I'm starting to really hate the term "working mum". The implication is that every mother, biological or otherwise, is somehow not working unless she is paid for that mahi. Which is ridiculous.
And why does there appear to be no commensurate term for male parents who are in paid employment? You hear about "stay at home dads" or "house husbands" but never "working fathers". I've been trying out that term here a bit myself, but it has the same problems as "working mum", and it doesn't appear to be catching on much anyway!
"Stay at home" bugs me too, because in my experience and observation being a parent involves going out rather a lot. It's as if the only Going Out that counts is the trip that ends at a workplace.
After a few days away for work with people I haven't met before, or see only a few times a year, I am worn out from repeated conversations explaining that my partner works part time to be available for the unpaid work of raising our child and running our household.
Why do I bother explaining? Mainly because I am nervous about being judged, because my child has until recently been under 2 and there are still a lot of people out there, even in my pretty progressive workplace, who disapprove of infants and toddlers being in an early childhood service. The Burning Swivelly Eye of Judgement generally focuses its beady stare on the mother, who should apparently be first pick for the non-paid role.
Has anyone ever heard of a father facing any "maybe you shouldn't be back at work yet" comments? Not that that would be ok either, by the way.
The other reason I explain our situation is better. But I'd be lying if I said the main motivator for explaining was to share an example of a non-traditional division of labour, and to be a bit of a role-model about a different way of doing things.
It is nice though when people I tell share their own stories about men who took up the bulk of the childcare. My own father worked from home a lot through-out his life, in particular when I was under 5. Apparently I used to love sitting in my bouncer on his workbench while he made wooden children's toys. I can't remember it, but I have a nice picture of it in my head nonetheless. To the outside world no doubt it looked like a very traditional division in our family home, and in many ways it was, but Dad was involved in my upbringing in a way few other fathers in our neighbourhood would have been at that time. Mum still did most of it, but for someone of my father's generation and with his socially conservative approach on many matters to be that engaged with his daughter was pretty cool.
Maybe we should just quit referring to "stay at home" or "go to work" parents? Perhaps it's more accurate, and fairer, to simply call people mothers and fathers and parents in a manner that isn't loaded with implications about whether they are economically productive worker ants (aka neglectful, absent, selfish people who contribute only monetarily to their family) or conversely Gods and Goddesses of the Domestic Realm (aka slothful, latte-sipping, hippies who just drain the coffers and can't hold an adult conversation).
I'm not sure we can take the judgeyness out of the terminology we use until we take the judgeyness out of ourselves first.
Sunday, 28 February 2010
Saturday, 27 February 2010
Thursday, 25 February 2010
The Crime & Punishment Disconnect
Here we go again, talking about tougher sentences to stop X. At this time, this week, X is equal to assaults on cops. A few weeks ago X was equal to ill treatment of animals. No doubt in a fortnight X will be equal to something else entirely.
But I'm not convinced that tougher sentences for the crime of X actually does act as the detterent that the Sensible Sentencing Trust claim.
Because, and I think this is quite important, when someone commits a crime they often don't think about getting caught. Or they don't care if they get caught. The consequences of getting caught are not frontmost in their minds at the point of decision-making, particularly not when they are drunk, drugged or emotional.
So tougher/longer/harder sentences that supposedly scare people off doing X possibly aren't going to do that at all. Put simply; when someone is doing the crime they probably aren't thinking about doing the time.
Thus I reckon we should focus more on the connections all people have with the society they live in, and the other people in that community with them. That's the stuff that protects us against crime; citizens who feel they are a part of something, along with their neighbours and the people on the next block, and the ones in the suburb on the other side of the city. They have a stake in a decent society, in a community that they respect and which respects them, and they aren't reckless about the consequences of their actions. Why would you care about going to prison, even for years, if you hate your life and you see no way out of it?
And of course we are all good at deluding ourselves into thinking we really are smarter than the average bear; and that we will get away with stuff. Everyday we hear of court cases where the accused got arrogant. Just look at all those white collar criminals in the dock recently who convinced themselves that what they were doing was ok, was in the best interests of their clients, wasn't really fraud.
That's my theory anyway. Half a law degree doesn't really give me any insight at all into criminal psychology. So I'd be interested in your feedback on what seems to me pretty obvious.
But I'm not convinced that tougher sentences for the crime of X actually does act as the detterent that the Sensible Sentencing Trust claim.
Because, and I think this is quite important, when someone commits a crime they often don't think about getting caught. Or they don't care if they get caught. The consequences of getting caught are not frontmost in their minds at the point of decision-making, particularly not when they are drunk, drugged or emotional.
So tougher/longer/harder sentences that supposedly scare people off doing X possibly aren't going to do that at all. Put simply; when someone is doing the crime they probably aren't thinking about doing the time.
Thus I reckon we should focus more on the connections all people have with the society they live in, and the other people in that community with them. That's the stuff that protects us against crime; citizens who feel they are a part of something, along with their neighbours and the people on the next block, and the ones in the suburb on the other side of the city. They have a stake in a decent society, in a community that they respect and which respects them, and they aren't reckless about the consequences of their actions. Why would you care about going to prison, even for years, if you hate your life and you see no way out of it?
And of course we are all good at deluding ourselves into thinking we really are smarter than the average bear; and that we will get away with stuff. Everyday we hear of court cases where the accused got arrogant. Just look at all those white collar criminals in the dock recently who convinced themselves that what they were doing was ok, was in the best interests of their clients, wasn't really fraud.
That's my theory anyway. Half a law degree doesn't really give me any insight at all into criminal psychology. So I'd be interested in your feedback on what seems to me pretty obvious.
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Support the right to strike
There has been two bills that attacks workers rights drawn out of the ballot. Roger Douglas's bill on youth rates and Tau Henare's bill on secret ballot's in case of a strike. Now I could go 15 rounds with any readers who support youth rates right now. Fighting against youth rates is really important.
But that's not actually what I want to write about. I've been really disappointed to the muted response to Tau Henare's bill on the left. The best that The Standard and Frogblog can do is that there is no problem because unions already hold secret ballots. While No Right Turn appears to actively support it.
I believe such a nonchalant response to workers right to strike is at best short sighted.
Lets be clear from the start -I don't think union officials roll around the country trying to push their members into strikes.* We don't have many strikes, and I'm sure any of them that didn't face a secret ballot would have succeeded in one. So the important questions to ask are philosophical and practical.
I have a philosophical objection to it - I believe self-determination means that union members get to decide how they make their decisions. If people take a philosophical position that it is the government's place to legislate how people make their decisions in non-governmental organisations, then that should be consistent (a positio I do not take, for the reasons I've mentioned about self-determination). Why limit it just to unions?
Even more revealing of the ideology involved, why are strike ballots so special? Workers take many other important decisions in their time - the decision to accept an agreement without a pay increase, for example, is every bit as important as a strike ballot.** As are elections and other votes unions take.
As well as these philosophical objections, I think the bill could end up being really restrictive to union's ability to take action. I haven't seen a copy of the bill yet, but I'm operating under the assumption that it will deem strikes without a secret ballot illegal, in the same way that solidarity strikes are at the moment.***
Depending on the exact wording, this may take away a lot of workers flexibility when it comes to industrial. If you're not in an essential industry workers can go on strike at any time, they can go out for an hour or they can go out for a day, and they don't have to tell employers beforehand which. When I've had strike ballots (and none of the strike ballots I've had have developed into strikes) we talked about the sort of action that might be involved, then took a vote on the principle of further action. This left workers with the power to finely tune the exact time and length to depend on the work cycle of the employer.
Secondly how is the ballot going to be taken? In some circumstances the only way union members can leave their workplace for an hour to have a paid union meeting is to take strike action for that hour. It's a complete catch-22.
But most importantly it could weaken the bargaining power of workers who are on strike. At the moment how the union decies to take strike action is none of the employers business. But this would mean if there was a question about the decision to take strike action the employers could use that over the union. Particularly if a secret ballot is not defined in law workers and unions will be in a weak position. If some workers talk to each other and look at each others papers while the vote is taken is that a secret ballot? What are the restrictions on the wording on the paper? Union's may accept weaker settlements, because they don't want to fight the matter in court.
In addition there are real practical questions about how this will work in the case of health and safety strikes. The right to strike over health and safety is an incredibly important safe-guard for workers.**** If there is a requirement for a secret ballot before a health and safetry strike is taken, then workers will not be able to undertake a health and safety strike immediately, in response to an unsafe environment, unless they had the materials for a secret ballot at hand.
Which comes back to my philosophical point. It is up to workers how they want to make their decisions. This legislation will put more, not less, power in the hands of union organisers, and tie workers who want to take industrial action in reams of red tape.
That's the intention, it's not about democracy, it's about limiting unions' power.
* Which isn't supposed to be a criticism. I disagree with a lot of radicals who criticise union officials for not advocate for more radical action. I believe that it is a union official's only responsibility to carry out the directions of their members. Whether those decisions are to settle quietly or hold out for $50 an hour.
** As far as I know most unions do have rules requiring secret ballots to accept or reject an agreement. However, when these rules are not followed it is almost always to accept an agreement, rather than reject it - contrary to what Tau Henare is implying.
*** We have such limited rights to strike at the moment. We should be pushing from more, rather than refusing to defend what we've got.
**** As far as I know it is not used very much at the moment. I've never heard of a health and safety strike in New Zealand. But we shouldn't abandon the decision just because it is underused.
But that's not actually what I want to write about. I've been really disappointed to the muted response to Tau Henare's bill on the left. The best that The Standard and Frogblog can do is that there is no problem because unions already hold secret ballots. While No Right Turn appears to actively support it.
I believe such a nonchalant response to workers right to strike is at best short sighted.
Lets be clear from the start -I don't think union officials roll around the country trying to push their members into strikes.* We don't have many strikes, and I'm sure any of them that didn't face a secret ballot would have succeeded in one. So the important questions to ask are philosophical and practical.
I have a philosophical objection to it - I believe self-determination means that union members get to decide how they make their decisions. If people take a philosophical position that it is the government's place to legislate how people make their decisions in non-governmental organisations, then that should be consistent (a positio I do not take, for the reasons I've mentioned about self-determination). Why limit it just to unions?
Even more revealing of the ideology involved, why are strike ballots so special? Workers take many other important decisions in their time - the decision to accept an agreement without a pay increase, for example, is every bit as important as a strike ballot.** As are elections and other votes unions take.
As well as these philosophical objections, I think the bill could end up being really restrictive to union's ability to take action. I haven't seen a copy of the bill yet, but I'm operating under the assumption that it will deem strikes without a secret ballot illegal, in the same way that solidarity strikes are at the moment.***
Depending on the exact wording, this may take away a lot of workers flexibility when it comes to industrial. If you're not in an essential industry workers can go on strike at any time, they can go out for an hour or they can go out for a day, and they don't have to tell employers beforehand which. When I've had strike ballots (and none of the strike ballots I've had have developed into strikes) we talked about the sort of action that might be involved, then took a vote on the principle of further action. This left workers with the power to finely tune the exact time and length to depend on the work cycle of the employer.
Secondly how is the ballot going to be taken? In some circumstances the only way union members can leave their workplace for an hour to have a paid union meeting is to take strike action for that hour. It's a complete catch-22.
But most importantly it could weaken the bargaining power of workers who are on strike. At the moment how the union decies to take strike action is none of the employers business. But this would mean if there was a question about the decision to take strike action the employers could use that over the union. Particularly if a secret ballot is not defined in law workers and unions will be in a weak position. If some workers talk to each other and look at each others papers while the vote is taken is that a secret ballot? What are the restrictions on the wording on the paper? Union's may accept weaker settlements, because they don't want to fight the matter in court.
In addition there are real practical questions about how this will work in the case of health and safety strikes. The right to strike over health and safety is an incredibly important safe-guard for workers.**** If there is a requirement for a secret ballot before a health and safetry strike is taken, then workers will not be able to undertake a health and safety strike immediately, in response to an unsafe environment, unless they had the materials for a secret ballot at hand.
Which comes back to my philosophical point. It is up to workers how they want to make their decisions. This legislation will put more, not less, power in the hands of union organisers, and tie workers who want to take industrial action in reams of red tape.
That's the intention, it's not about democracy, it's about limiting unions' power.
* Which isn't supposed to be a criticism. I disagree with a lot of radicals who criticise union officials for not advocate for more radical action. I believe that it is a union official's only responsibility to carry out the directions of their members. Whether those decisions are to settle quietly or hold out for $50 an hour.
** As far as I know most unions do have rules requiring secret ballots to accept or reject an agreement. However, when these rules are not followed it is almost always to accept an agreement, rather than reject it - contrary to what Tau Henare is implying.
*** We have such limited rights to strike at the moment. We should be pushing from more, rather than refusing to defend what we've got.
**** As far as I know it is not used very much at the moment. I've never heard of a health and safety strike in New Zealand. But we shouldn't abandon the decision just because it is underused.
Ye gads
No time to write decent post, sorry, but time to send you to anarkaytie's post at g.blog and Luddite Journo's at her place, on the issue of a totally not funny gang rape cartoon in Salient this week. Double triple urgh.
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
The Odds & Ends Drawer
- PhD in Parenting starts off talking about the indiscretion of asking breastfeeders to cover up, and moves on to the general concept of women's bodies being covered up. (Thanks to Harvest Bird for this one)
- Pansy Wong is proving to be a pretty unpopular Minister of Women's Affairs amongst those to the left of centre, as evidenced by this and this.
- barvasfiend finds out lentils aren't so bad after all.
- QoT disembowells the "anti-abortion doctors shouldn't have to act as medical professionals when a woman expresses doubt about continuing her pregnancy" line.
- Nikki shares how she first started to get her knit on.
- Shiny highlights some polling anomalies, sparked by whether the question uses "gay" or the "homosexual".
- Deborah puts the boot into the National-Act-Maori Party proposal around step-change for 25% of NZ's school children.
- Giovanni has a startlingly wonderful and interesting post about the invisibility of work these days. If you only read one link from this post, make it this one.
- Luddite Journo approves of Ali Mau telling Women's Day to go fug themselves.
An article we will never see on the front page of the Herald
Anti-vasectomy doctors have gone to court to challenge new Medical Council guidelines [PDF] on how physicians with personal objections to vasectomy must deal with patients.
The doctors filed an application in the High Court last week for a judicial review of the guidelines, titled "Beliefs and Medical Practice". They are believed to be opposed to vasectomy on the basis that sexual intercourse is primarily for procreative purposes, and that any interference with this is a deliberate violation of God's design of human beings.
The Medical Council is withholding the guidelines until the case is decided.
Their main objection is understood to involve a new section in the guidelines covering the way doctors who object to contraception must deal with patients.
It requires them to tell male patients considering controlling their fertility, so that they do not have any further children, that vasectomy is one of the options.
The law already allows doctors to refuse to provide contraception or abortion services on grounds of conscience, although they must tell patients they can consult another physician.
The guidelines also cover other areas where spiritual, cultural or religious beliefs could conflict with patients' rights.
They say doctors should set aside their own beliefs where necessary and that they must make the care of the patient their first concern.
The Health and Disability Commissioner and the Resident Doctors Association approved the new section in their submissions on the draft, saying it was helpful to include specific advice.
Adapted from last week's Herald article, which I blogged a news bite about on Friday. The bit in italics is not in the draft guidelines at all, although a similar point about abortion is.
The doctors filed an application in the High Court last week for a judicial review of the guidelines, titled "Beliefs and Medical Practice". They are believed to be opposed to vasectomy on the basis that sexual intercourse is primarily for procreative purposes, and that any interference with this is a deliberate violation of God's design of human beings.
The Medical Council is withholding the guidelines until the case is decided.
Their main objection is understood to involve a new section in the guidelines covering the way doctors who object to contraception must deal with patients.
It requires them to tell male patients considering controlling their fertility, so that they do not have any further children, that vasectomy is one of the options.
The law already allows doctors to refuse to provide contraception or abortion services on grounds of conscience, although they must tell patients they can consult another physician.
The guidelines also cover other areas where spiritual, cultural or religious beliefs could conflict with patients' rights.
They say doctors should set aside their own beliefs where necessary and that they must make the care of the patient their first concern.
The Health and Disability Commissioner and the Resident Doctors Association approved the new section in their submissions on the draft, saying it was helpful to include specific advice.
Adapted from last week's Herald article, which I blogged a news bite about on Friday. The bit in italics is not in the draft guidelines at all, although a similar point about abortion is.
Monday, 22 February 2010
News bite: Solo mums raise police bashers
Yes, I've probably extrapolated slightly too far, with my headline, but it really isn't that far from what Family First appear to be saying in this media statement:
...Fatherlessness is a major contributor to increasing rates of juvenile violence,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.Click through for the whole thing.
“Scientific research is unanimous on a number of conclusions regarding family structure – that strong marriages increases the likelihood that fathers have good relationships with their children and lowers the risk of alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence and child abuse,”
“Conversely, parental divorce or non-marriage appears to increase children’s risk of delinquent and criminal behaviour, amongst other factors. One only needs to observe proceedings at the Youth Court to see the effect of fatherlessness.”
“According to The Heritage Foundation, an influential US research institute, an analysis of social science literature over 30 years shows that the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers. A state-by-state analysis indicated that a 10% increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes lead typically to a 17% increase in juvenile crime. The research found that criminal behaviour has its roots in habitual deprivation of parental love and affection going back to early infancy.”
“Research has shown time after time that the father’s authority and involvement in raising his children are great buffers against a life of crime,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“There are other factors such as violence in the media, the ‘rights’ culture being fed to young people, and the undermining of parental authority which are contributors, but family structure is a crucial place to start.”
“Violent crime will continue to increase as long as we downplay the importance and significance of having two parents, a mum and a dad, committed to each other and to their children.”
Deeply uninformed is the best possible outcome
Deborah Hill Cone confuses me. Take her appearance on RNZ National's panel on Friday afternoon. In less than an hour she was anti-abortion, supportive of Kiwisaver plans being sold door to door to people who couldn't read the contracts, and finally in favour of firing school principals who expressed concerns about National Standards. What a whirl.
Maybe I had Hill Cone all wrong but I thought she was towards the Libertarianz end of the political spectrum. At least as far to the right as the Act party, surely? Yet there she was backing a small minority of doctors who don't want to have to say nasty icky medical
words like "abortion" or "termination" whilst in conversation with patients who express doubts about continuing on with their pregnancy.
How does that view support what I understood to be one of the key tennets of free-marketeers; Choice?
Sadly I cannot get the audio of that section of the Panel to play on my computer to refresh my memory of precisely what DHC said about abortion that riled me so. But I do remember quite clearly that she erroneously stated that we have abortion on demand in Aotearoa NZ already. QoT has rebutted this very well indeed recently, so in the interests of laziness I'm going to crib from her:
Maybe I had Hill Cone all wrong but I thought she was towards the Libertarianz end of the political spectrum. At least as far to the right as the Act party, surely? Yet there she was backing a small minority of doctors who don't want to have to say nasty icky medical
words like "abortion" or "termination" whilst in conversation with patients who express doubts about continuing on with their pregnancy.
How does that view support what I understood to be one of the key tennets of free-marketeers; Choice?
Sadly I cannot get the audio of that section of the Panel to play on my computer to refresh my memory of precisely what DHC said about abortion that riled me so. But I do remember quite clearly that she erroneously stated that we have abortion on demand in Aotearoa NZ already. QoT has rebutted this very well indeed recently, so in the interests of laziness I'm going to crib from her:
Now wait. Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions, I mean, I’m not a doctor, obviously, I’m just a currently vacant uterus woman. Maybe this “abortion” thing is some kind of drastic procedure, involving expense and trauma and danger?Well, maybe if you’re the person getting it, especially if you’re not blessed to live in a major metropolitan centre of NZ or if you find the prospect of having to justify your reproductive choices to not one but two consultants who, if you’re lucky, will interpret “mental health” widely and help you circumvent decades-old patriarchal bullshit.
Having to sit there and admit to a person in your medical care that yes, there is an option legally available which you personally would not choose? Cry me a fucking river.
Hill Cone also definitely stated that the media hates to cover abortion, and that Garth George is the only person in New Zealand who ever writes about it. Sounds as if she doesn't read the very paper she writes for, seeing as how they put this latest abortion-related news story on the front page, as their lead story, on Friday. And then it was the lead item on the very Panel discussion she was partaking in when she said this. Oh dear.
And then DHC went on and on about the having-an-abortion-is-mental-trauma-for-the-rest-of-your-life argument and how it's not like having a tooth removed. No one pro-choice argues that having a termination is all daisies and kittens and lollipops. But we do support a woman's right to control her body, and we respect other women enough to treat them like moral adults. Quite apart from the fact that it's kind of contradictory to argue that doctors shouldn't have to give women information about abortion and women don't understand enough about abortion to be able to make that choice.
Overall, I'm struggling to understand if Deborah Hill Cone is actually anti-abortion, because to be fair to her she doesn't actually come out and say that*, or just deeply uninformed about the issue. If the latter turns out to be the case, it would be kind of ironic given the subject of her most recent column in the Herald (hat tipped to Editing the Herald).
* Pleasantly surprising was Gary Moore, on the Panel with DHC. When he started out by saying "I'm Catholic" I prepared to change stations, but he followed it up by stating his support for a woman's right to choose and for access to abortion.
Sunday, 21 February 2010
News bite: Our prostitution laws at Oxford Union debate
From Saturday's Dominion Post:
Twenty-five years after New Zealand's anti-nuclear policy was debated at the prestigious Oxford Union, our prostitution laws are taking centre stage.Click through for the whole article. Let's hope whoever writes the Stuff news quiz read this.
The Prostitutes Collective national co-ordinator, Catherine Healy, will enter the debating chamber in England next week, to argue that prostitution should be legalised.
Squaring off against her will be a top British policeman and a conservative American lobby group.
"The nerves will be a bit jittery. I'll need to calm down on the flight over," she said. "Every word matters, in the sense that I'll be representing what New Zealand and its law have meant for women."
...The prospect of a tough debate does not worry Ms Healy. She has fought for the rights of sex workers for years. A former teacher, she had been planning to head overseas before getting involved with the sex industry in the 1980s.
Prostitution became legal in New Zealand in 2003...
The gender pay gap and the Minister of Women's Affairs
Today in Parliament the Minister of Women's Affairs, National's Pansy Wong, claimed that the pay gap was now 11.3%, in response to questioning from Green MP Catherine Delahunty:
The NZ Income Survey* that Wong refers to can be found on the Statistics NZ website. Here's a key quote from the survey report:
So Wong is safe, for now, with her statement, because she has compared apples with apples, even if it is not an apple her Government grew. It shall be interesting to see in October whether the NZ Income Survey ending June 2010 backs her up.
But in the meantime, Frog does have some more recent figures than June 2009, as follows:
* Of course it's not only who women who suffer a pay gap. While the median hourly earnings for Europeans was $20.00, for Pacific Islanders it was $16.50, and for Maori it was $17.50, in the same survey.
Hon PANSY WONG: ...For 9 long years under the previous Labour Government, the 12 percent pay gap increased to 12.8 percent for the year ended June 2008. For the year ended June 2009, the pay gap had gone down to 11.3 percent. The National Government is working for women.Labour's Sue Moroney pursued this matter further when she asked her own questions about gender equity issues later in the session, attempting to table several documents that record the gender pay gap as bigger than Wong claimed in her answer, but they were all objected to. These included "a statistical bulletin [from the Parliamentary Library], salary and wage rates, showing that in 2008 the male-female wage gap was 13.8 percent, and in 2009, it was 14.8 percent."
...Catherine Delahunty: It has gone up to 13 percent. I seek leave to table the Red Bag Day bag, with no money in it for women; my male colleagues are welcome to donate.
...Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister, when she referred to the statistics showing that the pay gap had decreased, was quoting from an official document—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Oh, I beg the member’s pardon.
Charles Chauvel: —and if so, whether she might table that document under the Standing Orders.
Mr SPEAKER: I beg the member’s pardon. Could the Hon Pansy Wong please clarify whether she was quoting from an official document.
Hon PANSY WONG: I was thinking I would seek your leave to table those statistics, Mr Speaker, but I did not think that you would allow it, because they came from the annual New Zealand Income Survey, prepared by Statistics New Zealand...
The NZ Income Survey* that Wong refers to can be found on the Statistics NZ website. Here's a key quote from the survey report:
Comparing female earnings with male earnings, the ratio of median hourly earnings in the June 2009 quarter was 88.7 percent, an increase from the June 2008 quarter ratio of 87.2 percent.And that seems to be where Wong has got her 11.3% from. Fair enough. Even if the period she is crowing about was almost half under the previous Government, and not her National party, and even if by the end of the June 2009 quarter any new policies National had put in place on pay equity would not have had much effect. Oh but wait they didn't put any new policies on pay equity into effect, they just abolished efforts the last Government had made. Nevermind all that.
So Wong is safe, for now, with her statement, because she has compared apples with apples, even if it is not an apple her Government grew. It shall be interesting to see in October whether the NZ Income Survey ending June 2010 backs her up.
But in the meantime, Frog does have some more recent figures than June 2009, as follows:
We could quibble about which measurement to take for weeks on end. And no doubt Wong would like that, because it lets her off the hook for being the Minister of Women's Affairs who abolished the Pay Equity Investigation Unit, who has not implemented or indeed proposed any policy around addressing the gender pay gap, and who revells in not taking the issue seriously. Shame on her, by whichever measure you choose to use.Let’s look at the December 2009 figures from the Household Labour Force Survey and compare them with December 2008 – that covers the first full year of the National-led government, which is a far more relevant period:
Source: Statistics NZ Household Labour Force Survey
The gender pay gap has actually increased from 12.45% to 12.97% - some very bad news for the Minister, I would suggest.
* Of course it's not only who women who suffer a pay gap. While the median hourly earnings for Europeans was $20.00, for Pacific Islanders it was $16.50, and for Maori it was $17.50, in the same survey.
Saturday, 20 February 2010
Happily guilt-free
I always thought I'd tend towards the neurotic Supermum end of the parenting scale. I imagine quite a few friends and acquaintances thought so too. Not quite sure how that didn't happen.
It's wonderful to be guilt-free. I'm in paid work full time, and I don't feel bad about it. I sometimes have to go away for that work, or work at night, and I don't feel bad about it.* When I miss something with Wriggly because I'm off working I just accept it; it can't be changed, and my work is important not only because it is quite good, meaningful mahi, and I enjoy it, but also because it keeps our household going financially too. It's good for Wriggly for his mum to be happy, and my job helps with that.
I've been guilt-free for so long now that I didn't even realise I was until today. I can clearly remember the first time I rejected feeling guilty for being a mum in paid employment. It was over a year ago, when a colleague expressed their disapproval that I was working on my child's first birthday. Nevermind that I'd made arrangements to take time off in the middle of the day to go see him at his swimming lesson (although actually that was disastrous and we've never repeated that) or that I would be there in the evening for his special birthday tea (pieces of roast dinner with special floor sauce). And discounting the fact that we do not have any Child's Birthday Leave in our collective agreement. Let's not even mention that even at 2 Wriggly still didn't get that it was his actual birthday, so we can hardly conclude that he would have been upset by my absence on the day of his first. Apparently I was nonetheless Failing As A Mother for being at my job that day.
I could have wallowed in that and angsted. The mother I thought I'd be probably would have. Instead I got a bit snarky with my workmate, not in a defensive way, but in a mildly stated "so you took all your children's birthdays off" manner (the answer was no, my colleague didn't) and just didn't feel guilty. It was a revelation.
So now I don't feel bad about myself if I am not with Wriggly all the time. I cherish the time we do have together, and he is a very smiley, happy, independent little boy so it's easy to have fun with him. Even if frequently when I get home of an evening his excitement at seeing me passes like lightning and the cat is far more interesting. He does this to his father too, so I figure it's not some passive agressive rejection technique, just that he is so comfortable that we are around and support and love him that we don't get the Fresh and Fruity welcome on ordinary days.
It would be remiss of me to not mention the number one thing that helps me to be guilt-free. And that's both the attitude and the unpaid work of my partner. He's in paid work two days a week; Fridays in the office (when my mother cares for Wriggly) and the other day through bits and pieces throughout the week often done from home. Without his toil keeping our home going, and his supportive attitude to my work outside the home, I probably would feel a bit shit a lot of the time. We made a decision together many many months ago now that I would work full time for a while and he would not, and he has honoured that in a way that works for all three of us. Many motwomen are not so lucky.
* Not feeling bad about it is different from not sometimes finding it a pain or resenting it, and this nuance does mean that I don't get angry at myself.
It's wonderful to be guilt-free. I'm in paid work full time, and I don't feel bad about it. I sometimes have to go away for that work, or work at night, and I don't feel bad about it.* When I miss something with Wriggly because I'm off working I just accept it; it can't be changed, and my work is important not only because it is quite good, meaningful mahi, and I enjoy it, but also because it keeps our household going financially too. It's good for Wriggly for his mum to be happy, and my job helps with that.
I've been guilt-free for so long now that I didn't even realise I was until today. I can clearly remember the first time I rejected feeling guilty for being a mum in paid employment. It was over a year ago, when a colleague expressed their disapproval that I was working on my child's first birthday. Nevermind that I'd made arrangements to take time off in the middle of the day to go see him at his swimming lesson (although actually that was disastrous and we've never repeated that) or that I would be there in the evening for his special birthday tea (pieces of roast dinner with special floor sauce). And discounting the fact that we do not have any Child's Birthday Leave in our collective agreement. Let's not even mention that even at 2 Wriggly still didn't get that it was his actual birthday, so we can hardly conclude that he would have been upset by my absence on the day of his first. Apparently I was nonetheless Failing As A Mother for being at my job that day.
I could have wallowed in that and angsted. The mother I thought I'd be probably would have. Instead I got a bit snarky with my workmate, not in a defensive way, but in a mildly stated "so you took all your children's birthdays off" manner (the answer was no, my colleague didn't) and just didn't feel guilty. It was a revelation.
So now I don't feel bad about myself if I am not with Wriggly all the time. I cherish the time we do have together, and he is a very smiley, happy, independent little boy so it's easy to have fun with him. Even if frequently when I get home of an evening his excitement at seeing me passes like lightning and the cat is far more interesting. He does this to his father too, so I figure it's not some passive agressive rejection technique, just that he is so comfortable that we are around and support and love him that we don't get the Fresh and Fruity welcome on ordinary days.
It would be remiss of me to not mention the number one thing that helps me to be guilt-free. And that's both the attitude and the unpaid work of my partner. He's in paid work two days a week; Fridays in the office (when my mother cares for Wriggly) and the other day through bits and pieces throughout the week often done from home. Without his toil keeping our home going, and his supportive attitude to my work outside the home, I probably would feel a bit shit a lot of the time. We made a decision together many many months ago now that I would work full time for a while and he would not, and he has honoured that in a way that works for all three of us. Many motwomen are not so lucky.
* Not feeling bad about it is different from not sometimes finding it a pain or resenting it, and this nuance does mean that I don't get angry at myself.
Friday, 19 February 2010
Wife as waste of space
Cactus Kate has highlighted a truly awful sexist motoring column by Eric Thompson, which you can read if you want to soil your eyes with an ill-judged rant about how women should be banned from driving 4WD vehicles.
Unsurprisingly, Kate agrees with Thompson, in her usual barbed style that involves kicking her sisters, hard, with her spiky stilettos at every opportunity. It's another chance for the Cactus to show that she really doesn't seem to like children, mothers, or indeed other women very much at all.
The comments that follow Cactus's post mostly expand on this theme, although with some notable disagreement, thank goodness. The view that is particularly bugging me tonight, from the post and the comments, is the idea that married women who aren't in paid work and are raising children are not contributing anything of value to their relationship or family.
We've seen this view from CK before, and no doubt will again. I don't expect my post to change her mind. Perhaps the only thing that will change her mind is being in that position herself; partnered up and not in paid employment for some reason, be it child-related or otherwise. And she's pretty clear that's not on her agenda, ever, so I guess that's that then.
But for other people who seem to not notice the very real value that someone not in paid work adds to a household, there are quite a lot of points I could raise, including:
It bothers me that Kate's language is all about married women who she reckons sponge off men. It's almost as if it's in the wedding vows: "I promise to take as much as possible and give as little as I can get away with, at least until I'm likely to get a significant divorce settlement, at which point I will stop giving anything at all."
I don't know if I've ever seen a marriage that has worked like that, even the ones that have ended before death do them part. Maybe it's because I also don't know anyone who sends their children to Kings. Or has a 4WD and never goes off-road.
Unsurprisingly, Kate agrees with Thompson, in her usual barbed style that involves kicking her sisters, hard, with her spiky stilettos at every opportunity. It's another chance for the Cactus to show that she really doesn't seem to like children, mothers, or indeed other women very much at all.
The comments that follow Cactus's post mostly expand on this theme, although with some notable disagreement, thank goodness. The view that is particularly bugging me tonight, from the post and the comments, is the idea that married women who aren't in paid work and are raising children are not contributing anything of value to their relationship or family.
We've seen this view from CK before, and no doubt will again. I don't expect my post to change her mind. Perhaps the only thing that will change her mind is being in that position herself; partnered up and not in paid employment for some reason, be it child-related or otherwise. And she's pretty clear that's not on her agenda, ever, so I guess that's that then.
But for other people who seem to not notice the very real value that someone not in paid work adds to a household, there are quite a lot of points I could raise, including:
- The caring, nurturing work - not necessarily just children either, it could be about parents who need extra attention, other family members, friends, and of course the paid partner. It's my observation that often this stuff, which is vital to maintaining friendships and family relationships, is more likely to be carried out by an at home partner, to the significant benefit of both. As small scale as sorting all the Xmas presents, as big as nursing someone who is terminally ill, this is unpaid work that can be arduous, dirty, annoying, rewarding, time-consuming, and is essential. Much of it can't easily (or cheaply) be contracted out of either, and even if you can arrange it getting someone else to do it can fracture relationships irreparably.
- Volunteer work - can even bring significant kudos to the paid partner, not to mention the community benefits. While I personally think it is enough that it often gives you a sense of achievement, a chance to contribute meaningfully to something you care about, skills, friendships and contacts, it is perhaps worth mentioning to the more Cactus-minded that volunteer work by the unpaid can also provide vital networking opportunities for the paid partner, not to mention they could even claim some involvement on their CV by association.
- Running a household - no longer as full-on as in Jane Austen's time, but nonetheless often significant. Particularly during renovations, just ask my least-favourite Listener columnist, Joanne Black. Making sure the bills are paid, there's enough food to eat, the toilet gets unblocked, the bed linen is clean, the holiday gets booked, there are clean work clothes, the neighbours don't hate you, the mail is cleared... you get the idea. Add children to the mix and this work expands exponentially. Even if you pay someone else to clean, cook, shop, nanny, there's still always unpaid work to be done in this area, not least coordinating, paying and instructing any paid workers helping out.
It bothers me that Kate's language is all about married women who she reckons sponge off men. It's almost as if it's in the wedding vows: "I promise to take as much as possible and give as little as I can get away with, at least until I'm likely to get a significant divorce settlement, at which point I will stop giving anything at all."
I don't know if I've ever seen a marriage that has worked like that, even the ones that have ended before death do them part. Maybe it's because I also don't know anyone who sends their children to Kings. Or has a 4WD and never goes off-road.
Anti-abortion doctors don't want to give abortion as an option
This was the front page lead story in the Herald this morning:
Anti-abortion doctors have gone to court to challenge new Medical Council guidelines on how physicians with personal objections to abortion must deal with patients.Click through for the whole article. Deborah has a great post about it up already.
...The doctors filed an application in the High Court last week for a judicial review of the guidelines, titled "Beliefs and Medical Practice".
The Medical Council is withholding the guidelines until the case is decided.
The doctors' lawyer, Harry Waalkens, QC, said proceedings for a judicial review had been filed, but would not comment on the grounds for the challenge until he could speak to his clients. He would not name any of the doctors.
Their main objection is understood to involve a new section in the guidelines covering the way doctors who object to abortion must deal with patients.
It requires them to tell patients having doubts about a pregnancy that abortion is one of the options.
The final version of the document is not available, but a draft version was issued in March.
A Medical Council spokesman said changes had been made since then, but he could not provide the final text because of the court action.
The statement was intended to guide medical practitioners, and tried to balance doctors' and patients' rights - including the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion - and the entitlement to care and treatment.
The Medical Council is legally responsible for setting standards and guidelines for medical practitioners, as well as dealing with registration and claims of professional misconduct.
The law already allows doctors to refuse to provide contraception or abortion services on grounds of conscience, although they must tell patients they can consult another physician.
The draft guidelines say that regardless of their personal beliefs, doctors must ensure a pregnant woman having doubts about her pregnancy is told abortion is among the options available to her, and is given information on it and the other options.
It is the first time the issue of personal beliefs and abortion has been addressed in Medical Council guidelines, and follows a similar move in Britain.
Diversity Deficit? Women in Govt-appointed Board spots
Yesterday Catherine Delahunty closely questioned Pansy Wong, Minister of Women's Affairs, about the issue of women's appointments to Government-selected Board spots. The exchange in the House included:
But I suspect that even if she is technically correct, then a proper examination is likely to show that women's appointments are largely clustered in the lower status, lower power, lower paid Boards. And further that there may be Boards that are dominated by women in areas that are seen as traditional female areas e.g health and education, and a lady drought in the old-fashioned men's spheres like finance, governance and trade.
Delahunty pointed out the paucity of female appointments to a number of very important boards which have been in the news recently; the Don Brash-led 2025 Closing the Gap With Australia force thing (5 men, 1 woman), the independent advisory panel on National Standards (4 men, 1 woman), and both the Tax Working Group (13 men, 0 women) and the National Infrastructure Advisory Board (8 men, 0 women) mentioned above. These are high-powered bodies, entwined with key National policy areas. Why isn't National backing more women to contribute to these important areas? In fact why don't those groups have more diversity full stop, and resemble our current community more than a bad caricature of a 19th century Parliament?
I've put in an OIA request about the Board appointments and will let you know how I get on in due course. It would be nice if Wong is actually right, not just technically right, but we shall see. Many thanks to Liz for sending me a transcript of the Question Time exchange today, which sparked my thinking on this and spurred me toaction send an email ;-)
5. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Women's Affairs: Does she stand by her statement: “it is important that women and men stand shoulder to shoulder in our boardrooms”?Now Wong may be correct. In an odd sort of way I hope that she is.
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women's Affairs): Yes.
Catherine Delahunty: How can women and men stand shoulder to shoulder on the Government-appointed National Infrastructure Advisory Board when it consists of eight men and no women?
Hon PANSY WONG: The member will be pleased to know that the Government looks at the overall result, and in the quarter from October to December 2009, 47 percent of the board members appointed to Government boards and committees were women. I acknowledge my National Cabinet colleagues for recognising and appointing competent women to their boards.
Catherine Delahunty: How can women and men stand shoulder to shoulder on the Government-funded Tax Working Group when it consists of 13 men and no women?
Hon PANSY WONG: On this side of the House, we look at the overall picture. We want to win the battle, not just little individual boardrooms, boardroom by boardroom. [my emphasis]
But I suspect that even if she is technically correct, then a proper examination is likely to show that women's appointments are largely clustered in the lower status, lower power, lower paid Boards. And further that there may be Boards that are dominated by women in areas that are seen as traditional female areas e.g health and education, and a lady drought in the old-fashioned men's spheres like finance, governance and trade.
Delahunty pointed out the paucity of female appointments to a number of very important boards which have been in the news recently; the Don Brash-led 2025 Closing the Gap With Australia force thing (5 men, 1 woman), the independent advisory panel on National Standards (4 men, 1 woman), and both the Tax Working Group (13 men, 0 women) and the National Infrastructure Advisory Board (8 men, 0 women) mentioned above. These are high-powered bodies, entwined with key National policy areas. Why isn't National backing more women to contribute to these important areas? In fact why don't those groups have more diversity full stop, and resemble our current community more than a bad caricature of a 19th century Parliament?
I've put in an OIA request about the Board appointments and will let you know how I get on in due course. It would be nice if Wong is actually right, not just technically right, but we shall see. Many thanks to Liz for sending me a transcript of the Question Time exchange today, which sparked my thinking on this and spurred me to
Thursday, 18 February 2010
The Vita Quench Water Police - Dislike
Facebook ad spotted this evening:
Sorry if you can't read it, here's the text "Know a girlfriend at work who drinks too many sugary beverages? Become a fan and report her to the Water Police and win great prizes!" Fans are encouraged to take photos of workmates who breach the "Laws of Water" and shame them publicly on Facebook. The VQPD will pick favourites and then conduct "Office Raids" at which "your colleague will be reprimanded, taped off, photographed and given great Vita Quench prizes..." The dobber-inner gets something called a "hydration pack" too. No doubt this involves lots of the powdery mix thingies, sorry "vitamin enhanced hydration in a simple sachet" that Vita Quench sell.
I'm going to pre-empt the "you feminists have no sense of humour" bingo square by stating clearly that I do get that this is supposed to be a joke. But it does form part of a larger body of diet policing, particularly towards women, and it should be seen as part of that context. Dislike. Intensely.
Sorry if you can't read it, here's the text "Know a girlfriend at work who drinks too many sugary beverages? Become a fan and report her to the Water Police and win great prizes!" Fans are encouraged to take photos of workmates who breach the "Laws of Water" and shame them publicly on Facebook. The VQPD will pick favourites and then conduct "Office Raids" at which "your colleague will be reprimanded, taped off, photographed and given great Vita Quench prizes..." The dobber-inner gets something called a "hydration pack" too. No doubt this involves lots of the powdery mix thingies, sorry "vitamin enhanced hydration in a simple sachet" that Vita Quench sell.I'm going to pre-empt the "you feminists have no sense of humour" bingo square by stating clearly that I do get that this is supposed to be a joke. But it does form part of a larger body of diet policing, particularly towards women, and it should be seen as part of that context. Dislike. Intensely.
Equal Pay Day round-up
Coverage etc that I've found so far for today, Equal Pay Day (aka Red Bag Day):
Please let me know via comments if you spot anything else and I'll add it when I can :-)
- Anne's post earlier this week on Red Bag Day activities in Wellington
- Women in Red, release from the Pay Equity Coalition
- Red Bay Day, blog post from the Pay Equity Coalition
- 28 years of false promises has women seeing red, release from the Federation of Business and Professional Women (BPW)
- Equal Pay Day: Time to take the government to the UN, blog post by Idiot/Savant
- Red Bay Day Highlights Shameful Pay Inequality - NZ Labour Party
Please let me know via comments if you spot anything else and I'll add it when I can :-)
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Please workplace tell me how I should eat
The Victoria University staff club is strange in many ways. It is tucked away in the library, undergrads aren't supposed to go there, and know very little about it. But, despite the secrecy, it is very unexciting - except the alcohol is quite cheap, and sometimes the food is nicer and less over-priced than the rest of the university.
The staff club also has a mission, and that mission is to tell the people who eat there how to eat. As you go down the corridor every side is telling you to eat Blueberries! Low fat! Omega-3 Oil! and so on. Then they usually have little plastic triangle display things on every table - the sort that some restaurants put wine or specials on, but the staff club puts advice on how not to eat too much. Including one that said: "Eat like an Eskimo" followed by lots of praise of fish. Where do you even start?
1. Eskimo? For reals? After that shall we play Cowboys and Indians with any natives we can find on campus?
2. Advice about food is so fucking ridiculous. Why on earth should we eat like we lived somewhere where almost nothing grows? The fact that human beings have been able to subsist on large parts of the planet shows how resilient we are, and what a wide range of foods (as a species) we can survive on. The fact that historically people living in some areas have eaten predominantly fish, while people living in other areas have had very limited access to fish, is a reason to shut up about the one true way of eating.
3. These are workers at the university and post-graduate students. Are we somehow expected not to be able to feed ourselves? Are we in imminent danger of death from a blueberry deficiency? Is there a special section on the health deprivation index about how badly off staff and post-graduate students at the university are?
The Fat Nutritionist has a great post about how the vast majority people on weight-watchers are based on their socio-economic-gender-ethnicity profile are already going to live FOR-EVER. The same is true for the majority of people who work at university or those with post-graduate degrees.*
I'm not suggesting that this information would be anymore productive in, say, a meatworks tea-room. But given that you can't get more urban-liberal-middle-class than the staff club at a university, and the behaviours that are described as 'healthy eating' are the behaviours of urban-liberal-middle-class women more than any other socio-economic group. What is the purpose of bombarding those most likely to be already aware, and following, the behaviours that have been designated 'healthy' with?
I would suggest that the purpose is self-satisfaction - the purpose is rewarding the virtuousness, as much as it's about compelling compliance in those who eat there (they are after all only posters - the staff club doesn't even sell that much fish). I want to explore this some more, and look at the impact that a moral model of food has on those who do not follow it. But I don't think it's a coincidence that eating-places are most likely to push these messages among those who are presumed to be already following htem.
* And this in itself is telling. As PhD Comics can tell us post-grad students subsist on instant noodles and free food that can be scavenged around campus. While this stereotype isn't entirely true, it does have a basis in reality, as post-grad students are lacking in both money and time - which makes acquiring nutritious food you want to eat tricky. And yet, post-grad students generally survive the experience, and go on to live to ages that befit their socio-economic position.
The staff club also has a mission, and that mission is to tell the people who eat there how to eat. As you go down the corridor every side is telling you to eat Blueberries! Low fat! Omega-3 Oil! and so on. Then they usually have little plastic triangle display things on every table - the sort that some restaurants put wine or specials on, but the staff club puts advice on how not to eat too much. Including one that said: "Eat like an Eskimo" followed by lots of praise of fish. Where do you even start?
1. Eskimo? For reals? After that shall we play Cowboys and Indians with any natives we can find on campus?
2. Advice about food is so fucking ridiculous. Why on earth should we eat like we lived somewhere where almost nothing grows? The fact that human beings have been able to subsist on large parts of the planet shows how resilient we are, and what a wide range of foods (as a species) we can survive on. The fact that historically people living in some areas have eaten predominantly fish, while people living in other areas have had very limited access to fish, is a reason to shut up about the one true way of eating.
3. These are workers at the university and post-graduate students. Are we somehow expected not to be able to feed ourselves? Are we in imminent danger of death from a blueberry deficiency? Is there a special section on the health deprivation index about how badly off staff and post-graduate students at the university are?
The Fat Nutritionist has a great post about how the vast majority people on weight-watchers are based on their socio-economic-gender-ethnicity profile are already going to live FOR-EVER. The same is true for the majority of people who work at university or those with post-graduate degrees.*
I'm not suggesting that this information would be anymore productive in, say, a meatworks tea-room. But given that you can't get more urban-liberal-middle-class than the staff club at a university, and the behaviours that are described as 'healthy eating' are the behaviours of urban-liberal-middle-class women more than any other socio-economic group. What is the purpose of bombarding those most likely to be already aware, and following, the behaviours that have been designated 'healthy' with?
I would suggest that the purpose is self-satisfaction - the purpose is rewarding the virtuousness, as much as it's about compelling compliance in those who eat there (they are after all only posters - the staff club doesn't even sell that much fish). I want to explore this some more, and look at the impact that a moral model of food has on those who do not follow it. But I don't think it's a coincidence that eating-places are most likely to push these messages among those who are presumed to be already following htem.
* And this in itself is telling. As PhD Comics can tell us post-grad students subsist on instant noodles and free food that can be scavenged around campus. While this stereotype isn't entirely true, it does have a basis in reality, as post-grad students are lacking in both money and time - which makes acquiring nutritious food you want to eat tricky. And yet, post-grad students generally survive the experience, and go on to live to ages that befit their socio-economic position.
News bites: Hippity Hop Hens
An article by Kate Ellis on the Australian On Line Opinion website:
Apparently post feminist women are reinventing hen’s nights in order to (re)claim a male activity while men are becoming more “classy” with spa visits and golfing days. Yet for Hannah Pool, the hen’s night is a traumatic, humiliating experience where feminists are expected to disregard their political beliefs. Pool contends that the first step in reducing the “very specific tyranny” of a hen’s night is to make them bunny ear free.Click through for the whole article.
My cousin just got married and I was invited to his fiancé’s hen’s night:
Yes, its dress up PLAYBOY BUNNY!!! Ears provided for those who think they are not the dress up type ...
*Groan*
...Although still partial to a halter neck I’m feeling a bit troubled by Third wave feminism’s evolution into post feminism. I feel like girl culture is letting us down.
The current crop of girl bands, such as The Pussycat Dolls as they sing “don’t you wish your girlfriend was hot like me”, has got me depressed. There are so many contradictions regarding empowerment, girl culture, consumerism and the same old subjugation.
My soon to be cousin’s Playboy-themed hen’s night was a great text to think these ideas through. The Playboy bunny has become a ubiquitous symbol in modern life and has taken on new meanings of sexual self possession...
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Support Red Bag Day on February 18
Red Bag Day: Red for Red Figures in Women’s Handbags!
February 18, 2010
This day, established in 1988, draws national and international attention to the wage disparity between women and men and women of colour. The red bag theme symbolizes how far women are "in the red" with their pay! Federation of Business and Professional Women (BPW) NZ are leading this awareness raising activity, also supported by unions and the Pay Equity Coalition.
Plan of Action – All Areas
Wear a red shirt/skirt/shorts and/or bring your red bag
Bring $5 to purchase one of the Equal Pay red bags produced by the BPW
Go to where BPW are meeting in each centre or where the action begins
Assist with the action and/or selling of red bags
Distribute the Info Sheet produced by BPW and/or other groups
Send out your media release
Wellington
Wear a red shirt/skirt/shorts/shoes and/or bring your red bag
Bring $5 to purchase one of the Equal Pay red bags produced by the BPW
Encourage all your colleagues to join in – for just one hour!
12.00 midday Assemble at Tertiary Education Union, 8th floor, Education House, 178-182 Willis St and buy red bags ($5)
12.05 Leave Education House – walk down Willis St, Lambton Quay to Midland Park; single file along outside edge of footpath, displaying red bags prominently. Bags can also be sold as we walk along. Marshal – Sheryl Cadman
12.25 Others to assemble at Midland Park
12.30 Leave Midland Park, walk to Parliament
12.45 Assemble in Parliament grounds
Invitation to Ministers of Women’s Affairs and Labour to accept a ‘Red Bag’
(Other MP’s will have been delivered a red bag)
Angela McLeod (BPW, Chair of PE Coalition) to present bags and say a few well chosen words. Other speakers include Sue Moroney, Catherine Delahunty.
1.15pm Finish
February 18, 2010
This day, established in 1988, draws national and international attention to the wage disparity between women and men and women of colour. The red bag theme symbolizes how far women are "in the red" with their pay! Federation of Business and Professional Women (BPW) NZ are leading this awareness raising activity, also supported by unions and the Pay Equity Coalition.
Plan of Action – All Areas
Wear a red shirt/skirt/shorts and/or bring your red bag
Bring $5 to purchase one of the Equal Pay red bags produced by the BPW
Go to where BPW are meeting in each centre or where the action begins
Assist with the action and/or selling of red bags
Distribute the Info Sheet produced by BPW and/or other groups
Send out your media release
Wellington
Wear a red shirt/skirt/shorts/shoes and/or bring your red bag
Bring $5 to purchase one of the Equal Pay red bags produced by the BPW
Encourage all your colleagues to join in – for just one hour!
12.00 midday Assemble at Tertiary Education Union, 8th floor, Education House, 178-182 Willis St and buy red bags ($5)
12.05 Leave Education House – walk down Willis St, Lambton Quay to Midland Park; single file along outside edge of footpath, displaying red bags prominently. Bags can also be sold as we walk along. Marshal – Sheryl Cadman
12.25 Others to assemble at Midland Park
12.30 Leave Midland Park, walk to Parliament
12.45 Assemble in Parliament grounds
Invitation to Ministers of Women’s Affairs and Labour to accept a ‘Red Bag’
(Other MP’s will have been delivered a red bag)
Angela McLeod (BPW, Chair of PE Coalition) to present bags and say a few well chosen words. Other speakers include Sue Moroney, Catherine Delahunty.
1.15pm Finish
Avoid during pregnancy
Those who have had the experience, brief or full or prolonged or repeated, of being pregnant will be familiar with the sets of Avoid That rules that govern the gravid woman.
Some of them are false and socially constructed (e.g. you cannot lift anything at all, not even an empty box), others have a scientific basis (e.g. avoid listeria like the, errr, plague, because it is particularly likely to cause miscarriage or stillbirth - that one's for you Eric Roy). The first type will no doubt be spouted to the pregnant one repeated, for free, and possibly even when they are not pregnant. The second variety is generally supplied by the lead maternity carer at the earliest possible opportunity.
But there's a third set of stuff I reckon you should avoid during pregnancy that is rarely discussed. I thought it might be a useful service to create a bit of a list here.
I refer of course to media. Here's a few ideas I've had:
Books to avoid during pregnancy
Movies/TV to avoid during pregnancy
Music to avoid during pregnancy
Some of them are false and socially constructed (e.g. you cannot lift anything at all, not even an empty box), others have a scientific basis (e.g. avoid listeria like the, errr, plague, because it is particularly likely to cause miscarriage or stillbirth - that one's for you Eric Roy). The first type will no doubt be spouted to the pregnant one repeated, for free, and possibly even when they are not pregnant. The second variety is generally supplied by the lead maternity carer at the earliest possible opportunity.
But there's a third set of stuff I reckon you should avoid during pregnancy that is rarely discussed. I thought it might be a useful service to create a bit of a list here.
I refer of course to media. Here's a few ideas I've had:
Books to avoid during pregnancy
- Eleven Hours by Paullina Simons - woman at full-term car-jacked, awful torturous experience ensues
- The Time Traveller's Wife by Audrey Niffenberger - miscarriages galore
- Midwives by Chris Bohjalian - about a delivery gone very wrong
- The Red Tent by Anita Diamant - actually I'm unsure about this one - miscarriages and bad outcomes galore, but actually a very positive story about midwives, pregnancy and birth too
- The Mesmerist by Barbara Ewing - while the pregnancy bits are fine I found the idea of having your children so unfairly taken away from you even more awful to contemplate whilst growing one
- Is Anybody Out There and Watermelon by Marian Keyes - the first might make you too sad, the second might make you too angry, particularly with your partner if a he.
Movies/TV to avoid during pregnancy
- Pan's Labyrinth - horrific delivery scene, which does not end well for the mother
- The Sound of Music - just awful to think about the possibility of going through pregnancy and delivery that many times
- Juno - I haven't seen this at all, but I have heard some comments that it's not good to watch while pregnant, anyone able to share why?
- Private Practice - the final of the last season shown here, and I suspect the first of the new season - stalker cuts baby out, that's all I'm going to say
- Actually pretty much any episode of ER, Grey's Anatomy etc that features a birth scene - they are already in a hyper-dramatic hospital setting so chances that things are going to go well are low. Plus personally the noise the heart rate monitors make freaks me out everytime.
- Jack and Sarah - mother dies in childbirth
Music to avoid during pregnancy
- That song by Pink Floyd that features prominently the line "and the worms ate into his brain" - kind of makes the building of new life feel pretty futile
- "Stan" by Eminem - I used to quite like this song, before I had ever been pregnant. Saw the video again the other day and felt sick.
Monday, 15 February 2010
The Odds & Ends Drawer
It's been so long since I've done one of these that my computer didn't auto-fill the title.
- Boganette considers why she watches America's Next Top Model
- And Pretty Pretty Pretty report in detail on the first episode of the latest series to air in NZ.
- frogblog reports on a worrisome child violence case, which makes me thankful for the amendment of s59.
- Deborah shares the good, and the bad, of her local paper's attempt on Valentine's Day lurve coverage.
- Outdoor Knit is the place to find out about those yarn hearts on fences about the place this weekend.
- sas writes to God asking for an improvement in the state of 2010 thus far.
- Mo-mo suggests a top 20 of songs for the dumped on Valentine's.
- AnneE is disappointed with the tax reform options that seem to be ignoring the option of progressivity.
- Luddite Journo asks how many New Zealanders do actually want a GST increase. (Personally I'd be happy to pay an income tax increase, but I am given to understand that I am weird)
- Cath reflects on marriage.
Should men change nappies?
Or more specifically, should a man who doesn't have a biological relationship with a child change it's nappies?
The reason I ask is because I've ended up in quite a few conversations lately about this, particularly in the context of male ECE teachers and their work. Most people seem to think it's ok for a father, or grandfather, to change the nappies of their child/grandchild. But things get trickier for some when you take things wider than that.
For me it's very straight forward; there should be no gender differentiation about who can change nappies. If you are happy with a woman changing nappies then having a man change nappies should be no different.
And further, if you box men out of changing nappies then you intrinsically box women into changing nappies. Which is definitely Uncool.
So what do you think dear readers, are you hip to the jive of men doing the dirty work?
The reason I ask is because I've ended up in quite a few conversations lately about this, particularly in the context of male ECE teachers and their work. Most people seem to think it's ok for a father, or grandfather, to change the nappies of their child/grandchild. But things get trickier for some when you take things wider than that.
For me it's very straight forward; there should be no gender differentiation about who can change nappies. If you are happy with a woman changing nappies then having a man change nappies should be no different.
And further, if you box men out of changing nappies then you intrinsically box women into changing nappies. Which is definitely Uncool.
So what do you think dear readers, are you hip to the jive of men doing the dirty work?
Sunday, 14 February 2010
It's Not OK
I'm not really interested in writing much about American politics. Partly because if I'm going to do day-to-day political stuff there's so much to write about in New Zealand.* But mostly because I find it even more alienating than I ever did before. To comment on healthcare, or the escalating war on Afganistan, or even the budget freeze, with outrage implies that you expected anything different. And I didn't. Obama was always going to act like president's of the united states do and act in the interest of the rich and powerful, not of everyone else. I think the important political work that needs to be done in America at the moment, which is responding to Obama's inability to meet expectations not with despair, but with organised opposition, is not something that can be helped from a blog. So I write about dollhouse.
But then it becomes the small things that rouse me to fury and writing - in particular Michelle Obama's crusade against childhood obesity. My favourite response to this was from a feminist historian. But I'm not even capable of that sort of rational analysis, because there's only one part in all of this that can I respond to. Michelle Obama frames her entire programme by discussing her daughters' bodies, what they were eating, when she got concerned about their weight, and what she did about it (out of general principle I'm not being specific about what she said - it shouldn't have been said and I'm not going to repeat it).
It is not fucking acceptable to use your daughters' bodies to make political points. It is a betrayal of your role as their parent to use your child's body in this way. It will fuck them up. It'll fuck them up even more if it's going to be syndicated on every news feed in every part of the world, until someone in New Zealand is offering their opinion on it.
Another woman, whose mother took similar actions when she was a child wrote about it in this fantastic article, she lays the damage her mother did right out there (I got the article from a truly amazing post on fatshionista).
I wish that someone would say "You must stop using your children like this" to the Obama parents, before the kids have to say it themselves.
* National Standards ARGH! GST Rise ARGH!
But then it becomes the small things that rouse me to fury and writing - in particular Michelle Obama's crusade against childhood obesity. My favourite response to this was from a feminist historian. But I'm not even capable of that sort of rational analysis, because there's only one part in all of this that can I respond to. Michelle Obama frames her entire programme by discussing her daughters' bodies, what they were eating, when she got concerned about their weight, and what she did about it (out of general principle I'm not being specific about what she said - it shouldn't have been said and I'm not going to repeat it).
It is not fucking acceptable to use your daughters' bodies to make political points. It is a betrayal of your role as their parent to use your child's body in this way. It will fuck them up. It'll fuck them up even more if it's going to be syndicated on every news feed in every part of the world, until someone in New Zealand is offering their opinion on it.
Another woman, whose mother took similar actions when she was a child wrote about it in this fantastic article, she lays the damage her mother did right out there (I got the article from a truly amazing post on fatshionista).
I wish that someone would say "You must stop using your children like this" to the Obama parents, before the kids have to say it themselves.
* National Standards ARGH! GST Rise ARGH!
More on the tale of two offices
Gosh a week's a long time in politics. But I haven't forgotten that last week I pointed out that there was a big problem with National List MP Jackie Blue's explanation to the Herald about Joan Nathan's job drying up. You may recall that Blue had told the Herald that Nathan's job ended because of an office merger with new National MP Sam Lotu-Iiga, when actually they both still have separate offices, in different suburbs.
I was going to do an OIA request to Parliamentary Services to ascertain if there was a shift in staffing, given that the different physical locations does make it seem unlikely that the offices have merged. Maybe, being charitable, Blue had meant to say that the admin work had merged, not that the actual offices had merged. However, thanks to some help from Idiot/Savant, it seems that Parliamentary Services is not covered by the OIA, so there goes that idea.
I've had a bit more of a think. And it seems to me pertinent to point out that from the original Herald story Nathan's job appeared to disappear immediately after the November 2008 election. Yet Sam Lotu-Iiga's office didn't even open until May 2009. So there's at least a five month period there when the offices/admin work couldn't possibly have been merged, yet Nathan's job had already ended.
The questions that occur to me, and which I wish a journo would ask, are these:
And we should expect our MPs to be honest. The holes in Blue's story about Nathan's employment are significant and worth investigation, because it seems to me that an MP may have lied to the media. Which is a Big Deal, even if it is about something that seems inconsequential.
It wasn't inconsequential for Joan Nathan, and actually the integrity of our MPs should be of consequence to all of us.
I was going to do an OIA request to Parliamentary Services to ascertain if there was a shift in staffing, given that the different physical locations does make it seem unlikely that the offices have merged. Maybe, being charitable, Blue had meant to say that the admin work had merged, not that the actual offices had merged. However, thanks to some help from Idiot/Savant, it seems that Parliamentary Services is not covered by the OIA, so there goes that idea.
I've had a bit more of a think. And it seems to me pertinent to point out that from the original Herald story Nathan's job appeared to disappear immediately after the November 2008 election. Yet Sam Lotu-Iiga's office didn't even open until May 2009. So there's at least a five month period there when the offices/admin work couldn't possibly have been merged, yet Nathan's job had already ended.
The questions that occur to me, and which I wish a journo would ask, are these:
- Was Nathan's 10 hour a week admin job at Jackie Blue's office actually a PR stunt?
- What did the job involve?
- If it wasn't a PR stunt and the work was genuinely required, how come it suddenly wasn't required after the 2008 election?
- If it was required before the election but wasn't required afterwards does that mean it was in fact campaign work, in which case was she paid as a Parliamentary Services staff member, or as a National Party worker?
- Who is doing that work now? (Don't need a name, just some kind of evidence that the work Nathan was doing has shifted to someone else)
- Who did the work for the five month period between Nathan's job ending and Lotu-Iiga's office opening?
- Given that the staff for Lotu-Iiga's office would likely have been new, why would you take work off an existing member of staff in one office and give it to a new member of staff in another office? Particularly if it meant no more work at all for the existing member of staff.
- What was the process around the staffing restructure at Blue's office?
- Did Nathan receive any redundancy for her job ending?
- Was Nathan given the option of doing the same work at Lotu-Iiga's office, if that is really where the work went?
And we should expect our MPs to be honest. The holes in Blue's story about Nathan's employment are significant and worth investigation, because it seems to me that an MP may have lied to the media. Which is a Big Deal, even if it is about something that seems inconsequential.
It wasn't inconsequential for Joan Nathan, and actually the integrity of our MPs should be of consequence to all of us.
More Not News
Because apparently there is not enough actual investigative stuff to be doing, so the Sunday Star Times decided report on a Durex poll about sexiest New Zealanders. To make it worse they didn't stop at sexiest New Zealander (male) and sexiest New Zealander (female) they made it even more irrelevant, if that was possible, by doing separate categories for male and female politicians too.
Who cares?
Why is this a news story?
Why aren't they putting some proper effort into covering actual Real News like, I don't know, the impact of the recession on people (not celebrities), following up on the cuts to Adult Community Education to see how it is actually panning out, some in depth analysis of the proposed GST hike, the cyclone that hit Aitutaki?
Instead last weekend we got front page faff about a newsreader's possible new relationship, and this week we get rubbish reportage about what is basically glorified condom advertising.
Grrrrr!
Who cares?
Why is this a news story?
Why aren't they putting some proper effort into covering actual Real News like, I don't know, the impact of the recession on people (not celebrities), following up on the cuts to Adult Community Education to see how it is actually panning out, some in depth analysis of the proposed GST hike, the cyclone that hit Aitutaki?
Instead last weekend we got front page faff about a newsreader's possible new relationship, and this week we get rubbish reportage about what is basically glorified condom advertising.
Grrrrr!
Friday, 12 February 2010
Inside one Baby Boomer's mind: scary
Eric Roy, a National Party MP sinc3 1993, has gifted the nation with his reflections on "the good old days":
The pendulum about cotton-woolling kids seems to be heading back, away from No Tree Climbing and back to Sensible Precautions. We're pretty relaxed with Wriggly ourselves (which does earn some disapproving stares from others sometimes when we are out and about).
But grouping this together with seat belts, child-proof pill bottles and trying to avoid catching illnesses that could cause miscarriage? Surely these are not to be lumped in with throwing hand grenades made of mud, implying that they are all just PC gone mad?
We were raised in an era when our mothers were blissfully unaware of today’s culinary requirements for pregnant mums. They ate blue cheese, processed meat and tuna from cans - and they didn’t get tested for a heap of things that are standard practice today.How about you think about the fact that while those of us living today did survive there were quite a few others who didn't? Tautology is the word that springs to my mind, but I've never studied philosophy so someone who has might be able to supply something better to describe the bizarreness of this attitude from Mr Roy.
They brought us up in houses that weren’t properly insulated, many had asbestos components, our cots were decorated with colourful lead paints. There were no child proof pill bottles, or restraints, we rode our bikes without helmets and shoes. In cars there were no airbags or seat belts - in our case seven of us crammed into a 1953 Vauxhall Velox.
As kids we made our own fun.
We drank water from the garden hose or the creek. We shared soft drink from the same bottle on the odd occasions that we got our hands on it. We played wild games that included shooting each other with bows and arrows and hand grenades made with mud, we fell out of trees. Broke bones and teeth. We ate all the wrong things - real butter, soft drinks - and the only fast food was fish and chips.
But we were not fat. Child obesity was not heard of. We burned it all off playing or working doing old fashioned chores.
How did we survive? It makes you think, doesn’t it?
The pendulum about cotton-woolling kids seems to be heading back, away from No Tree Climbing and back to Sensible Precautions. We're pretty relaxed with Wriggly ourselves (which does earn some disapproving stares from others sometimes when we are out and about).
But grouping this together with seat belts, child-proof pill bottles and trying to avoid catching illnesses that could cause miscarriage? Surely these are not to be lumped in with throwing hand grenades made of mud, implying that they are all just PC gone mad?
It's Still Not OK! round-up
Yesterday a Wellington-based group of domestic abuse survivors called It's Still Not OK! released a report with a number of recommendations for the Govt on issues of domestic violence and abuse. Here's a round-up of what I've found on the matter so far:
The report "Protecting victims, rebuilding lives, sending the right message" from It's Still Not OK! [PDF]
The media release from It's Still Not OK! [PDF] that went out with the report
More information about It's Still Not OK!, hosted at the Roundtable on Violence Against Women.
Survivors speak out for reform - Stuff
It's still not OK, say survivors of violence - Herald
Media statements in support from:
Christchurch Women's Refuge
Women's Refuge
NZ Labour Party
Let me know if you've seen anything good that I've missed :-)
The report "Protecting victims, rebuilding lives, sending the right message" from It's Still Not OK! [PDF]
The media release from It's Still Not OK! [PDF] that went out with the report
More information about It's Still Not OK!, hosted at the Roundtable on Violence Against Women.
Survivors speak out for reform - Stuff
It's still not OK, say survivors of violence - Herald
Media statements in support from:
Christchurch Women's Refuge
Women's Refuge
NZ Labour Party
Let me know if you've seen anything good that I've missed :-)
Thursday, 11 February 2010
MCP Watch: Tau Henare
Whether you agree with Cactus Kate or not (and I generally don't), this email from Tau Henare to her contains some unacceptable sexism of a bizarrely old-fashioned kind:
Get with the 20th Century Tau, and maybe you'll be ready for the 21st by the time it's half over.
Subject: Re: FacebookI suppose at least he didn't write it in the usual antiquarian order suggesting finding a man before quitting work. And that whole idea is hardly in-keeping with National's renewed assault on those who find themselves financially dependent on another, when the other is the State.
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:55:11 +1300
From: Tau.Henare@parliament.govt.nz
To: cactus.kate@hotmail.com
What a venal and vile women you are. You should stop work, find a man, and have a family. Maybe that might chill you out. At least I choose to live in my country and try to help, rather than slink off overseas and bludge off the Asians for a living. Come home, stand for election and do what you accuse others of not doing. You are a biggott and a racist. Its actually not what you say but the intent of your vile words.
Tau
[my emphasis]
Get with the 20th Century Tau, and maybe you'll be ready for the 21st by the time it's half over.
A timely reminder
Just in case you didn't know, and I'm going to write this nice and big now:
That is all.
Sensing Murder has never solved any murders.
That is all.
"Working mums" can't win
There's an eye-popping story on working mothers in Sunday magazine. Much of it consists of the "childfree", as they prefer to be called, complaining about co-workers who are also mothers getting flexible working hours, too much time off, the best choice of holidays.
(Strangely, no complaints about "working dads" are reported - is it that they never need any of these concessions because the mums do it all???)
Here's "Anna", whose biggest gripe is "wellness leave":
"When you've got sick kids it effectively doubles the time you take off. In general, it's just another way of taking a mental health day. Suddenly it's a nice day and you think of them out there having a great time because they're not at work."
I so see where she's coming from. As every mother knows, it's so much fun dealing with sick kids. I mean, when employers are so generous as to let mothers have time off like this, I wouldn't be surprised if some women MADE their kids sick on purpose, just so they can stay at home.
Anna would "love a day off a week to indulge in her outdoor interests and would come in early or work in the evenings to make up the time. 'Most employers would say that's not on. But for those with kids it's suddenly okay, yet it's a choice to have children.' "
That is so true! Everyone knows that having a child is just the same as any other really expensive hobby, like having a vintage car or a yacht.
And I bet Anna would not be impressed by arguments about needing the next generation to work so as to keep the economy going and meeting her needs when she's retired. I mean, what's wrong with just importing people from some poorer country to do it?
The article's final message is that the aggrieved should make their managers understand that "flexibililty needs to work for everyone, not just parents." Because there is absolutely no difference between outdoor interests and sick children.
(Strangely, no complaints about "working dads" are reported - is it that they never need any of these concessions because the mums do it all???)
Here's "Anna", whose biggest gripe is "wellness leave":
"When you've got sick kids it effectively doubles the time you take off. In general, it's just another way of taking a mental health day. Suddenly it's a nice day and you think of them out there having a great time because they're not at work."
I so see where she's coming from. As every mother knows, it's so much fun dealing with sick kids. I mean, when employers are so generous as to let mothers have time off like this, I wouldn't be surprised if some women MADE their kids sick on purpose, just so they can stay at home.
Anna would "love a day off a week to indulge in her outdoor interests and would come in early or work in the evenings to make up the time. 'Most employers would say that's not on. But for those with kids it's suddenly okay, yet it's a choice to have children.' "
That is so true! Everyone knows that having a child is just the same as any other really expensive hobby, like having a vintage car or a yacht.
And I bet Anna would not be impressed by arguments about needing the next generation to work so as to keep the economy going and meeting her needs when she's retired. I mean, what's wrong with just importing people from some poorer country to do it?
The article's final message is that the aggrieved should make their managers understand that "flexibililty needs to work for everyone, not just parents." Because there is absolutely no difference between outdoor interests and sick children.
AFem 2010 Info & Idea Share - tonight, Auckland
Sorry for the late notice, I only found this this morning:
What: AFem 2010 Info & Idea Share
When: Thursday 11th Feb, 7.30pm
Where: Blackheart infoshop, 335 Great North Rd, Grey Lynn
Message from the organisers:
Facebook event
What: AFem 2010 Info & Idea Share
When: Thursday 11th Feb, 7.30pm
Where: Blackheart infoshop, 335 Great North Rd, Grey Lynn
Message from the organisers:
The organisers of this year's Aotearoa Anarcha-feminist hui invite you to the first:contact: afem2010 [nospam] gmail.com
AFEM 2010 INFO & IDEA SHARE
Come along to find out more about what is planned for this year's anarcha-feminist convergence.
Please bring your questions, thoughts and ideas about what you want to happen at the hui.
Awesome zines, crafts and snacks will be available for purchase. (Proceeds go towards making it cheaper for folks to attend the a-fem hui).
Note: This is an event for people of all genders who are interested in finding out more about Afem 2010 .
Similar events will be happening in other centres... watch this space!
Facebook event
Putting big holes in the safety net
One of the things that I like about the concept of a proper welfare state is the idea that no matter your circumstances if you need it you can get support from your government. Currently in New Zealand if you can't get/do paid work you can get a benefit, with the idea that plans and methods to turn that around will be available when practical. Personally I think the benefit levels are far too low, an injustice exacerbated by Ruth Richardson, Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley et al in the early 1990s and never re-dressed since. But that's an issue for another post.
On Tuesday when he opened Parliament for the year, our Prime Minister, Mr John Key, mentioned some significant changes to the benefit system that his Government intends to make in 2010. And they look to me like opening up some very significant holes in the safety net approach we've historically had to welfare.
If these changes do go through then there will be people out there, perhaps people like you and me, perhaps even you or me, who cannot access any financial support whatsoever from our government in times of difficulty.
Here's thenice, friendly, beneficiary cuddling awful, mean (in both senses of the word), beneficiary bashing bit that honestly scares me:
I couldn't do paid work for three years, through no fault of my own. And even if it had been my fault, even if I had screwed up big time, wouldn't you, as a fellow human being, rather I had enough funding to feed and clothe myself, to keep myself in decent housing, to provide for my child, than have nothing at all? Because it could be any of us, anytime, and we should never forget that.
And that's why what our Government is planning to do is so wrong. It is a total and utter failure of compassion; it reflects a world view that blames those in a bad place for it and actually seeks vengeance against them for it by withholding support when it could be given.
You don't have to be religious to see that this is immoral. And I don't know if we can stop it.
On Tuesday when he opened Parliament for the year, our Prime Minister, Mr John Key, mentioned some significant changes to the benefit system that his Government intends to make in 2010. And they look to me like opening up some very significant holes in the safety net approach we've historically had to welfare.
If these changes do go through then there will be people out there, perhaps people like you and me, perhaps even you or me, who cannot access any financial support whatsoever from our government in times of difficulty.
Here's the
Although Ms Bennett said final decisions had still not been signed off by Cabinet, this is expected to mean implementing National's election promise to make unemployed people reapply for the dole after a year and "do what it takes to secure employment"."This may include practical training, attending a basic skills course or attending drug and alcohol rehabilitation," the policy said.
"After that, they will be required to actively look for a job, to go to any job interview they are referred to, and to accept any offer of suitable employment, whether fulltime, part-time, temporary or seasonal.
"If they do not comply with these obligations, they will have their benefit reduced in the first instance, then suspended and then cancelled." [my emphasis]
This is freaky stuff. This is leaving people out there potentially with nothing if they don't accept whatever is offered.
And this is a Bad Employer's field day - accept my awful pay offer, doing work you would hate and which would destroy you, and put up with my sexual harassment, or no more dole for you. Oh and by the way, I can fire you within 90 Days for no reason at all and then you're even more poked.
I couldn't do paid work for three years, through no fault of my own. And even if it had been my fault, even if I had screwed up big time, wouldn't you, as a fellow human being, rather I had enough funding to feed and clothe myself, to keep myself in decent housing, to provide for my child, than have nothing at all? Because it could be any of us, anytime, and we should never forget that.
And that's why what our Government is planning to do is so wrong. It is a total and utter failure of compassion; it reflects a world view that blames those in a bad place for it and actually seeks vengeance against them for it by withholding support when it could be given.
You don't have to be religious to see that this is immoral. And I don't know if we can stop it.
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
not so complicated
one of the films i've seen recently is "it's complicated", and i loved it. not just because it's genuinely funny in a way that isn't demeaning, but because the characters are so real. there's meryl streep with all her wrinkles & alec baldwin in all his fat hairiness. a decent storyline about people in their 50s (with hot sex lives too), rather than one featuring the young and the physically perfect.
i sat there really enjoying all of this, and hoping this signals a change in hollywood. maybe a broadening of what's being offered to us, and a movement away from the traditional stereotypes of what makes a commercially successful film. we can only hope!
i sat there really enjoying all of this, and hoping this signals a change in hollywood. maybe a broadening of what's being offered to us, and a movement away from the traditional stereotypes of what makes a commercially successful film. we can only hope!
So not a hit man
And even if he was a hitman what kind of human being wouldn't feel some compassion and sympathy for their family?
Oh, but you don't know what I'm talking about because you probably couldn't have guessed that Scott Roeder, the American convicted of murdering abortion doctor George Tiller, is an unrepetant arse.
Oh, but you don't know what I'm talking about because you probably couldn't have guessed that Scott Roeder, the American convicted of murdering abortion doctor George Tiller, is an unrepetant arse.
The article chronicles some of the other nastiness that has been directed at Tiller's family. Talk about blaming the victim. Very awful indeed.Roeder, 51, was convicted Jan. 29 of first-degree murder for shooting Dr. George Tiller last May as the doctor served as an usher at his Wichita church. He also was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault for threatening two ushers who tried to stop him after the shooting.
He will be sentenced March 9.
Roeder told Leach in the phone conversation that he would struggle to summon any sympathy for Tiller's widow and four adult children.
"The fact that George Tiller was involved in the practice that he was, similar to that of a hit man, if you could have sympathy for a hit man's family that is the sympathy I would have," Roeder said. "But every day, George Tiller did not have any sympathy for his victims."
Lee Thompson, attorney for the Tiller family, said he had not heard the recording and would not comment on it.
The recording illustrates an undercurrent of anger among fringe anti-abortion activists against the slain doctor's family, with some saying Jeanne Tiller is as culpable as her husband for the abortions at his Wichita clinic.
Note to Tony Veitch
This is what a proper apology looks like:
Well done Robin Brooke*. Hopefully his remorse will serve as a good example to others to just not do this crap in the first place.
* And as a massive disliker of the Auckland rugby team I never thought I would write those words.
...I now wish to apologise publicly to her and her family for my behaviour in Fiji that night.No ifs, no buts, no blaming the victim, no excuses. Just fronting up.
It was unacceptable and in no way provoked by her or any other person.
The day after I genuinely tried to express my sincere regret to her for my actions. I can understand how upset she was.
I hope our meeting and the apology will bring closure to her and her family over an incident of which I am truly remorseful.
I have nothing further to add to this statement.
Well done Robin Brooke*. Hopefully his remorse will serve as a good example to others to just not do this crap in the first place.
* And as a massive disliker of the Auckland rugby team I never thought I would write those words.
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
ACC march next week in Welly
What: ACC march and rally
When: 12noon - 2pm, Tuesday 16 February
Where: Parliament, Wellington
Spiel from the organisers:
ACC is not just about people who have car accidents or get their necks badly crunched at rugby. It covers all sorts of accidents, including those that happen in the workplace and as a result of crimes. The system may not have been perfect as it was two years ago, but it was better than it is now, and far better than where it seems the Government wants to take it next. If you are in Wellington on the 16th, and able to attend, you'll be standing up for something important. Best wishes to the organisers for good weather and a big crowd.
When: 12noon - 2pm, Tuesday 16 February
Where: Parliament, Wellington
Spiel from the organisers:
One of the most infuriating actions of the Government during 2009 was its attack on New Zealand's priceless accident compensation scheme. A sustained campaign of misinformation and questionable accounting culminated in the ACC Bill which will pave the way for privatisation of the scheme. This will be the death knell for universal no-fault accident compensation. If the Government succeeds in destroying ACC it will be back to exorbitant private insurance and wasteful legal action.One of the odious components of the changes so far has been the treatment of "sensitive" claims, i.e sexual abuse, rape, that kind of thing. We've written a fair bit about this in the past (you'll have to scroll down a little, for some reason the first few posts are totally not about ACC).
Help put a stop to the destruction of one of New Zealand's most vital public assets by turning out at the rally at Parliament on 16 February. Unions, health practitioners, claimants' organisations and ordinary people will be out in force to show the Government that we are totally against the unjustified attack on ACC and the programme of unjust cuts to entitlements. And we will be joined once again by the bikers who took 9,000 people to Parliament in November. They are coming back because they know it's about more than just levies, and because nobody is fooled by the predictable ‘concession' of reducing the planned increase to motorbike charges.
This is the time to show the Government with a big turnout that New Zealand doesn't want to see ACC dismantled and sold off to Australian insurance companies. If you can't go yourself, get your family and friends to go along because the Government's cuts will affect them too. ACC is for all Kiwis. Let's keep it that way.
For more information on how the Government is trying to discredit and dismantle ACC go to fairness.org.nz/ACC .
ACC is not just about people who have car accidents or get their necks badly crunched at rugby. It covers all sorts of accidents, including those that happen in the workplace and as a result of crimes. The system may not have been perfect as it was two years ago, but it was better than it is now, and far better than where it seems the Government wants to take it next. If you are in Wellington on the 16th, and able to attend, you'll be standing up for something important. Best wishes to the organisers for good weather and a big crowd.
Monday, 8 February 2010
Carnival goodness
The 21st Edition of the Down Under Feminists Carnival is up at The Radical Radish. Enjoy!
The experiment continues
If you have a pretty long memory for a blog reader, you might recall that I've been testing Bio Oil on my cat bites for Pretty Pretty Pretty. I've got an update up there, thanks to the awesome Amy and Jo for the opportunity :-)
Not News
The Herald on Sunday yesterday dedicated a third of their front page and most of page 3 to a total Not News story.
It's not Not News because it isn't new. Maybe the rest of the country knew that newsreader Alison Mau was possibly in a new relationship, but I didn't. It probably is new knowledge, for most people, but that isn't sufficient, to my mind, to make it News.
IMHO it's Not News because actually who cares? This story is by no stretch of the imagination in the public interest to report on, because who bases any decision making on the gender of a celebrity's possible current partner? It's not going to change any votes, not going to inform people better about something that affects large chunks of the population, nor should it lead anyone to make judgements about any of those involved. There's no hypocrisy and no one is cheating on anyone else.
Classic Not News.
In fact it seems to me more like prurient gossip, complete with paparazzi pics. And if Ali had a new boyfriend rather than a new girlfriend it would never have made the front page, or the third page. There's more than a whiff of homophobia about this one.
Update: GayNZ.com has a news story on the Herald's coverage, including:
It's not Not News because it isn't new. Maybe the rest of the country knew that newsreader Alison Mau was possibly in a new relationship, but I didn't. It probably is new knowledge, for most people, but that isn't sufficient, to my mind, to make it News.
IMHO it's Not News because actually who cares? This story is by no stretch of the imagination in the public interest to report on, because who bases any decision making on the gender of a celebrity's possible current partner? It's not going to change any votes, not going to inform people better about something that affects large chunks of the population, nor should it lead anyone to make judgements about any of those involved. There's no hypocrisy and no one is cheating on anyone else.
Classic Not News.
In fact it seems to me more like prurient gossip, complete with paparazzi pics. And if Ali had a new boyfriend rather than a new girlfriend it would never have made the front page, or the third page. There's more than a whiff of homophobia about this one.
Update: GayNZ.com has a news story on the Herald's coverage, including:
Anne Speir, a past TVNZ editor, says she can't and won't speculate on Mau's sexuality and finds the paper's coverage despicable. "A quarter of a century ago Marilyn Waring was outed on the front page of Truth newspaper, clearly nothing has changed, and that deeply saddens me," she says. "Alison is at an age when a lot of lesbians come out but if she is in a relationship with a woman does she, and that woman too, need to be outed like this?"
Sunday, 7 February 2010
A tale of two offices
The Standard has a good post up on the Herald article today about how the family Key thrust into the spotlight when he took their daughter to Waitangi in 2007 are doing now. Not Good, would be an apt two-word summation.
In fact their situation shows how many have been personally affected by cuts this Government has made; mother laid off from her job (more on that shortly), no longer able to receive a training allowance (perhaps due to the TIA cuts, not clear in the article), phone cut off, having problems moving to a more appropriate Housing NZ property. I'm sure this isn't the only family in Aotearoa NZ with this kind of story, and it's a shame that it takes the Herald following up on a political gimmick by the then Leader of the Opposition to highlight this reality.
But, as a fellow Mt Roskill electorate resident, I really wanted to touch on one aspect of the story from the Herald, right at the end, about how Nathan's job disappeared:
However I am a little confused by the idea that Jackie Blue (List MP, office in Mt Roskill) and Sam Lotu-Iiga (Electorate MP for Maungakiekie, office in Onehunga) have merged their offices. So confused was I that, seeing as how I was going to Onehunga today anyway, I decided to drive by and check.
And indeed here is Lotu-Iiga's office on the Onehunga Mall, where it's been since not long after the election (remember, he was a new MP in the 2008 in-take):
While here we have Jackie Blue's office on Dominion Rd, which I think was there before the 2008 election too. Certainly at Xmas time 2009 she had Bill English visit to turn her festive lights on, and there was some promotion of this:
Perhaps they merged some of their staffing functions, I don't know. But clearly they haven't merged offices. They still both maintain separate offices, with no reference to each other on their shopfronts. I wonder if Parliamentary Services thinks they have merged? My guess would be no.
And as for the last part of that quote from the Herald - Blue's difficulty getting hold of Nathan because they don't have a phone line anymore. Blue is Mt Roskill-based right? She has contested the seat here for two elections. She puts about that she is a local MP. Perhaps she doesn't know where Nathan lives? Oh, wait...
In fact their situation shows how many have been personally affected by cuts this Government has made; mother laid off from her job (more on that shortly), no longer able to receive a training allowance (perhaps due to the TIA cuts, not clear in the article), phone cut off, having problems moving to a more appropriate Housing NZ property. I'm sure this isn't the only family in Aotearoa NZ with this kind of story, and it's a shame that it takes the Herald following up on a political gimmick by the then Leader of the Opposition to highlight this reality.
But, as a fellow Mt Roskill electorate resident, I really wanted to touch on one aspect of the story from the Herald, right at the end, about how Nathan's job disappeared:
Jackie Blue said Nathan worked 10 hours a week doing administration for Mt Roskill office up until the 2008 election.Now I understand that electorate office staff are in a precarious position often, their employment determined sometimes by electorate cycles and the votes of the public. In the 1996 election, my first politically-active one, a friend's mother lost her job working in Chris Carter's office when he lost his seat. It's difficult work and the lack of security probably doesn't help.
She wasn't re-employed because Blue merged her office with Lotu-Iiga, and didn't need to rehire staff.
Blue said she had tried to keep in touch, but Nathan's phone had been disconnected.
However I am a little confused by the idea that Jackie Blue (List MP, office in Mt Roskill) and Sam Lotu-Iiga (Electorate MP for Maungakiekie, office in Onehunga) have merged their offices. So confused was I that, seeing as how I was going to Onehunga today anyway, I decided to drive by and check.
And indeed here is Lotu-Iiga's office on the Onehunga Mall, where it's been since not long after the election (remember, he was a new MP in the 2008 in-take):
While here we have Jackie Blue's office on Dominion Rd, which I think was there before the 2008 election too. Certainly at Xmas time 2009 she had Bill English visit to turn her festive lights on, and there was some promotion of this:
Perhaps they merged some of their staffing functions, I don't know. But clearly they haven't merged offices. They still both maintain separate offices, with no reference to each other on their shopfronts. I wonder if Parliamentary Services thinks they have merged? My guess would be no.And as for the last part of that quote from the Herald - Blue's difficulty getting hold of Nathan because they don't have a phone line anymore. Blue is Mt Roskill-based right? She has contested the seat here for two elections. She puts about that she is a local MP. Perhaps she doesn't know where Nathan lives? Oh, wait...
Saturday, 6 February 2010
New Exhibition - Opening Monday 8 February
If you're in Wellington, go along to the opening of a new exhibition on the representation of women in the media, at 6.30 pm on Monday 8 February at the Southern Cross, 39 Abel Smith St. If you can't make the opening, go and see the exhibition later. It's based on looking at how the NZ media represented women over a particular period of time. (I would show you the lovely invite graphic here, but I can't figure out how to do it!)
Friday, 5 February 2010
More women out of work
I've been wondering, with the so-called surprise increase in unemployment*, how this was impacting on women.
Labour's Women's Affairs spokesperson Sue Moroney has some answers, and it's not pretty - 10,000 more women out of work in the last quarter of 2009, part of 27,000 extra without jobs last year.
Certainly I've heard anecdotally of women being told that they should give up their jobs for men who need to be the breadwinners for their families, which of course ignores the fact that plenty of women are the main income earners, indeed sometimes the sole income earners, and that many families need two incomes now, and that men don't have any more rights to work than women, and lots of other stuff that makes my ears red.
Other women have been pulling out of work, or not going back to work after time off to care for children, because they can't afford the childcare costs. And of course those in part time or casual work are usually more vulnerable to cuts in hours, and women are more likely to be in those jobs than men.
This recession and unemployment in general is bad for both men and women. I heard on the radio that a quarter of all young people** are unemployed, and that's a tragedy. I just wish this Government would start doing something about it.
* Come on, who was really surprised? We've been in a recession, we had thousands of people queue for a low paid supermarket job the other day (unlike Idiot/Savant, who I normally agree with, I won't be referring to it as "shitty" because it's not), and the Government has been doing two fifths of sweet nothing about job creation.
** Not sure how they defined young people.
Labour's Women's Affairs spokesperson Sue Moroney has some answers, and it's not pretty - 10,000 more women out of work in the last quarter of 2009, part of 27,000 extra without jobs last year.
Certainly I've heard anecdotally of women being told that they should give up their jobs for men who need to be the breadwinners for their families, which of course ignores the fact that plenty of women are the main income earners, indeed sometimes the sole income earners, and that many families need two incomes now, and that men don't have any more rights to work than women, and lots of other stuff that makes my ears red.
Other women have been pulling out of work, or not going back to work after time off to care for children, because they can't afford the childcare costs. And of course those in part time or casual work are usually more vulnerable to cuts in hours, and women are more likely to be in those jobs than men.
This recession and unemployment in general is bad for both men and women. I heard on the radio that a quarter of all young people** are unemployed, and that's a tragedy. I just wish this Government would start doing something about it.
* Come on, who was really surprised? We've been in a recession, we had thousands of people queue for a low paid supermarket job the other day (unlike Idiot/Savant, who I normally agree with, I won't be referring to it as "shitty" because it's not), and the Government has been doing two fifths of sweet nothing about job creation.
** Not sure how they defined young people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)