interesting article from here:
IN A nation as rich in immigrants as Australia, feminists are rightly seeking to bring light to the sufferings of women who migrate from Third World countries with stories of abuse. However, on occasion, this feminist discussion slips into racist rhetoric that is oppressive to these women, just like the patriarchies they flee.
The use of marginalising language creates the figure of the faceless ''other'' - a woman who is shackled by ''uncivilised'' cultural practices and who needs to be schooled in the Western feminist ethos to ever have a chance at liberation.
This is not a legitimate form of feminism. We need to be aware of it to prevent the many female migrants in Australia from being exposed to what is known as ''imperial feminism''.
Imperial feminism is a term used by Pratibha Parmar, a black British filmmaker, to describe the struggles of black women in Britain in the 1970s, when the wave of feminism which emerged rarely captured the experiences of those women. If it did, it was often from a racist perspective. It claims to stand in solidarity with Third World women but in fact perpetuates stereotypes of these cultures as backward through the use of marginalising language and sweeping assumptions.
[...]
This simplistic ''us and them'' gremlin in modern feminist discourse must be recognised for the prejudiced creature it is and be eradicated. Only then can we truly begin to develop a meaningful and constructive dialogue that recognises the plight of women from grief-stricken regions of the world. These women are owed, at the very least, an unbiased voice to speak their narrative.
(link added by me). the rest of the piece is worth reading, it's not too long. i think it's relevant to the conversations we've been having here recently, and also reminds of the piece i wrote last month about the difficulty in speaking out about oppression within a minority community that is itself subject to oppression. i have many tales to tell about battles currently being fought, and not particularly successfully, right here in our country. but i hold back, because at this stage it feels like the telling will cause more damage than good.
the thing is to find a way where we can all fight together for the things that are important to us. unfortunately, often the things that are important to women from minority communities are not the same as what is highlighted by outsiders looking in. so, for example, if you talked to a group of muslim women, the burqa wouldn't be their greatest concern. not by a long shot. but if you wanted to know what their greatest concerns were, there would first have to be an environment where they felt safe to speak.
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Friday, 29 October 2010
Made in Dagenham
Today I saw Made in Dagenham, a film about the 1968 strike by 187 car-seat women machinists at the Ford plant outside London, which led ultimately to the British government passing the equal pay law. I've just been trawling through the British reviews. All of them by men, they range from condescending to sneering, with lots of nudge-nudge references to that hoary British sit-com, The Rag Trade, as well as to director Nigel Cole's previous hit, Calendar Girls.
I think you should see Made in Dagenham, and take your daughters and grand-daughters. First, it captures brilliantly the pervasive, blatant, smug, completely taken-for-granted sexism underpinning those far from distant days. The two things the men who ran the unions and the companies could agree on was the male right to be paid more than women, and be fully serviced by women at home.
The women working at Ford were probably better paid than most women factory hands, but they still earned less than the men and worked in a leaky, run-down, hot building (so hot, according to the film, they commonly took their tops off and worked in their bras). The strike began when Ford reclassified their work as unskilled, meaning, of course, less pay (though the actual details of their hours, rates, etc are far too tedious to be covered on film).
Despite union leaders' attempts to get them to back off and behave, they instead upped the ante, demanding equal pay with men. The women won the support of the union members, the Labour Government's Barbara Castle met the strike leaders, and after a partial victory for these women, two years later Britain passed a law bringing in equal pay - though still, of course, only for "equal work".
All this has been turned into a great story which will have huge popular appeal. The script, by Billy Ivory, never once made me cringe - except maybe when Barbara and Rita swap clothes chat just before their big moment with the press. It shows what the women are up against, at home as well as at work. Their uncomprehending menfolk are staunch unionists until it comes to being laid off when the lack of car-seats brings the plant to a standstill - and then having to get their own dinners and mind their own kids, because their wives are off demonstrating and negotiating.
The film has understandably collapsed the group of women who led the strike into one, the young, attractive Rita O'Grady, played by Sally Hawkins (who starred in Ken Loach's Happy-Go-Lucky). There has to be, I suppose, one heroine, even though that wasn't how it happened.
One other thing brought home to me how much liberty most historical films take. At the end, as the credits roll, there are side-clips of the actual women involved talking about the strike - they must have been interviewed by the makers, I wish we could have a documentary as well. There's also archival news footage of them in 1968, with Barbara Castle.
The factory women look absolutely nothing like the mini-skirted, mostly young, often busty and peroxided, swinging sixties women in the film. They're a bunch of extremely respectable-looking, often middle-aged women with perms and neat cardies. They reminded me more of the women in Mike Leigh's Vera Drake. Now there was one film that really did manage to look like the times it was recreating on screen, and very grim it was too.
Still, it's much better to have this film than none, and I'm sure it will draw far bigger audiences than Vera Drake, precisely because it's a lot more entertaining to watch. Unlike most of the overseas reviewers, Charlie Gates of The Press, Christchurch, understands what it's doing:
"When was the last time you saw a film with a strong female protagonist? A proper film that wasn’t about shopping, getting a man, climbing the corporate ladder or all three. Made in Dagenham is one of these rarities and it is a pleasure to watch...Made in Dagenham is full of warmth, humanity, humour and genuine drama...It keeps a perfect balance between the intimate and the turbulent sweep of history."
Even more unusual, Gates actually checked out how true-to-life the film was. "My partner's Nan, Flo Patston, lived near the Dagenham plant during the strike and her husband, Johnny, worked at the plant in the 1960s. I knew Flo had already seen the film, so I called her in England to see what she thought. She said it was a 'brilliant film' and gave it 'four stars and more'."
And Flo also said all the strong language the women go in for was perfectly genuine: "That’s what you heard on the factory floor. That’s how working class people spoke."
Four stars to you, too, Charlie, for your fine review. Go and see this film for yourself.
I think you should see Made in Dagenham, and take your daughters and grand-daughters. First, it captures brilliantly the pervasive, blatant, smug, completely taken-for-granted sexism underpinning those far from distant days. The two things the men who ran the unions and the companies could agree on was the male right to be paid more than women, and be fully serviced by women at home.
The women working at Ford were probably better paid than most women factory hands, but they still earned less than the men and worked in a leaky, run-down, hot building (so hot, according to the film, they commonly took their tops off and worked in their bras). The strike began when Ford reclassified their work as unskilled, meaning, of course, less pay (though the actual details of their hours, rates, etc are far too tedious to be covered on film).
Despite union leaders' attempts to get them to back off and behave, they instead upped the ante, demanding equal pay with men. The women won the support of the union members, the Labour Government's Barbara Castle met the strike leaders, and after a partial victory for these women, two years later Britain passed a law bringing in equal pay - though still, of course, only for "equal work".
All this has been turned into a great story which will have huge popular appeal. The script, by Billy Ivory, never once made me cringe - except maybe when Barbara and Rita swap clothes chat just before their big moment with the press. It shows what the women are up against, at home as well as at work. Their uncomprehending menfolk are staunch unionists until it comes to being laid off when the lack of car-seats brings the plant to a standstill - and then having to get their own dinners and mind their own kids, because their wives are off demonstrating and negotiating.
The film has understandably collapsed the group of women who led the strike into one, the young, attractive Rita O'Grady, played by Sally Hawkins (who starred in Ken Loach's Happy-Go-Lucky). There has to be, I suppose, one heroine, even though that wasn't how it happened.
One other thing brought home to me how much liberty most historical films take. At the end, as the credits roll, there are side-clips of the actual women involved talking about the strike - they must have been interviewed by the makers, I wish we could have a documentary as well. There's also archival news footage of them in 1968, with Barbara Castle.
The factory women look absolutely nothing like the mini-skirted, mostly young, often busty and peroxided, swinging sixties women in the film. They're a bunch of extremely respectable-looking, often middle-aged women with perms and neat cardies. They reminded me more of the women in Mike Leigh's Vera Drake. Now there was one film that really did manage to look like the times it was recreating on screen, and very grim it was too.
Still, it's much better to have this film than none, and I'm sure it will draw far bigger audiences than Vera Drake, precisely because it's a lot more entertaining to watch. Unlike most of the overseas reviewers, Charlie Gates of The Press, Christchurch, understands what it's doing:
"When was the last time you saw a film with a strong female protagonist? A proper film that wasn’t about shopping, getting a man, climbing the corporate ladder or all three. Made in Dagenham is one of these rarities and it is a pleasure to watch...Made in Dagenham is full of warmth, humanity, humour and genuine drama...It keeps a perfect balance between the intimate and the turbulent sweep of history."
Even more unusual, Gates actually checked out how true-to-life the film was. "My partner's Nan, Flo Patston, lived near the Dagenham plant during the strike and her husband, Johnny, worked at the plant in the 1960s. I knew Flo had already seen the film, so I called her in England to see what she thought. She said it was a 'brilliant film' and gave it 'four stars and more'."
And Flo also said all the strong language the women go in for was perfectly genuine: "That’s what you heard on the factory floor. That’s how working class people spoke."
Four stars to you, too, Charlie, for your fine review. Go and see this film for yourself.
Friday Feminist - Martha C. Nussbaum
Cross posted
Martha Nussbaum, Sex and Social Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
On the one hand, it seems impossible to deny that traditions, both Western and non-Western, perpetrate injustice against women in many fundamental ways, touching on some of the most central elements of a human being's quality of life - health, education, political liberty and participation, employment, self-respect, and life itself. On the other hand, hasty judgements that a tradition in some distant part of the world is morally retrograde are familiar legacies of colonialism and imperialism and are correctly regarded with suspicion by sensitive thinkers in the contemporary world. To say that a practice endorsed by tradition is bad is to risk erring by imposing one's own way on others, who surely have their own idea of what is right and good. To say that a practice is all right whenever local tradition endorses it as right and good is to risk erring by withholding critical judgement where real evil and oppression are surely present. To avoid the whole issue because the matter of proper judgement is so fiendishly difficult is tempting but perhaps the worse option of all. It suggests the sort of moral collapse depicted by Dante when he describes the crowd of souls who mill around in the vestibule of hell, dragging their banner now one way, now another, never willing to set it down and take a definite stand on any moral or political question. Such people, he implies, are the most despicable of all. They cannot even get into hell because they have not been willing to stand for anything in life, one way or another. To express [this] every succinctly, it is better to risk being consigned by critics to the "hell" reserved for alleged Westernizers and imperialists - however unjustified such criticism would in fact be - than to stand around in the vestibule waiting for a time when everyone will like what we are going to say. And what we are going to say is: that there are universals obligations to protect human functioning and its dignity, and that the dignity of women is equal to that of men. If that involves assault on many local traditions, both Western and non-Western, so much the better, because any tradition that denies these things is unjust. Or, as a young Bangladeshi wife said when local religious leaders threatened to break the legs of women who went to the literacy classes conducted by a local NGO (nongovernmental organization), "We do not listen to the mullahs any more. they did not give us even a quarter kilo of rice.
Martha Nussbaum, Sex and Social Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Don't let the weird nationalism break you up: Thoughts on the Hobbit
She is 16 years old and she's an actress. Her friends may perform in school plays, but she is an actress - she has a job. She's in a TV show.
Today she is in wardrobe. One of the producers comes in - someone always checks the costumes. He touches her breast.
She tells her parents and her agent. They ring up the producers; they're angry. Her contract is terminated that day - breach of confidentiality - she talked about being sexually harrassed. By the next day the scripts have all been rewritten
********
I didn't make that up. It happened on a New Zealand film set this century.
The government is at the moment passing a law which will exclude those working in the film industry from being employees - the default position will be that they are contractors. At the moment as independent contractors actors (and others in hte film industry) can be fired at any time for any reason - they have no right of due process.
What this means is that there is nothing to stop producers firing teenage girls, because they sexually harassed them. And when there's nothing to stop people abusing power, sometimes they abuse power.
Often it's not about an individual abusing power, it's about saving money. If you can fire people for any reason they're much less likely to complain about health and safety.
********
At the moment (as you've probably already been told several times over the last few weeks) the conditions for actors are set out in the pink book - a non-binding agreement between Actors Equity and SPADA.
The non-binding bit is the problem - you can see how that'd be hard to enforce in an environment where someone can be fired for complaining about sexual assault.
This isn't actually something that has just happened over the Hobbit. Actors Equity have been working for years to negotiate binding wages and conditions for their members. They've tried lots of tactics some even made headlines - such as the negotiations with Outrageous Fortune. From what I've heard, the producers have thrown everything they had at keeping the union away from any form of negotiations.
********
Imagine if you could be fired for any reason every day you go to work. Then imagine you're asked to change your terms and conditions. Imagine you're asked to work in dangerous conditions. Imagine a boss touches your breast. Imagine worse.
At various times and places in various industries, these sorts of conditions have been really standard. The film industry is not the only industry in New Zealand where they still are, but it is a significant one.
I want people to understand how much power companies have when there is no collective bargaining, and no employment law. That's not because I think we should only stand by the actors because their conditions are appalling,but because I want people to know what they're endorsing, if they oppose the actors struggle to get a binding negotiatiation for their wages and conditions. I want people to understand how high the stakes are, and how much power the companies have now.
********
But this is not a story about the powerless screwing the people while the people do nothing. What is so important about the Hobbit is that the actors do have power. Outside New Zealand (including almost everywhere the Hobbit might have filmed in) the movie industry is well organised. The reason that Peter Jackson, WB and the government acted like the sky was falling in (to steal from Ian Mune) wasn't because the actors were powerless - but because the actors had organised and used their power. The threat of a global acting boycott was a real threat that they had the power to do real harm to the movie.
That is where some people who would agree with everything that I wrote in the first half of the post, lose patience and decide maybe they don't support the actors union. A lot of people have critised Actors Equity and MEAA for the way they used their power. Reading the Maps has a great post about the problems with fence sitting. I agree with him absolutely that is entirely compatible to stand in solidarity with the actors and criticise their tactics (although I also agree that only those who are knowledgable of the history of actors and unionisation beyond what has appeared in the news - I only know enough to know I don't know enough to enter the discussion). But I want to make a few more points.
My political position is that the only people to determine the actors struggle for union recognition and binding wages and conditions are the members of the actor's union.**
However, I understand that not everyone shares this position. Not everyone is a unioinist - and there is a part of the left where it is acceptable to balance and weigh things up and support the teachers because they're restrained, but think the radiographers might have gone too far, because they might hurt someone (hell there are, shamefully enough, parts of the union movement where this is acceptable). I want to unpack the implications of this balancing act in the case of the actors union.
Those who criticise AE and MEAA usually focus on the fact that the Hobbit could be moved out of the country, jeopordizing the film industry as a whole. Often they'll bolster their claims with talk about the right and wrong ways of negotiating, and how it's illegal for the company to meet with the union.**
There's something amazing about the passive voice - it can hide who is actually acting in the circumstance. The actors could not and would not have moved the Hobbit out of the country. The studio is the subject in a sentence about moving the Hobbit out of New Zealand. The studio could have agreed to meet with the actors, given them everything they demanded (which would have probably cost less than they spent flying the execs over from New York to meet John Key and see what they can get out of NZ government). They could have decided to move filming anywhere in the world. Whatever the studios decide, that's their responsibility.
To say otherwise is to support a "look what you made me do" position: don't provoke those with more power, and if you do you are responsible.
That's why it's impossible to sit on the fence in any kind of struggle where there's a power imbalance. Whether it's "I must finely examine the behaviour of those standing up to the powerful before I decide whether to support them. As if they make one mistake they are responsible for their provocative actions." Or "They appear to have lost, and therefore it should have been apparent that they would always lose and therefore I cannot support them." All this is predicated on accepting the power imbalance, and holding the actors responsible for the studio's power. The justifications people have offered for withholding their support from the actors have been grotesque.
Actors are workers, workers who at the moment gave access to neither collective bargaining, nor legal employment protections. They are organising to change that. If you stand with the bosses there's nothing I can do about that. But if you don't are your reasons for not standing with the workers really good enough?
Or you could just watch Florence Reece, who sums up the situation nicely:
* At this point someone always tries to execute a gotcha and say "well what if they were organising against women or Maori workers, . This isn't an unreasonable question - within in my lifetime unions have organised to exclude women from certain jobs. However, the point I make there is that the difference between a demand aimed at the boss and a demand made at other workers is a startlingly obvious one, and it is very easy to support the first and oppose the second.
** Which is just the kind of bullshit it takes two minutes to think through and expose. If WB can legally follow SAG minimums for American actors and MEAA minimums for Australian actors without that being price fixing. Then they can have collectively negotiated wages and conditions with their independent contractors in New Zealand. It's just that they don't want to with New Zealand actors, so they're hiding behind the law, and getting Chris Findlayson to help them out with that.
Today she is in wardrobe. One of the producers comes in - someone always checks the costumes. He touches her breast.
She tells her parents and her agent. They ring up the producers; they're angry. Her contract is terminated that day - breach of confidentiality - she talked about being sexually harrassed. By the next day the scripts have all been rewritten
********
I didn't make that up. It happened on a New Zealand film set this century.
The government is at the moment passing a law which will exclude those working in the film industry from being employees - the default position will be that they are contractors. At the moment as independent contractors actors (and others in hte film industry) can be fired at any time for any reason - they have no right of due process.
What this means is that there is nothing to stop producers firing teenage girls, because they sexually harassed them. And when there's nothing to stop people abusing power, sometimes they abuse power.
Often it's not about an individual abusing power, it's about saving money. If you can fire people for any reason they're much less likely to complain about health and safety.
********
At the moment (as you've probably already been told several times over the last few weeks) the conditions for actors are set out in the pink book - a non-binding agreement between Actors Equity and SPADA.
The non-binding bit is the problem - you can see how that'd be hard to enforce in an environment where someone can be fired for complaining about sexual assault.
This isn't actually something that has just happened over the Hobbit. Actors Equity have been working for years to negotiate binding wages and conditions for their members. They've tried lots of tactics some even made headlines - such as the negotiations with Outrageous Fortune. From what I've heard, the producers have thrown everything they had at keeping the union away from any form of negotiations.
********
Imagine if you could be fired for any reason every day you go to work. Then imagine you're asked to change your terms and conditions. Imagine you're asked to work in dangerous conditions. Imagine a boss touches your breast. Imagine worse.
At various times and places in various industries, these sorts of conditions have been really standard. The film industry is not the only industry in New Zealand where they still are, but it is a significant one.
I want people to understand how much power companies have when there is no collective bargaining, and no employment law. That's not because I think we should only stand by the actors because their conditions are appalling,but because I want people to know what they're endorsing, if they oppose the actors struggle to get a binding negotiatiation for their wages and conditions. I want people to understand how high the stakes are, and how much power the companies have now.
********
But this is not a story about the powerless screwing the people while the people do nothing. What is so important about the Hobbit is that the actors do have power. Outside New Zealand (including almost everywhere the Hobbit might have filmed in) the movie industry is well organised. The reason that Peter Jackson, WB and the government acted like the sky was falling in (to steal from Ian Mune) wasn't because the actors were powerless - but because the actors had organised and used their power. The threat of a global acting boycott was a real threat that they had the power to do real harm to the movie.
That is where some people who would agree with everything that I wrote in the first half of the post, lose patience and decide maybe they don't support the actors union. A lot of people have critised Actors Equity and MEAA for the way they used their power. Reading the Maps has a great post about the problems with fence sitting. I agree with him absolutely that is entirely compatible to stand in solidarity with the actors and criticise their tactics (although I also agree that only those who are knowledgable of the history of actors and unionisation beyond what has appeared in the news - I only know enough to know I don't know enough to enter the discussion). But I want to make a few more points.
My political position is that the only people to determine the actors struggle for union recognition and binding wages and conditions are the members of the actor's union.**
However, I understand that not everyone shares this position. Not everyone is a unioinist - and there is a part of the left where it is acceptable to balance and weigh things up and support the teachers because they're restrained, but think the radiographers might have gone too far, because they might hurt someone (hell there are, shamefully enough, parts of the union movement where this is acceptable). I want to unpack the implications of this balancing act in the case of the actors union.
Those who criticise AE and MEAA usually focus on the fact that the Hobbit could be moved out of the country, jeopordizing the film industry as a whole. Often they'll bolster their claims with talk about the right and wrong ways of negotiating, and how it's illegal for the company to meet with the union.**
There's something amazing about the passive voice - it can hide who is actually acting in the circumstance. The actors could not and would not have moved the Hobbit out of the country. The studio is the subject in a sentence about moving the Hobbit out of New Zealand. The studio could have agreed to meet with the actors, given them everything they demanded (which would have probably cost less than they spent flying the execs over from New York to meet John Key and see what they can get out of NZ government). They could have decided to move filming anywhere in the world. Whatever the studios decide, that's their responsibility.
To say otherwise is to support a "look what you made me do" position: don't provoke those with more power, and if you do you are responsible.
That's why it's impossible to sit on the fence in any kind of struggle where there's a power imbalance. Whether it's "I must finely examine the behaviour of those standing up to the powerful before I decide whether to support them. As if they make one mistake they are responsible for their provocative actions." Or "They appear to have lost, and therefore it should have been apparent that they would always lose and therefore I cannot support them." All this is predicated on accepting the power imbalance, and holding the actors responsible for the studio's power. The justifications people have offered for withholding their support from the actors have been grotesque.
Actors are workers, workers who at the moment gave access to neither collective bargaining, nor legal employment protections. They are organising to change that. If you stand with the bosses there's nothing I can do about that. But if you don't are your reasons for not standing with the workers really good enough?
Or you could just watch Florence Reece, who sums up the situation nicely:
* At this point someone always tries to execute a gotcha and say "well what if they were organising against women or Maori workers, . This isn't an unreasonable question - within in my lifetime unions have organised to exclude women from certain jobs. However, the point I make there is that the difference between a demand aimed at the boss and a demand made at other workers is a startlingly obvious one, and it is very easy to support the first and oppose the second.
** Which is just the kind of bullshit it takes two minutes to think through and expose. If WB can legally follow SAG minimums for American actors and MEAA minimums for Australian actors without that being price fixing. Then they can have collectively negotiated wages and conditions with their independent contractors in New Zealand. It's just that they don't want to with New Zealand actors, so they're hiding behind the law, and getting Chris Findlayson to help them out with that.
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
what i'd like to see on tv
i've decided i'm a fan of jo frost. it's only happened recently. and it's not like i agree with every bit of advice she gives. and it's certainly that i watch her supernanny stuff religiously - i've only watched a few episodes really. and i caught that extreme parenting thing that was on tv1 recently.
no, what decided me was on an online survey i did for the channel recently. i wish i had thought to save some of the questions & answers. they were pretty wierd, asking which people you identified with the channel & the like. there were more standard questions about what kind of people you would like to see more of.
sorry that my memory is so vague, all i recall is giving answers about how i'd like to see a lot more diversity in the types of people we got to see. so i remember clicking judy dench, helen mirren & the like a few times. there were actually some women of colour in the choices as well, and i remember clicking on them as well.
when i then had to justify some of my choices, it got me thinking what i want to see more of. and jo frost (who i had also chosen a few times) really was the symbol of what i'd like to see. here is a strong character, with strong ethics, not conventionally attractive, not young & not thin. just a natural, normal person doing (mostly) good stuff. she's someone who commands respect, is assertive without being nasty, has compassion and is just herself. of course her field of work is pretty traditional for women, but that's really the only thing traditional about her.
she actually reminds me how much of a fan i am of cher (as an actress rather than a singer). the thing i loved about her so much was that she always played strong characters that took no nonsense, wouldn't allow themselves to be pushed around, and she just had a commanding presence. yup, i really would like to see more of that on tv.
which makes me think i should probably watch the new show with jada pinkett-smith, hawthorne. looks like it might deliver something similar. here's hoping.
no, what decided me was on an online survey i did for the channel recently. i wish i had thought to save some of the questions & answers. they were pretty wierd, asking which people you identified with the channel & the like. there were more standard questions about what kind of people you would like to see more of.
sorry that my memory is so vague, all i recall is giving answers about how i'd like to see a lot more diversity in the types of people we got to see. so i remember clicking judy dench, helen mirren & the like a few times. there were actually some women of colour in the choices as well, and i remember clicking on them as well.
when i then had to justify some of my choices, it got me thinking what i want to see more of. and jo frost (who i had also chosen a few times) really was the symbol of what i'd like to see. here is a strong character, with strong ethics, not conventionally attractive, not young & not thin. just a natural, normal person doing (mostly) good stuff. she's someone who commands respect, is assertive without being nasty, has compassion and is just herself. of course her field of work is pretty traditional for women, but that's really the only thing traditional about her.
she actually reminds me how much of a fan i am of cher (as an actress rather than a singer). the thing i loved about her so much was that she always played strong characters that took no nonsense, wouldn't allow themselves to be pushed around, and she just had a commanding presence. yup, i really would like to see more of that on tv.
which makes me think i should probably watch the new show with jada pinkett-smith, hawthorne. looks like it might deliver something similar. here's hoping.
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
consultation on race relations
the human rights commission is doing some consultation prior to their next 5-yearly report to the UN on the convention on the elimination of racial discrimination. some of you may be familiar with similar consultations that happening prior to the CEDAW report.
the HRC is asking 2 main questions:
1. what are the 5 five most positive developments in race relations in the past 5 years (2006 - 2010)?
2. what are the 5 greatest race relations challenges for the future?
i've been thinking about this over the last few days, and i find them to be really quite difficult questions to answer. however, i've made an attempt below with issues in no particular order.
in terms of the positive developments:
- the increasing awareness and coverage of maori language week, with the media picking it up and incorporating more te reo in greetings etc. despite this being, on the face of it, a superficial thing, i think it's important in terms of maori language & culture being part of nz culture and what it means to be a nz'er.
- the new school curriculum, which includes diversity under the values section, and includes the treaty of waitangi, inclusion, & cultural diversity under the principles section. these factors will lead to the inclusion of diversity in all teaching areas, which can only be a good thing. i especially love this sentence: The curriculum reflects New Zealand’s cultural diversity and values the histories and traditions of all its people. i think the new curriculum will have long-lasting impact, if implemented correctly.
- various cultural celebrations becoming much more part of the landscape here. diwali celebrations have been happening throughout the country over the last couple of weeks, but also many more events that ethnic minority communities are sharing with the wider communities. some of these will be national days, or cultural celebrations or religious celebrations. i love that waitangi day is now celebrated around the country with full day events that involve the participation of a variety of cultures.
- not a nz development as much as an international one, but i think the internet is a great tool for race relations, in that it helps with: networking, the spreading of positive messages, debating of ideas, organisation & publicity of events, engaging in conversations & learning from others. for example the conversations we've had here regarding the te papa thing, while difficult at times, really did add to everyone's understanding even though we might not have agreed with the views put forward.
- the HRC diversity forum's are a real positive development. i missed this year's one, the first in i've missed in several years. but the numbers of people now attending, the agencies & organisations wanting to be part of the conversations about diversity is truly heartening.
in terms of the challenges:
- the biggest one, for me, is again not just a nz thing but one that is being seen across the world. it's the way that politicians will pretty much incite racial disharmony with a view to increasing their profile & their votes. we had it here with winston peters & don brash, with pauline hanson & john howard in australia, the BNP in UK, the BJP in india, the tea party movement in the US, and a whole range of parties across europe. it's a deliberate political tactic, it's guaranteed to create headlines, and any criticism of the person(s) doing the inciting is pushed aside or silenced either with the label of "political correctness" or some kind of attack on freedom of speech (as though those who are critical should have none). politicians not only have the ability to affect public opinion but to put in place policies that entrench inequality or to block policies that will reduce inequality.
- the second challenge is pretty much the same as the first but it's the use of this same tactic by media personalities. i classify it as a different challenge because politicians don't often have the same level of on-going access to the public as the likes of paul henry or leighton smith. there are the politicians who also do media, like michael laws & previously, john banks. but mainstream media, in it's impact, is much stronger and wider. it seems that the easiest way to build and sustain an audience is to be as controversial as possible, regardless of the consequences to your target group. also, the framing of stories, and the stories that are chosen to be reported, can and do have a hugely negative impact.
- i'm also going to put the internet in the negative category as well. while it has so many positives, the internet also gives us the "your views" section of the herald & similar types of comments on stuff, lots of nastiness on facebook, and general online harassment & trolling. because of the impersonal nature of online interactions, the abuse can be at a much higher level than a face-to-face interaction might.
- cuts in government funding and widening social inequality both have consequences for race relations. positive race relations happen when a government is committed to developing policies that will foster good relations. whether that is in terms of well-funded settlement support programmes, funding for educational programmes, funding to create spaces and places to have those difficult debates, and any number of other programmes: all of these require a government to be active and to invest in social harmony. similarly with social inequality, tensions are higher when there is greater unemployment, for example, because certain racial groups face higher levels of unemployment and there tends to be a greater backlash towards visible migrants (ie those who are of an ethnic minority) at times of high unemployment.
- finally, the change in demographics is going to be a major challenge. as various ethnic minority communities grow in numbers and become a more established part of nz society, the chances of increased tension are much higher. how those minority communities fit into a bi-cultural framework must be resolved, because i think many of those communities don't have a good understanding of the treaty and of nz history. there is a real gap in understanding, which doesn't bode well for the maori struggles around treaty issues.
so those are my main issues. the only thing i've really left out is the rise of ethnic-specific media, which is both a good and a bad thing. it's good because it allows for self-expression and for communities to put forward their own view of things. it's bad because it stops the various communities talking to each other as they become more internally-focussed. but compared to the other things i've listed above, i don't think this one is as important.
anyway, i'd encourage people to give their feedback to the HRC. i'm sure your input will have some impact on policy development and recommendations for the future.
the HRC is asking 2 main questions:
1. what are the 5 five most positive developments in race relations in the past 5 years (2006 - 2010)?
2. what are the 5 greatest race relations challenges for the future?
i've been thinking about this over the last few days, and i find them to be really quite difficult questions to answer. however, i've made an attempt below with issues in no particular order.
in terms of the positive developments:
- the increasing awareness and coverage of maori language week, with the media picking it up and incorporating more te reo in greetings etc. despite this being, on the face of it, a superficial thing, i think it's important in terms of maori language & culture being part of nz culture and what it means to be a nz'er.
- the new school curriculum, which includes diversity under the values section, and includes the treaty of waitangi, inclusion, & cultural diversity under the principles section. these factors will lead to the inclusion of diversity in all teaching areas, which can only be a good thing. i especially love this sentence: The curriculum reflects New Zealand’s cultural diversity and values the histories and traditions of all its people. i think the new curriculum will have long-lasting impact, if implemented correctly.
- various cultural celebrations becoming much more part of the landscape here. diwali celebrations have been happening throughout the country over the last couple of weeks, but also many more events that ethnic minority communities are sharing with the wider communities. some of these will be national days, or cultural celebrations or religious celebrations. i love that waitangi day is now celebrated around the country with full day events that involve the participation of a variety of cultures.
- not a nz development as much as an international one, but i think the internet is a great tool for race relations, in that it helps with: networking, the spreading of positive messages, debating of ideas, organisation & publicity of events, engaging in conversations & learning from others. for example the conversations we've had here regarding the te papa thing, while difficult at times, really did add to everyone's understanding even though we might not have agreed with the views put forward.
- the HRC diversity forum's are a real positive development. i missed this year's one, the first in i've missed in several years. but the numbers of people now attending, the agencies & organisations wanting to be part of the conversations about diversity is truly heartening.
in terms of the challenges:
- the biggest one, for me, is again not just a nz thing but one that is being seen across the world. it's the way that politicians will pretty much incite racial disharmony with a view to increasing their profile & their votes. we had it here with winston peters & don brash, with pauline hanson & john howard in australia, the BNP in UK, the BJP in india, the tea party movement in the US, and a whole range of parties across europe. it's a deliberate political tactic, it's guaranteed to create headlines, and any criticism of the person(s) doing the inciting is pushed aside or silenced either with the label of "political correctness" or some kind of attack on freedom of speech (as though those who are critical should have none). politicians not only have the ability to affect public opinion but to put in place policies that entrench inequality or to block policies that will reduce inequality.
- the second challenge is pretty much the same as the first but it's the use of this same tactic by media personalities. i classify it as a different challenge because politicians don't often have the same level of on-going access to the public as the likes of paul henry or leighton smith. there are the politicians who also do media, like michael laws & previously, john banks. but mainstream media, in it's impact, is much stronger and wider. it seems that the easiest way to build and sustain an audience is to be as controversial as possible, regardless of the consequences to your target group. also, the framing of stories, and the stories that are chosen to be reported, can and do have a hugely negative impact.
- i'm also going to put the internet in the negative category as well. while it has so many positives, the internet also gives us the "your views" section of the herald & similar types of comments on stuff, lots of nastiness on facebook, and general online harassment & trolling. because of the impersonal nature of online interactions, the abuse can be at a much higher level than a face-to-face interaction might.
- cuts in government funding and widening social inequality both have consequences for race relations. positive race relations happen when a government is committed to developing policies that will foster good relations. whether that is in terms of well-funded settlement support programmes, funding for educational programmes, funding to create spaces and places to have those difficult debates, and any number of other programmes: all of these require a government to be active and to invest in social harmony. similarly with social inequality, tensions are higher when there is greater unemployment, for example, because certain racial groups face higher levels of unemployment and there tends to be a greater backlash towards visible migrants (ie those who are of an ethnic minority) at times of high unemployment.
- finally, the change in demographics is going to be a major challenge. as various ethnic minority communities grow in numbers and become a more established part of nz society, the chances of increased tension are much higher. how those minority communities fit into a bi-cultural framework must be resolved, because i think many of those communities don't have a good understanding of the treaty and of nz history. there is a real gap in understanding, which doesn't bode well for the maori struggles around treaty issues.
so those are my main issues. the only thing i've really left out is the rise of ethnic-specific media, which is both a good and a bad thing. it's good because it allows for self-expression and for communities to put forward their own view of things. it's bad because it stops the various communities talking to each other as they become more internally-focussed. but compared to the other things i've listed above, i don't think this one is as important.
anyway, i'd encourage people to give their feedback to the HRC. i'm sure your input will have some impact on policy development and recommendations for the future.
Monday, 25 October 2010
Ouch!
Cross posted
New Zealand Labour Day, 2010
From The Elegance of the Hedgehog, by Muriel Barbery, translated by Alison Anderson, Paris: Gallic, 2006 (trans. 2008).
From time to time when we have both been working full time, or near full time, we have employed cleaners, and we have always paid them decently, ensured they have paid tea breaks, asked them to do a springclean instead of a regular clean if we are going to be away (even if we don't need the house cleaned, the cleaner still needs her wages), tried to treat them respectfully as people who are providing a much needed service for us. Plus I have always insisted that they not clean the toilets: we can clean up our own sh*t.
Even so, this paragraph from this excellent novel hit home. All the same, I wonder what the alternative is? Should I treat people who come into my home to clean with less respect than say, tradies who come in to fix taps and drains and electrical connections and the like?
I don't think so. I think the answer is to remember that cleaners and other workers are entitled to the full protection of the law. The quality of their employment is not dependent on an employer's fancies, but on the conditions that have been fought for by unions, and enshrined in law. And decent employers should comply with those conditions, not because they fear the might of the law, but because they are the minimally decent way to behave with respect to other human beings.
New Zealand Labour Day, 2010
Yesterday, Madame Grémont, the cleaning lady, brought Maman a bouquet of roses. ... OK, I won't go into the fact that Madame Grémont gives roses to Maman. They have the same relationship that all progressive middle-class women have with their cleaning ladies, although Maman thinks she really is the exception: a good old rose-coloured paternalistic relationship (we offer her coffee, pay her decently, never scold, pass on old clothes and broken furniture, and show an interest in her children, and in return she brings us roses and brown and beige crocheted bedspreads).
From The Elegance of the Hedgehog, by Muriel Barbery, translated by Alison Anderson, Paris: Gallic, 2006 (trans. 2008).
From time to time when we have both been working full time, or near full time, we have employed cleaners, and we have always paid them decently, ensured they have paid tea breaks, asked them to do a springclean instead of a regular clean if we are going to be away (even if we don't need the house cleaned, the cleaner still needs her wages), tried to treat them respectfully as people who are providing a much needed service for us. Plus I have always insisted that they not clean the toilets: we can clean up our own sh*t.
Even so, this paragraph from this excellent novel hit home. All the same, I wonder what the alternative is? Should I treat people who come into my home to clean with less respect than say, tradies who come in to fix taps and drains and electrical connections and the like?
I don't think so. I think the answer is to remember that cleaners and other workers are entitled to the full protection of the law. The quality of their employment is not dependent on an employer's fancies, but on the conditions that have been fought for by unions, and enshrined in law. And decent employers should comply with those conditions, not because they fear the might of the law, but because they are the minimally decent way to behave with respect to other human beings.
Sunday, 24 October 2010
marrying herself
hmm, i'm not sure exactly how to feel about this:
A 30-year-old Taiwanese woman has put an unusual twist on the traditional white wedding by ditching the husband part and marrying herself.
Office worker Chen Wei-yih said she wanted to show other single thirty-something women that they were not failures, media reported.
“I was just hoping that more people would love themselves,” Chen said.
Chen splurged on her $5,700 solo-ceremony, renting a banquet hall, hiring a wedding planner and photographer and inviting 30 of her friends to witness the event....
“It’s not that I’m anti-marriage. I just hope that I can express a different idea within the bounds of a tradition,” Chen said.
it's a strange paradox, to prove one's self-worth as a single woman by going through the ultimate ceremony of couplehood. i suppose it's a way of making a point, and i guess a "celebrating me, as i am" type of party would have seemed a bit vain & egotistical. and yet, the latter is actually what she's doing, and i think it's a good thing to be happy with what you've achieved in life so far, and to be happy with who you are and how you are. now that is definitely something to celebrate.
A 30-year-old Taiwanese woman has put an unusual twist on the traditional white wedding by ditching the husband part and marrying herself.
Office worker Chen Wei-yih said she wanted to show other single thirty-something women that they were not failures, media reported.
“I was just hoping that more people would love themselves,” Chen said.
Chen splurged on her $5,700 solo-ceremony, renting a banquet hall, hiring a wedding planner and photographer and inviting 30 of her friends to witness the event....
“It’s not that I’m anti-marriage. I just hope that I can express a different idea within the bounds of a tradition,” Chen said.
it's a strange paradox, to prove one's self-worth as a single woman by going through the ultimate ceremony of couplehood. i suppose it's a way of making a point, and i guess a "celebrating me, as i am" type of party would have seemed a bit vain & egotistical. and yet, the latter is actually what she's doing, and i think it's a good thing to be happy with what you've achieved in life so far, and to be happy with who you are and how you are. now that is definitely something to celebrate.
So this is Huge
Regular readers will know that I'm a fan of television. I have in fact written an ode to television.
I have also written about the problems of television - the ways how it is produced limits what we can see
For one brief shining moment this winter I was proved utterly, utterly wrong as I watched 10 episodes of Huge.
Then I was proved right again, when they cancelled it.
But I thought I'd write about Huge anyway. For a NZ audience who probably won't have seen it - so no spoilers - just general raving about awesomeness. This is how it begins:
Huge aired on ABC Family a US cable network that I hadn’t even heard of until a few months ago, that apparently makes a TV version of 10 Things I Hate About You and sells airtime to Pat Robertson when it doesn’t have enough programming of it on. It’s set in a fat camp – where teenagers are supposed to lose weight.
So far so avoidable right? But it’s by the Winnie Holzman, the creator of My So Called Life (New Zealanders of a certain age may remember My So Called Life’s run on IceTV), and her daughter Savannah Dooley. (who I know next to nothing about, but think is unbelievably awesome – she is threatening my decade long commitment as a one-showrunner woman).
I want to explain what's so amazing about Huge, because I think it's important. It is the most closely observed show I've ever watched. This is not a show where the main character has to stab her boyfriend to save the world - this is the world we live in, or close to it.
I've always loved bangity-flash big moments on TV. But there is another way, instead of metaphors Huge delivers us the fine details of people's life.
The show appears not to take a side. For weeks the big question as I was watching it was - what is this show saying about fat? Will, played by Nikki Blonsky was fierce about not hating her body. But she was surrounding by people who normalised dieting. Where did the show stand? And it didn't appear to stand anywhere. Then at the 8th episode the kids had a weigh in and it showed, without judging, the effect that had on them. That's when I realised that standing nowhere can be a much more radical place to put the camera
Many things that are normalised in the world are shown on Huge without the appearance of judging: slut-shaming, body-hatred and adults bullying children. But in this light they appear as grotesque as they actually are.
While things that we are treated as something to be ashamed of like fat, but also asexuality, anxiety, live action role-playing, disability, queerness and many other aspets of the character, also appear differently when observed closely and without judgement. The things we're supposed to be ashamed of are not the same, so they don't appear the same on Huge. But collectively they are seen as ordinary, joyous, ok, real and a source of strength.
That is, in the end, what made Huge so beautiful.
It's been cancelled in America (because American TV executives enjoy stabbing anything that is beautiful or true to death). At the moment it is only available on youtube (or through other even less legal means), although it will come out on DVD.
I really do recommend that you watch it, and if you have older kids, show it to them. Because I think they'll probably get something they need out of it.
I have also written about the problems of television - the ways how it is produced limits what we can see
For one brief shining moment this winter I was proved utterly, utterly wrong as I watched 10 episodes of Huge.
Then I was proved right again, when they cancelled it.
But I thought I'd write about Huge anyway. For a NZ audience who probably won't have seen it - so no spoilers - just general raving about awesomeness. This is how it begins:
Huge aired on ABC Family a US cable network that I hadn’t even heard of until a few months ago, that apparently makes a TV version of 10 Things I Hate About You and sells airtime to Pat Robertson when it doesn’t have enough programming of it on. It’s set in a fat camp – where teenagers are supposed to lose weight.
So far so avoidable right? But it’s by the Winnie Holzman, the creator of My So Called Life (New Zealanders of a certain age may remember My So Called Life’s run on IceTV), and her daughter Savannah Dooley. (who I know next to nothing about, but think is unbelievably awesome – she is threatening my decade long commitment as a one-showrunner woman).
I want to explain what's so amazing about Huge, because I think it's important. It is the most closely observed show I've ever watched. This is not a show where the main character has to stab her boyfriend to save the world - this is the world we live in, or close to it.
I've always loved bangity-flash big moments on TV. But there is another way, instead of metaphors Huge delivers us the fine details of people's life.
The show appears not to take a side. For weeks the big question as I was watching it was - what is this show saying about fat? Will, played by Nikki Blonsky was fierce about not hating her body. But she was surrounding by people who normalised dieting. Where did the show stand? And it didn't appear to stand anywhere. Then at the 8th episode the kids had a weigh in and it showed, without judging, the effect that had on them. That's when I realised that standing nowhere can be a much more radical place to put the camera
Many things that are normalised in the world are shown on Huge without the appearance of judging: slut-shaming, body-hatred and adults bullying children. But in this light they appear as grotesque as they actually are.
While things that we are treated as something to be ashamed of like fat, but also asexuality, anxiety, live action role-playing, disability, queerness and many other aspets of the character, also appear differently when observed closely and without judgement. The things we're supposed to be ashamed of are not the same, so they don't appear the same on Huge. But collectively they are seen as ordinary, joyous, ok, real and a source of strength.
That is, in the end, what made Huge so beautiful.
It's been cancelled in America (because American TV executives enjoy stabbing anything that is beautiful or true to death). At the moment it is only available on youtube (or through other even less legal means), although it will come out on DVD.
I really do recommend that you watch it, and if you have older kids, show it to them. Because I think they'll probably get something they need out of it.
Friday, 22 October 2010
Friday Feminist - Marilyn Frye
Cross posted
Marilyn Frye, "Oppression," in The Politics of Reality, 1983
The root of the word "oppression" is the element "press". The press of the crowd; pressed into military service; to press a pair of pants; printing press; press the button. Presses are used to mold things or flatten them or reduce them in bulk, sometimes to reduce them by squeezing out the gasses or liquids in them. Something pressed is something caught between or among forces and barriers which are so related to each other that jointly they restrain, restrict or prevent the thing's motion or mobility. Mold. Immobilize. Reduce.
The mundane experience of the oppressed provides another clue. One of the most characteristic and ubiquitous features of the world as experienced by oppressed people is the double bind - situations in which options are reduced to a very few and all of them expose one to penalty, censure or deprivation. For example, it is often a requirement upon oppressed people that we smile and be cheerful. If we comply, we signal our docility and our acquiescence in our situation. We need not, then, be taken note of. We acquiesce in being made invisible, in our occupying no space. We participate in our own erasure. On the other hand, anything but the sunniest countenance exposes us to being perceived as mean, bitter, angry or dangerous. This means, at the least, that we may be found "difficult" or unpleansant to work with, which is enough to cost one one's livelihood; at worst, being seen as man, bitter angry or dangerous has been known to result in rape, arrest, beating and murder. One can only choose to risk one's preferred form and rate of annihilation.
Marilyn Frye, "Oppression," in The Politics of Reality, 1983
How well do you know some basics in Te Reo?
As a pakeha New Zealand, I take pride in knowing a little te reo, using everyday greetings and farewells, counting in Maori numbers, using some of the colour words. I've never studied te reo formally, but I've paid attention, and picked up a fair number of words here and there. But I've got a long way to go, especially with respect to grammar, and even just with using some of the longer and more formal greetings and farewells.
The Dominion-Post has a "Te reo quiz". It's not really a te reo quiz: it's more a vocabulary test. Even so, go test yourself.
Update: In comments, anjum has pointed to a site where you can sign up to get a word a day in Te reo. The site is here: He Kupu o te Rā. You can get the word-a-day via e-mail, or via your RSS reader.
The Dominion-Post has a "Te reo quiz". It's not really a te reo quiz: it's more a vocabulary test. Even so, go test yourself.
Update: In comments, anjum has pointed to a site where you can sign up to get a word a day in Te reo. The site is here: He Kupu o te Rā. You can get the word-a-day via e-mail, or via your RSS reader.
Thursday, 21 October 2010
you can stop feeling guilty now...
... if you ever did feel guilty about being a mother in paid employment. can't say that i ever did, but now the research proves that your kids' turn out just fine, so i was right to not waste my time worrying:
According to a review of 50 years of research on the subject, kids whose moms went back to work before the kids were 3 years old had no worse academic or behavioral problems than kids whose moms stayed home. In fact, in some instances they did better. The research, which appears in the Psychological Bulletin, a peer-reviewed publication of the American Psychological Association, looked at 69 studies between 1960, when research on the issue started, and 2010. The researchers looked specifically at academic and behavioral outcomes....
The researchers found little evidence to suggest that mothers who work part-time or full-time have children with problems in later life. But the researchers did find two positive associations between working motherhood and well-adjusted children: kids whose mothers worked when they were younger than 3 were later rated as higher-achieving by teachers and had fewer problems with depression and anxiety.
The only small caveat was that children whose mothers worked in the very first year of their lives tended to have slightly lower formal academic scores than those whose moms didn't. However children whose mothers were employed when the child was 1 or 2 years old had higher academic scores than kids with full-time moms. Over the three years, the effects evened out.
yes, i too hate the term "working mums", because all mums work. they just don't all get paid for the work they do. but aside from that niggle and a crappy last paragraph to make sure you feel guilty about something, it's nice to see actual research is showing that whether you take up paid employement through choice or necessity, your kids aren't going to be any worse off.
on a related topic, it was interesting to hear the interview on nine to noon this morning (11.20am) with desmond morris, author of "child: how children think, learn and grow in the early years. at 21 minutes into the clip, he also talks about women in paid employment feeling guilty about leaving their children in childcare. he says they shoudn't feel so guilty, because a nursery school provides social interaction which is very natural. he speaks of the importance of children being able to interact with others of their own age, to become more socially educated, more in tune with the behaviour of other individuals, and more able to give and take. after all, he says, we evolved for a million years in small tribes where the children were playing with one another and there wasn't the isolation that we have now.
it's something i see even now when i visit india. many live in an extended family situation, and parents don't actually see much of their kids at all. they see them when the kids are hungry, or when the kids need to be bathed. this is especially so in the village situation. in the cities, there is a greater movement to nuclear families, and so much more competitive pressure with the education system, that the natural interaction of village life is being lost.
it's one of the outcomes of a developed and industrialised society that we lose a lot of that social interaction. and the response has been to make mothers feel that they should be spending every possible moment at home with their children, as if this would somehow make up for the loss. my own sense always was that this is not natural, or at least not traditional, the way it has often been claimed.
which is not to say that i have any problem with women who choose to stay out of paid employment, and who do focus more of their time & attention on their children. it's an equally valid & valuable choice, but what the research is showing is that it's not a better (nor a worse) one.
According to a review of 50 years of research on the subject, kids whose moms went back to work before the kids were 3 years old had no worse academic or behavioral problems than kids whose moms stayed home. In fact, in some instances they did better. The research, which appears in the Psychological Bulletin, a peer-reviewed publication of the American Psychological Association, looked at 69 studies between 1960, when research on the issue started, and 2010. The researchers looked specifically at academic and behavioral outcomes....
The researchers found little evidence to suggest that mothers who work part-time or full-time have children with problems in later life. But the researchers did find two positive associations between working motherhood and well-adjusted children: kids whose mothers worked when they were younger than 3 were later rated as higher-achieving by teachers and had fewer problems with depression and anxiety.
The only small caveat was that children whose mothers worked in the very first year of their lives tended to have slightly lower formal academic scores than those whose moms didn't. However children whose mothers were employed when the child was 1 or 2 years old had higher academic scores than kids with full-time moms. Over the three years, the effects evened out.
yes, i too hate the term "working mums", because all mums work. they just don't all get paid for the work they do. but aside from that niggle and a crappy last paragraph to make sure you feel guilty about something, it's nice to see actual research is showing that whether you take up paid employement through choice or necessity, your kids aren't going to be any worse off.
on a related topic, it was interesting to hear the interview on nine to noon this morning (11.20am) with desmond morris, author of "child: how children think, learn and grow in the early years. at 21 minutes into the clip, he also talks about women in paid employment feeling guilty about leaving their children in childcare. he says they shoudn't feel so guilty, because a nursery school provides social interaction which is very natural. he speaks of the importance of children being able to interact with others of their own age, to become more socially educated, more in tune with the behaviour of other individuals, and more able to give and take. after all, he says, we evolved for a million years in small tribes where the children were playing with one another and there wasn't the isolation that we have now.
it's something i see even now when i visit india. many live in an extended family situation, and parents don't actually see much of their kids at all. they see them when the kids are hungry, or when the kids need to be bathed. this is especially so in the village situation. in the cities, there is a greater movement to nuclear families, and so much more competitive pressure with the education system, that the natural interaction of village life is being lost.
it's one of the outcomes of a developed and industrialised society that we lose a lot of that social interaction. and the response has been to make mothers feel that they should be spending every possible moment at home with their children, as if this would somehow make up for the loss. my own sense always was that this is not natural, or at least not traditional, the way it has often been claimed.
which is not to say that i have any problem with women who choose to stay out of paid employment, and who do focus more of their time & attention on their children. it's an equally valid & valuable choice, but what the research is showing is that it's not a better (nor a worse) one.
more on the trial of greg meads
i was going to write a piece on the grant meads case, but deborah beat me to it. however, there are a couple of aspects of the case that i want to talk about, other than the excellent point she has raised.
the main defence in this case was that mr meads didn't mean to pull the trigger, even though he took a loaded shotgun with him & pointed it at her, with the safety catch off. i'm glad that the jury had no trouble dismissing that defence.
what concerned me more, though, is that the defence presented this couple as being happily married. evidence was provided to this effect, in the form of cards that were exchanged & other statements. given that the evidence he had abused her previously was withheld from the court (and i have no problem with that), i don't see how the defence could introduce evidence trying to prove they had a happy marriage. especially when 1) this was known to be false and 2) the prosecution would be unable to rebut it because they couldn't introduce evidence of the abuse.
i'm not a lawyer, so it's quite possible i'm missing something important. i accept that people have the right to a full defence, and the right to use any defence that is legally available to them. but surely there must be some limit on a defence that is clearly known to be false, on the basis that the jury are being misled? i don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me.
nor does it seem right that the accused could give interviews to the media, presenting himself as a helpless victim of circumstances. the sunday star times article is here, and reaction to it is here. why exactly is this allowed to happen, when the case hasn't even come to trial yet? even if he was only an accused person at that stage who might have been innocent, it's just wrong.
the main defence in this case was that mr meads didn't mean to pull the trigger, even though he took a loaded shotgun with him & pointed it at her, with the safety catch off. i'm glad that the jury had no trouble dismissing that defence.
what concerned me more, though, is that the defence presented this couple as being happily married. evidence was provided to this effect, in the form of cards that were exchanged & other statements. given that the evidence he had abused her previously was withheld from the court (and i have no problem with that), i don't see how the defence could introduce evidence trying to prove they had a happy marriage. especially when 1) this was known to be false and 2) the prosecution would be unable to rebut it because they couldn't introduce evidence of the abuse.
i'm not a lawyer, so it's quite possible i'm missing something important. i accept that people have the right to a full defence, and the right to use any defence that is legally available to them. but surely there must be some limit on a defence that is clearly known to be false, on the basis that the jury are being misled? i don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me.
nor does it seem right that the accused could give interviews to the media, presenting himself as a helpless victim of circumstances. the sunday star times article is here, and reaction to it is here. why exactly is this allowed to happen, when the case hasn't even come to trial yet? even if he was only an accused person at that stage who might have been innocent, it's just wrong.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
rallying for workplace rights
i was one of the people at the "fairness at work" rally in hamilton today. it was incredibly well-attended & the first time i've seen people from so many different unions get together in such numbers. there's a lot of anger in the community about the erosion of worker's rights, and people are ready to fight back.
the thing that was interesting was that it was such a mixed group. there were the PSA workers & univerity staff, the NZEI & other teachers unions, service & food workers, rail & maritime, NDU, dairy workers, and more. one of the more rousing speakers represented workers in the justice sector. the people attending were not only diverse in the range of jobs but also by ethnicity. this was a real cross-section of nz society, and i saw john key brush them off in the news tonight, but i'm sure even he knows that he does so at his peril.
in the meantime, the news coverage around work issues continues to be appalling. i see all the DHB bosses tried a bit of media pressure today, bringing out stories of patients at risk because of striking radiographers. of course, they failed to mention that those patients wouldn't be at risk if employers were move from their position, and make as much effort to resolve the situation as they are on PR stunts.
ditto with the coverage of the teacher's strike. the reporting very rarely puts forward the view that children are missing out on school because the ministry is refusing to negotiate in good faith (ie they don't select interviewees who would put forward that view).
i've see reports today of the situation in france, where after major strikes that are disrupting normal activity, the vast majority of people are still supporting the unions. i'm sure that unions here also have support, the numbers who turned up around the country today show that they do.
the thing that was interesting was that it was such a mixed group. there were the PSA workers & univerity staff, the NZEI & other teachers unions, service & food workers, rail & maritime, NDU, dairy workers, and more. one of the more rousing speakers represented workers in the justice sector. the people attending were not only diverse in the range of jobs but also by ethnicity. this was a real cross-section of nz society, and i saw john key brush them off in the news tonight, but i'm sure even he knows that he does so at his peril.
in the meantime, the news coverage around work issues continues to be appalling. i see all the DHB bosses tried a bit of media pressure today, bringing out stories of patients at risk because of striking radiographers. of course, they failed to mention that those patients wouldn't be at risk if employers were move from their position, and make as much effort to resolve the situation as they are on PR stunts.
ditto with the coverage of the teacher's strike. the reporting very rarely puts forward the view that children are missing out on school because the ministry is refusing to negotiate in good faith (ie they don't select interviewees who would put forward that view).
i've see reports today of the situation in france, where after major strikes that are disrupting normal activity, the vast majority of people are still supporting the unions. i'm sure that unions here also have support, the numbers who turned up around the country today show that they do.
Victim blaming 101
Cross posted
Gregory Meads murdered Helen Meads just four days after she said she was going to leave their marriage. Now that he has been convicted by a jury, some more information has been released. It turns out that he beat her savagely about 18 months before he killed her.
The details are in this newspaper report, and they are horrifying. The report is *triggering*.
What the Meads jury didn't hear
But it seems that at least one police office thinks that it's Helen Meads fault.
Dude, it highlights the need for Gregory Meads to stop being a violent arsehole. Gregory Meads was the man who threw the punches, Gregory Meads was the man who pulled the trigger, Gregory Meads is the man who is responsible for Helen Meads being dead, for the children being without their mother, and for their father (that would be Gregory Meads) being in jail.
Maybe it also highlights the need for police to press assault charges a little harder. I really don't understand why Gregory Mead's assault on Helen Meads was not prosecuted in the first place. If police had taken their responsibilities seriously, maybe Helen Meads would still be alive, and her children would still have their mother.
Enough with the victim blaming.
Gregory Meads murdered Helen Meads just four days after she said she was going to leave their marriage. Now that he has been convicted by a jury, some more information has been released. It turns out that he beat her savagely about 18 months before he killed her.
The details are in this newspaper report, and they are horrifying. The report is *triggering*.
What the Meads jury didn't hear
But it seems that at least one police office thinks that it's Helen Meads fault.
Detective Sergeant Rod Carpinter, the officer in charge of the murder investigation, said the case highlighted the need for people to seek help from police, Women's Refuge or another organisation help before family violence escalated.
"Here we have a woman who has lost her life, children left without their mother and their father facing a long term of imprisonment."
Dude, it highlights the need for Gregory Meads to stop being a violent arsehole. Gregory Meads was the man who threw the punches, Gregory Meads was the man who pulled the trigger, Gregory Meads is the man who is responsible for Helen Meads being dead, for the children being without their mother, and for their father (that would be Gregory Meads) being in jail.
Maybe it also highlights the need for police to press assault charges a little harder. I really don't understand why Gregory Mead's assault on Helen Meads was not prosecuted in the first place. If police had taken their responsibilities seriously, maybe Helen Meads would still be alive, and her children would still have their mother.
Enough with the victim blaming.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Guest post: Two world views
Cross posted
Adele spent a long time on The Hand Mirror, discussing what the furore around Te Papa meant for her (tahi, rua). She has put a detailed comment on my blog, describing Te Ao Taangata Whenua - the world view indigenous to Aotearoa, and how it contrasts with a Western world view. With her permission, I am posting her comment as a post.
Adele is our guest here. Please, keep any discussion courteous. If you feel tempted to hit the keyboards and shoot from the hip, could I ask you step away for a while, and think about how to phrase your comment so that it is at least civil, even if you don't agree with her, or you find things she says difficult. I myself don't agree with some things Adele says, but I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about Te Ao Taangata Whenua.
Kia ora, Adele!
I am not wishing to dwell too much on the actions of Te Papa except to say that their process lacked foresight. What I would like to debate, however, is the sharing of public space between opposing worldviews – joined by a Treaty recognised in principles, if not fact. I use the term worldview to denote a discussion about ideologies more so than race.
The two worldviews I speak of are, to the left, Te Ao Taangata Whenua – the worldview indigenous to Aotearoa, and to the right, The Western Tradition, the worldview of the coloniser. Te Ao Taangata Whenua is used here rather than Te Ao Maaori because this term better acknowledges the many peoples indigenous to the whenua – nations of people identified as hapuu, or Iwi. The two worldviews are opposing because their cores values are fundamentally different.
The differences became officially manifest in two versions of a singular intent towards sharing place and space -Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the indigenous account and The Treaty of Waitangi, its English counterpart. Two versions in open conflict, such that nowadays, emphasis is focussed on spirit rather than substance and on principles rather than terms.
Developing a principled approach towards sharing place and space is also contentious especially as the worldviews in co-habitation are polar opposing in bed. One connects the spiritual, natural, and human realms via whakapapa. The other has mankind at its summit, holding dominion over the natural world. The hegemonic uplifts democracy as fair and just. The marginalised finds democracy unfair to the minority opinion. Our Gods are seventy plus in number, your God is money.
Despite being incompatible bed mates, there is a covering agreement to share place and space in partnership. The abusive relationship that currently passes for partnership is a hoohaa. There is an obligation on behalf of the state to actively ensure that taangata whenua (Maaori) have and retain full exclusive and undisturbed possession of not only the language but also the culture. That obligation extends to Government agencies. This argument has nothing to do with separating church from state.
Te Ao Taangata Whenua is not sexist. Our cosmology overflows with the power of the feminine. In Te Reo, the personal pronouns and possessive personal pronouns are gender neutral – there is no differentiation by gender. The significance of women is also symbolised in the language – whare tangata, the house of humankind, whenua – means both land and afterbirth, and hapuu meaning both pregnancy and large kinship group. We all whakapapa to Papa-tuu-aa-nuku, mother Earth – in other words, our worldview has strong attachments to the matriarch.
When the western worldview arrived in Aotearoa, it bought along dis-empowered women – mere chattels to their men-folk. It arrived into the world of the savage whose stories spoke of the strength and power of women. The missionaries, in particular, were heaven sent in destroying the heathen and the matriarch. Thus, in the retelling of the stories into written form, mana waahine was rendered impotent.
Mana waahine, today, continues to rage against the oppressive nature of the western worldview – the patriarch with a holier than thou attitude. Thus mana waahine and feminism are also bedfellows in dispute. Feminism, is fathered by the patriarch, and seeks merely to gain equality with their men-folk. Mana waahine, belongs to the matriarch, and aspires to regain the power and strength that rightfully belongs to her – emanating directly from Atua.
Adele spent a long time on The Hand Mirror, discussing what the furore around Te Papa meant for her (tahi, rua). She has put a detailed comment on my blog, describing Te Ao Taangata Whenua - the world view indigenous to Aotearoa, and how it contrasts with a Western world view. With her permission, I am posting her comment as a post.
Adele is our guest here. Please, keep any discussion courteous. If you feel tempted to hit the keyboards and shoot from the hip, could I ask you step away for a while, and think about how to phrase your comment so that it is at least civil, even if you don't agree with her, or you find things she says difficult. I myself don't agree with some things Adele says, but I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about Te Ao Taangata Whenua.
Kia ora, Adele!
***************
I am not wishing to dwell too much on the actions of Te Papa except to say that their process lacked foresight. What I would like to debate, however, is the sharing of public space between opposing worldviews – joined by a Treaty recognised in principles, if not fact. I use the term worldview to denote a discussion about ideologies more so than race.
The two worldviews I speak of are, to the left, Te Ao Taangata Whenua – the worldview indigenous to Aotearoa, and to the right, The Western Tradition, the worldview of the coloniser. Te Ao Taangata Whenua is used here rather than Te Ao Maaori because this term better acknowledges the many peoples indigenous to the whenua – nations of people identified as hapuu, or Iwi. The two worldviews are opposing because their cores values are fundamentally different.
The differences became officially manifest in two versions of a singular intent towards sharing place and space -Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the indigenous account and The Treaty of Waitangi, its English counterpart. Two versions in open conflict, such that nowadays, emphasis is focussed on spirit rather than substance and on principles rather than terms.
Developing a principled approach towards sharing place and space is also contentious especially as the worldviews in co-habitation are polar opposing in bed. One connects the spiritual, natural, and human realms via whakapapa. The other has mankind at its summit, holding dominion over the natural world. The hegemonic uplifts democracy as fair and just. The marginalised finds democracy unfair to the minority opinion. Our Gods are seventy plus in number, your God is money.
Despite being incompatible bed mates, there is a covering agreement to share place and space in partnership. The abusive relationship that currently passes for partnership is a hoohaa. There is an obligation on behalf of the state to actively ensure that taangata whenua (Maaori) have and retain full exclusive and undisturbed possession of not only the language but also the culture. That obligation extends to Government agencies. This argument has nothing to do with separating church from state.
Te Ao Taangata Whenua is not sexist. Our cosmology overflows with the power of the feminine. In Te Reo, the personal pronouns and possessive personal pronouns are gender neutral – there is no differentiation by gender. The significance of women is also symbolised in the language – whare tangata, the house of humankind, whenua – means both land and afterbirth, and hapuu meaning both pregnancy and large kinship group. We all whakapapa to Papa-tuu-aa-nuku, mother Earth – in other words, our worldview has strong attachments to the matriarch.
When the western worldview arrived in Aotearoa, it bought along dis-empowered women – mere chattels to their men-folk. It arrived into the world of the savage whose stories spoke of the strength and power of women. The missionaries, in particular, were heaven sent in destroying the heathen and the matriarch. Thus, in the retelling of the stories into written form, mana waahine was rendered impotent.
Mana waahine, today, continues to rage against the oppressive nature of the western worldview – the patriarch with a holier than thou attitude. Thus mana waahine and feminism are also bedfellows in dispute. Feminism, is fathered by the patriarch, and seeks merely to gain equality with their men-folk. Mana waahine, belongs to the matriarch, and aspires to regain the power and strength that rightfully belongs to her – emanating directly from Atua.
The slow reveal
Cross posted
If Tracey Crisp's novel, Black Dust Dancing, is characterised by the pauses and little actions of everyday life, then Kate De Goldi's novel, The 10pm Question, is all about the slow reveal. So much so, that to tell you about some of the key points of the novel is to spoil the process of revelation. So I shall be careful about what I say here: I will reveal some, but only the necessary, and leave some for you to read for yourself. Because you ought to read this novel.
The 10pm Question is seen through the eyes of Frankie, a 12 year old boy. His life seems normal, just the everyday activities of a boy and his family, even if overlaid by his anxiety. He has responsibilities, and he worries. Constantly. Mostly, he worries about his mother.
This is the point at which you should stop reading if you plan to read this book for yourself. At this point, I'm going to give a reveal. It doesn't ruin the plot, but I can't write about this book without revealing why Frankie worries about his mother.
Frankie's Mum has a mental illness. It constrains her life, and affects every member of the family, in different ways. Not in frightening ways. But in ways that push Frankie and his sister and his brother, and Uncle George.
This is where Kate De Goldi writes about mental illness so well. As I read the novel, it took me some time to realise that Frankie's mum, Francie, has a mental illness. Bit by bit I realised that something was not quite usual with Frankie's world. I realised that his mum was not a standard mum, and then I realised that she had a mental illness, and only after quite some time did I work out the exact nature of her illness. It was like real life, when we first assume that someone we have just met is a standard issue person, and then we realise that something is a bit unusual, and then that the person may have a mental health problem, and then, possibly, work out a little about the nature of a problem. In real life, a person's mental illness is often a slow reveal, to themselves, and to the people around them. Kate De Goldi has mirrored this slow reveal in the way she has written this novel.
De Goldi doesn't shy away from the difficulties of mental illness, for the person who has it, and for the people around her or him. When Frankie finally flies to his great aunts (three women of large size and large personality), the eldest aunt doesn't try to smooth over the problems, to pretend that they don't exist.
That's one of the things I like about this book. It doesn't try to pretend that illness is easy, that everyone can just take the pills and be happy. Kate de Goldi's characters cope, but there are costs for each of them too. Above all, there are costs for Francie. She has found a way of living, a way of managing, a way of being... content, even if not happy per se. But there are costs. Fancie is no super-crip. She's just an ordinary woman, who copes as best she can with the way her life has turned out.
I also like Frankie's perspective. He seems to me to be a thorough-going twelve year old, full of plans and rituals and speculations. It was fun to see the world through a twelve-year-old's eyes, to see things that he didn't, and realise that he saw things that I simply could not perceive.
You should read this book. It's entertaining, but it's also thought-provoking. And it is instructive. Not in the sense of being didactic, or moralistic, at all. But in the sense of revealing aspects of the way that human beings can be, with sympathy, and without judgement.
My daughter, Ms Twelve, read this book too, and loved it. It's well within the reach of a perceptive twelve year old, 'though I suspect that she will find more in it if she reads it again when she is older.
If Tracey Crisp's novel, Black Dust Dancing, is characterised by the pauses and little actions of everyday life, then Kate De Goldi's novel, The 10pm Question, is all about the slow reveal. So much so, that to tell you about some of the key points of the novel is to spoil the process of revelation. So I shall be careful about what I say here: I will reveal some, but only the necessary, and leave some for you to read for yourself. Because you ought to read this novel.
The 10pm Question is seen through the eyes of Frankie, a 12 year old boy. His life seems normal, just the everyday activities of a boy and his family, even if overlaid by his anxiety. He has responsibilities, and he worries. Constantly. Mostly, he worries about his mother.
This is the point at which you should stop reading if you plan to read this book for yourself. At this point, I'm going to give a reveal. It doesn't ruin the plot, but I can't write about this book without revealing why Frankie worries about his mother.
Frankie's Mum has a mental illness. It constrains her life, and affects every member of the family, in different ways. Not in frightening ways. But in ways that push Frankie and his sister and his brother, and Uncle George.
This is where Kate De Goldi writes about mental illness so well. As I read the novel, it took me some time to realise that Frankie's mum, Francie, has a mental illness. Bit by bit I realised that something was not quite usual with Frankie's world. I realised that his mum was not a standard mum, and then I realised that she had a mental illness, and only after quite some time did I work out the exact nature of her illness. It was like real life, when we first assume that someone we have just met is a standard issue person, and then we realise that something is a bit unusual, and then that the person may have a mental health problem, and then, possibly, work out a little about the nature of a problem. In real life, a person's mental illness is often a slow reveal, to themselves, and to the people around them. Kate De Goldi has mirrored this slow reveal in the way she has written this novel.
De Goldi doesn't shy away from the difficulties of mental illness, for the person who has it, and for the people around her or him. When Frankie finally flies to his great aunts (three women of large size and large personality), the eldest aunt doesn't try to smooth over the problems, to pretend that they don't exist.
"Oh Frankie," she sighed. "Isn't it hard?"
That's one of the things I like about this book. It doesn't try to pretend that illness is easy, that everyone can just take the pills and be happy. Kate de Goldi's characters cope, but there are costs for each of them too. Above all, there are costs for Francie. She has found a way of living, a way of managing, a way of being... content, even if not happy per se. But there are costs. Fancie is no super-crip. She's just an ordinary woman, who copes as best she can with the way her life has turned out.
I also like Frankie's perspective. He seems to me to be a thorough-going twelve year old, full of plans and rituals and speculations. It was fun to see the world through a twelve-year-old's eyes, to see things that he didn't, and realise that he saw things that I simply could not perceive.
You should read this book. It's entertaining, but it's also thought-provoking. And it is instructive. Not in the sense of being didactic, or moralistic, at all. But in the sense of revealing aspects of the way that human beings can be, with sympathy, and without judgement.
My daughter, Ms Twelve, read this book too, and loved it. It's well within the reach of a perceptive twelve year old, 'though I suspect that she will find more in it if she reads it again when she is older.
Sunday, 17 October 2010
No More Jumping Through Hoops: A Belated Demo Report
Last Tuesday was a fabulous day for feminism in Wellington. Action for Abortion Rights organised a protest outside the Appeal Court. When we were planning the demo we were thinking about something that might only have twenty people there. Not because we didn't think people cared about abortion rights, but because we had no idea if we could find and mobilise those people.
I've been an activist for a long time, and I've organised a lot of demos. But this demo was something else. There was so much energy and enthusiasm - and so much excitement that we were able to do something about an issue which meant so much. The papers said we had 50 people at the demo - but it was easily three or four times that.
.jpg)
Rebecca from Mothers for Choice gave a great speech:
We have a very strong message for the Right to Life brigade – not only do you not own women’s bodies, you don’t own families. Your ilk has spoken on behalf of families for too long. Most people in most families want a decent law that means everyone who needs an abortion can get one, without having to make the kind of case necessary under current law.
[...]
My daughter is four. I hate the thought that when she is older, she would have to jump through hoops to get an abortion if she had an unwanted pregnancy. I don’t want any more women to have to do so. The time is long overdue for the law we need, and together we are going to make sure it happens.
Ally Garrett, of I'm Offended Because, lead us all in a round of chanting "Hey, Hey, Mister, Mister, Keep Your Laws off Your Sister" dedicated to Peter Carlisle. Check out her amazing blog post which explains why Peter Carlisle deserves special chants towards him. (Also she has the best blog title ever - I'm super jealous).
We also had some great speakers from Action for Abortion Rights, the Women's Studies Association, Women's National Abortion Action Committee, Abortion Law Reform Association, and young labour came out against their parties refusal to allow Steve Chadwick to put the bill in the ballot.
Then we headed to parliament - because parliament, not the courts, are responsible for the current laws.
We had chalk so people could leave messages at parliament:
The current abortion law requires that women jump through hoops to get access to abortion. Right to Life want those laws to be higher and smaller. That's why we called our demo No More Jumping Trough Hoops - and did some hoop jumping:
As an added bonus pro-life NZ recorded our demo and put it up on youtube. So even those of you who weren't there can see it. Aren't they considerate:
This was just the beginning. Things are full steam ahead in Wellington. I'm sure there just as many people in other areas who are keen to be part of the fight.
Photos of this protest come from John Darroch and Stuff.
Saturday, 16 October 2010
only women bleed*
well, since periods have been so much the topic of discussion lately, i thought to myself that it must be time to do a post about them. mostly from the point of view of the cultural differences around periods, and the restrictions that have built up over different traditions.
i'll start with the traditions i know best: my own. for muslim women, periods are a time when we are excused from worship. so we don't have to pray or fast - the latter being sensible for me at least, cos i'm anaemic & really couldn't cope with fasting at the time we have our period. i guess that these 2 restrictions aren't seen as a kind of relief from our point of view, so i've not really heard any muslim women complain about them.
there are a few others though. one is that we shouldn't touch the qur'an. this is one where people have developed "fixes" for, so that i have heard one scholar say that women should read a qur'an with translation when they have their periods. this is on the basis that the words that aren't the actual arabic of the qur'an are greater portion of the book, so it's all ok. another that i've heard is the expedient of touching the qur'an while wearing gloves or using a cloth**. i find this interesting in terms of the way people want to get around the restriction, but don't want to challenge it.
another is that we don't have intercourse when we have our periods. i can't say i've ever heard anyone complaining about that one, and my own personal reaction is basically "yucky, why would you want to?"
the most contentious restriction, though, is the one of not entering the mosque when menstruating. well, more precisely, the restriction is to not sit at the place of prayer, so if there are parts of the mosque that aren't used for prayer, they are fine. most muslim women will abide by this restriction without a problem, mostly because they aren't praying at that time so there's no point going to the mosque anyway. i'll go if there's a public lecture, but sit in the foyer which is just as comfortable as inside the prayer area.
it becomes an issue when we want to have mosque open days though. we've had many debates about that in nz, because the conservatives will be all like "how can you let non-muslim women come through the mosque, they might have their period and we certainly can't police it in anyway". luckily, the majority of mosques have taken a much more liberal line & open the mosque to everyone.
so that's us. hinduism has more severe restrictions. since i don't know so much about it, i'm going to quote from a comment put up on AEN by dr sapna:
I come from a culture with similar beliefs. I have cousins back in India who are not allowed to live in their own house when they menstruate. That means they cannot go into the kitchen or the bathroom or do regular normal things. This is because they are 'impure'. What started out as a social concept-that menstruating women in the old days needed to rest from their daily hard routines (in the days when household chores were difficult and most women were anaemic, they never got to rest, this was a good excuse to make them take time out). However as is the case, explaining such things to a largely illiterate and superstitious population is hard. So it is intertwined with some spirituality and some superstition. But then such attitudes are hard to wipe away. Confronted by colonisation and Westernisation, such 'traditions' resist change. They become deeply embedded in cultures and then in the name of political correctness, acceptable. Never mind if it is degrading to women and very patriarchal.
As a doctor back in India I have prescribed hormones to women who wish to postpone their periods in order to fit in religious festivals, including fasting during Ramadan and the Jain festival of Paryushan.(Although the Koran is very specific about menstruating and lactating women going on a fast. The Jain scriptures must be too.) As a woman I have been told not to go into temples when I menstruate and places that are taboo for me.
How does this fit into our lives in this current world? Indian women resist such social attitudes now. They work, they are independent, they live in nuclear families. Many even go to temples.
she thinks such practices can and should be challenged from women living within the culture/faith tradition.
i can't say i know anything much about the christian tradition. i only recall reading a verse of the bible when i was young, which seemed to imply that menstruation and labour pains were a curse on all women, in punishment for eve causing the whole fall from grace thing. i'm sure others will correct me if i'm wrong about this, and if there are any other traditions or restrictions around menstruation.
i found something about jewish restrictions at wikipedia. here's an article that goes the menstrual taboos among major religions, and who knew that there is even a museum of menstruation. woohoo!!
there is the one thing that seems to be common amongst all cultural and religious traditions when it comes to periods: that it is hidden from the public discourse, that it is hidden from the private sphere as well. other than their husbands, most women will not reveal in public that they have their periods. they'll be happy enough to mention to other women (though not always, in parts of the world even that seems to be a no-no). but no way will they mention it in a mixed gathering.
i accept that it is a personal event for most women, and i'm not saying that it's something we should have to share. but wouldn't it be nice if we could share it without having to feel embarassed? wouldn't it be nice if you could casually mention at your workplace or any social setting that you had your period, and it would be no big deal? well, i may be the only one, but i think that would be a great state of affairs.
i hate how issues of menstruation and childbirth have been treated as "women's issues", which men are supposed to keep well clear of and know nothing about. yes, that is changing somewhat, especially because of the advertising industry and the greater tendency of fathers to be present at the birth of their kids. but there's still a lot of cultural baggage there. it would be nice if the functioning of women's bodies could be treated as a normal, natural & openly-discussed thing.
*ETA: as maia points out in comments, this title is exclusionary, and my apologies for that. i took it from the alice cooper song, which is actually about domestic violence but has a double entendre that i thought fit the topic at hand. obviously i didn't think it about it enough.
**ETA2: i thought i'd put this comment into the post as well as in comments, as it pertinent to my understanding of the restrictions:
I liked your post about this, but I don't think you should make a blanket statement that women are not allowed to touch the Quran during menstruation. This isn't a universal position - many scholars say that there is no problem with touching the Quran while menstruating, while even the most conservative on this point make exceptions for women who are teaching or studying the Quran.
Similar disagreements exist in relation to women being in the masjid while menstruating - it's not a universally accepted restriction.
i'll start with the traditions i know best: my own. for muslim women, periods are a time when we are excused from worship. so we don't have to pray or fast - the latter being sensible for me at least, cos i'm anaemic & really couldn't cope with fasting at the time we have our period. i guess that these 2 restrictions aren't seen as a kind of relief from our point of view, so i've not really heard any muslim women complain about them.
there are a few others though. one is that we shouldn't touch the qur'an. this is one where people have developed "fixes" for, so that i have heard one scholar say that women should read a qur'an with translation when they have their periods. this is on the basis that the words that aren't the actual arabic of the qur'an are greater portion of the book, so it's all ok. another that i've heard is the expedient of touching the qur'an while wearing gloves or using a cloth**. i find this interesting in terms of the way people want to get around the restriction, but don't want to challenge it.
another is that we don't have intercourse when we have our periods. i can't say i've ever heard anyone complaining about that one, and my own personal reaction is basically "yucky, why would you want to?"
the most contentious restriction, though, is the one of not entering the mosque when menstruating. well, more precisely, the restriction is to not sit at the place of prayer, so if there are parts of the mosque that aren't used for prayer, they are fine. most muslim women will abide by this restriction without a problem, mostly because they aren't praying at that time so there's no point going to the mosque anyway. i'll go if there's a public lecture, but sit in the foyer which is just as comfortable as inside the prayer area.
it becomes an issue when we want to have mosque open days though. we've had many debates about that in nz, because the conservatives will be all like "how can you let non-muslim women come through the mosque, they might have their period and we certainly can't police it in anyway". luckily, the majority of mosques have taken a much more liberal line & open the mosque to everyone.
so that's us. hinduism has more severe restrictions. since i don't know so much about it, i'm going to quote from a comment put up on AEN by dr sapna:
I come from a culture with similar beliefs. I have cousins back in India who are not allowed to live in their own house when they menstruate. That means they cannot go into the kitchen or the bathroom or do regular normal things. This is because they are 'impure'. What started out as a social concept-that menstruating women in the old days needed to rest from their daily hard routines (in the days when household chores were difficult and most women were anaemic, they never got to rest, this was a good excuse to make them take time out). However as is the case, explaining such things to a largely illiterate and superstitious population is hard. So it is intertwined with some spirituality and some superstition. But then such attitudes are hard to wipe away. Confronted by colonisation and Westernisation, such 'traditions' resist change. They become deeply embedded in cultures and then in the name of political correctness, acceptable. Never mind if it is degrading to women and very patriarchal.
As a doctor back in India I have prescribed hormones to women who wish to postpone their periods in order to fit in religious festivals, including fasting during Ramadan and the Jain festival of Paryushan.(Although the Koran is very specific about menstruating and lactating women going on a fast. The Jain scriptures must be too.) As a woman I have been told not to go into temples when I menstruate and places that are taboo for me.
How does this fit into our lives in this current world? Indian women resist such social attitudes now. They work, they are independent, they live in nuclear families. Many even go to temples.
she thinks such practices can and should be challenged from women living within the culture/faith tradition.
i can't say i know anything much about the christian tradition. i only recall reading a verse of the bible when i was young, which seemed to imply that menstruation and labour pains were a curse on all women, in punishment for eve causing the whole fall from grace thing. i'm sure others will correct me if i'm wrong about this, and if there are any other traditions or restrictions around menstruation.
i found something about jewish restrictions at wikipedia. here's an article that goes the menstrual taboos among major religions, and who knew that there is even a museum of menstruation. woohoo!!
there is the one thing that seems to be common amongst all cultural and religious traditions when it comes to periods: that it is hidden from the public discourse, that it is hidden from the private sphere as well. other than their husbands, most women will not reveal in public that they have their periods. they'll be happy enough to mention to other women (though not always, in parts of the world even that seems to be a no-no). but no way will they mention it in a mixed gathering.
i accept that it is a personal event for most women, and i'm not saying that it's something we should have to share. but wouldn't it be nice if we could share it without having to feel embarassed? wouldn't it be nice if you could casually mention at your workplace or any social setting that you had your period, and it would be no big deal? well, i may be the only one, but i think that would be a great state of affairs.
i hate how issues of menstruation and childbirth have been treated as "women's issues", which men are supposed to keep well clear of and know nothing about. yes, that is changing somewhat, especially because of the advertising industry and the greater tendency of fathers to be present at the birth of their kids. but there's still a lot of cultural baggage there. it would be nice if the functioning of women's bodies could be treated as a normal, natural & openly-discussed thing.
*ETA: as maia points out in comments, this title is exclusionary, and my apologies for that. i took it from the alice cooper song, which is actually about domestic violence but has a double entendre that i thought fit the topic at hand. obviously i didn't think it about it enough.
**ETA2: i thought i'd put this comment into the post as well as in comments, as it pertinent to my understanding of the restrictions:
I liked your post about this, but I don't think you should make a blanket statement that women are not allowed to touch the Quran during menstruation. This isn't a universal position - many scholars say that there is no problem with touching the Quran while menstruating, while even the most conservative on this point make exceptions for women who are teaching or studying the Quran.
Similar disagreements exist in relation to women being in the masjid while menstruating - it's not a universally accepted restriction.
Thursday, 14 October 2010
Feminist Event: Dress for Success fundraiser in Welly tonight!
Apologies for the late notice, for some reason I overlooked the email until this morning, I hope this boosts ticket sales a bit!
Update: SORRY FOLKS, JUST HEARD IT'S ALREADY SOLD OUT!
For more info: Call Dress for Success Wellington at 04 473 2940 for further details.
Message from the organisers:
Update: SORRY FOLKS, JUST HEARD IT'S ALREADY SOLD OUT!
What: Eat Pray Love screening at Penthouse Cinema Brooklyn
When: Thursday October 14 at 5.30pm
Tickets: $20 include one glass of wine or bubbles and light snacks. Tickets available at Dress for Success Wellington office or p://www.dashtickets.co.nz/event/251 For more info: Call Dress for Success Wellington at 04 473 2940 for further details.
Message from the organisers:
Dress for Success Wellington is a registered not-for-profit organisation that supports women in their goal to become employed by providing them with work appropriate clothing for no cost and on a more intangible level giving women confidence in themselves to succeed with this ambition and other goals they have in their life.
Guestie: Grieving a child - a new resource for families experiencing loss
Many thanks to regular commenter, and relatively new blogger, Scuba Nurse for sharing this. Cross-posted from her blog, Well behaved women rarely make history.
Note: the base details of this write up were taken from the details of an interview with the Bay of Plenty Times.
I want to thank Liz, primarily for writing this incredible book, and also for allowing me to write this, I hope this will help market the book and allow the community to know about this new resource.
Please pass the word around. As activists in various different women’s interest
groups we are ideally set to pass the word around.
************************************************************************
It is not often that a book comes out, and I want to;
A) Get it NOW
B) Buy multiple copies for my friends.
Recently I got a wee note from a friend of mine who wanted to let people know that his sister has written a book.
*sigh*
The number of books I have read because I know the author, and then wished I had that couple of hours back...
This is different.
For a start it is a book written to help families cope with bereavement and the process of a stillbirth.
Liz Tamblyn has self-published 300 copies. She hopes the book will be a valuable tool for people working with children dealing with grief .
Secondly Liz is the author and it is written in first person perspective, but
not hers...
The book is called Baby Sam and is in the voice of Baby Sam’s big brother Jack, who was 4 when Sam was stillborn.
Liz wrote the story soon after Sam's death four years ago.
"A lot of it is Jack's words. I read it to him seven or eight times and he corrected the bits I got wrong."
There are not too many times in your life you remember minute to minute. The day you realise your child is gone is one of those moments.
Sam was six days overdue when a check-up discovered that he had died. Liz had felt him moving just the day before.
She knew about stillbirth through her cousin’s experience 14 years before her, and what she had seen in the media, but nothing can prepare you for this.
What Liz’s book does help with is the process after. Grief, the experience of mourning as a family unit and the ways of remembering a child lost.
“The book tells how the family celebrated Sam's life with a special dance at his funeral and by releasing red balloons. Jack and his younger sister Sally received presents from Sam and had a birthday cake with a train on it to mark his birthday.”
This really hit home for me; we celebrated my friend’s son’s 18th birthday a few years back though he died quite soon after his 4th. The first birthdays were filled with the weight of grief, raw and unhealed. In contrast his 18th Birthday was a picnic on the grass; we each laid flowers on his grave and had our own private moments with him before joining the group for what was definitely a celebration. A celebration of his life and his family’s since his loss.
No one grieves the same way, or uses the same coping mechanisms, and so any resource to help support a child through a healthy and natural process of loss is highly relevant.
The BOP times reported that this is the only book on baby loss from the sibling’s perspective, which Liz has kindly let me know is incorrect.
In her words...
“There is another book put out by Skylight NZ, SIDS Wellington and Sands Wellington called "What Happened to Baby" (Which I highly recommend!). It is generic and could be any baby, for any reason at any age or gestation. The text has been carefully designed to fit a wide range of bereavement situations, including miscarriage, stillbirth, cot death and accidental or natural deaths of an infant or toddler. Ours is the only TRUE and PERSONAL story I have found on the subject.”
Liz who is also mum to Harry and Sally, found writing the book was extremely healing and therapeutic.
"It's almost like his life has left a legacy of helping other people through their grief. It's like a new purpose in my life, which I would never have had. I'd rather have him if I had the choice but I have to find the good things."
Mrs Tamblyn is a committee member for Sands, a support group for “families grieving the loss of a baby no matter the gestation or age or reason for death. (Not just stillbirth and newborn death).”
The book was officially launched at a private function in Tauranga last week. Visit www.skylight.org.nz for more info.
Note: the base details of this write up were taken from the details of an interview with the Bay of Plenty Times.
I want to thank Liz, primarily for writing this incredible book, and also for allowing me to write this, I hope this will help market the book and allow the community to know about this new resource.
Please pass the word around. As activists in various different women’s interest
groups we are ideally set to pass the word around.
************************************************************************
It is not often that a book comes out, and I want to;
A) Get it NOW
B) Buy multiple copies for my friends.
Recently I got a wee note from a friend of mine who wanted to let people know that his sister has written a book.
*sigh*
The number of books I have read because I know the author, and then wished I had that couple of hours back...
This is different.
For a start it is a book written to help families cope with bereavement and the process of a stillbirth.
Liz Tamblyn has self-published 300 copies. She hopes the book will be a valuable tool for people working with children dealing with grief .
Secondly Liz is the author and it is written in first person perspective, but
not hers...
The book is called Baby Sam and is in the voice of Baby Sam’s big brother Jack, who was 4 when Sam was stillborn.
Liz wrote the story soon after Sam's death four years ago.
"A lot of it is Jack's words. I read it to him seven or eight times and he corrected the bits I got wrong."
There are not too many times in your life you remember minute to minute. The day you realise your child is gone is one of those moments.
Sam was six days overdue when a check-up discovered that he had died. Liz had felt him moving just the day before.
She knew about stillbirth through her cousin’s experience 14 years before her, and what she had seen in the media, but nothing can prepare you for this.
What Liz’s book does help with is the process after. Grief, the experience of mourning as a family unit and the ways of remembering a child lost.
“The book tells how the family celebrated Sam's life with a special dance at his funeral and by releasing red balloons. Jack and his younger sister Sally received presents from Sam and had a birthday cake with a train on it to mark his birthday.”
This really hit home for me; we celebrated my friend’s son’s 18th birthday a few years back though he died quite soon after his 4th. The first birthdays were filled with the weight of grief, raw and unhealed. In contrast his 18th Birthday was a picnic on the grass; we each laid flowers on his grave and had our own private moments with him before joining the group for what was definitely a celebration. A celebration of his life and his family’s since his loss.
No one grieves the same way, or uses the same coping mechanisms, and so any resource to help support a child through a healthy and natural process of loss is highly relevant.
The BOP times reported that this is the only book on baby loss from the sibling’s perspective, which Liz has kindly let me know is incorrect.
In her words...
“There is another book put out by Skylight NZ, SIDS Wellington and Sands Wellington called "What Happened to Baby" (Which I highly recommend!). It is generic and could be any baby, for any reason at any age or gestation. The text has been carefully designed to fit a wide range of bereavement situations, including miscarriage, stillbirth, cot death and accidental or natural deaths of an infant or toddler. Ours is the only TRUE and PERSONAL story I have found on the subject.”
Liz who is also mum to Harry and Sally, found writing the book was extremely healing and therapeutic.
"It's almost like his life has left a legacy of helping other people through their grief. It's like a new purpose in my life, which I would never have had. I'd rather have him if I had the choice but I have to find the good things."
Mrs Tamblyn is a committee member for Sands, a support group for “families grieving the loss of a baby no matter the gestation or age or reason for death. (Not just stillbirth and newborn death).”
The book was officially launched at a private function in Tauranga last week. Visit www.skylight.org.nz for more info.
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
save gender & women's studies at vic
just received this notice that women in wellington may be interested in:
THE FIGHT IS ON AGAIN!
The GWS working party has just released a consultation document saying they want to cut the GWS programme! For more information and to download the consultation document, check the VUWSA website.
Just like last time "consultation" is a sham. It doesn't matter how good a submission is written. They handpick a group of people with the conclusion already agreed on. The only way to stop this is a public campaign to force the University to back down.
VUWSA will be holding a meeting on Monday 18th October at 10am in Meeting Room 1, Student Union Building, Kelburn Campus to meet with students who are interested in the proposed changes, to talk about a student stance and a plan of attack.
For anymore information and if you are interested in joining a campaign committee please email the VUWSA Education Organiser, Fiona Beals, at eo@vuwsa.org.nz
THE FIGHT IS ON AGAIN!
The GWS working party has just released a consultation document saying they want to cut the GWS programme! For more information and to download the consultation document, check the VUWSA website.
Just like last time "consultation" is a sham. It doesn't matter how good a submission is written. They handpick a group of people with the conclusion already agreed on. The only way to stop this is a public campaign to force the University to back down.
VUWSA will be holding a meeting on Monday 18th October at 10am in Meeting Room 1, Student Union Building, Kelburn Campus to meet with students who are interested in the proposed changes, to talk about a student stance and a plan of attack.
For anymore information and if you are interested in joining a campaign committee please email the VUWSA Education Organiser, Fiona Beals, at eo@vuwsa.org.nz
A link to someone who knows more than me
So I'm not going to comment on the media beat-up around Te Papa's policies. But I did want to post link to Lynn Pope's blog post about the event. Unlike most of the rest of the blogsphere, she has actual knowledge and information about it, as she has been on the tour that was referenced:
You can read more here
(hat-tip kiwipolitico
My own reaction to reading these divisive stories today was, "Give my iwi the taonga that was stolen from them. Do not let their mana be destroyed by inappropriate acts". Simpy put - if Te Papa wishes to retain the confidence of iwi who have entrusted their taonga to them (willingly or otherwise) the museum needs to act appropriately.
The requirement to make people aware that "wahine who are either hapu (pregnant) or mate wahine (menstruating)" should stay away from the Taonga Māori collection is not new - it's been there since Te Papa received that collection. Many years ago, as part of a group of local government officials, I viewed part of this collection. We were asked to consider staying outside, in the public area, if we were hapu or mate wahine. One woman did and - get this - did not object. She was also given a business card and invited to contact the museum staff at a later date should she wish to view then.
You can read more here
(hat-tip kiwipolitico
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
negotiating a way forward
so i've been avoiding the discussion here regarding the whole te papa issue - well, not so much avoiding it as not engaging in it. the discussion has been pretty hostile in places, with some good stuff in amongst it.
i have been taking part in some really useful discussions on facebook, as well as watching another discussion thread that had the heavy involvement of maori women and men. the latter i found really useful, because i was interested to learn about how maori see these issues, and where the debate is at with them.
i'm not sure yet what i feel about it all. i can understand the need to have debate when there's an element of exclusion being applied to people who don't share a particular set of beliefs - though i'm not entirely sure that's what is happening here. i think also that there is the natural conflict that arises when the values of two cultures are incompatible and one will have to give way to the other. i can certainly understand the frustration of a minority culture who have been the ones to give way for any number of decades, and have only recently been able to assert their own positions in any meaningful way.
on facebook, i gave a couple of examples where i've had to face what i can only describe as a clash of cultures. one was the example of having to hongi with males when on the marae, which was a situation i had to face back in waitangi day 2006. it's something i don't feel comfortable with, because of my own personal beliefs. on the other hand, i don't want to be disrespectful of the traditions of the people and the place where i am.
another experience was at a fiji day celebration in manukau back in 2008. they were having some kind of kava cermony (apologies for my ignorance of the proper wording). there i was, sitting right up the front, and desperately hoping that i wouldn't be offered any. given that it causes drunkenness when taken in large quantities, it comes into the category of alcohol & drugs ie a no-no for me. luckily they didn't offer me any, but i just don't know how i could have responded without giving offence if they had.
i can give lots more examples. there are times when compromise is difficult, and other times when it just isn't a good idea. when basic values of justice and equity collide with practices that seem to be grossly unfair, someone does need to take a stand.
is this one of those times? i'm still not ready to answer that question. the debate i saw amongst maori was quite varied. many were ready to move on from this practice, there were others who valued it. some of the differences in opinion were as a result of being from different iwi.
there's been a lot in the comments here about the reasoning behind the practice, some of it being summarily dismissed. others have interpreted the practice from the lense of their own cultural history, which has treated menstruation as something unclean, and have refused to accept an alternative explanation when presented with it. but the biggest problem by far is the notion that one groups cultural practice may be used to impinge on the freedoms of others outside the group.
it reminds me of the case some years back of the woman working at MSD who refused to sit at the back during a powhiri because she felt it was against her personal beliefs. there was a lot of noise around that issue, and i remember she ended up losing her job, though that was because of her going to the media without her employer's position. it's a similar issue though, and there needs to be a way to negotiate through these cultural clashes in a manner that is better than what we are seeing so far.
like one of the maori women suggesting a solution to my problem with the hongi. she first asked me what i would feel comfortable with. i said i could cope with a handshake, because it didn't involve the same degree of personal closeness. her reply:
If it was me in that situation, I would compose a short sentence to use as I approached each person. For example, "I am sorry I cannot hongi you due to my culture, but please accept my greetings" and offer your hand. Sometimes we need to be educated in the ways of other cultures too.
i thought that was a lovely solution, and a offered with an attitude of respect for my dilemma. i think it's possible to negotiate solutions and have people move forward if we could only approach these issues with a feeling of goodwill. there seems to have been too little of that today, and not just today but every time a similar situation comes up. often, movement happens best in incremental steps. pushing too hard just results in people pushing back.
i have been taking part in some really useful discussions on facebook, as well as watching another discussion thread that had the heavy involvement of maori women and men. the latter i found really useful, because i was interested to learn about how maori see these issues, and where the debate is at with them.
i'm not sure yet what i feel about it all. i can understand the need to have debate when there's an element of exclusion being applied to people who don't share a particular set of beliefs - though i'm not entirely sure that's what is happening here. i think also that there is the natural conflict that arises when the values of two cultures are incompatible and one will have to give way to the other. i can certainly understand the frustration of a minority culture who have been the ones to give way for any number of decades, and have only recently been able to assert their own positions in any meaningful way.
on facebook, i gave a couple of examples where i've had to face what i can only describe as a clash of cultures. one was the example of having to hongi with males when on the marae, which was a situation i had to face back in waitangi day 2006. it's something i don't feel comfortable with, because of my own personal beliefs. on the other hand, i don't want to be disrespectful of the traditions of the people and the place where i am.
another experience was at a fiji day celebration in manukau back in 2008. they were having some kind of kava cermony (apologies for my ignorance of the proper wording). there i was, sitting right up the front, and desperately hoping that i wouldn't be offered any. given that it causes drunkenness when taken in large quantities, it comes into the category of alcohol & drugs ie a no-no for me. luckily they didn't offer me any, but i just don't know how i could have responded without giving offence if they had.
i can give lots more examples. there are times when compromise is difficult, and other times when it just isn't a good idea. when basic values of justice and equity collide with practices that seem to be grossly unfair, someone does need to take a stand.
is this one of those times? i'm still not ready to answer that question. the debate i saw amongst maori was quite varied. many were ready to move on from this practice, there were others who valued it. some of the differences in opinion were as a result of being from different iwi.
there's been a lot in the comments here about the reasoning behind the practice, some of it being summarily dismissed. others have interpreted the practice from the lense of their own cultural history, which has treated menstruation as something unclean, and have refused to accept an alternative explanation when presented with it. but the biggest problem by far is the notion that one groups cultural practice may be used to impinge on the freedoms of others outside the group.
it reminds me of the case some years back of the woman working at MSD who refused to sit at the back during a powhiri because she felt it was against her personal beliefs. there was a lot of noise around that issue, and i remember she ended up losing her job, though that was because of her going to the media without her employer's position. it's a similar issue though, and there needs to be a way to negotiate through these cultural clashes in a manner that is better than what we are seeing so far.
like one of the maori women suggesting a solution to my problem with the hongi. she first asked me what i would feel comfortable with. i said i could cope with a handshake, because it didn't involve the same degree of personal closeness. her reply:
If it was me in that situation, I would compose a short sentence to use as I approached each person. For example, "I am sorry I cannot hongi you due to my culture, but please accept my greetings" and offer your hand. Sometimes we need to be educated in the ways of other cultures too.
i thought that was a lovely solution, and a offered with an attitude of respect for my dilemma. i think it's possible to negotiate solutions and have people move forward if we could only approach these issues with a feeling of goodwill. there seems to have been too little of that today, and not just today but every time a similar situation comes up. often, movement happens best in incremental steps. pushing too hard just results in people pushing back.
Tricky balancing act ahead
I've got a slightly different take on the Te Papa exhibition issue from Deborah.
I want to start by noting how unclear the media articles from The Herald and Stuff are, for example one says it is about protecting the women concerned and the other about protecting the taonga. It could of course be both. I'd really value an article that explored that aspect more, because it hasn't been explained very well to date. Sadly this is often my observation of reporting on matters of tikanga.
It's also worth considering that the Angry Feminists Are Angry Grrrr! angle has been sought by the media. I don't recall seeing any feminist bloggers writing about this issue at all, prior to media contact seeking quotes from said feminist bloggers. Make of that what you will.
But back to the issue at hand.
Te Papa seems to be caught in a bit of a catch 22. On one hand they have been leant some taonga to exhibit which have come caveats around exhibition which they have agreed to respect. On the other hand, as both Deborah and Boganette point out, Te Papa is a state institution, and no state institution should be restricting access based on reproductive status.
It would seem to me there might be a way to perhaps try to meet both needs. When I went to the Pompeii exhibition they had on display those scary ash casts - people, and a dog, who had died in the eruption of Mt Vesuvius and their remains effectively preserved by the ash that fell on the town. This portion of the exhibition was slightly separated from the rest. Signs were up, warning of the presence of human remains in that part of the exhibition, and iirc there were warnings on the ticket or maybe when you came in. There was also a bowl for washing your hands of the tapu afterwards. It did sound from the email like there were four parts to the exhibition and only one of them had taonga in it?
Couldn't Te Papa consider something similar for this? I don't know if that is realistic, because I don't have enough understanding of the tikanga. I'd appreciate comments that would help me with that.
My partner challenged me to think about how I would feel about this situation if it was conservative white men who were insisting on this rather than Maori. And he's right - as Deborah says, it should be a case of either not restricting access for certain people, or removing the problematic taonga from exhibition, or not doing the exhibition at all.
But if some kind of compromise can be reached then that seems to me ideal - respect for everyone, rather than having to choose.
---
Apologies for any typos and for the lack of links, I am writing this from somewhere I can't do those (iPod), but hope to be able to come back and edit. I also can't write comments from the iPod, at all.
I want to start by noting how unclear the media articles from The Herald and Stuff are, for example one says it is about protecting the women concerned and the other about protecting the taonga. It could of course be both. I'd really value an article that explored that aspect more, because it hasn't been explained very well to date. Sadly this is often my observation of reporting on matters of tikanga.
It's also worth considering that the Angry Feminists Are Angry Grrrr! angle has been sought by the media. I don't recall seeing any feminist bloggers writing about this issue at all, prior to media contact seeking quotes from said feminist bloggers. Make of that what you will.
But back to the issue at hand.
Te Papa seems to be caught in a bit of a catch 22. On one hand they have been leant some taonga to exhibit which have come caveats around exhibition which they have agreed to respect. On the other hand, as both Deborah and Boganette point out, Te Papa is a state institution, and no state institution should be restricting access based on reproductive status.
It would seem to me there might be a way to perhaps try to meet both needs. When I went to the Pompeii exhibition they had on display those scary ash casts - people, and a dog, who had died in the eruption of Mt Vesuvius and their remains effectively preserved by the ash that fell on the town. This portion of the exhibition was slightly separated from the rest. Signs were up, warning of the presence of human remains in that part of the exhibition, and iirc there were warnings on the ticket or maybe when you came in. There was also a bowl for washing your hands of the tapu afterwards. It did sound from the email like there were four parts to the exhibition and only one of them had taonga in it?
Couldn't Te Papa consider something similar for this? I don't know if that is realistic, because I don't have enough understanding of the tikanga. I'd appreciate comments that would help me with that.
My partner challenged me to think about how I would feel about this situation if it was conservative white men who were insisting on this rather than Maori. And he's right - as Deborah says, it should be a case of either not restricting access for certain people, or removing the problematic taonga from exhibition, or not doing the exhibition at all.
But if some kind of compromise can be reached then that seems to me ideal - respect for everyone, rather than having to choose.
---
Apologies for any typos and for the lack of links, I am writing this from somewhere I can't do those (iPod), but hope to be able to come back and edit. I also can't write comments from the iPod, at all.
On the inconvenience of periods and pregnancy
Cross posted
The New Zealand Herald contacted me yesterday, wanting a comment on this invitation being sent out by Te Papa (the New Zealand national museum).
(I've edited the layout and fonts and so on, to fit on the screen, and the emphasis is mine.)
The Herald reporter suggested that I might have something to say about the practice of excluding menstruating and pregnant women being sexist and archaic. However, I didn't. I sent back these three quotes.
The story appeared in the New Zealand Herald this morning:
Anger at Te Papa ban on pregnant women
It's interesting to see which of my quotes was used in the story, and how it was used.
Stuff also has a story about the invitation. They contacted Boganette for comment.
Pregnant women warned off Te Papa tour
A reminder: we are individuals at The Hand Mirror, not a monolith. The views above are very much MY opinions, not views of The Hand Mirror.
The New Zealand Herald contacted me yesterday, wanting a comment on this invitation being sent out by Te Papa (the New Zealand national museum).
Te Papa storeroom tours
A behind the scenes tour of Te Papa's collection stores and collection management systems
Te Papa, 10:30am- 2:30pm, Friday 5th November 2010
Places are limited to 7 people
A chance for Local regional museums to visit various Te Papa store rooms and meet the collection managers of:
- The Taonga Māori collection - Lisa Ward, Moana Parata, Noel Osborne
- Photography and new media - Anita Hogan
- Works on paper - Tony Mackle
- Textiles - Tania Walters
Conditions of the tour:
* No photographs are to be taken of the taonga, however some images can be made available.
* There is to be no kai (food or drink) taken into the collection rooms.
* Wahine who are either hapü (pregnant) or mate wähine (menstruating) are welcome to visit at another time that is convenient for them.
* We start our visits with karakia and invite our manuhiri to participate.
Who is it for?
- This tour is for representatives from small museums, art galleries, heritage organisations, the arts and cultural sector or iwi organisations.
(I've edited the layout and fonts and so on, to fit on the screen, and the emphasis is mine.)
The Herald reporter suggested that I might have something to say about the practice of excluding menstruating and pregnant women being sexist and archaic. However, I didn't. I sent back these three quotes.
It's fair enough to respect cultural protocols, but maybe Te Papa could say that, instead of their mealy-mouthed request for pregnant and menstruating women to come back at a time that "is convenient for them." I'm perfectly able to function when I've got my period or when I'm pregnant. It's far more inconvenient to have to make special arrangements to come back at another time.
I don't understand why a secular institution, funded by public money in a secular state, is imposing religious and cultural values on people. It's fair enough for people to engage in their own cultural practices where those practices don't harm others, but the state shouldn't be imposing those practices on other people.
It's up to Maori to work out if and how and when cultural practices should change for Maori, within the traditional freedoms of liberal democracies. If it is important to Maori people that pregnant and menstruating women aren't included in the tour, then maybe the tour shouldn't take place at all.
The story appeared in the New Zealand Herald this morning:
Anger at Te Papa ban on pregnant women
It's interesting to see which of my quotes was used in the story, and how it was used.
Stuff also has a story about the invitation. They contacted Boganette for comment.
Pregnant women warned off Te Papa tour
A reminder: we are individuals at The Hand Mirror, not a monolith. The views above are very much MY opinions, not views of The Hand Mirror.
Monday, 11 October 2010
29th down under feminists carnival
we've been a bit slack in not linking to the down under feminist carnival, but let me rectify that today. it's a great carnival, up at bluebec's place. lots of links to the hand mirror included, for which thanx to bluebec (& to deborah i suspect).hope you'll take the time to have a read.
Guestie: Supercity Gender Mashup
Many thanks to Gina for this timely contribution and for all the effort calculating stuff. Apologies if I screw any of it up, first time trying to post via an iPod app...
---
Ok- so this post is going to be a little Auckland-centric, although I would love some gender analysis from other parts of the country. It's good to learn how New Zealand women are doing at getting elected to our councils, community boards, and DHBs.
We have a male Mayor in Len (which is a fantastic result). It will be very interesting to see who he selects as Deputy Mayor. It has been my impression that when the Mayor is of one sex or the other they often select the opposite as their deputy. I am hoping for a female deputy mayor. Penny Webster, Penny Hulse, and Ann Hartley, could all be contenders. I suppose Len could go for Ann or Penny Webster to unite the North with the South, but I think it's more likely Len will reward the West and go for the experienced Deputy Mayor in Penny Hulse. The next few weeks/months are going to be very interesting.
We have 8/20 women as councillors- that's 40%, and on preliminary results I got 61 women out of 149 local board members which is almost 41%. I haven't done the percentages on DHBs but the count is 5/7 for ADHB, 3/7 for WDHB, and 2/7 for Counties Manakau DHB.
The numbers are better than what I thought they might be, but I do get concerned that 40% seems to be the ceiling for women when it comes to governance. There's a heap more analysis to do. Like- North/South/East/West which I might try tomorrow, and how many ethnic/asian/pacific candidates were selected. AND- just on the face of it- a serious lack of Maori representation.
My question- where to from here to get to 50/50?
Gina
---
Ok- so this post is going to be a little Auckland-centric, although I would love some gender analysis from other parts of the country. It's good to learn how New Zealand women are doing at getting elected to our councils, community boards, and DHBs.
We have a male Mayor in Len (which is a fantastic result). It will be very interesting to see who he selects as Deputy Mayor. It has been my impression that when the Mayor is of one sex or the other they often select the opposite as their deputy. I am hoping for a female deputy mayor. Penny Webster, Penny Hulse, and Ann Hartley, could all be contenders. I suppose Len could go for Ann or Penny Webster to unite the North with the South, but I think it's more likely Len will reward the West and go for the experienced Deputy Mayor in Penny Hulse. The next few weeks/months are going to be very interesting.
We have 8/20 women as councillors- that's 40%, and on preliminary results I got 61 women out of 149 local board members which is almost 41%. I haven't done the percentages on DHBs but the count is 5/7 for ADHB, 3/7 for WDHB, and 2/7 for Counties Manakau DHB.
The numbers are better than what I thought they might be, but I do get concerned that 40% seems to be the ceiling for women when it comes to governance. There's a heap more analysis to do. Like- North/South/East/West which I might try tomorrow, and how many ethnic/asian/pacific candidates were selected. AND- just on the face of it- a serious lack of Maori representation.
My question- where to from here to get to 50/50?
Gina
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)