community law centres are not an organisation that get a lot of press attention, despite the fact that they provide a vital service to the community. catrionna maclennan talked about them here on radio nz this morning (nine to noon, 11.30am), and i've included a summary of what she said below.
she told us that in the 2008/09 year almost 230,000 people who can't afford lawyers were helped by them. funding for CLCs has been a problem for some years now. they were already underfunded & struggling. since their main source of funding is from interest earned on solicitor's trust accounts, the drop in interest rates has lead to a crisis situation. the government stepped in last year with a bailout to prevent centres closing. there was another bailout for this year, and $5.9 million has been put aside to cover the centres over the next 2 years. after this, the government expects more permanent funding to be found.
some of this is expected to come from a rise in interest rates and a recovery in the housing market. however, that's unlikely to happen. just remember that the depreciation claim for rental dwellings isn't cancelled until the next financial year (ie 2010/11 financial year). without the ability to claim depreciation, rental properties will no longer be such an attractive investment, and i'd expect the effect of this policy to hit from the middle of next year, if not sooner. without the recovery, there won't be an increase in the level of houses sold, so less movement through lawyers' trust accounts.
the minister of justice is suggesting that CLCs start finding alternative funding sources, but with my experience of NGOs, i know that it takes almost a full-time person just to do the funding applications. for organisations that are already badly understaffed, it's hardly a realistic possibility.
the other possibility the minister has put forward is an increasing requirement for lawyers to do pro bono work. ms mclennan points out that the pay at CLCs is extremely low, which means that it's usually the most junior and inexperienced staff who are sent to deal with people who may be illiterate, have english as a second language, have mental health issues or have drug & alcohol dependency issues. if the pay rates don't go up, that situation is unlikely to change.
one valuable point she made was that there were some aspects of law, such as benefit law and consumer protection law, that were not provided outside of CLCs because they weren't profitable. if CLCs fail or reduce in size, legal protection in those areas will decrease and that won't be good for anyone.
the legal services bill is currently open for submissions until 8 october. this is an area of particular importance to me, especially because we know that the structure of the current justice system favours those who can afford the best (& so most expensive) lawyers. the legal aid system provides some support for low income earners, but since it is now a legal loan system rather than an aid system (unless you pretty much have nothing), simply the fact of being lumbered with a significant loan will be a barrier to seeking justice for many poor people.
CLCs are the only alternative, where low-income people can get some kind of access to the justice system. it's crucial that they receive more secure funding over the long-term, and it would be really nice if that funding could purchase more than just the most inexperienced junior lawyers.
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Issues with comments
Just a very quick note to say we are having some trouble with Blogger automatically deciding a comment is spam and not publishing it. As the main person who checks these kinds of things (me) is currently on a break we are not able to check these as often as we would like. Please don't assume we have deleted a comment if it hasn't appeared, especially if you had a link in it, as we usually do say we've deleted something and why. When I get a chance (possibly not for a week or two) I will try to have a look at the back end to work out what is wrong and fix it. Until then your patience is appreciated.
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Maia's Hand Mirror Reflections: Calories have got cheaper while some other nutrients have got more expensive
A couple of weeks ago I wrote about food and capitalism and one of the things I said was:
Now I should make it clear that I have no special qualifications to write about nutrition, quite the lack of it in fact. I'd like to know more about the science of nutrition, what we think we know, what we think we don't know, and how we know what we think we know, but I don't. From what I've read there is pretty universal agreement about what out bodies need to fuel and rebuild themselves (calories, vitamin A, Protein etc.) and reasonable levels of agreement about which foods have which nutrients (with some disagreeements about how much of these nutrients we manage to absorb). There appears to be a huge amount of disagreement about what (if any) negative effects various foods might have* and for this post I'm going to leave that well alone for this post. I'd love it if anyone who knows more about nutrition science and history wanted to post in the comments, but these comments are based on what I know. I also want to say that I'm thinking about changes that have happened in the last 60 years, because nothing pisses me off more than people talking about some vague sort of olden days that never actually existed. I'm talking about the changes that have happened post-World War II.
The basic idea is obvious, most people know what calories are (but often think of them as something to avoid, rather than a measure of energy), and that the other things you need from food are vitamins, minerals, fat, protein and fibre.
The idea that calories has got cheaper has also been relatively widely covered. I'm unsure how much this part of changes in agriculture, and how much is about changes in post harvest food technology, but we can produce calories cheaper than we used to.
Now I want to go on the record and say that I think that cheap calories are a good thing. I believe every person on this planet should have enough food to fuel their body without even thinking about it. It makes me furious when people attack cheap calories as if fuel for our bodies was something that only rich people were entitled to.
To me the problem is that other nutrients have got more expensive. Now I'm not sure if this is true absolutely, it probably depends on which nutrients and where you live. I'd love to see the statistics about average income and price of different sorts of food.
Nutrients can get more expensive while food gets cheaper. Growers that make food for a profit, rather than for nutrients, might prioritise other things besides nutritional value when they select which varieties to grow (or the people who make their seeds might be the people who make the priorities).
It is true that other nutrients have got cheaper relative to calories, and it's even more true if you factor in the time it takes to make the food. One thing that has happened in the last 40 years is that the average number of hours each person works has increased. Mostly that's about increased participation by women in paid employment, it's also about the fact that our labour legislation used to be a lot better than it is now, and so fewer people had more than 1 job.
The market in food that doesn't take much time to prepare has increased. There's no reason that food that is quick to prepare can't have both calories and other nutrients. But when food is made for profit it's easier to make cheap food that is low in nutrients.
The politics of food are incredibly important, but the entire discourse around food is based around fudging the reality of how food is made. The so-called obesity epidemic and the focus on calories ignores what the actual problem is.
* It makes sense to me that possible damaging effects of different foods would be hard to understand for a number of reasons. The first is the individuality of it - some people (say me) can be allergic to dairy products, but it's hard to find someone who doesn't need Protein. The second is the difficulty of studying these sorts of things, since if you base your evidence on studying what people do eat then you run into all sorts of problems around controlling for other factors and cause and effect, and when you try and do it the way they do drug studies then you run into the problem that people won't necessarily eat what you tell them to.
There have been changes in food over the last 50 years, and those changes have been driven by the food industry's requirement to make a profit. I may be wrong, and I'm happy to discuss this with people who know more (or less) than me, but I think the most important change has been that calories have gotten cheaper, but other nutrition has gotten more expensive.I wanted to explore what I meant by that.
Now I should make it clear that I have no special qualifications to write about nutrition, quite the lack of it in fact. I'd like to know more about the science of nutrition, what we think we know, what we think we don't know, and how we know what we think we know, but I don't. From what I've read there is pretty universal agreement about what out bodies need to fuel and rebuild themselves (calories, vitamin A, Protein etc.) and reasonable levels of agreement about which foods have which nutrients (with some disagreeements about how much of these nutrients we manage to absorb). There appears to be a huge amount of disagreement about what (if any) negative effects various foods might have* and for this post I'm going to leave that well alone for this post. I'd love it if anyone who knows more about nutrition science and history wanted to post in the comments, but these comments are based on what I know. I also want to say that I'm thinking about changes that have happened in the last 60 years, because nothing pisses me off more than people talking about some vague sort of olden days that never actually existed. I'm talking about the changes that have happened post-World War II.
The basic idea is obvious, most people know what calories are (but often think of them as something to avoid, rather than a measure of energy), and that the other things you need from food are vitamins, minerals, fat, protein and fibre.
The idea that calories has got cheaper has also been relatively widely covered. I'm unsure how much this part of changes in agriculture, and how much is about changes in post harvest food technology, but we can produce calories cheaper than we used to.
Now I want to go on the record and say that I think that cheap calories are a good thing. I believe every person on this planet should have enough food to fuel their body without even thinking about it. It makes me furious when people attack cheap calories as if fuel for our bodies was something that only rich people were entitled to.
To me the problem is that other nutrients have got more expensive. Now I'm not sure if this is true absolutely, it probably depends on which nutrients and where you live. I'd love to see the statistics about average income and price of different sorts of food.
Nutrients can get more expensive while food gets cheaper. Growers that make food for a profit, rather than for nutrients, might prioritise other things besides nutritional value when they select which varieties to grow (or the people who make their seeds might be the people who make the priorities).
It is true that other nutrients have got cheaper relative to calories, and it's even more true if you factor in the time it takes to make the food. One thing that has happened in the last 40 years is that the average number of hours each person works has increased. Mostly that's about increased participation by women in paid employment, it's also about the fact that our labour legislation used to be a lot better than it is now, and so fewer people had more than 1 job.
The market in food that doesn't take much time to prepare has increased. There's no reason that food that is quick to prepare can't have both calories and other nutrients. But when food is made for profit it's easier to make cheap food that is low in nutrients.
The politics of food are incredibly important, but the entire discourse around food is based around fudging the reality of how food is made. The so-called obesity epidemic and the focus on calories ignores what the actual problem is.
* It makes sense to me that possible damaging effects of different foods would be hard to understand for a number of reasons. The first is the individuality of it - some people (say me) can be allergic to dairy products, but it's hard to find someone who doesn't need Protein. The second is the difficulty of studying these sorts of things, since if you base your evidence on studying what people do eat then you run into all sorts of problems around controlling for other factors and cause and effect, and when you try and do it the way they do drug studies then you run into the problem that people won't necessarily eat what you tell them to.
Monday, 27 September 2010
dodging bullets
i went to visit a friend over the weekend who had just come back from a conference in adelaide, of which i have no details. one of the major issues for discussion there was the difficulty for women from minority communities to take on issues of gender discrimination, because of the need they felt to protect their communities from further criticism.
i'm sure i've written about this any number of times, so it was really great to talk it out and know that other more learned minds than mind were putting their mind towards this. the fact is that so much discrimination is justified using notions of tradition or culture. in fact, i haven't heard the words "tradition" or "culture" used to justify anything other than reasons for people to be nasty to others, or to exclude them. as if culture is something that is sacred, and can never change. even though the evidence is all around us that cultures continuously revolve and adapt.
just because previous generations have done something isn't sufficient reason for us to continue to do something. feminism is all about challenging and changing cultures, after all. it's about dismantling structural barriers, and finding new ways of doing things.
on the other hand, it's so much harder to raise issues when those very issues will be thrown back at you and your whole community by bigots, to justify their bigotry & hatred. all you've achieved then is anger from your own community for bringing a higher level of harassment (which means they're less likely to listen to the actual issue); while on the other side, you either get people thinking of women from minority communities as powerless victims (does not help) or hating you even more for being part of a community where xyz happens. of course the latter group will ignore the abc that is happening in their own communities, which is equally bad, while being quite happy to judge you and yours.
there will be those who will laud your courage for speaking out, but even that is a double-edged compliment because there is still that sense of patronising condescension, that sense of "oh you poor thing, having to put up with that, you're so brave to speak out about it", which also does. not. help.
then there the whole issue of interpretation about a particular practice. that interpretation will be coming from a particular cultural view of the world, and/or a moral perspective that restricts our ability to see that something might not be as negative as we think it is, or it may have positive aspects that we haven't considered. is our way of viewing others based on our own sense of cultural superiority, more than anything else?
one issue we talked about was the difficulty minority groups had in combatting the extremists in their own communities, precisely for this reason. for example, i'm quite concerned about the rise of activity here from elements aligned to the VHP, a known extremist group in india. my friend pointed out that though many people in the indian community didn't agree with what was going on, those people know that raising the issue will lead to tarring of the whole community. there's nothing to be gained from having to dodge bullets from both sides. then there is the fact that the silent majority will never have the fanatical fervour that extremists do.
my friend and i talked about how difficult it is to create safe spaces for women of minority communities to be able to speak out about what's happening to them and to be activists on those issues, without feeling like they've made things worse rather than better. unfortunately, we didn't get around to working out how that could happen. it's hard to solve the problems of the world on a sunday afternoon.
i'm sure i've written about this any number of times, so it was really great to talk it out and know that other more learned minds than mind were putting their mind towards this. the fact is that so much discrimination is justified using notions of tradition or culture. in fact, i haven't heard the words "tradition" or "culture" used to justify anything other than reasons for people to be nasty to others, or to exclude them. as if culture is something that is sacred, and can never change. even though the evidence is all around us that cultures continuously revolve and adapt.
just because previous generations have done something isn't sufficient reason for us to continue to do something. feminism is all about challenging and changing cultures, after all. it's about dismantling structural barriers, and finding new ways of doing things.
on the other hand, it's so much harder to raise issues when those very issues will be thrown back at you and your whole community by bigots, to justify their bigotry & hatred. all you've achieved then is anger from your own community for bringing a higher level of harassment (which means they're less likely to listen to the actual issue); while on the other side, you either get people thinking of women from minority communities as powerless victims (does not help) or hating you even more for being part of a community where xyz happens. of course the latter group will ignore the abc that is happening in their own communities, which is equally bad, while being quite happy to judge you and yours.
there will be those who will laud your courage for speaking out, but even that is a double-edged compliment because there is still that sense of patronising condescension, that sense of "oh you poor thing, having to put up with that, you're so brave to speak out about it", which also does. not. help.
then there the whole issue of interpretation about a particular practice. that interpretation will be coming from a particular cultural view of the world, and/or a moral perspective that restricts our ability to see that something might not be as negative as we think it is, or it may have positive aspects that we haven't considered. is our way of viewing others based on our own sense of cultural superiority, more than anything else?
one issue we talked about was the difficulty minority groups had in combatting the extremists in their own communities, precisely for this reason. for example, i'm quite concerned about the rise of activity here from elements aligned to the VHP, a known extremist group in india. my friend pointed out that though many people in the indian community didn't agree with what was going on, those people know that raising the issue will lead to tarring of the whole community. there's nothing to be gained from having to dodge bullets from both sides. then there is the fact that the silent majority will never have the fanatical fervour that extremists do.
my friend and i talked about how difficult it is to create safe spaces for women of minority communities to be able to speak out about what's happening to them and to be activists on those issues, without feeling like they've made things worse rather than better. unfortunately, we didn't get around to working out how that could happen. it's hard to solve the problems of the world on a sunday afternoon.
Friday, 24 September 2010
Who owns breasts?
Cross posted, because I've just found this nonsense on Stuff too
Brendan Black is a new daddy, and he's had an astonishing revelation. He has found that he needs to get over his semi-embarrassment, in public, about his partner breastfeeding their little boy. He's urging all men to do the same, in an opinion piece that appears in both The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Age. and is now on Stuff too, because it's much cheaper to fill NZ newspapers with second-hand columns from Australia.
Grow up men! Breasts are for babies
His ostensible purpose is laudable: he wants men to get over the idea that there is something wrong with women breastfeeding in public.
He sets out some fairly standard ideas about the confusion between the sexualisation of breasts, and the need to feed babies. There's nothing new in what he writes, except that he is addressing men. And yes, it's jolly nice that he's supporting breastfeeding. Of course, you will note the privilege that's on display: because it's being said by a man, it might get taken seriously, and even get published in a couple of big newspapers, but when women have made the same arguments, that's just those wretched feminists getting whiny and shrill again.
But what really, really annoyed me about the article was his assumption of ownership.
Oh, he asks for permission before he looks, but he still assumes ownership. And that's the flavour of the entire article. He used to own his partner's breasts, but now he has to share them, and hey, he's okay with that.
Dude, it's simple. The person who owns a woman's breasts is the woman herself. Not her partner. Not any man who cares to walk by and take a look. Not even her babies. But the woman herself. That's one of the basic notions of bodily integrity we have in Western liberal democracies. And once you understand that notion of bodily integrity, then whether or not a woman uses her breasts for sexual pleasure, or for titillation, or for feeding a baby, is none of your business whatsoever. Start with the notion that women own their own breasts, and then you don't even need to worry about whether your "ownership" rights have been affected, because you never had those rights in the first place.
And by the way, this sort of behaviour...
... is not a matter for joking. That's sexual assault. 'Though no doubt it would be more properly regarded as stealing from the man who owns them.
* Emphasis mine
Brendan Black is a new daddy, and he's had an astonishing revelation. He has found that he needs to get over his semi-embarrassment, in public, about his partner breastfeeding their little boy. He's urging all men to do the same, in an opinion piece that appears in both The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Age. and is now on Stuff too, because it's much cheaper to fill NZ newspapers with second-hand columns from Australia.
Grow up men! Breasts are for babies
His ostensible purpose is laudable: he wants men to get over the idea that there is something wrong with women breastfeeding in public.
Once my son was born, I quickly realised what I had long dreaded: my wife's breasts had to be shared with someone else, even though he had a greater need for them than me.
He sets out some fairly standard ideas about the confusion between the sexualisation of breasts, and the need to feed babies. There's nothing new in what he writes, except that he is addressing men. And yes, it's jolly nice that he's supporting breastfeeding. Of course, you will note the privilege that's on display: because it's being said by a man, it might get taken seriously, and even get published in a couple of big newspapers, but when women have made the same arguments, that's just those wretched feminists getting whiny and shrill again.
But what really, really annoyed me about the article was his assumption of ownership.
Nevertheless, seeing my wife's naked breasts several times a day, even with lessened ownership rights and in a new context, is still enjoyable...*
Oh, he asks for permission before he looks, but he still assumes ownership. And that's the flavour of the entire article. He used to own his partner's breasts, but now he has to share them, and hey, he's okay with that.
Dude, it's simple. The person who owns a woman's breasts is the woman herself. Not her partner. Not any man who cares to walk by and take a look. Not even her babies. But the woman herself. That's one of the basic notions of bodily integrity we have in Western liberal democracies. And once you understand that notion of bodily integrity, then whether or not a woman uses her breasts for sexual pleasure, or for titillation, or for feeding a baby, is none of your business whatsoever. Start with the notion that women own their own breasts, and then you don't even need to worry about whether your "ownership" rights have been affected, because you never had those rights in the first place.
And by the way, this sort of behaviour...
We love to sneak a peek at a woman's cleavage, cop a feel when we're allowed to (and even when we're not)...*
... is not a matter for joking. That's sexual assault. 'Though no doubt it would be more properly regarded as stealing from the man who owns them.
* Emphasis mine
Maia's Hand Mirror Reflections: Connections
I've written a lot about food, particularly recently. I've written about my problems with the way food is discussed and my problems with the way food is produced. But I haven't talked explicitly about the connection between my analysis of these two things.
I don't think either of my analyses is particularly unusual. Certainly an analysis of the effects of capitalism on nutrition is reasonably common, at least in the sort of cirlces that analyse the effects of capitalism on anything. Most people with a vague understanding that feminism exists have some sort of analysis of society's obsession with thinness. Many feminists who think about it develop this into a more thorough analysis, which includes an understanding of the role food plays in an eating disordered culture, particularly control of food.
And yet...
Most people make no connection between these two analyses, a fact that I find highly frustration. So many people treat them as two different analyses of food, and you pick one or the other, or if you lay one over the other then they cancel each other out, and there's just one bit of the strongest left (this approach seems to be most common in Britain, I was there a couple of years back and read not one but two articles in the Guardian/Independent (just search the Guardian archives for +poverty +obesity for lots of examples of exactly what I'm saying) that basically said "yes, anorexia is bad for middle-class girls, but we need to concentrate on the problem of obesity among those in poverty, size is a class issue not a gender one.")
What this means is that Supersize Me analysis* has become the common response to the 'obesity epidemic'. Fat is bad, and the poor are fat, therefore it's left-wing to criticse fat. If you're really lucky this analysis will then be extended, as Findlay McDonald did the other week, to say that maybe it's poverty we should have a war on, not obesity.
But this gives up ground that I'm not willing to give up. I think it's dangeorus and distracting to substitute discussions about food with discussions about weight. I think that one of the whole points of our fucked up discourse** around food is to distract us from the fact that the real problem with food is the way it is produced.
'Health' has become a commodity and this is most true when it comes to 'healthy' food. Labelling certain foods as 'healthy' or promoting their 'health' benefits has nothing to do with their nutritional value and everything to do with selling stuff. Often what food is portrayed as 'healthy' has nothing to do with promoting longevity and quality of life, and more to do with promoting certain behaviours and ideas. This discourse* has many different roles, but an important part of it is to hide the completely obvious, which is that capitalism is fucking up our food supply.
We don't fix that by having the same conversations as everyone else, and we don't fix that by focusing on individual problems and solutions, and we don't fix it by treating the two problems as if they're unrelated, because they're not.**
*Personally I think 'analysis' is a little bit of an generous word to use in conjunction with Supersize Me, but since I'm determined to scare quote 'healthy' and 'obesity epidemic' every single time I use them I thought it'd come across as a wee bit petty if I did the same to analysis. I'm trying to think of a good synonym for analysis which implies that it's not actually analysis, but my brain isn't finding one. Oh well.
**I'm sorry, but while 'discourse' is kind of a pretentious word, I think it's also useful. Talking about the 'discourse' makes it clear that you believe that public discussions of a subject are constructed, and that analysing how and why is useful.
***Did my rhetoric hide the fact that I don't know how we do fix it? Didn't think so. I have the usual answers their, educate, agitate, organise, but I just don't think we're going to be able to do any of that until change the way we talk about the issue. I guess that's the educate part (hey maybe I do have some ideas).
I don't think either of my analyses is particularly unusual. Certainly an analysis of the effects of capitalism on nutrition is reasonably common, at least in the sort of cirlces that analyse the effects of capitalism on anything. Most people with a vague understanding that feminism exists have some sort of analysis of society's obsession with thinness. Many feminists who think about it develop this into a more thorough analysis, which includes an understanding of the role food plays in an eating disordered culture, particularly control of food.
And yet...
Most people make no connection between these two analyses, a fact that I find highly frustration. So many people treat them as two different analyses of food, and you pick one or the other, or if you lay one over the other then they cancel each other out, and there's just one bit of the strongest left (this approach seems to be most common in Britain, I was there a couple of years back and read not one but two articles in the Guardian/Independent (just search the Guardian archives for +poverty +obesity for lots of examples of exactly what I'm saying) that basically said "yes, anorexia is bad for middle-class girls, but we need to concentrate on the problem of obesity among those in poverty, size is a class issue not a gender one.")
What this means is that Supersize Me analysis* has become the common response to the 'obesity epidemic'. Fat is bad, and the poor are fat, therefore it's left-wing to criticse fat. If you're really lucky this analysis will then be extended, as Findlay McDonald did the other week, to say that maybe it's poverty we should have a war on, not obesity.
But this gives up ground that I'm not willing to give up. I think it's dangeorus and distracting to substitute discussions about food with discussions about weight. I think that one of the whole points of our fucked up discourse** around food is to distract us from the fact that the real problem with food is the way it is produced.
'Health' has become a commodity and this is most true when it comes to 'healthy' food. Labelling certain foods as 'healthy' or promoting their 'health' benefits has nothing to do with their nutritional value and everything to do with selling stuff. Often what food is portrayed as 'healthy' has nothing to do with promoting longevity and quality of life, and more to do with promoting certain behaviours and ideas. This discourse* has many different roles, but an important part of it is to hide the completely obvious, which is that capitalism is fucking up our food supply.
We don't fix that by having the same conversations as everyone else, and we don't fix that by focusing on individual problems and solutions, and we don't fix it by treating the two problems as if they're unrelated, because they're not.**
*Personally I think 'analysis' is a little bit of an generous word to use in conjunction with Supersize Me, but since I'm determined to scare quote 'healthy' and 'obesity epidemic' every single time I use them I thought it'd come across as a wee bit petty if I did the same to analysis. I'm trying to think of a good synonym for analysis which implies that it's not actually analysis, but my brain isn't finding one. Oh well.
**I'm sorry, but while 'discourse' is kind of a pretentious word, I think it's also useful. Talking about the 'discourse' makes it clear that you believe that public discussions of a subject are constructed, and that analysing how and why is useful.
***Did my rhetoric hide the fact that I don't know how we do fix it? Didn't think so. I have the usual answers their, educate, agitate, organise, but I just don't think we're going to be able to do any of that until change the way we talk about the issue. I guess that's the educate part (hey maybe I do have some ideas).
Thursday, 23 September 2010
why are you apologising?
i read this yesterday when a friend on facebook linked to it. it's a rather nice piece written in response to the nasty stuff that's been happening in america around qur'an burnings and the cultural centre close to ground zero. and while i'm really happy that mr kristof has chosen to put up a piece that is in stark contrast to much of what i've been seeing lately, i find myself annoyed with the first couple of sentences:
Many Americans have suggested that more moderate Muslims should stand up to extremists, speak out for tolerance, and apologize for sins committed by their brethren.
That’s reasonable advice, and as a moderate myself, I’m going to take it.
this, in fact, frames the rest of the piece, wherein mr kristof apologises for things that he isn't responsible for. i disagree with the whole notion of collective responsibility for criminal acts of individuals or groups which a form a small part of a pretty large section of humanity. i don't and will never expect any of my christian friends to apologise for the actions of some guy from somewhere in america who decides to do something stupid. i know that the majority of christians don't agree with that kind of behaviour, but even if i didn't know that, why on earth would i expect them to apologise for the actions of some totally unrelated person? it just doesn't make sense.
thinking about it some more, i recall that excellent piece that kate harding wrote some years ago in response to online harassment suffered by kathy sierra. because the crucial bit involves a significant amount of collective responsibility. or does it involve men speaking up in situations where women are being spoken of in derogatory terms, which is a different sort of thing. that's more about individual responsibility & not tolerating things that contribute to a culture of misogyny and violence.
that could translate to any group. i can see the point that we have an individual responsibility to speak up when another member of a group we belong to says something that is harmful or derogatory to others, or that promotes violence. but then, as far as i'm concerned, i'd have that responsibility no matter which group of people i'm sitting with. should i be silent if someone is saying or doing something harmful, just because they aren't my religion, gender, ethnicity or whatever? do i have a higher responsibility if they are my religion, gender, ethnicity or whatever?
even if i accepted that the answer to that last is yes, i still don't accept that i have any responsibility to apologise for the actions of someone i've never met and have absolutely no chance of influencing. which is why i would much rather that mr kristof had framed his piece as a condemnation of words or actions he disagrees with rather than a personal apology for them. because the danger of this particular brand of collective responsibility is that it can very quickly lead to collective punishment. and that is a pretty ugly thing.
note: i'd appreciate if comments would be restricted to the issues i've raised in the post around individual & collective responsiblity. i will be pretty tight on moderation for this particular post.
Many Americans have suggested that more moderate Muslims should stand up to extremists, speak out for tolerance, and apologize for sins committed by their brethren.
That’s reasonable advice, and as a moderate myself, I’m going to take it.
this, in fact, frames the rest of the piece, wherein mr kristof apologises for things that he isn't responsible for. i disagree with the whole notion of collective responsibility for criminal acts of individuals or groups which a form a small part of a pretty large section of humanity. i don't and will never expect any of my christian friends to apologise for the actions of some guy from somewhere in america who decides to do something stupid. i know that the majority of christians don't agree with that kind of behaviour, but even if i didn't know that, why on earth would i expect them to apologise for the actions of some totally unrelated person? it just doesn't make sense.
thinking about it some more, i recall that excellent piece that kate harding wrote some years ago in response to online harassment suffered by kathy sierra. because the crucial bit involves a significant amount of collective responsibility. or does it involve men speaking up in situations where women are being spoken of in derogatory terms, which is a different sort of thing. that's more about individual responsibility & not tolerating things that contribute to a culture of misogyny and violence.
that could translate to any group. i can see the point that we have an individual responsibility to speak up when another member of a group we belong to says something that is harmful or derogatory to others, or that promotes violence. but then, as far as i'm concerned, i'd have that responsibility no matter which group of people i'm sitting with. should i be silent if someone is saying or doing something harmful, just because they aren't my religion, gender, ethnicity or whatever? do i have a higher responsibility if they are my religion, gender, ethnicity or whatever?
even if i accepted that the answer to that last is yes, i still don't accept that i have any responsibility to apologise for the actions of someone i've never met and have absolutely no chance of influencing. which is why i would much rather that mr kristof had framed his piece as a condemnation of words or actions he disagrees with rather than a personal apology for them. because the danger of this particular brand of collective responsibility is that it can very quickly lead to collective punishment. and that is a pretty ugly thing.
note: i'd appreciate if comments would be restricted to the issues i've raised in the post around individual & collective responsiblity. i will be pretty tight on moderation for this particular post.
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
pay them for their work
i hear there's going to be this rugby world cup thing next year. well actually i've heard about as much about it as i want to, and there's quite a while to go yet. yes, i'm one of those who's just not into rugby, so not enthused about the mayhem and madness that will take over the country for some weeks next year.
i understand this event is supposed bring $2.1 billion worth of economic benefit to the country, although there seem to be conflicting opinions on that. the benefits seem to be mostly indirect, in terms publicity & promotion of nz as a tourist destination.
what ever way you look at it, this is a commercial venture. it's certainly not a charitable one, and someone, somewhere will be making a heap of money from this. i suspect that "someone" will be the IRB, if other international events are anything to go by. and the tv networks. and the construction sector & hospitality people. if there wasn't money to be made, the thing wouldn't be happening every four years, after all.
so i really don't understand, in amongst all the hundreds of millions moving from here to there, why this event needs free labour from 5,000 volunteers. no other commercial venture would get away with labour without wages on this scale. i certainly don't think it can be justified if there are profits anywhere, made by anyone, that could be rightfully applied to the work done by these volunteers.
these projected benefits shouldn't just go into the hands of business. they should be shared by all those who put their time towards making the event a success. i hate the way volunteering for the world cup is being presented as some kind of charitable cause. i want to know exactly who is getting the benefit of such charity - i think everyone deserves to know that. because if people have time and energy to put towards a cause, i can think of many much better causes than this one.
i understand this event is supposed bring $2.1 billion worth of economic benefit to the country, although there seem to be conflicting opinions on that. the benefits seem to be mostly indirect, in terms publicity & promotion of nz as a tourist destination.
what ever way you look at it, this is a commercial venture. it's certainly not a charitable one, and someone, somewhere will be making a heap of money from this. i suspect that "someone" will be the IRB, if other international events are anything to go by. and the tv networks. and the construction sector & hospitality people. if there wasn't money to be made, the thing wouldn't be happening every four years, after all.
so i really don't understand, in amongst all the hundreds of millions moving from here to there, why this event needs free labour from 5,000 volunteers. no other commercial venture would get away with labour without wages on this scale. i certainly don't think it can be justified if there are profits anywhere, made by anyone, that could be rightfully applied to the work done by these volunteers.
these projected benefits shouldn't just go into the hands of business. they should be shared by all those who put their time towards making the event a success. i hate the way volunteering for the world cup is being presented as some kind of charitable cause. i want to know exactly who is getting the benefit of such charity - i think everyone deserves to know that. because if people have time and energy to put towards a cause, i can think of many much better causes than this one.
Sunday, 19 September 2010
Suffrage Day!
Cross posted
On this day, 117 years ago, women in the New Zealand got the right to vote. On 19 September, 1893, the Governor, Lord Glasgow, signed the Electoral Act giving all New Zealand women the right to vote. New Zealand was one of the earliest self-governing territories in the world to enfranchise women, and the earliest nation to do so. It's a proud moment in our history. Alas, it took another 26 years before women were entitled to stand for Parliament, and another 14 years after that before Elizabeth McCombs became the first woman to win a seat.
The suffragists fought a long battle to gain the vote, presenting three massive petitions to Parliament. The third and final petition had 32,000 signatures on it. The petition is on display in the National Archives in Wellington, and you can walk in there and take a look, just like that.
When I looked at the 1893 suffrage petition, what struck me was the street addresses of the people who had signed it. There was signature after signature from the same street. It is a record of a woman, or perhaps a man, going from door to door, up and down the streets, knocking and asking for signatures.
There's a lovely story about one signature on the petition. It comes from Mrs Perryman's account of the suffrage campaign and voting for the first time on the elections.org.nz site.
If you are in Wellington, do take a moment to have a look. The Archives are at 10 Mulgrave Street, just across the road from the Thistle, where Te Rauparaha is said to have had a drink from time to time, and one block over from Parliament.
On this day, 117 years ago, women in the New Zealand got the right to vote. On 19 September, 1893, the Governor, Lord Glasgow, signed the Electoral Act giving all New Zealand women the right to vote. New Zealand was one of the earliest self-governing territories in the world to enfranchise women, and the earliest nation to do so. It's a proud moment in our history. Alas, it took another 26 years before women were entitled to stand for Parliament, and another 14 years after that before Elizabeth McCombs became the first woman to win a seat.
The suffragists fought a long battle to gain the vote, presenting three massive petitions to Parliament. The third and final petition had 32,000 signatures on it. The petition is on display in the National Archives in Wellington, and you can walk in there and take a look, just like that.
When I looked at the 1893 suffrage petition, what struck me was the street addresses of the people who had signed it. There was signature after signature from the same street. It is a record of a woman, or perhaps a man, going from door to door, up and down the streets, knocking and asking for signatures.
There's a lovely story about one signature on the petition. It comes from Mrs Perryman's account of the suffrage campaign and voting for the first time on the elections.org.nz site.
It meant hard work to collect those signatures, and we met many women who told us quite emphatically they wanted nothing to do with politics. Mrs T. E. Taylor, wife of a very prominent independent member [of Parliament], used to tell a good tale about one of these reluctant women. The lady firmly declined to sign the petition, and firmly shut the door in Mrs Taylor's face. But before Mrs Taylor could reach the front gate she was called back. 'Yes', said the lady, 'I will sign your petition, just to vote against that man Tommy Taylor'.
If you are in Wellington, do take a moment to have a look. The Archives are at 10 Mulgrave Street, just across the road from the Thistle, where Te Rauparaha is said to have had a drink from time to time, and one block over from Parliament.
Friday, 17 September 2010
Friday Activist - Jackie Huggins
Cross posted
Jackie Huggins, "Black Women and Women's Liberation", Hecate 13.1, 1987, pp. 77 - 82
The further notion that all women as a sex have more in common than do members of the same class is false. Upper-class women are not simply bedmates of their wealthy husbands. As a rule, they have more compelling ties that bind them together. They are economic, social, and political bedmates united in defence of private property, profiteering, militarism, racism - and the exploitation of other women. It would be quite another matter to expect any large number of wealthy women to endorse or support a revolutionary struggle which threatened their capitalist interests and privileges. Will the wives of bankers, generals, corporation lawyers, and big industrialists be firmer allies of women fighting for liberation than working-class men, black and white, who are fighting for theirs? The ruling powers breed and benefit from all forms of discrimination and oppression. Therefore, for a middle-class woman to compare her environmental situation with that of a black is totally naive. While white women are fighting to get out of the kitchen, black women are fighting to get into it.
For these reasons, many black women do not see the women's movement as relevant to their own situation. Black women, who have worked from necessity are apt to view women's liberation as a white middle-class battle irrelevant to their own, often bitter, struggle for survival. As Ida Lewis commented: "The women's liberation movement is basically a family quarrel between white women and white men." Similarly, Aboriginal women are aware of the divisiveness of feminism in terms of their own black movement. Women's liberation has meant very little to both black American women and Aboriginal women who believe that the black woman has always been placed in a position of asserting herself.
Jackie Huggins, "Black Women and Women's Liberation", Hecate 13.1, 1987, pp. 77 - 82
Maia's Hand Mirror Reflections: Food
I've written a lot about the politics of the way food is discussed, but very little about the politics of food. I think to understand 'the obesity epidemic' you have to understand the politics of food as well as the politics of the discourse around food (yes I used the word 'discourse' in my first paragraph - I imagine it'll be a long post).
So far when I've been talking about the discourse around food I've generally been talking about individual foods and how they're discussed. In this post I'm going to talk more about diet. Just to be clear in this post when I say 'diet' I don't mean weight-loss diets, but the sum total of what we eat from week to week.
There are a number of assumptions that underpin 'the obesity epidemic' - one of which is that our diet has got worse over the last 50 years. Some people, such as the chair of Fight the Obesity Epdiemic, believe that our diet has got worse since the depression, since in the 1930s people grew their own vegetables. But I'll give most people who promote 'the obesity epidemic' the benefit of the doubt and assume that they don't think we'd be in better health if we died of starvation.
It was a reasonably standard article on obesity in the Dominon Post that made me question this assumption:
To answer this question I turned to Towards Tomorrow: A Guide for the New Zealand Homemaker, an economics school text book published in 1968. Here's what it had to say about fat:
My first thought was that either people are lying to us about what a healthy diet is, or our diet has improved considerably since the 1960s.* My second thought is that the main problem is that it's ridiculous to talk about 'the New Zealand' diet. For discussion of diet to have any meaning at all, we have to look at class, and how the amount of money you have has effects your diet.
In our society we don't make food for nutritional value, we don't make food to nuture us, we don't make food to promote long life and we don't make food to fee ourselves.
We make food to make a profit.
Every decision those producing food make about what goes into that food (starting way back at the genetically modified soy-bean seed, to when soya-oil ends up in a low-fat biscuit substitute) is made based on the need to make a profit. Nutrition is generally only a consideration into whether or not food makes a profit if the government has legislated about the nutirtional content of certain foods, or if it can help sell the product (more on this later).
There have been changes in food over the last 50 years, and those changes have been driven by the food industry's requirement to make a profit. I may be wrong, and I'm happy to discuss this with people who know more (or less) than me, but I think the most important change has been that calories have gotten cheaper, but other nutrition have gotten more expensive.** To give a really basic example, if the amount of vitamin C in an apple has halved, then even if apples have gone down in price a 1/3 vitamin C is more expensive.
That's why I hate Sue Kedgeley, and the Greens soft-drink charge so much. The solution to the change in our diets can't be to try and drive the price of calories back up, rather than try and bring the price of nutrients down.
This is a long, and kind of rambling post. I had a lot more to say, but this is a start, I'll try and expand on some of these posts in the next few days. I refuse to join into the current discourse on food for a reason, because I think it misses the problem. I think everytime we talk about 'healthy' food we're just creating another way they can sell things for us.
I think the any problems with food in our society can only be solved if we go attack the cause of the problem. The profit motive.
*This may or may not be true, I'm not hear to police individual debates on the value of different sorts of food. On an individual level I suspect part of the problem with talking about the dangers of one item of food in your diet, as it's not what you take out of your diet, but what you substitute it with, that makes a difference to your longevity and quality of life.
**I should go to bed, but there's a whole lot more detail in what this means, I'll write it up tomorrow.
So far when I've been talking about the discourse around food I've generally been talking about individual foods and how they're discussed. In this post I'm going to talk more about diet. Just to be clear in this post when I say 'diet' I don't mean weight-loss diets, but the sum total of what we eat from week to week.
There are a number of assumptions that underpin 'the obesity epidemic' - one of which is that our diet has got worse over the last 50 years. Some people, such as the chair of Fight the Obesity Epdiemic, believe that our diet has got worse since the depression, since in the 1930s people grew their own vegetables. But I'll give most people who promote 'the obesity epidemic' the benefit of the doubt and assume that they don't think we'd be in better health if we died of starvation.
It was a reasonably standard article on obesity in the Dominon Post that made me question this assumption:
It's not difficult to see why obesity is becoming such a problem. We no longer walk or exercise nearly as much as we used to and our eating habits have deteriorated. What did people eat in New Zealand 50 years ago? Would it past muster with those who hark back to a golden era.
To answer this question I turned to Towards Tomorrow: A Guide for the New Zealand Homemaker, an economics school text book published in 1968. Here's what it had to say about fat:
The fats used in the average New zealand diet are butter, bacon fat, dripping and lard.and meat:
Meat is the protein food most used in New Zealand and we are among the world's greatest meat eaters because our country is so agriculturally rich. Many overseas visitors are surprised to find that meat is often included in every meal of the day.So 40 years ago the New Zealand diet included red meat 2-3 times a day, and most cooking was done in animal fat.
Poultry has grown in popularity over recent years. Like meat it is a complete protein, but it is mroe expensive than meat. (There is alarm at the use of hormones to develop birds rapidly because these hormones could affect humans.) Poultry is a delicious 'special occasion' food.
My first thought was that either people are lying to us about what a healthy diet is, or our diet has improved considerably since the 1960s.* My second thought is that the main problem is that it's ridiculous to talk about 'the New Zealand' diet. For discussion of diet to have any meaning at all, we have to look at class, and how the amount of money you have has effects your diet.
In our society we don't make food for nutritional value, we don't make food to nuture us, we don't make food to promote long life and we don't make food to fee ourselves.
We make food to make a profit.
Every decision those producing food make about what goes into that food (starting way back at the genetically modified soy-bean seed, to when soya-oil ends up in a low-fat biscuit substitute) is made based on the need to make a profit. Nutrition is generally only a consideration into whether or not food makes a profit if the government has legislated about the nutirtional content of certain foods, or if it can help sell the product (more on this later).
There have been changes in food over the last 50 years, and those changes have been driven by the food industry's requirement to make a profit. I may be wrong, and I'm happy to discuss this with people who know more (or less) than me, but I think the most important change has been that calories have gotten cheaper, but other nutrition have gotten more expensive.** To give a really basic example, if the amount of vitamin C in an apple has halved, then even if apples have gone down in price a 1/3 vitamin C is more expensive.
That's why I hate Sue Kedgeley, and the Greens soft-drink charge so much. The solution to the change in our diets can't be to try and drive the price of calories back up, rather than try and bring the price of nutrients down.
This is a long, and kind of rambling post. I had a lot more to say, but this is a start, I'll try and expand on some of these posts in the next few days. I refuse to join into the current discourse on food for a reason, because I think it misses the problem. I think everytime we talk about 'healthy' food we're just creating another way they can sell things for us.
I think the any problems with food in our society can only be solved if we go attack the cause of the problem. The profit motive.
*This may or may not be true, I'm not hear to police individual debates on the value of different sorts of food. On an individual level I suspect part of the problem with talking about the dangers of one item of food in your diet, as it's not what you take out of your diet, but what you substitute it with, that makes a difference to your longevity and quality of life.
**I should go to bed, but there's a whole lot more detail in what this means, I'll write it up tomorrow.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
government response to sexual violence report
it's been a busy news day, what with david garrett's meltdown & the teachers strike. and still plenty of news coming out of canterbury. the perfect time, it seems, for the government to release it's response to the report of the task force for action on sexual violence. a response headed by 3 ministers of the crown: the minister of justice, the minister of social development and the associaste minister of social development.
you would think that this would be worthy of some attention on the 6 o'clock news, but if there was any, i definitely missed it. the press release is dated 1.19pm so it's not like there wasn't time. it's seriously looking like this something the government wanted to slip under the radar.
so here are some of the action points included in the press release:
• The Ministry of Justice re-prioritising $1 million of funding over two years for sexual violence prevention education programmes.
• Responding to immediate funding pressures by providing funds to sexual violence service providers through the Community Response Fund ($864,000 provided to date).
• A cross-agency stocktake of government expenditure on sexual violence services.
• Exploring alternative approaches to pre trial and trial processes for victims of sexual violence, including looking at inquisitorial justice models.
• Improving the level of support available to victims of sexual violence as they go through the criminal justice system. This includes funding for 18 specialist court victim advisers, a discretionary grant to assist with expenses incurred as a result of sexual violence, new information resources, and increased financial assistance for travel, accommodation, and childcare.
• Funding the Survivor Advocate role for the next three years.
• Police introducing new Adult Sexual Assault Guidelines.
• Funding for TOAH-NNEST to enable it to continue its role as co-ordinator for the sexual violence sector.
• A commitment to continued engagement with the sexual violence sector.
i haven't yet seen any responses from the member organisations of the TOAH-NNEST network to this, but would be very interested to hear from them. just off the cuff, the funding figures below are extremely low. given that ACC funding to the auckland sexual abuse help people was cut by around $300,000, the $864,000 to date is really not much at all. especially given that rape crisis centres around the country have been seriously underfunded and struggling for a long time now.
the network's report has 71 recommendations, but the government has chosen not to respond to these specific recommendations directly. instead, they've focused on "six key priority areas". it's good to see funding for court victim advisors & a survivor advocate. however, when it comes to the police, i seriously don't think a new set of guidelines is anywhere near sufficient. not only does there need to be in-depth training, but also a comprehensive plan to deal with the current police culture.
the "Exploring alternative approaches to pre trial and trial processes" is to be done by the law commission, who will report back by december 2011. the wheels of justice do indeed turn slowly. the law commission will also be looking at "evidential procedures in sex crime trials" but won't even start doing that until december 2011.
so we have some progress, and generally i think hon simon power is doing well in this area. however, the difficult issues around consent, evidence & trial process have been conveniently pushed off til after the next election. at some point, someone is going to have make the difficult decisions, and the sooner the better.
you would think that this would be worthy of some attention on the 6 o'clock news, but if there was any, i definitely missed it. the press release is dated 1.19pm so it's not like there wasn't time. it's seriously looking like this something the government wanted to slip under the radar.
so here are some of the action points included in the press release:
• The Ministry of Justice re-prioritising $1 million of funding over two years for sexual violence prevention education programmes.
• Responding to immediate funding pressures by providing funds to sexual violence service providers through the Community Response Fund ($864,000 provided to date).
• A cross-agency stocktake of government expenditure on sexual violence services.
• Exploring alternative approaches to pre trial and trial processes for victims of sexual violence, including looking at inquisitorial justice models.
• Improving the level of support available to victims of sexual violence as they go through the criminal justice system. This includes funding for 18 specialist court victim advisers, a discretionary grant to assist with expenses incurred as a result of sexual violence, new information resources, and increased financial assistance for travel, accommodation, and childcare.
• Funding the Survivor Advocate role for the next three years.
• Police introducing new Adult Sexual Assault Guidelines.
• Funding for TOAH-NNEST to enable it to continue its role as co-ordinator for the sexual violence sector.
• A commitment to continued engagement with the sexual violence sector.
i haven't yet seen any responses from the member organisations of the TOAH-NNEST network to this, but would be very interested to hear from them. just off the cuff, the funding figures below are extremely low. given that ACC funding to the auckland sexual abuse help people was cut by around $300,000, the $864,000 to date is really not much at all. especially given that rape crisis centres around the country have been seriously underfunded and struggling for a long time now.
the network's report has 71 recommendations, but the government has chosen not to respond to these specific recommendations directly. instead, they've focused on "six key priority areas". it's good to see funding for court victim advisors & a survivor advocate. however, when it comes to the police, i seriously don't think a new set of guidelines is anywhere near sufficient. not only does there need to be in-depth training, but also a comprehensive plan to deal with the current police culture.
the "Exploring alternative approaches to pre trial and trial processes" is to be done by the law commission, who will report back by december 2011. the wheels of justice do indeed turn slowly. the law commission will also be looking at "evidential procedures in sex crime trials" but won't even start doing that until december 2011.
so we have some progress, and generally i think hon simon power is doing well in this area. however, the difficult issues around consent, evidence & trial process have been conveniently pushed off til after the next election. at some point, someone is going to have make the difficult decisions, and the sooner the better.
supporting the teachers
i received this today from a friend of mine who is a high school teacher & thought it would be useful to share:
You may hear on the news that the H.S. teachers of N.Z. are on strike today. I am one of them. While the media protray it as teachers being greedy and trying to use students as pawns...It is not about that at all. To the contrary we are trying to improve student conditions as well as maintain a decent standard of living for students.
1) We need reduced class sizes. As an example This year I taught 33 Year 9 students in one class and 30 in another....while I'm supposed to a) manage all their behaviour b) teach effective and dynamic lessons c) differentiate and make individual programs for the students d) provide extension opportunities for those who are advanced.
We are asking for reasonable class sizes and enough qualified teachers to teach the classes.
2) I spend my non-contacts following up on behavioural and emotional issues of students of students with major problems. (i.e. working with guidance counselors, deans, conferences with parents because of students actions, meetings with principals). As the society issues increase, so do the behavioural issues in schools. Based on what I've seen It did not surprise me that there have been students carrying and using knives in our schools.
On other non-contacts I have helped my younger colleagues formulate their lesson plans, give them ideas on techniques to deal with behavioural issues, etc.
The government wants to take aways the non-contact periods--when in fact we need more.
3) Did you know that the average age of teachers in N.Z. is now 50? It used to be 30 just over 20 years ago. The young energetic teachers do not remain because of the demands that are placed on them from the start and the lack of income parity with other professions results in them leaving within a year or two. Contrary to the news... teachers are not rolling in the dough, but rather are losing standing on income and quality of life.
Let's get some income parity to reduce the burden of the older staff and so that we can retain the younger staff instead of continually retraining new teachers each year
4) I think we personally think deserve more than the 4% increase that the PPTA is requesting. You and I only have to go to the store to know that main food items have increased well over --example cooking oil is almost double the price from when I came here 5 years ago, goodness knows if I want to eat fresh fish I'll have to almost cut off my finger to pay for a kilogram.
There are many more reasons why today I'll be wearing black (and not because it makes me look thinner) and will be striking with my colleagues. I hope you support me with this.
You may hear on the news that the H.S. teachers of N.Z. are on strike today. I am one of them. While the media protray it as teachers being greedy and trying to use students as pawns...It is not about that at all. To the contrary we are trying to improve student conditions as well as maintain a decent standard of living for students.
1) We need reduced class sizes. As an example This year I taught 33 Year 9 students in one class and 30 in another....while I'm supposed to a) manage all their behaviour b) teach effective and dynamic lessons c) differentiate and make individual programs for the students d) provide extension opportunities for those who are advanced.
We are asking for reasonable class sizes and enough qualified teachers to teach the classes.
2) I spend my non-contacts following up on behavioural and emotional issues of students of students with major problems. (i.e. working with guidance counselors, deans, conferences with parents because of students actions, meetings with principals). As the society issues increase, so do the behavioural issues in schools. Based on what I've seen It did not surprise me that there have been students carrying and using knives in our schools.
On other non-contacts I have helped my younger colleagues formulate their lesson plans, give them ideas on techniques to deal with behavioural issues, etc.
The government wants to take aways the non-contact periods--when in fact we need more.
3) Did you know that the average age of teachers in N.Z. is now 50? It used to be 30 just over 20 years ago. The young energetic teachers do not remain because of the demands that are placed on them from the start and the lack of income parity with other professions results in them leaving within a year or two. Contrary to the news... teachers are not rolling in the dough, but rather are losing standing on income and quality of life.
Let's get some income parity to reduce the burden of the older staff and so that we can retain the younger staff instead of continually retraining new teachers each year
4) I think we personally think deserve more than the 4% increase that the PPTA is requesting. You and I only have to go to the store to know that main food items have increased well over --example cooking oil is almost double the price from when I came here 5 years ago, goodness knows if I want to eat fresh fish I'll have to almost cut off my finger to pay for a kilogram.
There are many more reasons why today I'll be wearing black (and not because it makes me look thinner) and will be striking with my colleagues. I hope you support me with this.
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
The re-criminalising poor sex workers bill
It has another, more euphamistic name (Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill), but what it is actually doing is re-criminalising poor sex workers.
This bill will make it an arrestable crime, punishable with a $2,000 fine, to buy or sell sex outside of a brothel in areas decided by the Manakau City Council (if it goes through it'll be the Auckland super city council).
It is specifically targeting street sex workers. Street sex workers do not generally have $2,000 to pay a fine. The fines, when they're awarded, won't have the magic power to stop someone being poor and working as a sex worker, it'll just make them poorer. It won't make street sex work disappear, it'll just make it harder, more dangerous, and more marginalised.
It'll give police officers, like Peter Govers and Nathan Connolly more power over some women. And whatever else your politics, that is reason enough to oppose this bill.
I would like to take a brief moment to draw your attention to a new reactionary tendancy on this issue within the Greens (who block voted for prostitution law reform). Two of the Green MPs voted for the bill and Russell Norman abstained (because he thought I needed another reason to hate him).
Three parties block voted (Act and National supported the attacks, the Maori party opposed them), Labour and the Greens split their votes. Nanaia Mahuta was the only woman from either of these parties to vote for criminalising poor women who work as sex workers. Now it physically pains me to say nice things about Labour and Green MPs, but I want to give credit to the feminist analysis and solidarity that those who opposed these bill showed. It shouldn't be noteworthy that women MPs voted the way they did. But the extent to which their male colleagues accepted criminalising women who were already marginalised as an acceptable side effect of protecting small businesses (as the rhetoric in defence of hte bill is all the poor shop owners whose lives are made harder by the fact that sex work happens near them), means that it is noteworthy in the context in which they're operating.
The contempt that those who voted for this bill have for sex workers comes through in the parliamentary debate. George Hawkins uses the language of 'plague' to describe street sex work - which is about as dehumanising as you can get. Others demonstrate their contempt through sneering and patronising - and claim that this bill is necessary to stop underage sex work.*
A few months ago I read this article about American criminal approaches to sex work, and I was horrified. How can anyone who stands in solidarity with women say that being criminalised in this way helps anyone?
I understand that there are nuanced feminist positions on sex work. But I don't think good feminist analysis of any kind, can possibly endorse life being made harder for poor sex workers.
* No I don't get it either. How driving street sex work underground magically stops kids from being sex workers wasn't explained.
This bill will make it an arrestable crime, punishable with a $2,000 fine, to buy or sell sex outside of a brothel in areas decided by the Manakau City Council (if it goes through it'll be the Auckland super city council).
It is specifically targeting street sex workers. Street sex workers do not generally have $2,000 to pay a fine. The fines, when they're awarded, won't have the magic power to stop someone being poor and working as a sex worker, it'll just make them poorer. It won't make street sex work disappear, it'll just make it harder, more dangerous, and more marginalised.
It'll give police officers, like Peter Govers and Nathan Connolly more power over some women. And whatever else your politics, that is reason enough to oppose this bill.
I would like to take a brief moment to draw your attention to a new reactionary tendancy on this issue within the Greens (who block voted for prostitution law reform). Two of the Green MPs voted for the bill and Russell Norman abstained (because he thought I needed another reason to hate him).
Three parties block voted (Act and National supported the attacks, the Maori party opposed them), Labour and the Greens split their votes. Nanaia Mahuta was the only woman from either of these parties to vote for criminalising poor women who work as sex workers. Now it physically pains me to say nice things about Labour and Green MPs, but I want to give credit to the feminist analysis and solidarity that those who opposed these bill showed. It shouldn't be noteworthy that women MPs voted the way they did. But the extent to which their male colleagues accepted criminalising women who were already marginalised as an acceptable side effect of protecting small businesses (as the rhetoric in defence of hte bill is all the poor shop owners whose lives are made harder by the fact that sex work happens near them), means that it is noteworthy in the context in which they're operating.
The contempt that those who voted for this bill have for sex workers comes through in the parliamentary debate. George Hawkins uses the language of 'plague' to describe street sex work - which is about as dehumanising as you can get. Others demonstrate their contempt through sneering and patronising - and claim that this bill is necessary to stop underage sex work.*
A few months ago I read this article about American criminal approaches to sex work, and I was horrified. How can anyone who stands in solidarity with women say that being criminalised in this way helps anyone?
I understand that there are nuanced feminist positions on sex work. But I don't think good feminist analysis of any kind, can possibly endorse life being made harder for poor sex workers.
* No I don't get it either. How driving street sex work underground magically stops kids from being sex workers wasn't explained.
Monday, 13 September 2010
child support review
a couple of weeks ago, peter dunne announced a review into the child support scheme:
"The reality is that family life in New Zealand has changed considerably in the 18 years since the current scheme was introduced," Mr Dunne said in releasing the Supporting Children discussion document.
"Families have evolved and their domestic and financial situations have changed, and are often more complex today than they were in the past.
"Today both parents are far more likely to be working than was the case in 1992, and often separated fathers have a far greater involvement with their children than they used to have," he said.
However, Mr Dunne said his first message to New Zealanders was simple: "While we need a scheme that serves children better and is fair to parents, we do not want people in this system if it can be avoided.
"It is better if parents can come to their own arrangements for the benefit of their children when their relationship breaks down. Child support is a backstop when you cannot do that.
Currently, the scheme arranges financial support for the care of 210,000 children.
there seems to be quite a bit of support for the review, from a range of organisations including men's rights groups, family first & every child counts. i don't have much experience (well none at all really) with the child support system, but have heard of inequities with the way it works.
there was some discussion about this on radio nz, nine to noon (thursday 2 sept, 9.08am). while they did have one woman discussing her personal situation, i'm concerned that there won't be enough women's voices being heard on this issue. and given this governments very poor record when it comes to women (or hostility to women, according to gordon campbell), chances are that the outcome will not be good for many women and therefore their children.
anyway, the discussion document is here, and online submissions can be found here. if you have a moment, i'd recommend putting in a submission.
"The reality is that family life in New Zealand has changed considerably in the 18 years since the current scheme was introduced," Mr Dunne said in releasing the Supporting Children discussion document.
"Families have evolved and their domestic and financial situations have changed, and are often more complex today than they were in the past.
"Today both parents are far more likely to be working than was the case in 1992, and often separated fathers have a far greater involvement with their children than they used to have," he said.
However, Mr Dunne said his first message to New Zealanders was simple: "While we need a scheme that serves children better and is fair to parents, we do not want people in this system if it can be avoided.
"It is better if parents can come to their own arrangements for the benefit of their children when their relationship breaks down. Child support is a backstop when you cannot do that.
Currently, the scheme arranges financial support for the care of 210,000 children.
there seems to be quite a bit of support for the review, from a range of organisations including men's rights groups, family first & every child counts. i don't have much experience (well none at all really) with the child support system, but have heard of inequities with the way it works.
there was some discussion about this on radio nz, nine to noon (thursday 2 sept, 9.08am). while they did have one woman discussing her personal situation, i'm concerned that there won't be enough women's voices being heard on this issue. and given this governments very poor record when it comes to women (or hostility to women, according to gordon campbell), chances are that the outcome will not be good for many women and therefore their children.
anyway, the discussion document is here, and online submissions can be found here. if you have a moment, i'd recommend putting in a submission.
Sunday, 12 September 2010
Abortion Rights Events in Wellington
There are a couple of exciting abortion rights events in Wellington this week, which it'd be great to see lots of people at.
The first is a meeting, organised by WONAAC, to talk about abortion action:
Monday 12 September 7pm
Mezzanine floor of the public library
On Thursday is BE FREE an awareness/fundraising gig for abortion rights:
Watusi (6 Edward St) 7pm
The first is a meeting, organised by WONAAC, to talk about abortion action:
Monday 12 September 7pm
Mezzanine floor of the public library
WONAAC (Women’s National Abortion Action Campaign) is holding a Public Meeting to discuss and take action regarding Steve Chadwick's proposed decriminalisation bill and the Right To Life vs. ASC court case on October 5-6.
Meeting is open to everyone; bring all your friends that would interested in joining the discussions and taking ACTION.
On Thursday is BE FREE an awareness/fundraising gig for abortion rights:
Watusi (6 Edward St) 7pm
Come along to Watusi to support freedom of choice for all women. Drink some tasty beverages and listen to the sweet sounds of Diana Rozz (swoon) and special guests (excite!). Free drink for the first 40 people!
Ticket price: TBC, but will be kept low, so note it on your calendars, on the mirror in lipstick, on the back of your hand, in the dust on your windowsill, and invite your friends!
Friday, 10 September 2010
Friday Womanist - bell hooks
Cross posted
bell hooks, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Centre, 1984
Many feminist radicals now know that neither a feminism that focuses on woman as an autonomous human being worthy of personal freedom nor one that focuses on the attainment of equality of opportunity with men can rid society of sexism and male domination. Feminism is a struggle to end sexist oppression. Therefore, it is necessarily a struggle to eradicate the ideology of domination that permeates Western culture on various levels as well as a commitment to reorganizing society so that the self-development of people can take precedence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material desires. Defined in this way, it is unlikely that women would join the feminist movement simply because we are biologically the same. A commitment to feminism so defined would that each individual participant acquire a critical political consciousness based on ideas and beliefs.
bell hooks, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Centre, 1984
Back in a bit
I'm on a blog break, have been for a little while actually (thank goodness for scheduling content ahead!), so won't be writing or moderating or doing much for a few weeks I expect. Nothing wrong, just got stuff going on in real life that needs my attention and I'll be back when that's more manageable. Thanks to my co-bloggers for keeping up the posting and monitoring the threads. See you again soon!
Don't forget we now have a generic email address, thehandmirror at gmail dot com, so if you have stuff you want to get to us you can use that rather than my email address.
Maia's Hand Mirror Reflections: Healthy Living
I realised that I hadn't explained myself very well in my Body Shop thread. Or rather I'd paraphrased an argument without actually making that argument.
The equation of 'beauty' and 'health' is really common and really insidious. The most obvious example is weight, and (despite rather a lot of evidence to the contrary) the conflation of thin and healthy. In circles (usually middle class and slightly politically aware circles) where it's not acceptable to talk about weight loss straight up, generally exactly the same conversations take place, but people are talking about 'health'. If someone is nervous of complimenting a woman for losing weight, they'll talk about 'healthy' she looks.
But it's much more common than that. Most of the examples are just laughable. Beauty sections in magazines are now called 'health' sections. Hair products claim they will promote 'healthy looking hair' (because ensuring that your dead-cells are healthy should be the priority of everyone). The state of your skin is seen as indicative of your overall health. Performing beauty routinues, like moisturising or body scrubbing, are portrayed as part of maintaining your health.
Some are more scary:
Of course this is bullshit, you can't tell someone's health by looking at them, and a lot of so called health routinues won't increase your longevity, or your quality of life at all.
Now this is partly just a marketing technique, the more women challenge beauty standards, the more useful it is to have different justification for selling exactly the same products. But I think it's become a lot more significant than that, because health is portrayed as a moral good. This particular conflation is a very powerful one for fucking with people's minds, and very useful for ensuring certain sorts of behaviour (mostly buying stuff, but also not challenging the way our society is organised).
The first step to believing being 'healthy' is moral is to show that 'health' is something that is under your control. Now personally, I reject this idea as deeply offensive, as well as being wrong. Wile there are some things that you can do that will promote the length of your life, and increase the ways you can use your body, most of it is just luck. Either it's your genetics, or it's a result of environmental factors you can't control (like poverty, or being exposed to depleted uranium). It's very tempting to believe we can control our body, how long we live, how far it holds out, but most of us won't be able to.
To give a rather silly example of this I have had a number of people tell me about the quality of their teeth, how they don't have fillings, and they each give a different reason for this (they brush every day, or they eat a lot of cheese). Now it seems to me that it's far more likely that fluoridated water, and improvements in detal practice are the reason my generation's teeth are better than our parents.
That's why I think it's wrong, the reason I think it's offensive is it promotes an idea that everyone could get better if only they tried hard enough. It turns illness into a form of personal failing. Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a fantastic article about this in relation to the breast cancer industry (and yes unfortunately it is an industry):
As well as being awful in it's own right, this idea turns anything that is promoted as improving health as a moral good, even if it doesn't actually improve your longevity or use of your body.
This idea is so insidious that it has often been adopted by the left, where being 'healthy' can be portrayed as not just morally good, but alternative - or even radical. So we end up reinforcing our own version of the mainstream ideology. Constantly things that are supported for political reasons (say veganism) are promoted for their supposed health benefits, as if good politics and good health, automatically go together (I have a much, much, much longer rant about this particular topic, but it'll have to wait for another day).
I started writing this whole post because mythago asked me "why is buying soap kowtowing to patriarchal, capitalistic ideals about beauty?" I want to make it really clear that I don't think the solution to the problems that I raised is to stop eating in a particular way, or buying a particular product, or trying to live in a way that you find nourishes and sustains you.
What I do think is important is we challenge the ideology which equates beauty, health and morality, and promotes health as something we can control. We can stop praising people for being healthy, we can stop telling people they look healthy, we can stop assuming that just because we agree with something politically it'll be good for our bodies, and we can stop using moralistic language to describe food.
And that's why I hate the Body Shop.
I hate The Body Shop, have a for very long time. I've never had a use for the dumb soaps and gels and whatever they make (although I did go through a stage when I was 14 of buying them as presents for friends, if I didn't know what else to get them). They're such a huge part of the idea that it's alternative and a moral good to be healthy, and what it means to be healthy is to fit a traditional idea of beautiful that I'd happily watch as every single one of their stores burnt to the ground.I wanted to explore the link between health and beauty, and the idea that health is a moral good, a little bit more to explain.
The equation of 'beauty' and 'health' is really common and really insidious. The most obvious example is weight, and (despite rather a lot of evidence to the contrary) the conflation of thin and healthy. In circles (usually middle class and slightly politically aware circles) where it's not acceptable to talk about weight loss straight up, generally exactly the same conversations take place, but people are talking about 'health'. If someone is nervous of complimenting a woman for losing weight, they'll talk about 'healthy' she looks.
But it's much more common than that. Most of the examples are just laughable. Beauty sections in magazines are now called 'health' sections. Hair products claim they will promote 'healthy looking hair' (because ensuring that your dead-cells are healthy should be the priority of everyone). The state of your skin is seen as indicative of your overall health. Performing beauty routinues, like moisturising or body scrubbing, are portrayed as part of maintaining your health.
Some are more scary:
The American Cancer Society offers the "Look Good…Feel Better" program, "dedicated to teaching women cancer patients beauty techniques to help restore their appearance and self-image during cancer treatment."
Of course this is bullshit, you can't tell someone's health by looking at them, and a lot of so called health routinues won't increase your longevity, or your quality of life at all.
Now this is partly just a marketing technique, the more women challenge beauty standards, the more useful it is to have different justification for selling exactly the same products. But I think it's become a lot more significant than that, because health is portrayed as a moral good. This particular conflation is a very powerful one for fucking with people's minds, and very useful for ensuring certain sorts of behaviour (mostly buying stuff, but also not challenging the way our society is organised).
The first step to believing being 'healthy' is moral is to show that 'health' is something that is under your control. Now personally, I reject this idea as deeply offensive, as well as being wrong. Wile there are some things that you can do that will promote the length of your life, and increase the ways you can use your body, most of it is just luck. Either it's your genetics, or it's a result of environmental factors you can't control (like poverty, or being exposed to depleted uranium). It's very tempting to believe we can control our body, how long we live, how far it holds out, but most of us won't be able to.
To give a rather silly example of this I have had a number of people tell me about the quality of their teeth, how they don't have fillings, and they each give a different reason for this (they brush every day, or they eat a lot of cheese). Now it seems to me that it's far more likely that fluoridated water, and improvements in detal practice are the reason my generation's teeth are better than our parents.
That's why I think it's wrong, the reason I think it's offensive is it promotes an idea that everyone could get better if only they tried hard enough. It turns illness into a form of personal failing. Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a fantastic article about this in relation to the breast cancer industry (and yes unfortunately it is an industry):
My friend introduces me to a knot of other women in survivor gear, breast-cancer victims all, I learn, though of course I would not use the V-word here. "Does anyone else have trouble with the term 'survivor'?' I ask, and, surprisingly, two or three speak up. It could be "unlucky," one tells me; it "tempts fate," says another, shuddering slightly. After all, the cancer can recur at any time, either in the breast or in some more strategic site. No one brings up my own objection to the term, though: that the mindless triumphalism of "survivorhood" denigrates the dead and the dying. Did we who live "fight" harder than those who've died? Can we claim to be "braver," better, people than the dead? And why is there no room in this cult for some gracious acceptance of death, when the time comes, which it surely will, through cancer or some other misfortune?The idea that 'health' is a result of our individual actions is now dangerously firmly placed. We can beat heart-attacks, breast-cancer, alzheimer's, arthritis, dementia and everything else if we try hard enough.
As well as being awful in it's own right, this idea turns anything that is promoted as improving health as a moral good, even if it doesn't actually improve your longevity or use of your body.
This idea is so insidious that it has often been adopted by the left, where being 'healthy' can be portrayed as not just morally good, but alternative - or even radical. So we end up reinforcing our own version of the mainstream ideology. Constantly things that are supported for political reasons (say veganism) are promoted for their supposed health benefits, as if good politics and good health, automatically go together (I have a much, much, much longer rant about this particular topic, but it'll have to wait for another day).
I started writing this whole post because mythago asked me "why is buying soap kowtowing to patriarchal, capitalistic ideals about beauty?" I want to make it really clear that I don't think the solution to the problems that I raised is to stop eating in a particular way, or buying a particular product, or trying to live in a way that you find nourishes and sustains you.
What I do think is important is we challenge the ideology which equates beauty, health and morality, and promotes health as something we can control. We can stop praising people for being healthy, we can stop telling people they look healthy, we can stop assuming that just because we agree with something politically it'll be good for our bodies, and we can stop using moralistic language to describe food.
And that's why I hate the Body Shop.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
About batterers
Leonie Morris (Auckland Women’s Centre) has sent a timely link to a paper on “Understanding the Batterer in Custody and Visitation Disputes”. It’s by Lundy Bancroft, who had ten years of experience working as a counselor and supervisor in programs for abusive men, involving contact with some 1500 abusers, and hundreds of their victims, over that period. During the first few years he worked almost exclusively with voluntary clients, and during the latter period worked primarily with court-mandated ones. This article also draws from numerous published studies.
After stating "I have chosen for reasons of ease to refer to the abuser as "he" and the victim as "she," but I am aware that there is a small percentage of cases of domestic violence to which this language does not apply", he points out that:
"Batterers come from all socioeconomic backgrounds and levels of education. They have the full range of personality types, from mild and mousy to loud and aggressive. They are difficult to profile psychologically; they frequently fare well in psychological testing, often better than their victims do. People outside of a batterer’s immediate family do not generally perceive him as an abusive person, or even as an especially angry one. They are as likely to be very popular as they are to be “losers,” and they may be visible in their communities for their professional success and for their civic involvement. Most friends, family, and associates in a batterer’s life find it jarring when they hear what he has done, and may deny that he is capable of those acts….”
“Battering is a learned behavior, with its roots in attitudes and belief-systems that are reinforced by the batterer’s social world. The problem is specifically linked to how the abuser formulates the concepts of relationship and family; in other words, within those realms he believes in his right to have his needs come first, and to be in control of the conduct (and often even of the feelings) of others. A recent research study showed that two factors, the belief that battering is justified and the presence of peers who support abusiveness, are the single greatest predictors of which men will batter; these two had a considerably greater impact than whether or not the man was exposed to domestic violence as a child..."
“Efforts to find common ground among battered women from the point of view of background or personality type have been largely unsuccessful... just as they have been with batterers. Service providers who assume that the victim must have had pre-existing problems of her own can make counterproductive interventions, as pathologizing of the victim can lead to re-injury.”
After stating "I have chosen for reasons of ease to refer to the abuser as "he" and the victim as "she," but I am aware that there is a small percentage of cases of domestic violence to which this language does not apply", he points out that:
"Batterers come from all socioeconomic backgrounds and levels of education. They have the full range of personality types, from mild and mousy to loud and aggressive. They are difficult to profile psychologically; they frequently fare well in psychological testing, often better than their victims do. People outside of a batterer’s immediate family do not generally perceive him as an abusive person, or even as an especially angry one. They are as likely to be very popular as they are to be “losers,” and they may be visible in their communities for their professional success and for their civic involvement. Most friends, family, and associates in a batterer’s life find it jarring when they hear what he has done, and may deny that he is capable of those acts….”
“Battering is a learned behavior, with its roots in attitudes and belief-systems that are reinforced by the batterer’s social world. The problem is specifically linked to how the abuser formulates the concepts of relationship and family; in other words, within those realms he believes in his right to have his needs come first, and to be in control of the conduct (and often even of the feelings) of others. A recent research study showed that two factors, the belief that battering is justified and the presence of peers who support abusiveness, are the single greatest predictors of which men will batter; these two had a considerably greater impact than whether or not the man was exposed to domestic violence as a child..."
“Efforts to find common ground among battered women from the point of view of background or personality type have been largely unsuccessful... just as they have been with batterers. Service providers who assume that the victim must have had pre-existing problems of her own can make counterproductive interventions, as pathologizing of the victim can lead to re-injury.”
Tuesday, 7 September 2010
congratulations australia
woohoo!! congratulations to julia gillard, not only australia's first woman prime minister, but now australia's first elected woman prime minister. i'm so glad that she has managed to put together a coalition to lead the country.not that i've been a huge fan of her approach towards assylum seekers & her response to mining companies. but here's hoping that the next couple of years will see an effective ETS in place - one that doesn't put an undue burden on the poor. and also a more humanitarian and compassionate treatment of those seeking refuge, but i'm not holding my breath on that one.
despite her faults, she is still light-years ahead of that tony abbott person, & i'm really glad that he's not our neighbouring PM. if that had happened, i suspect that the net migration figures between australia & nz would see a significant change in direction.
i'm sure that the new coalition government is going to struggle to do very much, given how tight the numbers are. and i'm also sure that the attacks on ms gillard simply for being a woman, and daring to be a childless one, will also continue. but still, i've got a smile on my face tonight, and i bet a lot of australian women do too.
People writing about the earthquake
Posts from women in our blogroll about the earthquake and its aftermath
Women who are in Canterbury:
Amanda at Pickled Think: Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Stories
Ruth's Reflections: Sleepless in Seismicland. Ruth has a series of posts about the quake, and photos of her neighbourhood.
Women elsewhere in New Zealand:
Megan at Craft is the New Black: Shaken
Ele at Homepaddock: Miracle it's only a disaster
In the Gateaux: The economic value of earthquakes
Maidennz: The image that sticks in her mind from the Christchurch earthquake
Aotearoa: a wider perspective: Wow, my first earthquake and thank god my sister in law’s OK.
Women who are in Canterbury:
Amanda at Pickled Think: Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Stories
Ruth's Reflections: Sleepless in Seismicland. Ruth has a series of posts about the quake, and photos of her neighbourhood.
Women elsewhere in New Zealand:
Megan at Craft is the New Black: Shaken
Ele at Homepaddock: Miracle it's only a disaster
In the Gateaux: The economic value of earthquakes
Maidennz: The image that sticks in her mind from the Christchurch earthquake
Aotearoa: a wider perspective: Wow, my first earthquake and thank god my sister in law’s OK.
Monday, 6 September 2010
Of families and earthquakes
My brother rang me early Saturdayday morning, and told me that there had been a massive earthquake in Christchurch. We're a North Island family, and we don't have family down south, but as it turned out, my beloved uncle was there on Friday night, staying on the eighth floor of a hotel. I was able to contact him by txt and confirm that he was okay, but after that, I stayed off the network.
I spoke to him by phone on Sunday morning. It was terrifying, he said. He woke to his bed rocking and shuddering, and only by clinging on tight did he manage to avoid being thrown out. Many of the other people staying in the hotel were tipped out of their beds. He packed up and got down stairs, and then in company with the other guests, assembled outside. It was bitterly cold. After a while, the hotel staff brought out sheets and blankets. There was no information: the hotel did not have a battery-operated radio. All of the guests were badly frightened. Eventually my uncle made it to the airport. The building was closed, so together with other travellers, he spent most of the day perched with his luggage on a traffic island. People helped each other out, sharing food and water, looking after luggage for each other, supporting each other. A nearby hotel made its bathrooms available for people to use. By mid-afternoon, the airport re-opened, and late in the day, he got a flight to Auckland, and from there, home to Wellington. On Saturday, he coped, but on Sunday, in the safety of his home, he has been very, very shaken.
As the plane took off from Christchurch, the people on board clapped.
I'm sure people functioned on adrenalin on Saturday. There had been a disaster, by who knows what good fortune there had been no direct loss of life, and it was a matter of everyone doing what they could to check on their neighbours and families and friends, to look after people who were injured, to pull together food and water and shelter for the day. But by today, I'm guessing that the longterm nature of the damage has started to become apparent. My uncle and the other people on the flights out of Christchurch will have gone home to comfortable beds, clean water, power at the flick of a switch. Many people whose homes are in Christchurch don't know when they will have access to such basic goods again. A problem for adults of course, but so much more of a problem for people with others to care for. Parents will be worried about food and shelter for their children, adult children will be worried about caring for elderly parents, caregivers will be concerned about the people they assist with daily living. Some people with disabilities may be in extra difficulty too, especially if their ability to live independently is predicated on functioning public services. Things will be all the more difficult because at this stage, there will be no end in sight.
My thoughts are with the people of Christchurch.
Some other thoughts: The old buildings in Christchurch were damaged, badly, but the new buildings, built to earthquake standards, survived. Not only are the building codes excellent, but they are administered by a corruption-free inspectorate. This weekend, we New Zealanders have good reason to take great pride in our corruption-free public servants.
As people in Christchurch are coping with the earthquake, people in Victoria, Australia, are coping with floods.
Cross posted
I spoke to him by phone on Sunday morning. It was terrifying, he said. He woke to his bed rocking and shuddering, and only by clinging on tight did he manage to avoid being thrown out. Many of the other people staying in the hotel were tipped out of their beds. He packed up and got down stairs, and then in company with the other guests, assembled outside. It was bitterly cold. After a while, the hotel staff brought out sheets and blankets. There was no information: the hotel did not have a battery-operated radio. All of the guests were badly frightened. Eventually my uncle made it to the airport. The building was closed, so together with other travellers, he spent most of the day perched with his luggage on a traffic island. People helped each other out, sharing food and water, looking after luggage for each other, supporting each other. A nearby hotel made its bathrooms available for people to use. By mid-afternoon, the airport re-opened, and late in the day, he got a flight to Auckland, and from there, home to Wellington. On Saturday, he coped, but on Sunday, in the safety of his home, he has been very, very shaken.
As the plane took off from Christchurch, the people on board clapped.
I'm sure people functioned on adrenalin on Saturday. There had been a disaster, by who knows what good fortune there had been no direct loss of life, and it was a matter of everyone doing what they could to check on their neighbours and families and friends, to look after people who were injured, to pull together food and water and shelter for the day. But by today, I'm guessing that the longterm nature of the damage has started to become apparent. My uncle and the other people on the flights out of Christchurch will have gone home to comfortable beds, clean water, power at the flick of a switch. Many people whose homes are in Christchurch don't know when they will have access to such basic goods again. A problem for adults of course, but so much more of a problem for people with others to care for. Parents will be worried about food and shelter for their children, adult children will be worried about caring for elderly parents, caregivers will be concerned about the people they assist with daily living. Some people with disabilities may be in extra difficulty too, especially if their ability to live independently is predicated on functioning public services. Things will be all the more difficult because at this stage, there will be no end in sight.
My thoughts are with the people of Christchurch.
Some other thoughts: The old buildings in Christchurch were damaged, badly, but the new buildings, built to earthquake standards, survived. Not only are the building codes excellent, but they are administered by a corruption-free inspectorate. This weekend, we New Zealanders have good reason to take great pride in our corruption-free public servants.
As people in Christchurch are coping with the earthquake, people in Victoria, Australia, are coping with floods.
Cross posted
Sunday, 5 September 2010
Father's Day in our house
The girls made breakfast in bed for their daddy.
Scrambled eggs on marmite toast, spicy apple cake with a drizzle of cream, and orange juice. The cake was left over from last night's dessert. The usual rule in our house is that she who gets up first may eat any left over dessert for breakfast: the girls' devotion to their father is shown by their making sure that there was enough left for him to have some too.
I made the coffee.
Cross posted
Scrambled eggs on marmite toast, spicy apple cake with a drizzle of cream, and orange juice. The cake was left over from last night's dessert. The usual rule in our house is that she who gets up first may eat any left over dessert for breakfast: the girls' devotion to their father is shown by their making sure that there was enough left for him to have some too.
I made the coffee.
Cross posted
28th DUFC
Caitlinate has the 28th Down Under Feminists Carnival up at The Dawn Chorus. There's plenty of excellent reading in it.
Many thanks for putting it together, Caitlinate.
Friday, 3 September 2010
Friday Feminist - Donna Kate Rushin
Cross posted
"The Bridge Poem", by Donna Kate Rushin, in Carole R. McCann and Seung-kyung Kim (eds.), Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives 2nd ed., 2010
I've had enough
I'm sick of seeing and touching
Both sides of things
Sick of being the damn bridge for everybody
Nobody
Can talk to anybody
Without me
Right?
I explain my mother to my father my father to my little sister
My little sister to my brother my brother to the white feminists
The white feminists to the Black church folks the Black church folks
To the Ex-hippies the ex-hippies to the Black separatists the
Black separatists to the artists the artists to my friends' parents...
Then
I've got to explain myself
To everybody
I do more translating
Than the Gawdamn U.N.
Forget it
I'm sick of it
I'm sick of filling in your gaps
Sick of being your insurance against
The isolation of your self-imposed limitations
Sick of being the crazy at your holiday dinners
Sick of being the odd one at your Sunday Brunches
Sick of being the sole Black friend to 34 individual white people
Find another connection to the rest of the world
Find something else to make you legitimate
Find some other way to be political and hip
I will not be the bridge to your womanhood
Your manhood
Your human-ness
I'm sick of reminding you not to
Close off too tight for too long
I'm sick of mediating with your worst self
On behalf you your better selves
I am sick
Of having to remind you
To breathe
Before you suffocate
Your own fool self
Forget it
Stretch or drown
Evolve or die
The bridge I must be
Is the bridge to my own power
I must translate
My own fears
Mediate
My own weaknesses
I must be the bridge to nowhere
But my true self
And then
I will be useful
"The Bridge Poem", by Donna Kate Rushin, in Carole R. McCann and Seung-kyung Kim (eds.), Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives 2nd ed., 2010
Maia's Hand Mirror Reflections: My Body is Not a Computer Game
This post of mine received a massive response. I shouldn't have been surprised about that - over at my blog I had many 101 posts on food and bodies, that people here won't have seen. I've decided to repost them as a series. They'll run once a week or so. Here is the first
********
The language around food and health is pretty common. People don't just call their own food healthy they feel perfectly entitled to comment on the health qualities of what someone else is eating. Sometimes it's intended in a sarcastic manner 'healthy breakfast', if you're eating a chocolate bar, sometimes it's supposed to be a compliment. All this usage suggests that some foods have 'health' and some lack it, and this quality is the same no matter who is eating the food, which is ridiculous. Brazil nuts are very nutritious, but they're not going to be healthy if you're allergic to them, or if you've a high selenium in-take.
The idea of food being 'healthy' reminds me of computer games, where you lose health if you get shot at or land on the spikes, and gain health when you find first aid. But instead I'm supposed to be gaining health by the broccolli I'm eating right now, but I would have lost health for the chocolate I had this morning.
Our bodies don't work like that; they're not simple input/output machines. Any food that has any nutritional value (and apart from diet soda and the like, almost all food has some nutritional value) can improve the health of a particular individual at a particular time.
Just to be 100% clear, I'm not saying that there is no relationship between what we eat and our health. I'm intolerant to milk, I know that certain foods can make me unhealthy, but that doesn't mean that those foods have some mysterious amount of unhealthy that they subtract from my body.
The effect food has on our health is a relationship between the food and the state of our body atthe time that we eat it. Health is not an intrinsic quality in any food.
So I've proved my semantic point, why do I care? Mostly because I think it's a wider reflection of our eating disordered culture. Generally people who talk about food being 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' are people who are self-conscious about calling food 'good' or 'bad', but it sustains exactly the same fucked up attitude towards food.
But more fundamentally because I think that it is part of a wider project to create a commodity called 'health'. This commodity is becoming divorced from the needs of us as people, both in terms of the actual physical bodies we live our lives in and our wider social needs.
********
The language around food and health is pretty common. People don't just call their own food healthy they feel perfectly entitled to comment on the health qualities of what someone else is eating. Sometimes it's intended in a sarcastic manner 'healthy breakfast', if you're eating a chocolate bar, sometimes it's supposed to be a compliment. All this usage suggests that some foods have 'health' and some lack it, and this quality is the same no matter who is eating the food, which is ridiculous. Brazil nuts are very nutritious, but they're not going to be healthy if you're allergic to them, or if you've a high selenium in-take.
The idea of food being 'healthy' reminds me of computer games, where you lose health if you get shot at or land on the spikes, and gain health when you find first aid. But instead I'm supposed to be gaining health by the broccolli I'm eating right now, but I would have lost health for the chocolate I had this morning.
Our bodies don't work like that; they're not simple input/output machines. Any food that has any nutritional value (and apart from diet soda and the like, almost all food has some nutritional value) can improve the health of a particular individual at a particular time.
Just to be 100% clear, I'm not saying that there is no relationship between what we eat and our health. I'm intolerant to milk, I know that certain foods can make me unhealthy, but that doesn't mean that those foods have some mysterious amount of unhealthy that they subtract from my body.
The effect food has on our health is a relationship between the food and the state of our body atthe time that we eat it. Health is not an intrinsic quality in any food.
So I've proved my semantic point, why do I care? Mostly because I think it's a wider reflection of our eating disordered culture. Generally people who talk about food being 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' are people who are self-conscious about calling food 'good' or 'bad', but it sustains exactly the same fucked up attitude towards food.
But more fundamentally because I think that it is part of a wider project to create a commodity called 'health'. This commodity is becoming divorced from the needs of us as people, both in terms of the actual physical bodies we live our lives in and our wider social needs.
Another unnecessary dichotomy - Thin Privilege
Thin Privilege is something I struggle to write about because I've got it in spades, and always have had. I can see how much harder it is for my friends and relations who don't. They are often treated in a way that seems to come from no other place than their size. Fatshionista's thin privilege list is a good reminder/eye-opener if this is something you haven't thought about in a while or at all.
The only time I get more than a sense of how privileged I am to be thin is when I'm pregnant. When I'm pregnant I can tick a lot of the boxes on Fatshionista's list. People don't necessarily cut you much slack because you are pregnant (which is somehow more acceptable than being larger than a size 12, but still just a little bit vulgar, really). But I digress.
The thing about Thin Privilege is that as privileges go it's not all that awesome. For many of the bullet points on thin privilege lists, which I don't dispute at all, there is a correlating disadvantage for the thin. Maia chronicled one such incident last week, which I found particularly odd because now that I think about it I would have considered Michelle A'Court to be more in the Thin Club than out of it.
The Thin versus Not Thin dichotomy is yet another false division that just sets women against each other. We need to fight, together, against a culture which judges us on our physical appearance, whether that appearance is one that conforms or not. I think we can do that in a way that recognises that different women (and indeed men) face different issues as a result of the judgyness manifesting in different ways. At heart though it's all the same judgyness - one based on saying what you look like, the space you take up in the world and how you decorate it, is more important than what you do, say or think.
The only time I get more than a sense of how privileged I am to be thin is when I'm pregnant. When I'm pregnant I can tick a lot of the boxes on Fatshionista's list. People don't necessarily cut you much slack because you are pregnant (which is somehow more acceptable than being larger than a size 12, but still just a little bit vulgar, really). But I digress.
The thing about Thin Privilege is that as privileges go it's not all that awesome. For many of the bullet points on thin privilege lists, which I don't dispute at all, there is a correlating disadvantage for the thin. Maia chronicled one such incident last week, which I found particularly odd because now that I think about it I would have considered Michelle A'Court to be more in the Thin Club than out of it.
The Thin versus Not Thin dichotomy is yet another false division that just sets women against each other. We need to fight, together, against a culture which judges us on our physical appearance, whether that appearance is one that conforms or not. I think we can do that in a way that recognises that different women (and indeed men) face different issues as a result of the judgyness manifesting in different ways. At heart though it's all the same judgyness - one based on saying what you look like, the space you take up in the world and how you decorate it, is more important than what you do, say or think.
What progress looks like
A minor shit-storm has blown up over on Feministe where a guest blogger called Monica posted an fat-hating rant.* I'm not going to quote any of it - it was an inane, illogical post - and the point of this post is not to refute her nonsense (she actually talks about how people need to put down the donuts - that's how unoriginal she is).
Instead I want to talk about another post on feministe that was written almost four an a half years ago. It was a better written, and more coherent. But it was also arguing that fat acceptance activists went too far, and that we needed to talk about the unhealthyness of fat.
There were 122 comments on Monica's recent post - a good 95% of which are people telling Monica exactly how ridiculous and offensive her post is.
Four and a half years ago, there were just a few of us who spoke up for even moderate fat acceptance (and if you read the comments - which I don't actually recommend - I was being embarrassingly moderate and conciliatory).
In four and a half years the number of people talking fat and politics at feministe and feministe adjacent spaces has increased exponentially. Every person who says "I'm fat and there's no shame in that", makes it a little easier for the next person.
That a few moderates has become 100 angry radicals gives me such hope, and it really shows the value of continuing to talk and fight for what I'd still prefer to call fat liberation.
*Prompted by of all things a Jezebel post - if Jezebel is too fat accepting for you I recommend you don't read my archives.
Instead I want to talk about another post on feministe that was written almost four an a half years ago. It was a better written, and more coherent. But it was also arguing that fat acceptance activists went too far, and that we needed to talk about the unhealthyness of fat.
There were 122 comments on Monica's recent post - a good 95% of which are people telling Monica exactly how ridiculous and offensive her post is.
Four and a half years ago, there were just a few of us who spoke up for even moderate fat acceptance (and if you read the comments - which I don't actually recommend - I was being embarrassingly moderate and conciliatory).
In four and a half years the number of people talking fat and politics at feministe and feministe adjacent spaces has increased exponentially. Every person who says "I'm fat and there's no shame in that", makes it a little easier for the next person.
That a few moderates has become 100 angry radicals gives me such hope, and it really shows the value of continuing to talk and fight for what I'd still prefer to call fat liberation.
*Prompted by of all things a Jezebel post - if Jezebel is too fat accepting for you I recommend you don't read my archives.
Thursday, 2 September 2010
Women's Health Action's Suffrage Breakfast
Coming up shortly, here are the details:When: Friday 17th September, 7am - 9am
Where: Newmarket Room, Ellerslie Racecourse, 80 Ascot Rd, Ellerslie, Akl
More: "What can we all do about pushing ahead with women's progress? Judy McGregor will look at how far New Zealand women have come and how far they need to travel to achieve equality." $35 pp, or you can get a table (I think of 10?) for $330.
You can register online at the Women's Health Action website.
If you have more Suffrage events to share please let us know in comments or by emailing thehandmirror at gmail dot com.
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Get some submissions in... quick!
I'm late with this reminder, I'm sorry (work pressures, organising international move [again! you would think I would have learned not to do such things by now], partner absent). Please, get some submissions in for the September edition of the Down Under Feminists Carnival, covering posts in August. The carnival is being hosted by Caitlinate at The Dawn Chorus, and you can send submissions direct to her at caitlin.ate [at] gmail [dot] com, or use the carnival submission form. Any feminist post by any down under feminist blogger is eligible for the carnival. Think about submitting a post from your own blog, or pay someone a compliment, and submit a post from her or his blog.
Right... back to revising tomorrow's lecture...
The state of NZ women - telling the truth
The Ministry of Women's Affairs has just put out for consultation its draft four-yearly report to the UN Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
If you belong to an organisation which has an interest in the status of women in New Zealand, you should comment on this draft. If your organisation has not received a draft for comment, please contact:
Judy Edwards Edwards@mwa.govt.nz or Nicole Benkert Benkert@mwa.govt.nz.
Comments are due by 8 September.
The Committee asked the government to do a number of things in its Concluding Comments on the 2006 report. You can read those Comments here.
It's really important that CEDAW gets an accurate report reflecting the true state of women in New Zealand and what has and has not been done over the last four years.
If you belong to an organisation which has an interest in the status of women in New Zealand, you should comment on this draft. If your organisation has not received a draft for comment, please contact:
Judy Edwards Edwards@mwa.govt.nz or Nicole Benkert Benkert@mwa.govt.nz.
Comments are due by 8 September.
The Committee asked the government to do a number of things in its Concluding Comments on the 2006 report. You can read those Comments here.
It's really important that CEDAW gets an accurate report reflecting the true state of women in New Zealand and what has and has not been done over the last four years.
If Xmas decorations could talk
who is actually paying for the SFC collapse?
i never thought i'd be linking to her (given our very differing views of the world), but this post by cactus kate on the south canterbury finance debacle is a must read:
John Key is expecting the damage to be around $600 million, but he’s a politician so let us double that and add the cost of cranking out the market for risk, we ask who has taken that hit?
Aucklanders have had to, low income families have had to, ask the Hanover “investors” who made the mistake of having men in charge of their companies not as favourable to the politicians eyes as the A.Hubb with a Finance Minister based in the South Island.
Today Bill English loses the Karori Bill tag forever. It is clear that this is a deal struck for South Islanders.
Or was it a deal struck for politicians?
Can we ask now how many of them have money (or their companies and trusts) directly or indirectly tied up in South Canterbury Finance and have benefited in this guarantee rort?
That's the only logical explanation I can think of to get a politician to do something that reading the legal documents, they probably did not have to do.
please do read the whole thing. hat tip to this commenter at the standard.
John Key is expecting the damage to be around $600 million, but he’s a politician so let us double that and add the cost of cranking out the market for risk, we ask who has taken that hit?
Aucklanders have had to, low income families have had to, ask the Hanover “investors” who made the mistake of having men in charge of their companies not as favourable to the politicians eyes as the A.Hubb with a Finance Minister based in the South Island.
Today Bill English loses the Karori Bill tag forever. It is clear that this is a deal struck for South Islanders.
Or was it a deal struck for politicians?
Can we ask now how many of them have money (or their companies and trusts) directly or indirectly tied up in South Canterbury Finance and have benefited in this guarantee rort?
That's the only logical explanation I can think of to get a politician to do something that reading the legal documents, they probably did not have to do.
please do read the whole thing. hat tip to this commenter at the standard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)