Keep On Walking Forward

A couple of weeks ago I sat in a room that was over-flowing with people who had got together to fight for abortion rights. The meeting had been spectacularly well organised. When I came back to campus the week before, there was chalking advertising the meeting, and talking about the importance of abortion rights, all over campus. It didn’t rain that week – so awesome, strong messages were there for everyone to see (you can still see a bit of the chalking, in the door to the Kirk building, just under the overbridge).

To listen to dozens of people, mostly women, mostly younger than me, explain why they thought abortion rights were important, and why they were prepared to fight for them was not something I had ever experienced, or expected to experience.

I learned about our abortion law alone, in the Alexander Turnbull Library manuscripts reading room, with no. I couldn’t work for more than three quarters of an hour at a time looking through some of those files; I’d get so angry and upset I’d need a break. I once kicked the stone that said: This Building Was Opened By Rob Muldoon. My foot hurt, and I didn’t feel any better.

I felt alone. Most people I knew didn’t even know what the law was. I didn’t think I could do anything

I was wrong. Of course I was wrong. New Zealand’s abortion laws are outrageous, and of course there was heaps of passion about this injustice. There were always people who were prepared to fight the fight – it was just we all felt isolated, and had fifty three million other things to do, so nothing changed.

It appears that the Chris Trotter and Tammy X “abortion is kind of icky and won’t somebody think of the labour party” arguments won and Steve Chadwick’s bill will not be put in the ballot at the moment. Obviously I'm disappointed and disgusted.

But after the meeting we had – I know it doesn’t matter. We can educate, agitate and organise, until we’re strong enough to overpower MPs near pathological aversion to talking about abortion.

Whether next year or next decade, we will change abortion laws. We’re going to have honest laws that do not have unnecessary toll-gates in the way of women seeking for abortion.

And when we do I will look back on Monday the 19th of July as the night that I thought: “We’re gonna win.”

Time to get some submissions in

The August Down Under Feminists Carnival is coming up, at my own place, In a Strange Land. It's time to get some submissions in. Any feminist post, by any down under blogger, posted in July, can be included in the carnival. You can send submissions via the carnival submission form, or if you aren't able to access it, send them direct to me at my hotmail address, where I use dfr141 as my handle.

Friday Feminist - Yosano Akiko 与謝野 晶子

Cross posted

The Day the Mountains Move

The day the mountains move has come.
I speak, but no one believes me.
For a time the mountains have been asleep,
But long ago, they danced with fire.
It doesn't matter if you believe this,
My friends, as long as you believe:
All the sleeping women
Are now awake and moving.

Yosano Akiko 与謝野 晶子, "The Day the Mountains Move", first published in Seitô in 1911, republished in Carole R. McCann and Seung-kyung Kim (eds), Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives, 2nd ed., Routledge 2010

Herstory

This month the Auckland Women’s Centre launched A Proud Herstory: A Celebration of the Auckland Women's Centre 1975-2010. Written by Margie Thomson and edited and designed by Jenny Rankine, its 54 pages are filled with wonderful colour and black and white photos and images. It “provides an overview of the Centre's development as a feminist community group, placing it in the context of the rapid and significant changes occurring in society at the time.” 

The large photo on the cover shows the first Women's Centre at 125 Ponsonby Road. (Photo by Robin Morrison.) To find out how to get a copy (it costs $18), email info@womenz.org.nz

Recent comments broken

Sorry folks, the Recent Comments section of the side-bar appears to be displaying incredibly old comments (almost a year old), so I've put it down to only showing one comment until I can either fix it or it comes right of it's own accord.

In the meantime, it's worth noting that the current posts have attracted a bit of comment action over the last few days:

• in case I don't see ya...
• Nine and a bit months
• So farewell, Chris Carter
• war & peace
• Guest post: An abortion story
• Syria bans face veils in universities
• Abortion Law Reform: Keeping the arguments straight

So farewell, Chris Carter

Chris Carter's behaviour in recent months has seemed quite bizarre to me. How could someone who was a very highly ranked Cabinet Minister not that long ago have so little political nous as to act the way he has?

Today's display has of course been the weirdest to date, but his reactions around the travel and expenses issue earlier in the year were incredibly counter-productive and only served to demonstrate his hubris. When there are National MPs who should have been in the media glare for their misuse of public funds Carter seemed to actively want to hog the media spotlight for himself, as if what he'd done could be good for him and for Labour, rather than just seeking to reinforce the public's bad opinion on MPs.

This afternoon and evening has been the ultimate own goal for him, as he's continued to dig by doing a whole heap of media after being caught authoring and circulating what seems to be a highly exaggerated (at the least) letter of in favour of overthrowing Goff as Labour leader. To be brief, Carter has made himself look like a dick.

Sadly for Labour, and for Goff, he's also heavily embarassed them. The Right have been running the Lame Duck Labour Leader line for a while now, somewhat unfairly in my humble opinion.  If Labour lose the next election then it will have more to do with the NZ electorate's frustrating insistence on giving Prime Ministers a fair go.  It'll take a lot to shift the public view that it's still John Key's turn at bat.  Labour may not be doing the best job of capitalising on opportunities*, but they face a media who are only just starting to sometimes think Key might be a bit sparse on the integrity front and polling which reflects the usual parlous situation for the Opposition at this point in the electoral cycle but is being breathlessly reported as if it weren't.  I reckon it's not so much that Labour is cocking up a lot, more that they haven't resolved the Vision Thing problem they had at the last election (i.e. no coherent reason to vote Labour other than to keep National out).  I don't know that it's fair to expect them to have a cohesive Why You Should Vote Labour message this far out from the general election, when they do have internal democratic structures that should be driving the policy that is at the heart of that, and that will take time. 

Anyway, enough about how Labour's polling and chances are mostly not Phil Goff's fault.  Back to the more current issue of WTF is going on with Chris Carter?

My theory is that he simply has not made the transition to being in Opposition.  He was a Cabinet Minister for 9 years, a close friend of the Prime Minister at the time, and got all the privileges that both of those things bring for almost a decade.  To be without them, when one has such a large ego, must be intolerable.  So he's acting out, casting around to lay blame and big noting himself when it's not really merited.  The Campbell Live interview with him tonight was revealing; he was obviously revelling in the attention, as he was at the airport earlier, and the way he has acted over this, and the expenses issue, has been quite at odds with his stated intentions.  There's a level of irrationality in Carter's actions that to me suggests he hasn't adjusted to his new life at all.

Which will probably have the effect of giving Carter another new life.  One outside of Parliament, a pariah to most in Labour, and seen as too much of a loose unit to get the directorships and governance roles that his Cabinet experience might otherwise merit.  It's pretty sad really.


*  Actually there are many individual Labour MPs who I think are doing a great job at raising issues, like Carol Beaumont on loan sharks, Grant Robertson on public service cuts, and Sue Moroney on early childhood funding.  They are well filling the role of Opposition MPs, to hold the Government to account, and they're not getting the traction they deserve.

PWW discussion forum

thought some of our auckland readers might be interested in this:

Greetings again to members of Pacific Women's Watch (NZ) and all Auckland women interested in monitoring and advancing the well-being and status of women and girls in NZ.

This is a reminder of our next Discussion Forum - all welcome and we look forward to your company and your input.

Date: Monday,16 August , 7.30 pm
Venue: St David’s Church Centre, Chapel
70 Khyber Pass Rd, Grafton, Auckland
Topic: Impacts of Welfare Reforms on Single Parents: a discussion with Carmel Sepuloni MP

For background information on PWW(NZ) + regular updates - please go to our website: www.pacificwomenswatch.org.nz

Forum inquiries: PWW(NZ) Secretary, jaclyn.bonnici@gmail.com or ph: Jane Prichard 528 3727

Please share this invitation with your own members, networks, NGO Newsletters, work colleagues, family and friends....

war & peace

is it just me, or are there a whole lot more war dramas and programmes on tv than their used to be? i've avoided pretty much all of them, i think.

it's not that i don't like war stuff per se - i watched stuff like the manchurian candidate (denzel washington version), enemy at the gates and other stuff i'm sure, that i thought were good. but what concerns me is that there are so many more stories being told about war than there are stories about peace.

i'm also concerned that many of the war stories are told in a way that don't glamorise war as such, but glamorise aspects of it. i'm finding it difficult to word this the right way. it's not a bad thing thing to show stories of courage under fire, and of people committing noble acts in absolutely awful situations. but unless those stories also show the horror and suffering of war, the impact on civilians not just from loss of life but also loss of infrastructure, and the severe trauma on combat personnel, i'm afraid that those stories tend to make war sound a little bit like a good thing, a noble thing even.

tie this in with the increasingly jingoistic nature of anzac day, and it becomes a development that i'm a little uncomfortable with. i've often said that if we spent as much on peace as we do on war, then the world would be an infinitely better place. but it would also be helpful if we could have more stories about peace, and if we could celebrate those stories a lot more. i'm thinking about stories that show tense situations solved by negotiation and compromise. i'm pretty sure those can be pretty intense and interesting viewing - i'm thinking for example of those hostage-type dramas where a kick-ass negotiating team saves the day.

the thing is that unless we have a greater focus on peace and celebrate peace, we're less likely to achieve it. in order for that to happen, peace making needs to become a part of our popular culture. it needs to be a greater part of our public discourse. it should be part of a public holiday where we spend time sharing stories about and commemorating peace and peace-keeping initiatives.

fortunately, there are other people in the country who think like i do, and who have been actively doing something about it. the aotearoa nz peace & conflict studies centre trust (yes, quite a mouthful) have successful in setting up the national peace & conflict centre at otago university. their july 2010 newsletter isn't online yet, but you can read previous newsletters here. they're currently looking for "an experienced fundraiser to help us generate
more support from individuals, businesses, and charitable trusts". another initiative is:

... a workshop on Peace Education in New Zealand early childhood, primary and secondary schools on the 29th and 30th October in Dunedin. The aim is to bring together teachers, providers, and the Ministry of Education to discuss what has happened in the field of Peace Education in NZ, what is happening now, and what needs to happen.

all good stuff. i'd also love to see nz on air and the film commission providing specified funding for film and programme makers to develop peace-related material - documentary or fiction. and wouldn't it be nice if we actually had a ministry of peace with funding equal to that of the ministry of defence. ah well, dreams are free.

Nine and a bit months

This is what pregnancy means for me.  Maybe it's different for you.  Maybe it's not.  This is what it's like for me.

To start with there's the waiting.  Waiting, waiting, waiting, followed by peeing.  Then some more waiting.  Sometimes by now there'll also be some nausea, tiredness and general crampiness.  Not long after the waiting is over there will be the vague sense of my world closing around me.  This will come back at various points over the ensuing months.  It's a bittersweet feeling, for me.

The dietary restrictions will come in fully after some half-hearted efforts prior to the appearance of that little blue line.  Feta and salami I shall miss the most, in a pita bread with some spinach leaves and some red onion, a little balsamic vinegar sprinkled in too, and put in my handbag for a nice cold lunch on the move.  I'll give up foods and drinks I like and I'll also stop doing many things I enjoy like going for very long walks in the bush out of cellphone coverage.  And roller-skating.

Next comes the nausea.  Followed shortly thereafter by the vomiting.  There's a large amount of both.  Like a really really really large amount.  None of this four football fields malarky, we are talking about so much that I lose weight in the first trimester even if I am eating more than usual.  This also means there are a lot of trips to the toilet, that I need to always know where the nearest toilet is, and that there is a lot of toilet cleaning too.  And probably some throwing up that happens sans toilet, like in a park or into a gutter or over a rubbish bin.

If I'm lucky it'll be predictable vomiting, which allows me to plan around it rather than just have to stay at home as a precaution. If I'm unlucky then workmates will hear me hurling before I'm ready to tell my boss, or I'll be stuck sitting on the toilet floor for prolonged periods, or I won't be able to drive on the motorway where I can't pull over with a few seconds notice.    This bit may go well into the second trimester, and as for only happening in the morning, well that's bunkum.  Although I'll probably be late to work a lot, either because I lost time throwing up as soon as I got up, or if I attempted to have some breakfast, or because I slept in from waking up in the night to vomit.  Did you know you can throw up even when your stomach is empty?  I do, now.

honours for women

so i recently got the email below from the ministry of women's affairs. it seems that the last honours list was pretty obviously lacking women, particularly at the top. i'm not particularly impressed with the changed honours system, which i wrote about last year here. nonetheless, there are plenty of wonderful women out there making a huge difference to their communities and their professions. so if you know of someone, feel free to encourage them. i helped someone through the process a few years ago and it was great to see her successfully awarded.


The Ministry of Women’s Affairs is seeking your assistance to identify and nominate women for the 2011 New Year Honours List.

In the 2010 Queen’s Birthday Honours List, only 31 percent of the 172 recipients were women (53 women). It is important that worthy women are brought to the attention of the Appointments and Honours Committee who decide on the list, and so we are asking for your assistance.

How you can help If you know of a woman deserving of an Honour, please submit a nomination form identifying her to the Honours Secretariat. You can find everything you need to know about the nominating process here.

From the Honours Secretariat website: “It is important that you provide as much information as possible about your nominee and the reasons for which recognition is sought. You should state how your nominee has contributed to the community and explain how they have made a difference to their community or field of work, whether they have demonstrated innovation or entrepreneurship, improved the lives of others, or exemplified selfless voluntary service.”

It is important that you, or someone even closer to the nominee, fills out the nomination form. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs can only provide publicly available information at best, which does not always give a complete enough picture of the nominee to be awarded an Honour.

The closing date for nominations for the 2011 New Year Honours List is 1 August 2010. We realise this deadline is not far away, but applications submitted after this date will be considered for the 2011 Queen’s Birthday Honours List. More information on Women on Boards is on our website.

Guest post: An abortion story

Thanks very much to the anonymous reader who has sent in the story of a friend. Another perspective to the abortion discussion. To me stories of this nature just underline how important it is that no woman is forced to continue or terminate their pregnancy against their wishes. Please comment with respect, in the spirit that this has been shared.

In 1985, as a 15 year old, this person became pregnant as a result of what she now knows as date rape. It was her 2nd encounter with a male, but this was with a male a couple of years older than her and he frightened her. She thought what she was experiencing was how it was done with adults.

She confided in a friend that she was pregnant, this friend told several people at school. She has told less than 5 people about this. She is a pro-lifer and wanted to keep the baby. The male was never to be seen again. Her mother knew, her father did not - this was for her own safety. She had no choice but to abort. She protested bitterly, but the GP and mother made the decision to refer to the day clinic and despite her signing the consent form she was not in control of her body. Her mother brought her flowers that day, and they have never spoken of it since.

She decided she would spend her life dedicated to children, and she has spent her entire adult life working with children, in a way, trying to make good with the world, and has had a very successful career in early childhood teaching. She worries that one day her secret would be revealed, and all of her hard work would become trivial in the minds of those whose opinion she values.

She is married, very happily, with several children whom she absolutely lives for. Her husband does not know of her abortion, she knows he will love her no less, but she can’t bring herself to admit it. She often wonders how life could have turned out had she had this baby, who would be a young adult now. Her argument for pro choice, is that it has to be a real choice. Her pain is that she didn’t know what date rape meant at the time, and she believes she is not the only person affected by this man. This event changed her forever, mostly she feels great, and life is good, but often she feels guilt and shame, not only about her own naivety, but that she ended a life without a choice. From the outside, you would never know this about her. She has no tolerance for those that don’t pull up their boot straps and march on in the face of adversity and believes that we make our own destiny, that the events in our lives happen, and some of them are truly dreadful, but that life goes on and we must support and honour those that share their time with us.

Save the Suffrage Memorial petition now able to be signed online

In addition to the physical petition forms which you can download from the National Council of Women site, there is now an online petition you can sign to show your support for retaining the Suffrage Memorial on Khartoum Pl in Auckland.

Deadline for signatures, to both petition formats, is August 17th, so now's good. 

You can find out more about the campaign to save this important monument to a vital part of our democratic history here.

in case i don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening & goodnight

**spoilers**

i just sat down and watched "the truman show" again tonight. it's one of my favourite ever films, one of those films that gives me something more every time i watch it. i'm not generally a jim carrey fan, and have given most of his comedic films a miss. but he is quite brilliant here, as is ed harris as the director.

i know the main themes of the film are around media manipulation, the lengths a society will go to for the purposes of entertainment and a dig at reality tv shows, with a whole heap of religious imagery thrown in. but to me, the relevance of this film is more to real life.

"the truman show" mirrors the lives of many people i've seen, particularly many asian people. possibly not so common among other cultures, but feel free to share if it sounds familiar. i see many parents who map out their childrens lives from a young age, directing them towards a safe career, choosing for them (or encouraging them to choose) a safe spouse with a very similar cultural background and similar values. they help the couple into a nice, safe suburban family home; the two of them have nice, safe jobs that provide the nice, safe middle class lifestyle.

it's a path that is chosen for children, and they are encouraged down it through the passing on of values such as: success = nice home, latest material possessions, and 2 or 3 kids (& please try to make sure at least one is a boy); familial responsibility and duty to parents; family traditions and cultural traditions.

and the thing is that it is all so well-intentioned, wrapped up in the utmost love and wanting the best for their kids. sometimes there's also a little bit of living vicariously eg i never got to be a doctor due to lack of opportunity, so i'm going to make sure my child becomes a doctor. and there's certainly a strong dash of power and control - the need to control and direct life towards a safe and happy future. and often a strong dose of self-sacrifice ie parents going without so that their children can have the best of everything. that last is a great tool for emotional blackmail down the track: "i gave up so much for you, so you could have this or that; how can you not do what i want/expect of you".

despite all of that, there is no maliciousness involved. these parents genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, and getting the right result for their children. it is exactly like christos, the director of the trueman show, who loves truman even as he directs and controls truman's life.

where it all unravels is about the age that truman is when the film starts. around 30, mabye a bit later, even up to 40. this child looks around at her or his life, and finds that it wasn't what they imagined their life to be like. it's a life of unfulfilled dreams, nice and successful but extremely bland and unsatisfying.

what then? how many have the courage to leave? i think there are a fair few that don't, who then go on to live vicariously through their own children, and who try to get some sense of power and control by directing their own children's lives.

then there are the ones who do walk away, but the cost is pretty high. broken relationships, hurt children and spouses, heartache, and a whole lot of painful soul-searching. that's the part of truman's life we never get to see. we're sort of left with the impression that he has escaped oppression and will live happily ever after with his true love. except that christos warns him that the world he's going into is as full of deception as the one he is leaving, and we (the audience) know that this is completely true.

i often wonder how truman's life on the outside would have gone, and would dearly love to see someone write that book. of course, if we extrapolate from the movie, truman is already famous and would no doubt earn heaps from interviews with various media and probably a best-selling book or two. he would definitely find his girlfriend and it no doubt would end up reasonably well.

and i think, in the end, it usually does end up well for the people that have the courage to walk away and build up a new life for themselves. even after all the heartache, there's that sense of personal freedom that is extremely precious, and the endless possibilities there for the taking (but only if you feel like it). the people close to you, who truly love you, they eventually learn to accept that they can't control and channel another person's life - but that is a difficult lesson to learn when they've spent a lifetime doing just that.

the thing is that a cage is cage, no matter how pretty you make it, and none of us can be truly happy living in a cage. that's the essential message i take from this film, and probably why i love it so much.

Rumours swirling

V quick post from tiny iPod keyboard.

Rumours are abounding that Steve Chadwick's Bill may not be going in the ballot anytime soon.

IMHO that's actually ok as it gives pro-choice voices more time to get organized and make visible the significant public support for a woman's right to choose which we know is there.

It means that when a bill does go in the ballot, and later up for voting in Parliament, it won't only be the minority against abortion full stop (who also, it should be noted, don't support the current law) who dominate the public discussion.

I believe a pro-choice abortion law is possible in our time and I'll be working to make it happen. Who's with me?

Friday Feminist - Susan Sherwin (3)

Cross posted

Whatever the specific reasons are for abortion, most feminists believe that the women concerned are in the best position to judge whether abortion is the appropriate response to a pregnancy. Because usually only the woman choosing abortion is properly situated to weigh all the relevant factors, most feminists resist attempts to offer general, abstract rules for determining when abortion is morally justified. Women's personal deliberations about abortion involve contextually defined considerations that reflect their commitments to the needs and interests of everyone concerned, including themselves, the fetuses they carry, other members of their household, and so forth. Because no single formula is available for balancing these complex factors through all possible cases, it is vital that feminists insist on protecting each women's right to come to her own conclusions and resist the attempts of other philosophers and moralists to set the agenda for these considerations. Feminists stress that women must be acknowledged as full moral agents, responsible for making moral decisions about their own pregnancies. Women may sometimes make mistakes in their moral judgments, but no one else can be assumed to have the authority to evaluate and overrule their judgments.

Susan Sherwin, No Longer Patient: Feminist Ethics and Health Care, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992, p. 102

Adventures in icing, the broken laptop edition

So my laptop is broken, hence my absence (plus work = crazy). I had hoped to get it back last night but there is still a problem so won't be until next week probably. My iPod Touch allows me some ability to comment around the show, but not very easily at Blogger-based sites, so apologies for my absence, thanks to the other bloggers for posting, and here's a cupcake shot for Friday:

Another myth about abortion

One of the ideas that permeates the abortion debate in so many ways is that supporting abortion rights is a minority position.

You see this partly in the idea that the law is cucrently 'outdated' (which is common even among those trying to change the law) as if it reflected it's time. Chris Trotter also strongly implied it - with the idea that hundreds of thousands of decent well-meaning people were behind the law as it stands now.

This is untrue - the current abortion law was wildly unpopular when it passed. 318,820 voting aged people signed the REPEAL petition (much like it sounded a petition to repeal the restrictive abortion laws) in 13 weeks. When you think about how many CIR have struggled to get that number of signatures - let alone that percentage of the population, you will understand it was a staggeringly unpopular law.

In this thread (warning the original post makes Chris Trotter look like a hardcore supporter of a woman's right to choose) the idea that abortion is a minority position bandied about by both supporters and opponents of law change.

Gaging public opinion on abortion is always difficult - the way the questions are worded makes a huge different to the way people answer them. But support for women having access to abortion is solid, and support for denying access to abortion is not.

More importantly in the 1970s public opinion on abortion swung very quickly. There are probably many reasons for this, but the most important is that women were speaking openly about their experiences of having an abortion and claimed abortion as a right - this position quickly resonated with people.

Those who support a woman's right to choose are not a minority, and the best way to build our movement is to make sure we don't act like one.

national conversation about work

I/S has a good post up about the human rights commission report "what next? national conversation about work". this is an extremely important piece of research, and dr judy mcgregor discussed some of the issues on nine to noon this monday (9.08am).


i was privileged to take part in this project, by being at one of the meetings that was held in hamilton. the waikato report can be found here, and yes, because i am a shameless attention-seeker, i have to point out that this person is me:


Participants spoke about the fear felt by ethnic workers when complaining about work conditions. "Ethnic workers don‟t complain because they‟re afraid that employers will find a way to get rid of them", one female Muslim worker said.


although i did say more than that: this is especially an issue for those migrant workers here on work permits. their ability to complain about conditions is almost nil, because loss of a job means being sent out of the country and i have personally encountered women who just wouldn't dare complain out of this fear. this is also an issue for migrants with permanent residence, because again, the costs of job loss is higher. access to welfare benefits is restricted, and there is already a considerable level of financial pressure caused by the shift to a different country and setting up home here. they just aren't prepared to take the risk of losing a job by complaining.

while we know that a complaint about work conditions, environment or equal pay shouldn't lead to the loss of a job, the reality is that there are ways to make the working environment even more difficult for the person who makes trouble. and those who are on work permits won't be in the country long enough to take a case against unfair dismissal.

i'd also like to highlight one of the issues that I/S raised: the fact that women want more transparency around pay:

One of the participants said, “Women are strongly discouraged from discussing our salaries with one another. I have no way of knowing if a male in my position with the same experience makes more than me. I would prefer transparency and the sharing of knowledge.”

Women in different areas of work expressed frustration at the lack of progress on pay and employment equity in both the public and private sectors.

this is one issue i feel really strongly about. i think both women and ethnic minorities suffer due to the secrecy around pay rates. i'd actually like to go back to the old awards system where pay rates were open, and people knew what others in the workplace were paid. secrecy allows discrimination to flourish and there is absolutely no need for it. if someone is performing better than others doing a similar job and they get paid more because of it, then everyone should know about it. if they're getting paid more for no apparent reason, then everyone should know about that too. fairness in pay is dependent on a free flow of information.

the report details "ten priorities for action on EEO". but who in this government is going to pick them up? the minister for labour, hon kate wilkinson? not holding my breath. the minister for women's affairs and ethnic affairs, hon pansy wong? haven't seen any concrete action from her thus far on any major issue, and she made no effort to stop the scrapping of the pay equity unit.

there really isn't anyone at all.

Syria bans face veils in unversities

This recent post prompted a discussion about a proposed law change which would affect those who wear the niqab and burqa in France:

The draft bill says that “no one can, in the public space, wear clothing intended to hide the face.” The bill also defines “public space” broadly, including streets, markets and private businesses, as well as government buildings and public transportation. A fine of $190 will be imposed on those wearing the full facial veil, and anyone who forces a woman to wear such a veil will be punished by a fine of as much as $38,000 and a year in jail, doubled if the victim is a minor. (from here)

As some of the discussion around that post argued that this was racist move I was interested to read that Syria (a secular state with a muslim majority) has this week announced a ban on women wearing full face veils in universities. From a feminist perspective, does this change the debate?

The ban shows a rare point of agreement between Syria's secular, authoritarian government and the democracies of Europe: Both view the niqab as a potentially destabilizing threat. "We have given directives to all universities to ban niqab-wearing women from registering," a government official in Damascus told The Associated Press on Monday.

The order affects both public and private universities and aims to protect Syria's secular identity, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue. Hundreds of primary school teachers who were wearing the niqab at government-run schools were transferred last month to administrative jobs, he added.

The ban, issued Sunday by the Education Ministry, does not affect the hijab, or headscarf, which is far more common in Syria than the niqab's billowing black robes.

Syria is the latest in a string of nations from Europe to the Middle East to weigh in on the veil, perhaps the most visible symbol of conservative Islam. Veils have spread in other secular-leaning Arab countries, such as Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, with Jordan's government trying to discourage them by playing up reports of robbers who wear veils as masks. Turkey bans Msulim headscarves in universities, with many saying attempts to allow them in schools amount to an attack on modern Turkey's secular laws.

See here for the full article, which also takes a [patronising] class angle on the issue in Syria:

But in the Middle East — particularly Syria and Egypt, where there have been efforts to ban the niqab in the dorms of public universities — experts say the issue underscores the gulf between the secular elite and largely impoverished lower classes who find solace in religion. Some observers say the bans also stem in part from fear of dissent.

Another new laydee

Welcome to the NZ and worldwide feminist blogosphere, ScubaNurse, who blogs at Well behaved women rarely make history . She has a fantastic post up about the police officers have talked about a recent missing person case: Missing woman "opens herself up". Police officer "opens themselves up" to my wrath.

As ever, if you would like to be included in our blogroll, drop a note in comments, and we'll add you. Our blogroll celebrates New Zealand women blogging about... anything. So don't be shy!

Carnival news

The Down Under Feminists Carnival has a new home and a new co-ordinator. After founding the carnival and steering it along for over two years, Lauredhel has passed it on to the fabulous Chally, who writes at her own place, Zero at the Bone, and at Feministe and FWD/Forward. Lauredhel, thank you for all the work you've put into the carnival over the past couple of years.

The new carnival home is here: Down Under Feminists Carnival.

The next carnival is due to go up on 5 August, at my own place. That means that I'm looking for submissions. Any feminist post (broadly interpreted) by any down under blogger (broadly interpreted) can be included in the carnival. If you've posted something during July that you think would be good for the carnival, or if you've read a post somewhere that you think should be in the carnival, then send it in, either via the carnival submission page, or direct to me at my hotmail address, where I use dfr141 as my handle.

And think about whether you might be able to host the carnival yourself, at your place. Chally is looking for carnival hosts for October, November, December and beyond. If you think you could host it, drop her a line at: chally [dot] zeroatthebone [at] gmail [dot] com

Please, do support the carnival. Many carnivals don't last for much more than a year or so, and some for less that that. The Down Under Feminists Carnival is doing well, but it needs on-going support. It's a great mechanism for keeping the down under feminist bloggers (writing, reading and commenting) in touch with each other, and for creating community. So send in those submissions, click through and read posts in the carnival, and leave some comments.

While I'm on about carnivals, Anji has posted the Twelfth Carnival of Feminist Parenting at Mothers for Women's Lib. Go take a look: it's a bumper edition.

children's crusade

this song is one my favourite ever, although i had listened to it for years and had forgotten what it was called. but thanx youtube! i've put in a version below that just had the lyrics. there's another version on youtube here, which is quite powerful but extremely graphic in its depiction of violence so i didn't think it was appropriate to put up here. on the other hand, we are so often presented sanitised pictures of the reality of war, and what we find difficult to look at, well just imagine how that feels to the people who have to experience it. in any case, if you have the stomach for it, go look at the other version, because it also has some useful information amongst the images. and if you don't, maybe listen to the version below and take a moment to think about the most innocent casualties of wars around the world.

Getting it right at Granny Herald

After all the nasty columns and talkback radio sessions suggesting that any girl who got drunk in the company of All Blacks deserved to be raped (seriously, All Blacks management... do you think you might want to do something about that meme?), it was fantastic to see two columnists in the Herald arguing exactly the opposite.

John Roughan: Lousy lovers let the side down

As one "red blooded male" to another, let's see if I can persuade Andy Haden, Murray Deaker, Garth George, Michael Laws and possibly many others of my gender why it is fairly reprehensible to have sex with a comatose woman.

Deborah Coddington: True gender equality still a mirage in modern day NZ

I'd really like to know what sort of man gets his pleasure from having sex with a comatose girl. If he's that desperate, why not just go to the nearest abattoir and take a carcass off the chain? ... If you encounter anyone drunk, legless and comatose you should help them, ensure they are safe, not have sex with them.

Yes, I know the column uses "having sex", not "rape". It would be interesting to know whether Deborah Coddington thinks that having sex with someone who is comatose constitutes rape, but I'm guessing that there are legal issues with respect to the words that she is able to use in her newspaper column.

Thanks to my sister-in-law Trina for letting me know about Deborah Coddington's column.

service, or lack thereof

a bit of a frivolous post for a sunday evening, or maybe not. i object to the self-service checkout thingies in supermarkets. our local new world has it, pak'n'save mill st are soon to bring them in, if they haven't already. and i seriously hate them.

aside from the fact that it's a loss of jobs, it's more the principle of the thing. the people who use self-service checkouts are saving the supermarket the wage cost of a checkout operator. so do they get a discount on their groceries if they use the self-serve? or do all shoppers have a slightly lower grocery bill because the supermarket is saving on labour costs?

oh no. not only does the customer have to do the extra work of scanning & packing their own groceries, but the supermarket gets to pocket the economic benefit of that work. morons.

the case against laniet bain

i've been meaning to do a post about laniet bain for a while now, but have been unable to get to it. the first reason was after seeing the bryan bruce documentary "the case against robin bain" on tv, but i feel more strongly about this after having the read the book "the mask of sanity" by james mcneish.

in effect, both journalists come to the same conclusion about laniet bains: that she is a liar and totally fabricated a story about incest occurring between herself and her father robin bain. they use some similar reasoning, in that the story she told about being pregnant and having a child in papua new guinea as a girl of around 11 or 12 is not supported by autopsy evidence. neither is there any evidence from PNG, amongst the many people who interacted with the bains family, to support this. therefore, because she lied about having a baby in her youth, she must be a pathological liar, and is lying about the incest.

which is pretty much nonsense. a person may lie about one thing and tell the truth about another. or tell a lie to cover up a truth that she is unwilling to tell or to deal with. or tell a lie in an attempt to get attention or to divert attention.

there were other points that annoyed me. mr bruce, for example, used evidence of photographs and video clips from laniet's childhood in which, he said, there was nothing "to suggest a family hiding a dark secret". he makes this point to prove that laniet could not have been raped and had at around 11 or 12 years of age. but it doesn't mean she wasn't a victim of incest. many victims are used to putting on a happy face to the public, and can certainly do so for the short time that a photograph or video clip is taken. if a child has been groomed, they may be going through a period of not realising that what is happening to them is unusual or wrong. or it could simply be that the incest happened after the date those photographs were taken and the video clips made.

the main problem, of course, is that we don't have anything directly from laniet alleging incest - no diary, video recording, correspondence or anything else that could be considered first hand evidence. all we have are second-hand accounts. one of these was from a mr cottle who has so far managed to avoid testifying at two trials and was allegedly her pimp.

i think mr bruce did a pretty good job of probing into one of the other witnesses. mr mcneish also shows that that evidence of yet another witness who wasn't heard at the first trial was pretty ambiguous. for example, when laniet said she was going to reveal "everything" to her family in the weekend before the murders, that "everything" could have referred to prostitution & drug use rather than to incest. the meaning was quite unclear.

however, not having read the transcripts of the second trial, i don't know what all the witnesses on this matter said, and what the totality of their testimony might have proved.

but the way mr mcneish portrays laniet, and a couple of the points he makes are a little disturbing. for example, on page 214 of the book he writes:

Against this one has to remember Laniet's state of mind and the context of those years when there was a fashion among young women for "recovered memories" of abuse and incest.

a fashion??? this is a book which spends a considerable amount discussing amnesia that victims or perpetrators of crime can suffer due to the trauma of the event. he includes interviews from various experts on just this topic of repressed memories, and the possibility that david bain has repressed any memory of committing the murder. yet when it comes to matters of abuse or incest, the recovery of repressed memory was supposedly fashionable rather than real? i found this line in the book to be particularly offensive in writing off any possibility of incest.

mr mcneish's book is good when it relates to discussion of the trial and the evidence presented, and also pretty good in uncovering the family history of the bains in PNG and in dunedin. but when he starts putting forward his own interpretation (basically part 2 of the book), he goes in some wierd directions. admittedly margaret bain's diary appears to have some pretty disturbing stuff in it including serious dabbling in the occult, but to paint her as a sorceress who "castrated, psychologically" (p 213) david bain and who "kidnapped" robin bain's will to leave the marriage due to her controlling ways? i think that interpretation of the facts is a little skewed.

just for the record, my personal opinion is that david bain is guilty and to me it's the sum of the evidence against david bain - the bruises on his face and knee, the broken glasses and gloves, the fingerprints on the gun and elsewhere - and the lack of forensic evidence against robin bain. despite that, i really don't like the way that laniet's claims of incest have been dismissed as lies. i think, if there's going to be another episode about this truly awful tragedy, then it should be the case against laniet, from someone who doesn't want to dismiss her as a liar.

Friday Feminist - Susan Sherwin (2)

Cross posted

Finally, a woman may simply believe that bearing a child is incompatible with her life plans at the time. Continuing a pregnancy may have devasting repercussions throughout a woman's life. If the woman is young, then a pregnancy will likely reduce her chances of pursuing an education and hence limit her career and life opportunites: "The earlier a woman has a baby, it seems, the more likely she is to remain poorly paid, peripheral to the labor market, or unemployed, and the more children she will have" (Petchesky 1985, 150*). In many circumstances, having a child will exacerbate the social and economic forces already stacked against a woman by virtue of her sex (and her race, class, age, sexual orientation, disabilities, and so forth). Access to abortion is necessary for many women if they are to escape the oppressive conditions of poverty.

*Petchesky, Rosalind P., 1985, Abortion and Women’s Choice: The State, Sexuality, and Reproductive Freedom, Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1985

Susan Sherwin, No Longer Patient: Feminist Ethics and Health Care, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992, p. 102

Cupcake icing weirdness

I find this a bit creepy, putting a pic of the birthday person on cupcakes that everyone then eats.

What do you think dear readers?

How many times do we have to say it? NO ONE ASKS FOR RAPE

Garth George does it again. (Warning, possible triggering around rape and sexual assault in his column)

His key points appear to be:

• Andy Haden should not have been a Rugby World Cup Ambassador in the first place because he is a straight-talker rather than "trained in the art of dissimulation and practised at long-winded circumlocution by which they spend hours saying nothing at all."
• Haden shouldn't have made the racist statement he did earlier in the year because it was "patently wrong" and, as a good Kiwi Bloke (TM), he should have used a local racial slur rather than the imported "darkies".
• Haden's comments about women asking for rape were "fair enough", but shouldn't have been said publicly.
• Robin Brooke's alleged behaviour was bad "since at the time he was newly married."

Then there are these really really awful statements from George, which I'm putting after the fold because they may be triggering for some:

"Surely it is perfectly logical to acknowledge that if female groupies attach themselves to sportsmen, drink with them and take them home, chances are they'll end up screwed.

...The perennial publicity given to the off-field behaviour of testosterone-fuelled rugby - and particularly Australian rugby league - players in recent years should surely have warned any sports-loving young woman to stay well away unless she is prepared to go all the way.

And, once again, one has to wonder why it has taken well over a decade for this complaint to be made and why the media should make such a meal of it.

One has to wonder, too, at the naivete of rape victim advocate Louise Nicholas who said that rugby players needed to be prepared for groupies and walk away from situations that could go awry.

Surely, in this day and age of prolific casual sex, she has to be joking. Don't women have as much, if not more, responsibility for keeping themselves away from unwelcome male attention?

So when it comes to rape the onus is actually on women to avoid it. And to encourage men to think about their own behaviour is "naive." Robin Brooke's main sin, from what's been alleged to date, is cheating on his new wife.

You won't be surprised to discover that George has managed to get through this whole column without using the word rape, except when using it to describe Louise Nicholas' role for Rape Prevention Education.

I shake my head in disbelief.

If it's not politic for Andy Haden to say these things in public, as George himself seems to be agreeing with, why is it ok for Garth to put them in his Herald column, indeed expand on them and imho state them in an even worse manner?

Where do you start with someone who is so hard-wired to blame women for rape?

France's ban on veils gets voted through to next stage

From World News Australia, fedora tipped in the direction of Boganette via Twitter:

French ministers have voted overwhelmingly to ban the wearing of face-covering veils in public spaces, as Europe toughens its approach to integrating Muslim immigrant communities.

...the 577-seat National Assembly lower house voted by 335 votes to one for a total ban.

The bill will now go to the Senate in September, but opponents of the total ban say if it was overturned by the judges of the Constitutional Council, France's highest legal body, it would hand a victory to the fundamentalists.

For while President Nicolas Sarkozy's determination to ban the niqab and the burqa won enough political support to carry it, the critics argue that it breaches French and European human rights legislation.

The bill defines public space very broadly, including not just government buildings and public transport, but all streets, markets and thoroughfares, private businesses and entertainment venues.

...Last week, Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie told lawmakers debating the bill that its adoption would assert French values and help to better integrate Muslim communities into the national way of life.

She said being forced to wear the niqab or the burqa "amounts to being cut off from society and rejecting the very spirit of the French republic that is founded on a desire to live together."

"At a time where our societies are becoming more global and complex, the French people are pondering the future of their nation. Our responsibility is to show vigilance and reaffirm our commonly-shared values," she said.

Critics say the law exploits a non-problem -- only about 1,900 women among France's five to six million Muslims wear a veil -- in a bid to pander to anti-immigration voters and to distract attention from France's economic woes...

Click through for the whole thing, including a video segment which I haven't watched.

Personally I don't see how controlling the way women dress, even if it is apparently intended to liberate them, is a Good Thing. And I saw a comment somewhere (I think on Boganette's twitter feed but not from her?) pointing out that stopping women from covering their faces in public is going to further restrict those affected, by requiring them to stay out of public spaces. Which will in turn severely undermine their ability to participate in society. To give just one example, how will they get to a polling booth to vote?

Guest post: Undercover Boss: Hooters

Thank you kindly to the blogger at A Blog Named Fred, for this guest post, which is cross-posted from her place.

Tonight I watched an episode of “Undercover Boss” which is where a CEO for a company goes undercover into the frontline of their business to see what it’s like, and supposedly where they can see a way to making improvements in the business (read: screw the workers down).

The boss that was on tonight was the CEO of ‘Hooters.’ Laugh out Loud. This dude- Colby is like the son of the guy who founded the concept. The concept being where women wear a white clingy tank top and uber-short orange shorts, whilst serving boneless chicken wings/thighs/and breasts.

He visits three of his franchisees. One store where he doesn’t last half a morning because he can’t keep up with the kitchen staff. The boss who is ex-military orders him about and he gets to feel what it is to be a ‘real worker.’

Then he hangs out with a couple of the staff. He goes out into the street with the girls and tries to sell the “Hooters” brand. Women (more than one!) in the street are telling him they think his company (and they don’t know it really is ‘his’ company) is degrading to women (quelle surprise?).

And then in true reality TV show form he goes to a store where the male manager “Jimbo” performs for the camera. I swear this guy was an actor injected into the plot to make it interesting. No way was this for real- then again this is America. So what he does- is he makes the “Hooters” girls in his store compete, by eating a plate of beans without their hands. And the first to win gets to go home early. And the CEO Undercover boss guy- does he jump in and say “no you sexist person, no, stop what you are doing.” No he doesn’t, because that would involve breaking cover.

This thing smells like a PR exercise for “Hooters.” Who am I kidding- this is obviously paid advertising for “Hooters.” I would love to know how many extra visits to their stores they got off the back of this programme.

Last but not least he visits one of his stores that has a female manager. A mother with two girls who has been a “Hooters” girl herself. She talks about the trials and tribulations of managing a fast food restaurant.

To finish he goes to the “Hooters” factory where they make all the fast food and he talks about the days when his father was the manager and how all the factory employees loved him. And sheds a tear and all that sort of thing. One of the employees talks to him (not knowing who he is) about how when the original guy was in charge there were bonuses, and now there’s not, and how morale is low.

So yeah- and then I’m thinking- well here is a great opportunity for a boss to do some good things for his company and his employees and improve on the image (if the “Hooters” image can be improved on).

He could change the dress code, do goodness knows what with the sexist manager, give the female manager and any other parent manager more domestic leave or childcare subsidy, up the pay for his staff- especially the ones working in the factory, bring in the union perhaps?

Instead he asks the “Hooters” girls he hung out with to help him out with a PR campaign in which they get to feature. They are going to do some ads about how “Hooters” contributes to the community. He donates $50,000 to a military charity out of respect to the ex-military manager he hung out with. He asks the stupid sexist manager to apologise to his staff. And he gives the female manager an all expenses paid holiday for her and her family to anywhere they want. And promises to go into Dad’s old factory a bit more often and say hi to the staff so they will feel like it’s a family business again. And then at the end he had a big day for his staff where he announced something but I missed that bit- I’m pretty sure he didn’t announce he was going to up pay and conditions.

Don’t think I’ll be watching “Undercover Boss” again. Like most reality TV it is purely paid advertising. Obviously “Hooters” wouldn’t agree to take part if they didn’t think there was something in it for their company. The really sad thing is that this was on TVNZ Channel One. Public Broadcasting- FAIL.

A day in the life

Gosh it's been busy lately.

First there's been all the polishing my Internal Chastity Orb, whilst Reflexively Bowing In The Direction Of Walled-In Feminist Orthodoxy. Gotta keep up my status as a Mysterious Gift From Heaven, so no one mistakes me for anything other than the Incubator I truly am.

And in between all that and Training Men To Be Predators, I've been trying to help Giovanni fix his watch, which is somewhat bizarrely stuck on 19:68. Poor fellow, although not as poorly as that guy whose Patroniser Is Set To Stun.* (Don't worry, I am exercising General Prudence when dealing with menfolk, not to mention Basic Self-Defence 101.)

It's With Sadness that I accept that I can't fit in the time to Give Dudes Vasectomies In Satan's Honour. Maybe tomorrow.


*Props to G privately for that one.

The (non-existent) relationship between abortion law and abortion rates

In early 1978, after the current abortion law was passed, it was almost impossible to get a legal abortion in New Zealand.* The law was incredibly badly drafted - the interaction of the implementation dates of different clauses was unclear, and no-one was prepared to take a risk. Feminists responded by organising SOS - Sisters Overseas Service - so women could get abortions in Australia.

Before the new law for most New Zealand women the easiest way to get an abortion was from the Auckland Medical Aid Centre - which was challenging the law and providing abortion on demand in the first trimester, at a relatively low cost. After the new law came in it cost $500 (including the trip to Australia) - $3,000 in today's money.

And yet, by the best estimates New Zealand women had more abortions in 1978 than they had in 1977. They certainly didn't have fewer abortions.**

To be absolutely clear - when New Zealand passed what was then one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the Western world and the cost of abortion increased dramatically - the total number of abortions New Zealand women had went up.

I mention this as a response to Chris Trotter's ridiculous column:

Does Ms Chadwick not believe that 18,382 abortions are enough? Does she think there should be more? Has the existing legislation created an unfulfilled demand for abortion which her proposed private members bill seeks to satisfy?***

While it is true that restrictive abortion laws deny some women access to abortion, and I don't want to minimise those women's experiences, the vast majority of women who want an abortion in New Zealand do get one - just as they did in 1977. New Zealand's restrictive abortion laws have never had a significant impact on the abortion rate - that's not how abortion law or access works.****

I'm not an activist on this issue because I'm fighting for women to have abortions. Quinine, hot baths, knitting needles, trips to Auckland, vitamin C, menstrual extraction, trips to Australia, telling the doctors what they need to hear about their mental health - women do what needs to be done to terminate a pregnancy.

Yes women in New Zealand generally manage to jump through the hoops that have been set up (if they didn't then we would have had abortion law reform a long time ago - just like the only reason Ireland gets away with having such restrictive abortion laws is because women can go to the UK). But (and I will go into this in more detail soon) those hoops have a cost - time off work, travel, childcare and stress. A cost which has nothing to do with the reality of abortion. A cost I don't think women should have to pay.

I'm an activist on this issue, because I think women should not have to pay a penance to someone else's morality before they get access to abortion.

* A much smaller number of abortions were carried out in other hospitals, and probably provisions for illegal abortions in some places.

** The graph of women between the ages of 16-45 travelling to Australia for a period of less than 5 days has a huge spike at this time. On top of that there are details from groups such as SOS.

*** And he trots out the compromise lie - it was not a compromise - it was a complete victory for the other side - the voting record and debate demonstrates that very clearly.

**** Seriously this is abortion politics 101 - the law makes minimal difference to the rate of abortion. It doesn't matter how high the cost for an abortion is - almost all women will pay it, because the cost of a pregnancy, let alone a child, is going to be greater.

national council of women to lose charitable status

ok, i know the deadline for submissions has passed, but thought it was still worth sharing the information below for those who are interested (received via email to aen from peace movement aotearoa).

NCWNZ and the Charities Commission
The Charities Commission NZ is seeking to deregister this body at the national level, as being a charitable society. The reason given for this action is that the Commission is of the view that NCWNZ Incorporated no longer qualifies for registration as a charitable entity on the grounds that it is not established and maintained exclusively for charitable purpose as required by section 13(1)(b) of the Act.

The situation
To date what has transpired, is as follows:

On 16 April 2010, NCWNZ received notification from the Charities Commission Office of its intention to deregister the National Council of Women of New Zealand Inc as a charitable organisation.

An initial submission was prepared for the Review and Investigation team; this was presented on 14 May 2010. NCWNZ accepted the Charities Commission offer for an extension for the main submission to its office which focused on the legal aspect of this matter and required evidence relating to NCWNZ's activities. This submission was presented on 31 May. Further evidence, over one hundred pages of the work undertaken by national office, was submitted on 2 June 2010.

On 22 June it was confirmed that the Review and Investigation team would be recommending that NCWNZ is deregistered as a charitable organisation. NCWNZ responded immediately with a request to provide the Commission with information and evidence relevant to the Board specifically. The Commission has thus far not responded.

The implications for this organisation
The loss of charitable status has serious implications for organisations dependent on funding from philanthropic bodies. The current funding environment is already extremely competitive, making charitable status one of the most basic requirements of any charitable organisation.

Our goals
1. First and foremost, delaying a decision by the Charities Commission Board, so that NCWNZ can present its case that it is in the public interest that we are able to maintain both our charitable status and continue to undertake our work unfettered.

2. Calling for the review of the Charities Commission and the Charities Act to better reflect today's needs and public expectations and not be so tightly bound to a Common Law which was created over 400 years ago; it is our understanding that the Department of Internal Affairs opted to shy away from reviewing the matter of charitable purpose and political advocacy.

3. Establishing a citizen-driven definition of charitable purpose and the activities, mechanisms and tools which can be reasonably applied in order to further the charitable purpose; NCWNZ is looking at what has occurred in Canada in regards to this issue.

What can you do?

• Visit or send a letter to your local MP about the current shortcomings of the Charities Act or write to your local paper supporting NCWNZ maintaining charitable status and highlighting the need for change in the definition of a charitable organisation. NCWNZ has created letter templates for your convenience. Download the 'Template Letter regarding NCWNZ and the Charities Commission' at http://www.ncwnz.org.nz/assets/Action/Template-Letter-regarding-NCWNZ-and-Charities-Commission.doc or the 'Template Letter regarding Review of Charitable Purpose' at http://www.ncwnz.org.nz/assets/Action/Template-Letter-regarding-Review-of-Charitable-Purpose.doc
• Support NCWNZ financially to build towards independence from the restrictions imposed by the Charities Act and Government funding.
• Go to 'Submit Your Views: Does NCWNZ work for charitable purposes?' at http://www.ncwnz.org.nz/submit-your-views-does-ncwnz-work-for-charitable-purposes/ and follow the instructions * Please note: if you have not yet had the opportunity to make a submission, NCWNZ would appreciate you submitting your views even if you cannot get it to them until after the deadline of Friday, 9 July 2010. Where you can get more information

The web page at http://www.ncwnz.org.nz/ncwnz-and-the-charities-commission has links to media releases, resources and sources of more information in boxes on the right side of the page, please scroll down the page to see them all.

Abortion in Japan

All this talk of abortion has made me think about differences between the debate here in NZ (where I live) and Japan (where I lived for a while). The purpose of this post is to share a few observations of a society which is more relaxed about abortion than most other places, where abortion was legalised earlier than almost anywhere else and where the decision to continue a pregnancy is generally recognised as the business only of the individual (woman) concerned.

Abortion has for a long time been the de facto method of birth control in Japan. I saw a statistic that some 60% of university-educated Japanese women in their 40s had had at least one abortion.

With the liberalized law enacted in 1948, abortion became the primary mode of fertility control in Japan. Abortion played a significant role during the early years of the overall fertility decline, with contraception subsequently playing a greater role. According to health authorities, the number of induced abortions in Japan continued to increase after the 1948 law was enacted. A peak was reached in 1955, when more than 1,170,000 abortions were reported against about 1,731,000 officially registered live births. Thereafter, the number of induced abortions gradually decreased. As of 1983, slightly over 567,000 cases—about half of the number of abortions that were performed in 1955—were reported.

The vast majority of abortions in Japan have been performed under the maternal health protection indication, which is in effect a combination of medical and socio-economic reasons. Nearly all abortions have occurred within the first trimester. In contrast to the general declining trend in the total incidence of abortion, the number of abortions obtained by women with low parity and by teenagers has been increasing since the late 1970s. As reported by one study in 1990, pregnancies among adolescents in Japan occur at a rate of about 22 per 1,000, and most of them end in abortion.

When I was living in Japan there was talk about how the local doctors who perform abortions had been trying to block wider access to the oral contraceptive and emergency contraceptive pills. For a long time these were not available and the main debate around abortion was in relation to this, that a predominantly male health sector was limiting access to less full on medical options to unwanted pregnancy. The oral contraceptive pill only became available ten years ago but is still not that widely used. On a personal level I noticed that I had to be much more vigilant in terms of contraception than I had been in NZ and this seemed to be because people were less terrified by the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy.

Women choose abortions for a range of economic, personal and social reasons and the Japanese attitude is that the woman concerned is the best placed to make a decision about whether to continue a pregnancy. The factors that will influence the decision are just as relevant in 2010 as they have been in the past and the decision to have an abortion is a woman's own.

What strikes me as different about the abortion debate in NZ is the centrality of the foetus, the "potential person". In Japan the idea that a foetus has a right to life has not been widespread and the practice of abortion not a taboo on religious grounds. Traditionally it was not at conception or the quickening that the foetus became a "person" but rather this occurred when the religious rites of passage were peformed after birth. From what I understand there have been periods when abortion has been illegal in Japan but again this was nothing to do with the right to life of the foetus but rather was because the government wanted to boost population numbers during times of war. Society recognises that responsibility to the living (the parents, family, community) is the key consideration, rather than the rights of the foetus.

In terms of the legal situation, which is described below, there is still room for improvement. However, it is the public debate around abortion which has always interested me as removing the religious angle makes the discussion quite a different one. There are still issues around agency and liberation but these align themselves in a different way.

Under the Law, an abortion could be performed only in a medical facility by a physician designated by the local medical association. The consent of the woman and her spouse was required unless the spouse was unascertainable, unable to express his will or had died after conception of the foetus. If the woman who was to undergo the abortion was insane or mentally retarded, consent had to be given by the woman’s guardian.

Owing to the provision in the law of socio-economic grounds for abortion above, abortions became available virtually on request since the pregnant woman needed only to find a physician who was willing to perform the operation. The time limit for the performance of abortions was not specifically set by the Law. Rather, the Law designated viability as the limit for all abortions. Subsequently, notices issued by the Ministry of Health and Welfare moved the point of viability from an initial eight months to 23 weeks. Although these notices, technically, do not have binding legal effect, they indicate the Government’s understanding of the Law and are almost universally followed.

Spontaneous or deliberate termination have the same moral status in Japan and there is a religious ritual called Mizuko Jizo which provides a way for women to acknowledge these, if they want to. Parents who are unable to have a child because of miscarriage, abortion or stillbirth will often visit a temple to visit the Mizuko Jizo (pictured above) and will write a letter to the child that cannot be born now but will be born at a later time.

Many women or couples in Japan who have terminated a pregnancy, suffered a miscarriage, or had a stillborn baby choose to honour the soul of this child through a practice called mizuko jizo. Mizuko means ‘child of the water’ and is used to refer to the soul of a child who has been returned to the gods, and Jizo is the name of the Buddhist god who protects and guides that soul on its journey to another world.

Abortion is regarded as the parents willingly making a decision to return a child to the gods, sending a child to a temporary place until such time that it is right for the child to come into this world, either into the same family or another one. The child is returned because the parents, at that time, would be unable to provide enough love, money, or attention to this child, without it being to the detriment of their present family. Practicing mizuko jizo allows the parents to provide a certain amount of attention to the child, who is regarded as a member of their family.

While abortion access remains a mess, vasectomies are still a snip

I've riffed on this topic before, the hypocrisy of those who oppose abortion whilst remaining silent on vasectomy. I figure it bears re-visiting in the current climate, because a lot of the arguments I'm hearing against abortion on demand could equally be applied to vasectomy on demand.

Imagine if the current law on abortion, applied to the Snip:

• Any man who wants to curtail his reproductive abilities 4EVA would have to undergo counselling first, as it is such a major decision.
• A man could only get a vasectomy if he could show to have further children would be detrimental to his health (mental or physical). If he is raped, then that could be considered, but it's not a guarantee as he could be making it up just to get a vasectomy.
• If he wants to get a vasectomy on mental health grounds, he's stuck in this weird Catch 22, where-by he has to be sufficiently unstable to convince two certifying consultants to have a child would place too much strain on his fragile state, but also sane enough to be able to make a conscious and considered choice. Sucks to be him.
  
• He will have to deal with thoughtless people labelling men who get the snip as selfish, irrational, not paternal and wantonly promiscuous (they will say the last in a tone that makes it clear they think it is A Bad Thing).
  

Readers should also consider reading Queen of Thorns' list of excuses given for restricting women's rights to abortion, and consider if these grounds ought to apply to men seeking vasectomy.

We have vasectomy on demand in this country, although I suspect there is a bit of a wait if you can't afford the reasonably small fee to go private. Isn't the decision to end your ability to have children forevermore even more significant than that to terminate one pregnancy that may or may not have been viable? Yet we don't require men to go through any of the hoops facing women seeking a termination.

Could it be that our society trusts men to make their own decisions about their own bodies? Now, there's a name for that kind of attitude, what is it again, hmmm, it's on the tip of my fingers...

Postscript: After I'd finished and scheduled this post I saw this by Boganette. Seems some people are at least somewhat consistent with their ridiculous need to control other people's bodies, in particular their reproductive functions.

Pro-choice Blogging Round-up the Second

Last week I did one of these at The Standard, with a short post preceding it, and I figured it was timely to highlight the local pro-choice voices again. I've included the posts I mentioned at The Standard too, and grouped them by blog:

The Hand Mirror
Deborah outlines Chadwick’s proposal and some ways to let MPs know you support it, and more recently has written (and cross-posted) about keeping the arguments straight, and pointed us all in the direction of QoT's take-down of Chris Trotter (more on that further down). She also chose a particularly apposite Friday Feminist post last week.
Maia on the lies told about abortion law reform and why Chadwick’s bill must not be overcome by the icky response, plus the 24 week limit issue and a timely tribute to all those who have fought this fight before. Cross-posted at Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty too.

In A Strange Land
Deborah considers the privilege of being able to not think about abortion, and has been doing some hard yards in the comments here and elswhere too, which I for one really appreciate.

No Right Turn
Idiot Savant thinks the people and the Parliament will pick choice if it ends up going to a vote.

Letters from Wetville
Sandra contributes a very thoughtful post looking at the issue through the prisms of grace and agency.

Ideologically Impure
Queen of Thorns has a number of characteristically muscular posts starting by saying about time, then looking at the misogyny of those who are against choice and commented thus on Dita De Boni's column, gets sarcastic about the "but it's got nothing to do with the fact you're a woman" argument, brings down Chris Trotter's hideous "I'm pro-choice but not now little laydeez" column, and most recently debunks the Women Are In Denial rubbish.

Kiwiblog
David Farrar reckons we have abortion on demand now, by default, and should therefore change the law to reflect that. (He may be wrong about the first bit, but he’s right about the second!)

Boganette
B wrote about Amnesty International's anti-choice position just before the Chadwick news broke, and has since then contributed her own round-up of pro-choice posts, along with being very active in support of choice in various comment threads. She tells the tale of some bizarre mis-reading of sarcasm she encountered at NZ Conservative.

LadyNews
steph points out that we need to consider the high rate of sexual abuse of children when looking at access to abortion for those under 16.
Later she echoes Deborah's point about the privilege of not having to think about abortion, agrees with QoT about women not being mere vessels, examines the God Has A Plan argument against abortion, rebutts Chris Trotter's assertion that Now Is Not The Time, and points out Andy Moore doesn't know what the word satire means.

A little tune from my reverie contributes a signal-booster :-)

Tales of the Red Headed Devil Child
Nikki tells her own story of two unplanned pregnancies. Kindly comment with respect.

Keeping Mum
MSM blogger Dita de Boni largely considers the 24 week limit issue.

Still nothing up on the issue at the Labour (Red Alert) or Green (frogblog) MP blogs. Nor does there appear to be anything at the generally very dull National MPs blog.

--

Apologies to anyone I've missed, feel free to add your link in comments and I'll slot it in when I get a chance. My favourite bit of the debate so far is the person I was arguing with who called women "incubators" over in the comment thread at The Standard. Way to prove my point.

Also, just a reminder, any comment referring to women who terminate (or those who support that choice) as baby-killers, or murderers or words to that effect, will be deleted. I am relatively liberal about comments, although some of the other bloggers here are stricter and their calls stand too, and I for one will not be having that hate here.