.

In the post Tim makes a series of claims about women journos:

1. 90% of stories lacking the crucial and most obviously necessary data are written by female journalists
2. 85% of stories where there is no attempt in the article to provide an answer or explanation for what has happened are written by female journalists

There is no data to back up either of these claims. They are Tim’s opinion – and seem to be pretending male journalists cover crucial facts completely and explain phenomena they report clearly.

But wait, there’s more:

3. 80% of stories in which the author uses first person (I and Me and My) and never lets up, turning the assignment into a story about themselves are written by female journalists

This shows a poor understanding of media delineations – between news reporters, who in theory should never be using first person pronouns, preferring to believe in the elusive myth of objectivity – and opinion writers, who exist to provoke. Scanning mainstream media for opinion writers, we find men outnumber women by three to one in the New Zealand Herald, and draw two all on Stuff (except oddly this doesn’t list stuff opinion writers Bob Jones, Joe Bennett, John Minto, Richard Long...)

So there are more male opinion writers using first person pronouns. Like Michael Laws’ most recent column:

I've always wanted to be a greenie. And for all the right reasons.

Because I believe that humankind is stuffing this planet, because I subscribe to most of the doomsday theories, and because I love my kids. I instinctively appreciate that the collective endeavour of our species over the past 100 years has not been in the best interests of environmental sustainability.

Six in just four sentences. That’s almost, well, feminine.

This point deserves further consideration. Second-wave feminists were strong critics of the “invisible voice” implicit in “objective” writing. And most criticisms of mainstream media, particularly by the left, focus on how implicit biases often go unrecognised in the pretence of neutrality. Mr Selwyn himself has been known to rail against such faux-objectivity.

Sociologist Michael Kimmel tells a beautiful, illustrative story of watching two feminists arguing.

A Black feminist asked a white feminist what she saw when she looked in the mirror, and the white woman replied that she saw a woman.

The Black woman explained that was why Black feminists needed political analysis of their own – because for many white women, their “race” is invisible to them.

Michael Kimmel groaned so loudly, he was asked to explain himself – and had to tell a room of feminist women that he understood the world a little differently. He said:

When I look in the mirror, I see a human being. I'm universally generalizable. As a middle-class white man, I have no class, no race, and no gender. I'm the generic person.

One of the problems with Tim’s analysis of writing “styles” associated with gender is that he is essentially remarking on people placing themselves in the text. Acknowledging their own position as the place they start from, which is much more necessary when you are trying to address an imbalance than when you don’t need to, though self-aware men like Michael Kimmel show how it can be done well.

To Tim’s final point, again unsubstantiated by research:

4. 70% of stories in which the author fails to put whatever has happened, or whatever things they are talking about into any meaningful context or perspective are written by female journalists

Sadly, news writing is immediate, superficial, and lacking in history or context. It is only “feature” writing in which journalists are allowed the opportunity of exploring issues in depth. The rest of the time, they are taught to write fact-rich concise paragraphs which hook readers in with a sexy intro, develop that, and put such history as they are allowed at the end. Hardly a recipe for meaningful context.

The Journalist Training Organization 2006 survey of 1216 New Zealand journalists showed:

• 55% of female journalist are less than 40; 83% of male journalists are over 30
• 36% of female journalists have worked in journalism for less than 5 years compared with 20% of male journalists
• 7% of female journalists have worked in journalism for more than 30 years compared with 22% of male journalists
• 22% of female journalists earn less than $30,000 compared with 12% of male journalists
• 14% of female journalists earn more than $70,000 compared with 36% of male journalists

So women journalists are younger, less experienced and much more poorly paid. Some evidence for this discussion of women and journalism – at last.

Not only do Tim’s comments lack evidential base, but they ignore real differences in journalism for women and men.

It’s a pity he wasn’t able to rise above being a “human being” in this case.

A pakeha bogan female journalist with no illusions of her own objectivity, and no desire to write mainstream news the way we are supposed to.

Luddite Journo

*with delicious irony, the personal pronoun title is a quote from Tim’s original blog.

Quick hit: So. Farewell Then Page 3 Girl.

Thanks to reader Am for pointing this out via Facebook, from NZPA:

Tabloid paper NZ Truth has axed its topless Page 3 girl in favour of "more hard-hitting New Zealand stories", it said today.

Editor-in-chief Dermott Malley said it was almost 25 years to the day that the Page 3 girl made her debut, but the paper was planning to focus more on investigative news.

The aim was to take NZ Truth back to its roots and into people's living rooms, he said.

"Sex will always sell in the media but NZ Truth readers want more – more sports, more entertainment and more hard news, investigative stories that we tell without fear or favour."

The topless model has not disappeared altogether. She is to become a poster in the centre of the paper's liftout magazine.

"The huge poster will bring readers the most alluring and exotic models from around the world," Malley said.

That's the whole thing, but if you don't believe me you can click through to the Stuff page.

And with apologies to David Slack for the title-poaching. Although he could consider this a challenge for another Long Goodbye if he so chooses?

Man about the house

Less than a year ago, my family and I decided to uproot ourselves and move from the South Island to the capital. With the move came a rearrangement of work responsibilities: we dropped from two incomes to one, with me taking the 'breadwinner' role, and my partner staying home with the kids.

You'd expect people to be accepting of stay-at-home dads, and usually they are - but often, people express surprise at our choice. In the seven or so years I've been a parent, I've had two negative comments about being a working mum. My partner has been an at-home dad for a matter of months, and has had an array of remarks.

There was the guy who found out we'd moved to Wellington 'for work', and immediately asked my partner what he did. There was the manager who said the part-time job that interested my partner paid wages too low for a man. There was the woman behind the counter who saw my partner with our toddler, and commented that my partner must be 'giving mum a rest today'. And then, just the other day, there was a guy who saw my partner and son shopping together. This guy said my boy had been 'spending too much time with mum' and should be given a rugby ball.

Not one of these comments was meant unkindly. Sadly, though, they made my partner feel a bit stink. It's not because he thinks that being a stay-at-home parent isn't worthwhile - more, perhaps, that other people may view it this way. It's OK for a woman to do this 'menial' work, but when a bloke does it its surprising, or even vaguely amusing.

The strange thing is, I know a few dads who stay at home with their kids, or share the childcare with their female partners equally. It's not commonplace, but it's hardly unusual either. Perhaps our gender roles are changing faster than our cultural expectations?

Byte-counting our first year

A week ago we celebrated our first anniversary at the blog-face. I haven't had much time for blogging lately, so this is a bit belated, but here are a few stats about The Hand Mirror's first year:

Posts: 959 published (quite a few still sitting in draft!)

Comments: Way too many to count, since we started, but adding up the monthly byte-counts I've been doing recently gives 2737 comments from November 2008 to February 2009.

Page-loads: 161,692 (an average of 442 a day over the whole year - our average for March so far is 804 a day)

Our biggest days to date have been (in order of page-loads) Monday 9th March, Friday 6th March (both as a result of the Pay Equity Faxathon I assume), Monday 9th February (due to Jacinda Ardern's guest post), Sunday 9th November (the day after the election, when we were one of the few left-of-centre blogs writing much) and Tuesday 19th August (for reasons I cannot fathom).

We hope that in our first year we've achieved our mission of promoting the blog voices of women in Aotearoa New Zealand, particulary the feminist ones, not least through our hosting of the 9th Down Under Feminist Carnival. And we have been active participants in Blogland ourselves, not least joining many many other bloggers and websites in the Internet Blackout opposing s92A of the Copyright Act.

Typing is not the only form of activism, so we've done some real life things too which have interacted with the world outside our computers, with your invaluable support as our readers, commenters and linkers:

• The Pay Equity Faxathon, on March 6th 2009, and support for the pay equity petition initiated by Labour's women's affThis listairs spokesperson Sue Moroney; work that is continuing through the Pay Equity Hub.
• Deborah's work on putting together a team submission on the discussion document "Improvements to Sexual Violence Legislation in New Zealand".
• I met up with some readers and took part in a Reclaim the Night event in Auckland in November
• Our survey of candidates in the 2008 general election, which attracted responses from every party in Parliament at the time, and some more besides
• The Suffrage Eve Debate, on September 18th 2008, featuring candidates from four parties (National, Act, Labour and the Alliance) putting their case for whether centre-left or centre-right is best for women.
• Taking on ALAC over their Lisa advert, which perpetuated rape myths and was generally pretty unhelpful. This included speaking about the issue at a Thursdays in Black forum at UOA in July.
• Holding a fundraising morning tea for Preventing Violence in the Home in June.
• Maia took part in a picket supporting cleaners striking at Spotless in Wellington back in April 2008.

This list is not exhaustive. Let me know what I've missed and I'll update the post.

Any ideas for what we should do in our second year are most welcome in comments :-)

Thanks for clicking; we look forward to a future full of writing, reading, doing stuff, and eating cupcakes.

Event: Show support for a $15 minimum wage and contractors' rights on Wednesday

You may remember I wrote about Darien Fenton's Private Member's Bill on the minimum wage last month, and that Idiot/Savant reported it ha been dischsarged a little while ago I mistakenly thought it had been discharged. Turns out it was another bill (from Labour, about temps and casuals) and Fenton's bill is still live.

At least it is until Wednesday, when it is highly liked to be voted down by National, as Darien's media statement from 4th March explains:

Associate Labour spokesperson Darien Fenton says Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson’s confirmation in the House today that National will not be supporting her member’s bill is a further indication that the Government thinks the law of the jungle is good enough for some low paid workers.

...

“It’s disappointing for these workers that John Key’s government is prepared to continue to ignore the situation for thousands of workers who have to live and work by the law of the jungle, because there are no minimum wage protections for them.“But coming on top of tax increases for the lowest paid and the 90 day Fire at Will Bill, I can’t say I am particularly surprised,” Ms Fenton said.

If you're in Wellington on Wednesday you have an opportunity to show your support for the Bill, for contractors' rights and for a $15 minimum wage. Yes the centre-left lost the election; if we quiet down and let them ignore workers' rights without a fight then we're letting them win much more.

When: Wednesday 25th March, 7.30am - 10am
Where: Parliament House, Wellington
Facebook event listing

Thanks to Darien for emailing me about this.

Quick hit: Apprenticeships the path to increasing women's pay?

From the NZ Herald this morning:

Encouraging women into trade apprenticeships will help the nation to emerge from the economic downturn in a better position than when it began, says the Minister of Women's Affairs, Pansy Wong.

New Zealand needs to upskill across the board and also break down the gender divisions in the workforce, she says.

While some might argue that males and females naturally lean towards different occupations, Mrs Wong believes they are too often influenced by parents, and friends.

"Girls may want to get into the trades but they don't know anyone doing it."

She wants to see more role models like 20-year-old Shelley Weaver, from Wellington, who will complete her three-year apprentice in plumbing and gas fitting this year.

Click through for the rest.

I've put this up partly in response to the point Psycho Milt has raised in comments here about pay equity; that individual women need to choose better paid professions. When we have a Minister of Women's Affairs who doesn't seem to care about pay equity across the board, perhaps he's right.

Monday Funday: with emp cannon

From the mostly fantastic xkcd.

To pierce or not to pierce?

My older baby is growing up, and feeling peer pressure for the first time. She's seven, and has decided she wants her ears pierced.

I remember feeling exactly the same way - that everyone else had their ears pierced but me - and I wore my parents down with a sustained campaign of nagging. Eventually, when I was ten, they gave in. I was so excited and overwhelmed by my entrance into the world of fashion that, shortly after the piercing, I fainted in a sorry heap on the street!

My daughter and I discussed the pros and cons of piercing. I said solemnly, 'You know, once you've got holes in your ears, they stay there for good'. She pondered this and replied thoughtfully, 'I can't think of any reason why I'd need intact ears'.

I don't even know why this bothers me. My life hasn't been blighted by the presence of a small hole in each ear. I enjoy wearing earrings. But this seems like the first of a lifetime of little bodily modifications a woman makes because she's not good enough as nature made her. I don't think my daughter's starting down a slippery slope that will end in yoyo dieting and boob jobs. I just wish she saw herself as I do: perfect the way she is.

Apparently being pro-choice means being pro forced pregnancy. Yawn.

Readers may recall the ah, interesting, discussion held in the comments of this post from Deborah, whereby NZ Conservative blogger ZenTiger enlightened us all as to his views. He has now accused us of mis-representing his and continued the disagreement by in turn assuming, as follows:

I was speaking of the twins of course, and wondering if the mother was ever asked what she felt about an abortion. That was never reported. It seemed to me such a thought a mother could want a child of rape, could acknowledge that this was another innocent life caught in the horror of the situation, was the last thing the folks on the Hand Mirror (and others) wanted to entertain. Rule One - a fetus cannot be acknowledged as having any right to live. Rule Two - The wishes of the mother would not differ from their own preferences.

But maybe I misunderstood, just as Deborah and others so clearly have misunderstood me?

Yep, you have misunderstood. To be pro-choice is not to be pro-abortion when the woman doesn't want to terminate. I think the term "pro-choice" is a pretty clear indicator really. It means that someone supports the right of the pregnant one to choose whether to continue with the pregnancy or not. Being pro-choice precludes supporting enforced abortion, just as it rules out supporting enforced pregnancy.

For some women who become pregnant as a result of rape they may see the pregnancy as a continuation of their violation, and want to terminate as soon as possible. Others may see the baby that could come at the end of nine months as something positive to come out of an awful experience, and they may rejoice at the opportunity. Many will no doubt be in between, and possibly vacillate back and forth.

For me the bottom line is that that woman has the power to decide what to do with her own body. Be that carry to term and keep or adopt out the resulting progeny, or abort, I respect her right to choose, without pressure or judgement from me or anyone else.

And so the case that ZenTiger goes on to quote in his post does not create any quiet in me, except that I was completely unaware of it until reading about it in his post today:

So here's another chance to clear up any confusion. A 13 year old is pregnant by rape and abuse from her father. She doesn't want an abortion, but it may be forced upon her anyway. This time we are talking of pre-born at 20 weeks of development, not 16 weeks. The risks for a normal pregnancy at age 13 are unlikely to be much different from an older teen, with access to good medical care. At the least, it would be fair to say the risk factor must be greatly reduced compared to the risk factors the 9 year old faced. The lines are blurrier.

Putting aside the unnecessarily emotive language ("pre-born"? I roll my eyes) and the possible bias of the original report, I support the 13 year old determining the outcome. It's her body, her pregnancy, and her choice. She should be given access to the best possible medical advice, second and third opinions if she wants them, and given every opportunity to make the decision for herself. If she does decide to continue the pregnancy then I would hope that she gets the support she will need, that any new parent needs, from a village that will surround her in a positive and loving way.

Clear?

Cupcakes galore!

Thanks to the ex-expat for her thanks, and to those who came along to The Hand Mixer on Thursday. We had some technical issues, which Enid, lprent and Lyn asisted ably with, but in the end we were only able to deliver half an episode of the promised Buffy. People seemed more interested in eating, drinking and talking anyway :-) Which was good for the lovely Working Women's Resource Centre women who kept us watered.

Great to meet some new people, special thanks to those who came along who didn't know any of us and took that leap of faith that we weren't unpleasant people with foul-tasting cupcakes.

And speaking of the delightful little baking morsels, here are some pics:

The ex-expat's delectable lime and coconut concoctions.

And her rose marshmallow contributions.

My old favourites, mini-lemon cupcakes, made with rice flour and the right icing sugar so they are gluten-free (but don't taste that way).

Prony enough for you Anna?

And in closing here's a sign from the venue that caused some hilarity amongst those in attendance:
PS We are considering trying a Hand Mixer in Wellington some time in April, due to quite a bit of interest from Wellington based readers - what say you?