Books and boys: policing masculinity

"Study shows boys and books don't mix", said the Dom-Post headline on Saturday. "Boys think reading books is for girls..."
           In fact the study, by teacher Sheryl Wright, showed nothing of the kind. What it did show was that Year 7 boys (aged around 11) had two different opinions of reading books, depending on whether they were talking to the researcher by themselves or in a group of boys.
          "The minute I got them into the group they started the subtle put-downs...It was all 'that's a girl's book' or 'you're a girl', whereas while they were talking one-on-one they were happy to say they read books."
           This fits perfectly with what a major NZ study of gender and education found. To lift boys' achievement, we have to tackle the way "reading books", and study in general, is cast as "for girls", and the way boys endlessly police each other to hold the line. (When they're older they don't just say it's for girls, they say it's "gay" - an even worse slur on the masculinity of any boy seen to be flouting the rules.)
            Wright says, too, that having a male in the house reading for pleasure is "incredibly powerful for boys", and that if you can find a series they like - such as Harry Potter - you've got them hooked.
            I find it fascinating that after so many years of seeing girls as just naturally deficient in various ways (to explain why they did less well than boys in education), followed by working out how sexism was holding girls back, we're now having to understand how sexism holds boys back too.
           

Friday Feminist - Elaine Morgan

Cross posted

According to the Book of Genesis, God first created man. Woman was not only an afterthought, but an amenity. For close on two thousand years this holy scripture was believed to justify her subordination and explain her inferiority; for even as a copy she was not a very good copy. There were differences. She was not one of His best efforts.

There is a line in an old folk song that runs: 'I called my donkey a horse gone wonky.' Throughout most of the literature dealing with the differences between the sexes there runs a subtle underlying assumption that woman is a man gone wonky; that woman is a distorted version of the original blueprint; that they are the norm and we are the deviation.

It might have been expected that when Darwin came along and wrote an entirely different account of the Descent of Man, this assumption would have been eradicated, for Darwin didn't believe she was an afterthought: he believed her origin was at least contemporaneous with man's. It should have led to some kind of breakthrough in the relationship between the sexes. But it didn't.

Almost at once men set about the congenial and fascinating task of working out an entirely new set of reasons why woman was manifestly inferior and irreversibly subordinate, and they have been happily engaged on this ever since. Instead of theology they use biology, and ethology, and primatology, but they use it to reach the same conclusions.

Elaine Morgan, The Descent of Woman, 1972

rest in peace

so i'm going to try to do a post about the pike river tragedy, not sure that there is much to say other than some random thoughts. of course, my condolences to the families of those who have died, and to the wider community who are now suffering directly or indirectly from these events. thoughts also for the rescue workers and the whole rescue & response teams from all agencies. what a terrible end to a very difficult week for them.

there are plenty of questions to be asked, and i hope they do get asked and answered. there are going to be a number of inquiries, it appears. i think of all those people over the years who have complained about occupational safety & health procedures, the sorts that complain about it all being too bureaucratic, about how we're now so averse to taking risk, about how silly it all is to have to follow these many mundane procedures, what a wasteful cost it is to business. i was involved in writing a manual which was sold to clients to inform them of their legal requirements, back in the 1990s, and i've heard all of these types of complaints from back then. how i hope those people will shut up now. actually they should have shut up a long time ago, because we already lose far too many people in workplace accidents.

how difficult it must have been to break the news to the families of the miners, and then to have to front up to the international media & break the news to a worldwide audience. i'm hoping that superintendent knowles and peter whittall both have strong support around them right now.

i wrote on my own blog a couple of days ago about how frustrating i've been finding the tv coverage of this, and it was equally frustrating today. and yet, it must also be pretty tough to be the one who has to read out the terrible news, and ask the questions, while keeping a lid on your own feelings of grief. many of these reporters, having spent the week on the west coast, will have developed a strong sense of affinity to the community there, and i'd like to acknowledge the difficulty of the work they had to do tonight.

over the next few days, the overwhelming need to blame someone will be strong. as the coverage moves away from the grief to the causes of this accident, i can only hope that there will be some common sense applied & that people will wait for the results of independent investigations. i too believe in the need for accountability (pretty strongly, in fact), but want that accountability to be based on facts.

if you can, spare a thought tonight for the 345 people who have died as a result of a stampede at a festival in cambodia. another nation also grieves the loss of its citizens.

In solidarity with the missing miners, their loved ones, and their communities

I have nothing else to say at the moment, but to offer my solidarity.

But Sandra from Letters from Wetville has said something that I think should be listened to:

I would like the media to piss off.

They do not need to swarm around our town, vultures in search of a product to sell on their 'news' programmes.

I too, am desperate for news of the Pike River miners. I too, checked the internet and the radio about a zillion times today, hungry for word that the rescue team can begin their job. Like everyone else in Wetville, I appreciate the messages of support from all over New Zealand, all over the world.

Go read the whole thing.

Friday Womanist - bell hooks

Cross posted

A central tenet of modern feminist thought has been the assertion that "all women are oppressed." This assertion implies that women share a common lot, that factors like class, race, religion, sexual preference, etc. do not create a diversity of experience that determines the extent to which sexism will be an oppressive force in the lives of individual women. Sexism as a system of domination is institutionalized but it has never determined in an absolute way the fate of all women in this society. Being oppressed means the absence of choices. It is the primary point of contact between the oppressed and the oppressor. Many women in this society do have choices, (as inadequate as they are) therefore exploitation and discrimination are words that more accurately describe the lot of women collectively in the United States. Many women do not join organized resistance against sexism precisely because sexism has not meant an absolute lack of choices. They may know they are discriminated against on the basis of sex, but they do not equate this with oppression. Under capitalism, patriarchy is structured so that sexism restricts women's behavior in some realms even as freedom from limitations is allowed in other spheres. The absence of extreme restrictions leads many women to ignore the areas in which they are exploited or discriminated against; it may even lead them to imagine that no women are oppressed.

bell hooks, "Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory", 1984

the price of speaking out

i know we talk about freedom of speech a lot in this country, but we're lucky that we don't have very serious issues in this area. not that there aren't some - the release of personal information by the minister of social development in an attempt to silence beneficiaries speaking out against cuts to the training incentive allowance is one serious example.

i'd like to give details of some serious harassment happening to an activist in india at the moment. many of you will have heard of arundhati roy, the award-winning novelist of "the god of small things". also widely read was her opinion piece published in the guardian, back in 2001, against the invasion of afghanistan.

she has been a vocal activist for many years, often taking controversial positions - such as her defence of maoists which caused quite an uproar.

lately she has been in the news for a speech she gave regarding the situation in kashmir (see here & here for video of the speech). in the speech, she outlined opinions which she had voiced before. the indian government responded by considering sedition charges against her:

This morning's papers say that I may be arrested on charges of sedition for what I have said at recent public meetings on Kashmir. I said what millions of people here say every day. I said what I, as well as other commentators have written and said for years. Anybody who cares to read the transcripts of my speeches will see that they were fundamentally a call for justice. I spoke about justice for the people of Kashmir who live under one of the most brutal military occupations in the world; for Kashmiri Pandits who live out the tragedy of having been driven out of their homeland; for Dalit soldiers killed in Kashmir whose graves I visited on garbage heaps in their villages in Cuddalore; for the Indian poor who pay the price of this occupation in material ways and who are now learning to live in the terror of what is becoming a police state.

thankfully, the government thought better of it & didn't go ahead with any charges. however, the matter hasn't rested there. she is now being subject to harassment from another quarter:

A mob of about a hundred people arrived at my house at 11 this morning (Sunday October 31st 2010.) They broke through the gate and vandalized property. They shouted slogans against me for my views on Kashmir, and threatened to teach me a lesson.

The OB Vans of NDTV, Times Now and News 24 were already in place ostensibly to cover the event live. TV reports say that the mob consisted largely of members of the BJP’s Mahila Morcha (Women’s wing).

After they left, the police advised us to let them know if in future we saw any OB vans hanging around the neighborhood because they said that was an indication that a mob was on its way. In June this year, after a false report in the papers by Press Trust of India (PTI) two men on motorcycles tried to stone the windows of my home. They too were accompanied by TV cameramen.

What is the nature of the agreement between these sections of the media and mobs and criminals in search of spectacle? Does the media which positions itself at the ‘scene’ in advance have a guarantee that the attacks and demonstrations will be non-violent? What happens if there is criminal trespass (as there was today) or even something worse? Does the media then become accessory to the crime?

This question is important, given that some TV channels and newspapers are in the process of brazenly inciting mob anger against me....

The Bajrang Dal and the RSS have openly announced that they are going to “fix” me with all the means at their disposal including filing cases against me all over the country. The whole country has seen what they are capable of doing, the extent to which they are capable of going.

i can't imagine how frightening it must be to live with this kind of pressure. regardless of how anyone feels about ms roy's view of the world, it's impossible not to admire her courage & determination, or her integrity.

in a week where we have celebrated the freedom of another courageous woman, aung san suu kyi, i hope that ms roy is kept safe. because it would be truly tragic if a voice like this one is silenced.

hat tip to verpal singh for posting a couple of these links to aen.

it's not how we're drinking, it's the drinking

with the alcohol reform bill being debated in parliament last week, and the law commission publishing its report earlier this year, i thought it might be a good time to talk about the drinking culture in nz.

i come to it from the perspective of someone who doesn't drink any alcohol at all. and someone who really doesn't like to be around people who have been drinking a lot. in fact, being near drunk people makes me feel really uncomfortable, mostly because of the lack of control & unpredictability of their behaviour. also, i hate the smell of beer & wine.

because of my own beliefs, i avoid going to pubs. i don't stay long at functions where i know significant amounts of alcohol will be consumed. and while i don't have a problem with doing this, it's not often realised that in our current culture, this can exclude me from a number of things.

i assert myself where i can. for example, at work they know that if they want me to be at any social function, then they better not hold it in a pub. i've had the "but you don't have to drink" line, which is about as useful as the "just take the ham out of the sandwich & eat it" line, but i've stuck to my principles on this one. i'm lucky enough to work in a place where they value my presence, so they work around this. often, we'll have dinner at a restaurant, then those who want to go to a pub will do so & i'll happily head off home, feeling that i've been able to participate on my own terms & also feeling valued as a person.

i've also been very firm with the NGO's where i volunteer. one in particular was in the habit of holding the AGM in a pub, to which i said "that's fine, but if you hold it in a pub, i won't be there". again, i've been lucky enough that they value my presence enough to hold AGMs elsewhere. but i was surprised to be thanked by two other board members who were also uncomfortable with going to a pub but didn't feel able to say anything about it.

and i can imagine that it might be the same with people who have drinking problems that they are trying to work their way through. i'm sure these people would find it equally uncomfortable, as would people of other faiths & some people of no particular faith.

which is not to say that i've never compromised. i did do the back benches thing, mostly because i thought the positives outweighed the negative - it was more important to get a message across than to fuss about the setting. but things like the "drinking liberally" meetings feel quite exclusionary to me, as do any number of occasions where people suggest going to the pub for something & i'm not in a position to assert myself, or i'm not in a crowd who would care even if i chose to assert myself.

i know there will be many people who'll say "suck it up, this our culture & you're in our country so you'll just have to adjust". to which i say "this is my country & i have as much right to determine what our culture will be & how it will develop as you do". but more than that, we know we have a problem with the drinking culture, we know the social & economic harm that is being caused by excess alcohol consumption. the reason we have strong (but often misguided) advertising campaigns in an attempt to change that culture is because we know it's destructive.

so i'm just throwing another factor in the mix. that factor being that when you organise your social or business events around drinking & alcohol, you are going to exclude some people. and it's not just us "touchy, fussy" muslim people, but many other types of people as well. a lot of these people won't be able to speak out against it, because the peer pressure is very strong & they find it hard to fight against. i find it easier because most people already think i'm weird or very different anyway, and i've gone past caring what other people think.

Ladies I struck a blow for the working classes:* In Praise of Robyn Malcolm

I haven't watched Outrageous Fortune for three seasons. Last night I came in half way through the finale. And I cried.

The episode was well written, everyone did a fantastic job, but a good 75% of why that episode was so powerful was Robyn Malcolm's performance as Cheryl West.

Cheryl West has always been a part of a lifetime. She is what I think about when I wish there were more strong female characters** on TV. I may like watching women kill their rapists on TV - but I'd prefer more Cheryl Wests. Women whose lives are shaped sexism and misogyny, by capitalism - by the power relationships in our society, who face the struggle with agency and strength.

Robyn Malcolm portrays Cheryl with warmth, strength and passion. But that's not why I want to praise her today. She fronted for the actors during the Hobbit dispute:

Malcolm says she has been accused of being little more than a loud-hailer. "But I really believe in this stuff. I believe in workers' rights.

"I could choose not to care. I could just very quietly not rock the boat. I am a working solo mother of two boys and I don't have a job. Outrageous Fortune has finished. I am looking for work. Would I really, in the words of Cheryl West, want to root my own industry?"

Union delegates often get attacked, but usually only by the boss. Brian Rudman made an important point about the way the women who fronted the dispute have been depicted in the media:

There they were, saying, "Tell us how long to grow our elven beards, and how hard to pull our forelocks, Sir, and we will do it. Straight after we burn those evil witches, Robyn Malcolm, Jennifer Ward-Lealand and Helen Kelly, in the public square for disturbing the tranquillity of our feudal land."

[...]

I say womenfolk, because throughout the whole battle, the patronising sexism aimed at the union side - nice gals, but out of their depth, not up to it, dupes of Aussie svengalis - has been shameful.

In fact John Barnett, executive producer of Outrageous Fortune, went several steps further than that:

"The feedback has been quite vocal and critical of them. They've been pushed into the front row and are now earning the opprobrium of the public."

He said anyone should be free to express their views but producers would be reluctant to hire them because public perception was a huge factor in casting.

John Barnett may be able to executive produce a good TV show - but he is an better Pontius Pilate. "As a producer it may be in my best interest to persecute and black-list any actress who shows an interest in collectively organise for wages and conditions. But that's not the reason I'm threatening to do so in a national newspaper - it's because the public demand it."

John Barnett is also wrong. Anyone who watched the last few episodes of Outrageous Fortune, even those with an underdeveloped sense of solidarity, is not heaping opprobrium on Robyn Malcolm, quite the opposite. Go to her facebook page if you want to join in the praises - or send some solidarity.

I will just say thank you Robyn Malcolm for Cheryl West, and more. All any of us can do is play our parts in the struggles around us - and you have been amazing.

EDITED TO ADD: In the original draft of this post I had confused James Griffin with John Barnett. I have fixed the error, and I'm very sorry for maligning James Griffin in this way.

* If you don't recognise this quote, then you haven't watched enough Outrageous Fortune. It is from the second episode - and it was the moment I decided the show was the best New Zealand television show ever.

** Gratuitous Joss linking

"technology can't be used in this way"

i've been a fan of principal youth court judge andrew becroft for quite some time. it's mostly because he has a lot of sensible things to say about youth justice. and also because of his support for the now-scrapped te hurihunga youth justice unit in hamilton.

so this judgement is exactly what i'd expect from him:

A jilted lover has made legal history by being jailed for posting a photograph of his ex-girlfriend naked for millions of Facebook users to see....

[Joshua] Ashby posted the photo in an "irresponsible drunken jealous rage" after the breakup of their five-month relationship, the judge said.

It is believed to be the first time someone has been sentenced for a crime committed using social media under the seldom-used morality and decency section of the Crimes Act.

Ashby's parents, Michael and Lisa, hope the jail term will deter others from the "dark side" of Facebook.

The Island Bay painter was jailed for four months after pleading guilty to a charge of distributing indecent matter and six others of threatening to kill, wilful damage, theft of the woman's clothes, and assault.

He had included in text messages to her on July 23: "I'm going to kill you" and "Dead bitch". He then posted a photograph he had of her naked in front of a mirror to her Facebook page. Initially, 218 of her friends had access to it, but Ashby then made it publicly available and changed her password. Her friends saw the photo and texted her to tell her.

Judge Becroft said he was adapting an old print law for the internet age. "Technology can't be used in this way," he warned. "You would do incalculable damage to someone's reputation."

i'm really glad that the act of posting the picture was taken seriously, with a charge being laid and the offender being convicted. given the media reaction last year to lara bingle having her photograph sent around the traps by an ex-boyfriend, well this is quite a refreshing change. unlike in that instance, the judge puts the blame squarely where it belongs. no excuses, no victim-blaming, just a straight-out statement of how wrong this behaviour is.

no doubt the fact that he indulged in other abusive behaviours was a factor in the judgement. one would hope that any case of a nude photo being distributed without consent would be treated just as seriously.

I wonder if it's possible to talk about gender differences without being mansplained in comments?

Cross posted

Which may account for what Prof. Barres calls the main difference he has noticed since changing sex. "People who do not know I am transgendered treat me with much more respect," he says. "I can even complete a whole sentence without being interrupted by a man."

Read the whole thing: He, Once a She, Offers Own View On Science Spat


H/T: Ophelia Benson, at Butterflies and Wheels

wise women speak

there was an interesting event in nz last week:

“WISE WOMEN SPEAK,” an intergenerational - inter movement korero (forum) on the liberation of women and self determination featured Coni Ledesma, International Spokesperson of Makibaka: Patriotic Movement of New Women together with Ngapuhi leader Titewhai Harawira and activist lawyer Annette Sykes at the Auckland University, New Zealand, 10th November.

“In 1975 we marched to demand not one more acre of Maori land to be sold. Now more trade agreements are being negotiated above our heads without our participation,” activist lawyer Annette Sykes says as she points out that the capitalist neo-liberal agenda is the new form of colonization. Sykes challenged the participants, mostly students and young women to speak out and revive a strong women’s movement in defense of land, rights and self-determination. “With the Terrorism Suppression Act and Search and Surveillance Bill that allows installation of listening devices into our homes, the state’s actions are meant to silence us and tell us that it’s not right to demand land, rights and liberation.”

[...]

According to Ledesma, “It is important for women to find the correct analysis and understanding of the cause of oppression of women. Women's oppression is not a problem between men and women, but a matter of class oppression that began when classes in society emerged. The oppression of women will be fully eliminated, and the real liberation of women achieved when the system of exploitation and oppression of one human being by another will be abolished. Today, global monopoly capitalism operates on insatiable greed for profits at the expense of women, indigenous peoples and other marginalised sectors. Socialism will remove the conditions that have made women unequal to men.”

[...]

“One hundred years after the declaration of the first International Women’s Day, the International Women’s Alliance (IWA) was founded on 16th August 2010 in Montréal, Canada immediately after the successful Montreal International Women’s Conference attended by more than 350 participants from 32 countries. Faced with global concerns including indigenous struggles, developmental aggression, violence against women, racism, discrimination and genocide, resistance to wars and imperialist aggression, IWA aims to foster the creation and coordination of local, regional and international campaigns, to promote mutual support and the sharing of resistance strategies, and to mobilize women around the world in the struggle against imperialism, violence and capitalist globalization,” Ledesma shared with the forum participants.

Ledesma enjoined the women of Aotearoa to join the first assembly of the International Women’s Assembly in July 2011 in the Philippines.

photos can be seen here.

hat tip: marama davidson.

farewell pansy wong

so farewell pansy wong ... dammit, where's david slack when you need him??

i'm not any good at poetry, so i'll stick to a prose farewell. i've known pansy wong for many years, if regularly bumping into a person at various ethnic events could be described as knowing someone. i actually still remember the first time i'd met her. the local women's branch of the nz society of accountants (as it was then called) invited her to speak, so i went along, mostly to fill up my quota of CPD hours. even though i totally disagreed with her politics, i have to say that i was reasonably impressed with her as a person. of course, i wasn't really very interested in politics at that time.

the only other in depth experience i've had with her is that we were both the first interviewees of the asian radio show, broadcast on radio live (sorry, don't know how to link to the actual clip, so you'll have to visit the site if interested). we were interviewed by tarun mohanbhai who is one cool dude.

as things go, ms wong is someone i found easy to get along with, non-confrontational, & she has a good way with people. as a minister, of course it's a different story. i've been frustrated, as i'm sure many readers will be, with her inaction in regards to her ministries (women's affairs & ethnic affairs). she has remained silent while some pretty stupid things were being done, and has shown no plan for action nor any progress in either of the portfolios. that she remained silent through the whole paul henry thing showed a marked contrast to her predecessor, who would have had a press release out within hours & would have been visible in his vocal opposition through a variety of media. the census of women's participation shows that women have in fact gone backwards under her watch.

i can't say it's good thing she has resigned from her portfolios, because i can't see anyone of any greater competence to replace her. georgina te heu heu is also someone i have a lot of respect for, but i don't think she was effective as maori affairs spokesperson in opposition & i can't imagine her achieving anything substantial now.

so, yes, farewell pansy wong. i'm sorry that such a long and respectable career has ended in this fashion, even if it was entirely your own fault.

Leopards... spots... Chris Trotter redux

Cross posted

In July 2010, NZ "left wing" political commentator Chris(opher) Trotter wrote this in respect of Labour MP Steve Chadwick's proposed abortion law reform bill.

The first question I'd like to ask Labour list MP Steve Chadwick is: "Why now?" What's convinced her that the time is right to reopen the abortion debate? What ill-omened denizen of the current political environment has told her that this is the moment to introduce a members bill permitting abortion-on-demand up to the 24th week of pregnancy?

I would really, really like to know who it was. Because, try as I may, I'm finding it really difficult to make the cost/benefit analysis come out in Ms Chadwick's, her party's, or even her gender's favour.

Dominion Post, 9 July 2010

In other words.... "No no no! Even though I agree with a woman's right to choose, now is just not the right time for it, because it's BAAAAAADDD for the Left."

In November 2010, Chris Trotter wrote this in respect of Matt McCarten's candidacy in the Mana by-election.

When Matt McCarten told me he was thinking of putting his name forward for the Mana by-election, I shuddered inwardly. ... The political analyst in me pursed his lips and shook his head.

"With the Labour Party moving steadily to the Left," he intoned disapprovingly, "this is precisely the wrong time to challenge Goff's hand-picked candidate in an important by-election in one of the party's safest seats."

Then I caught the gleam in Matt's eye, and I told my inner political analyst to go stick his objections where the sun don't shine.

Because if being on the Left means waiting for the "right time" to fight for your principles, then, as the hero of Howard Spring's wonderful political novel, Fame Is The Spur, discovered, when the fight comes to you, the bright sword of principle can no longer be drawn. Through all those years, while you were waiting for the "right time", the sword's blade was rusting fast to the scabbard.

Dominion Post, 12 November 2010.

So on the one hand, even though The Left holds principles dear, it must be pragmatic, but on the other, to hell with pragmatism: The Left should hold fast to its principles.

Guess what the difference is between the two cases....

************

NB: this post is about the slipperiness of principles. If you wish to discuss the morality of abortion, please go to our page on the morality of abortion. Comments on this post which attempt to discuss the morality of abortion will be deleted. I invite my blogging sisters to go right ahead and delete any comments that they think don't belong in this thread.

Friday Feminist - Sarah M Grimke (3)

Cross posted

I cannot close this letter, without saying a few words on the benefits to be derived by men, as well as women, from the opinions I advocate relative to the equality of the sexes. Many women are now supported, in idleness and extravagance, by the industry of their husbands, fathers, or brothers, who are compelled to toil out their existence, at the counting house, or in the printing office, or some other laborious occupation, while the wife and daughters and sisters take no part in the support of the family, and appear to think that their sole business is to spend the hard bought earnings of their male friends. I deeply regret such a state of things, because I believe that if women felt their responsibility, for the support of themselves, or their families it would add strength and dignity to their characters, and teach them more true sympathy for their husbands, than is now generally manifested, -- a sympathy which would be exhibited by actions as well as words. Our brethren may reject my doctrine, because it runs counter to common opinions, and because it wounds their pride; but I believe they would be "partakers of the benefit" resulting from the Equality of the Sexes, and would find that woman, as their equal, was unspeakably more valuable than woman as their inferior, both as a moral and an intellectual being.

Sarah M Grimke, Letter VIII: On the Condition of Women in the United States, 1837

changing education paradigms

i just watched this (thanx for posting, facebook friend!), and i thought it was very nicely explained. also very topical.

soft war against women

doing the rounds on facebook lately was this piece from salon:

In the run-up to the midterm elections, a bevy of conservative female candidates invoked feminism in one way or another, but all backed policies harmful to women. In the process, they became media darlings. Palin, who wasn’t running herself but helped get a number of candidates on the ballot across the country, opposes abortion and sex education. Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell called masturbation adultery and promoted abstinence. Sharron Angle in Nevada opposed abortion in all cases, even when children were raped and impregnated. In California, Senate candidate Carly Fiorina was antiabortion. She was a speaker at the evangelical megachurch Willow Creek, which requires any gay or lesbian members to practice celibacy. None of these candidates won, but except for O’Donnell, they ran very competitive races.

[...]

At first glance, it may seem like a wonderful time to be female -- a time of empowerment and achievement: the "You Go, Girl!" era.

But there is another, even stronger current running beneath the surface of society that carries a very different message. The warning today is far more subtle than it was in the early "Backlash" days, when the argument was that women simply could not and should not do what men could do. Now, the message is, "Yes, indeed, you can do it all, and often better than men. But beware!"

Women, you’ve come too far too fast, and because of your success, men are faltering, leading to, as the Atlantic Monthly put it, "The End of Men." A 2010 cover article bearing this title claimed that women were fast taking over the important jobs in society.

Women, you’ve paid too high a price for achieving; you will probably end up alone and miserable. Men do not like high-achieving women. (As a Forbes.com article put it, men who marry career women will be unhappy.)

the writer goes on to write about the effects of increasing sexualisation of women. it does feel frustrating to see so many gains that have been made over many years being gradually eroded away. and it's especially frustrating to see women proclaiming themselves feminists when they aren't interested in improving the lives of women.

Boobs about boobies

I thought the second time would be easy.  It should be shouldn't it?  After all Wriggly was breastfed to a year and he had a pretty bad start, what with the elective caesar for breech, the lack of milk, the mix feeding, the pain, and a large weight loss on my part.  This time was going to be better, because I was going to labour, I was going to know what to expect and I was going to be kinder to myself. 

We're at ten weeks now and I have mastitis.  It feels very unfair indeed.  After weeks of pain and nipple shields and sterilising and cracks and blisters and fissures and tears and advice things were finally, finally, coming right and then the red flare comes up, the flu-y feeling starts and this morning my partner had to drive me to the doctor because I was too ill to go by myself.  I nearly cried when I got there and the lift wasn't working.  I did cry as I explained it all to the doctor. 

I'm just not very good at breastfeeding a newborn.  I can't get the latch right, and I hate just sitting around while I'm being sucked on.  I need to read a book, or be online, or play a game, or make a phone call.  None of which is conducive to good positioning.  I do seem to have very sensitive nipples as well, and having already fed Snuffly's big brother for a year hasn't changed that. 

I asked myself earlier on in this process why I was so determined to breastfeed; what were the actual reasons why I was persevering.  Thinking hard there were two main ones;  because it gives me a sense of achievement and because it is so much more convenient for my life than dealing with formula and bottles.  Because of the nature of the way I live, Snuffly has been fed publicly many times already - in meetings, large and small, mainly.  No one has batted an eyelid to date, which is good because I'd hate to have to be rude to them.

Last time I had to start giving Wriggly formula in hospital, as I simply didn't make enough milk.  We mix fed until about three or four months, I can't really remember precisely, and then formula became a rarity, until I went back to work at nine months and had to be out a lot over the evening feed.  On his first birthday he gave up, but my supply had been dwindling for months.

I swore this time would be different.  My concerns about the pain have certainly been taken a lot more seriously than they were two and a half years ago.  The fact that I have already fed one baby for a year seems to give me a bit of standing, plus my Lead Maternity Carer has been a revelation of good midwifery compared to the last one.  But it was around this point last time that the pain lifted and feeding started to become an easy joy.  And that hasn't happened yet. 

It scares me - what if this time will be different because it will be worse?  Now that I've got antibiotics for the mastitis it seems to be clearing fast, but what about the thrush which we seem unable to shake?  Is this going to hurt forever? 

And am I going to have to give up?

headline fail... in fact, total fail

there have some cases in hamilton of men being abducted and raped. it turns out that the police have now made an arrest, so how do you think it was reported in the waikato times? with the following blaring headline on the front page of yesterday's paper:

Man-sex cases: arrest made

really? seriously? the best way you can describe male sexual assault is "man-sex"??? have you all not heard of the word "rape"? it's a simple four-letter word, it clearly describes what happened, it doesn't take up much space. in a side-bar, they manage to use the tag "sex attacks on men", which at least gives the notion of lack of consent. see, it's not so hard is it?

but that isn't the only bit of fail in the article. check out the last few paragraphs:

Waikato University Associate Professor Doug Boer said male rape victims were even more reticent than women when it came to reporting being sexually assaulted "because of the assault on their self-image as a man as well as being a rape victim".

"Also, men don't generally conceive of themselves as potentially a victim of sexual assault, so when it happens it is entirely counter to the victim's sense of what is possible."

again, i have to say, really? you think women's self-image doesn't take a hit when they become a rape victim? it surely does. and they way female rape victims are treated, particularly by our media, by our justice system & by society in general, well all of that creates quite a considerable barrier to women reporting rape & sexual assault. in fact, i've read that only 1 in 10 cases will be reported.

if that figure is less for men (and i'd like to see the evidence), then yes, that needs some unpacking. a lot of it will be related to the way gender is constructed in our society, as well as to homophobia. but the way this is worded - "assault on their self-image" - as if this is something that just happens to men, it's just pathetic.

p is for politics

i've been meaning to put this up for ages, and now it's a little late, but i'll be speaking at the women's studies association conference this year. it's going to be from 19 - 21 november, and i believe registration is already closed.

i'll be speaking of my experiences as a political candidate, focussing on issues around identity, minority rights & racism. i've titled my talk "p is for politics", and here is the abstract:

Being visibly different has an impact on each of the factors which determine political success, and I’m fortunate enough to be different in a variety of ways. This is a sharing of my personal experience as a candidate for central government, which will be used to highlight the difficulties in achieving political success.

Political success is dependent on a number of crucial factors:
- the people you can influence to support your cause and your own candidacy;
- your ability to navigate the political process;
- the perceptions of the wider public about you and your party;
- the strength of your personality in dealing with the challenges you will face;
- the profile you have built up before entering politics; and
- your ability to match the priorities of your party and the wider electorate.

How much of my success or failure is dependent on my individual strengths and weaknesses; and how much is determined by the processes and institutions developed from a demographic and cultural framework that is alien and often forbidding? Politics is never pretty, but we need good people from a variety of backgrounds to step forward if we are to have the best representation possible.

and, i get to be on the same panel as sue bradford - woohoo!

one of the problems i'm going to have with this particular speech is to share my experience without it being a criticism of the labour party. because i think many of the issues i've faced aren't particular to the party, but would equally be issues for any political party - and probably a greater problem in some of the others. and there's plenty of stuff that i just won't be able to share for reasons of confidentiality. so it's going to be a pretty tight balancing act. wish me luck!

thesis in three

i thought i'd share the words of azilawati banchit, a muslim woman from hamilton who won the "thesis in three" competition organised by the university of waikato. i share this because, well just because i'm proud of her! this is an excerpt from a piece published in a newsletter.


My initial purpose in entering the competition was to abide my Supervisor’s advice – as all Phd
students know it is crucial to never defy their supervisors. Called Thesis in Three, the competition is for higher degree candidates to explain their theses. They must do so in no more than three minutes using only one slide, to a non-academic but intelligent audience. Sounds simple but for most of the sixty-one participants who entered this year, it was not an easy task at all. This is especially true for us whose first language is not English and having only a single slide to camouflage our weaknesses is no help either.

Within six weeks to prepare before the first heat session, I had drafted tens of scripts and delivered countless practice sessions in front of the mirror, friends, my children and colleagues seeking constructive feedback.

Subdued, shy and quiet, would be the expected performance from a Muslim woman by some of
the non-Muslim audience (or maybe some Muslims themselves) when I stepped onto that grand final stage at Hamilton Clarence Street Theatre on the night of 27 October 2010.

That same audience changed their entire perceptions with regard to Muslim women after that day. All because a simple Malaysian, hijab-covered woman was the first winner of University of Waikato prestigious Thesis in Three competition, beating nine other finalists. I was “passionate, expressive and witty”, they claimed. Could these attributes be true? Are Muslim women allowed to be that way in public? Shouldn’t Muslim women be powerless, restricted to non-public roles, and oppressed as painted by the media?

Little did I know after that historic night, that I would be able to question people’s thinking about the demeanour of a Muslim woman. Here, I have to note special gratitude to all the judges in the heat and the finals who did not let any preconceived perceptions (if they had any) cloud their evaluation.

ETA: her thesis is on corporate bullying in east asia. i've added a link at the top to the official press release.

Carnival time

The 30th Down Under Feminists Carnival is up at Bri's place, Fat Lot of Good. There's lots of great reading in it.

census of women's participation

today, the human rights commission has published it's census of women's participation (pdf). since i'm still pretty exhausted from my weekend away, i'm just going to do some cut & paste stuff. here is judy mcgregor's op-ed piece, which really should be read in full, & deals with the corporate sector:

Fifty-seven of the top 100 companies by market capitalisation, including five of the top 10 companies, have no women in their boardrooms. Only 45 women in 43 companies hold a total of 58 directorships out of a total of 622 directorships....

Australia is leaping ahead of New Zealand. So far this year 36 women have been appointed to ASX 200 boards, compared with only 10 in the whole of 2009. New Zealand is now at the bottom of an international comparison of 14 countries in terms of women's representation as corporate directors....

So what would break the cycle of women's boardroom invisibility? A flurry of programmes and activities has sprung up to address the problem, including cross-company mentoring schemes, coaching programmes, accelerator activities and women in leadership courses. Some of these are sector-specific and aimed at younger women.

here she is again, on the public sector:

In the public sector the 2010 Census of Women’s Participation notes that although women make up 59 per cent of public servants, but only 17.6 per cent of chief executives and experience a gender pay gap where women earn 15.4 per cent less than men for doing the same or a similar job....

Female representation on Government appointed boards had gone backwards, from 42 per cent to 41.5 per cent, and remained 8.5 per cent shy of the Government’s target of 50 per cent by 2010.

here is sue moroney, on some of the causes:

"The key areas New Zealand has gone backwards in for women are all the direct responsibility of the National Government.

“They appoint to state sector boards, they abolished the pay and employment equity unit and stopped pay equity audits in the state sector, and they have done nothing to create jobs in areas of the economy where women work.

“In fact, in areas like early childhood education, they have deliberately cut funding, and now women working in that sector are losing their jobs.

“The fee increases for ECE brought about by this Government are also causing women to reassess whether they can afford to participate in the workforce and therefore limiting the choices women have.

“In comparison Labour introduced paid parent leave and encouraged women on benefits into study by offering the Training Incentive Allowance, an allowance which National cut.

as usual, the minister of women's affairs appears to be nowhere, and doing not much at all.

Friday Feminist - Almas Sayeed

Cross posted

I understood that in his mind, Dad was fulfilling his social obligation as father and protector. He worried about my economic stability and, in a roundabout way, my happiness. Feminism and community activism had enabled me to understand these things as part of a prescribed role for women. At the same time, growing up in Kansas and coming to feminism here meant that I had to reconcile a number of different issues. I am a Muslim, first-generation Indian, feminist woman, studying in a largely homogeneous white, Christian community in Midwestern America. What sacrifices are necessary for me to retain my familial relationships as well as a sense of personal autonomy informed by Western feminism.

The feminist agenda in my community is centered on ending violence against women, fighting for queer rights and maintaining women's reproductive choices. As such, the way that I initially became involved with this community was through community projects such as "Womyn Take Back the Night," attending pride rallies and working at the local domestic violence shelter. I am often the only woman of color in feminist organizations and at feminist events. Despite having grown up in the Bible belt, it is difficult for me to relate to stories told by my closest friends of being raised on cattle ranches and farms, growing up Christian by default and experiencing the strict social norms of small, religious communities in rurla Kansas. Given the context of this community - a predominantly white, middle-class, college town - I have difficulty explaining that my feminism has to address issues like, "I should be able to wear both hijab and shorts if I chose to." The enormity of our agenda leaves little room to debate issues equally important but applicable only to me, such as the meaning of veiling, arranged marriages versus dating and how the north-south divide uniquely disadvantages women in the developing world.

Almas Sayeed, "Chappals and Gym Shorts: An Indian Muslim Woman in the Land of Oz", in Colonize This! Young Women of Color on Today's Feminism, Daisy Hernandez and Bushra Rehman (eds), Seal Press 2002.

on the impact of victim impact statements

if you haven't already, please read this. i'd suggest that you read the preceding post & comments before you come to it. i found that i had agreed with mr edward's position in the first post, that sentencing should not be impacted by the wishes of the victim, as this creates an unfair situation. having read the second post, i retain that view. but what mr woods has to say is so extremely powerful, and deserves a much wider hearing. it's not often we get to hear such an in-depth and moving alternative to the narratives promoted by the sensible sentencing trust - one that is honest and thoughtful.

i can imagine how difficult it must have been for mr woods to put down his thoughts in this way, and agree to them being shared. keeping that in mind, i'm also not allowing comments here. i'd rather people read mr wood's words & reflected on them.

nasty

i thought we should probably say something here about the whole stephen fry situation. i first caught up with it a couple of nights ago at the f word, and then caught up with QoT's posts on the subject, here & here. but it wasn't til i popped over to hoydens today that i found out boganette has been caught up in the thick of it.

i can't say that i've been a fan of mr fry, but he was someone i had admired until now. in fact, in the recent survey i did for prime tv, they asked the bizarre question of which male most represented the prime tv brand & gave us a list of famous people from programmes on the show. out of the choices, stephen fry was the only one i picked, on the basis that he was witty and sensible, and something a little out of the ordinary.

needless to say that i'm no longer impressed with him at all. the posts i've linked to give a full run down of what he said (mostly about all women hating sex all the time), and the reasons why it was so wrong. i have nothing to add to that really.

but i do want to say that i think it's absolutely appalling that he would do this to boganette:

Now after reading this I sent Mr Fry a tweet asking him if he'd been misquoted. Surely he had been - surely someone as intelligent as he is wouldn't say something so incredibly stupid.

He tweeted to his nearly two million followers the link I'd sent and my name. He said nothing more.

My Twitter almost crashed with the @ comments I got following this.

i'm pretty sure mr fry is not so spectacularly stupid that he didn't understand the consequences of his doing this, nor that he would be unaware of the abuse that would be heaped on her as a result of his actions. i can't think of it as anything other than a purely malicious thing to do. not only is he not prepared to own his mistakes, he's quite prepared to punish those who question him. i can't respect a person who behaves like that.

i'm glad boganette has been getting some well-deserved support over at her place. no-one should be subjected to that kind of harassment.

clueless, the sequel

so, part 2 of the clueless business owner: apparently the news item from the other day prompted another woman to come forward with the exact same experience with the exact same person. this woman was rejected in 2008, and has gone on to have a successful job selling cars in australia:

Rejected by 4 Guys Autobarn because she was a woman, Kylie Thompson said she got offers from three car dealerships in Australia and was now selling up to eight cars a week.

Ms Thompson was 21 in 2008 when 4 Guys Autobarn general manager Monte Wells sent her a rejection letter, saying he was looking for a male salesperson over 30 but couldn't say that in his advertisement....

She said she probably wouldn't have moved to Australia if he hadn't rejected her application, and she loved her new job and life, but recalled being disgusted by her treatment at the time, and getting stuck into Mr Wells over it.

"I was really disgruntled about it. I gave him a call and asked him why he had advertised as an equal opportunities employer ... he ended up hanging up on me."

She did not know at the time that it was possible to make a complaint over her treatment.

the hard copy article included those little snippets they do with comments of people off the street. other than chris walmsley (lawyer !?) supporting mr wells for being honest & getting done for it, all others were against the discrimination as was the editorial for the day.

yeah, i have to say that i'm totally over people who are obnoxious being praised for their "honesty". ok, i'll be the first to admit that an honest bigot is better than a dishonest bigot, but let's stop acting like the bigotry is no big deal or that the honesty is a bigger deal than the bigotry. the negative consequences of bigotry, both for the individual and for society as a whole, are economically & socially significant.

i have to say that i was bemused by these statements from ms thomson:

... couples shopping for a car were an example of situations where buyers might prefer to deal with a woman – because it was the wife's opinion that counted and they often found female staff more genuine.

"The wife wants what the wife wants and if the husband can keep the wife happy, it's all fine."

i can see she's trying to make a case for hiring female sales staff. but really, the case is that women who can do the job just as well should be considered equally because it's the right thing to do; it's not that they have some special womanly qualities that men don't have (being more genuine, for example).

and for mr wells' rather pathetic justification:

"I've employed 15 female salespeople in the last 12 years, against the industry average. Two have been very successful, one right up there. Basically the others have struggled. That's the truth of the matter."

all this shows is that you, mr wells, are bad at picking staff. it could also mean that the attitudes you hold make it difficult for women workers to perform well, knowing that you expect them to fail, and most probably working in an environment where they are judged much more harshly than their male counterparts. ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecies, dude?

Apropos of agency

Cross posted

anjum has been writing about agency with respect to Muslim women in particular, but also in respect of all women in minority ethnic groups: We're quite capable of speaking for ourselves, imperial feminism, dodging bullets. Apropos of that, here is a challenge I've given my students, something which seems to have rattled some of them a little, especially those of them who felt that we (whoever "we" is) ought to be very worried about the various forms of veiling that many Muslim women wear, and should be doing something about it.

Turn it around, I say to them. Imagine what a newcomer to Australia or New Zealand, or indeed any other Western nation, might say about the practices we force on women here. Women have to get the hair waxed off their legs, they must wear make-up and straighten their hair, when they're at work they have to wear shoes that make their feet ache and can result in long term damage to their legs and hips, and there are some foods they're not supposed to eat, so that they can keep their weight down. Sure, they can "choose" not to do these things, but if they don't, then they will be criticised, sometimes quite severely. There are no formal rules about these practices, but all the women understand that this is what they must do, and if they don't, they will pay the price.

Then I say to them, how would you feel if the newcomer decides that she will do her best to rescue Western women, to work hard to liberate Western women from these practices, because it's clear that they need rescuing.

I've had a few stunned silences in my tutorials when I've put it that way. And in other places. Including in myself.

we're quite capable of speaking for ourselves

i have to say that i'm pretty appalled by the news that the office of ethnic affairs decided to pull support from a carnival because it decided that photos on the carnival website would offend muslims.

The office had earlier agreed for its logo to be used for the carnival but says it now wants nothing to do with it after being informed that "inappropriate pictures" had been used on the carnival website.

"It has since come to our attention that there are what our stakeholders, particularly those in the Muslim community, may consider to be highly inappropriate pictures on the carnival website. Consequently, OEA has reconsidered our involvement with the event," OEA director Mervin Singham said in a letter to the organisers.

now i've known mervin singham for many years, and i know to be an eminently reasonable person, full of compassion and common sense. i haven't yet seen a response from him on this issue, so hesitate to criticise someone i respect deeply without hearing more from him about it. having said that, i would be deeply upset if he took this action on behalf of the muslim community without having consulted at least some of the muslim community about it.

as the former fianz president (and current vice-president) mentions in the article, there were no complaints received by the body that represents muslims nationally. in fact, i've not seen any evidence that any muslim had complained about this carnival or the website.

i really object to people taking offence "on behalf" of muslims, which i've briefly written about before. it just feeds into that notion of all muslims being intolerant people who want to push their views on everyone else, or randomly restrict the activities of other people. i've never seen any evidence of that either - most muslims would choose to not attend a function or event if they weren't happy with what was happening there, but i've yet to see any concerted effort by muslims in this country to prevent some other community from doing their own thing.

that the OEA would choose to put the muslim community in the position of being accused of such things just seems quite odd. perhaps they didn't think through the consequences of their action. or maybe they were genuinely concerned that they'd get a reduced level of participation from the muslim community. until we hear some explanation from them, it's hard to tell. but playing off one culture against another like this, without any consultation with the group you are claiming to be sensitive towards, well it's not good enough.

200 years later, and we're still making the same case

Cross posted

The excellent Blue Milk has posted a quote from Andrea O'Reilly, in which Professor Reilly questions the nature of our arguments around improving the status and practice of motherhood.

While I do believe that empowered mothers are more effective mothers and that anti-sexist childrearing and maternal activism are worthwhile aims, I still wonder and worry why the rhetoric of rationalization has become the strategy of choice among feminist activists and scholars today and why our campaigns for social change centre on children, and not ourselves as mothers. Why can we not simply demand that motherhood be made better for mothers themselves?

Click through to read the whole quote.

Professor O'Reilly acknowledges that as a matter of rhetorical strategy, it may be a good idea to emphasise that making things better for mothers will make things better for children. But why, she asks, can we not just make things better for mothers, for their own sake?

It's a good question, but one that can be discussed over at Blue Milk's place. I want to tell you about the resonance I heard in Professor O'Reilly's writing. It's a resonance with Mary Wollstonecraft. In her A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, published in 1792, Wollstonecraft argues that men and women are of the same kind, that although there may be differences between them, they are differences of degree, not kind, and that if that is the case, then women have a right to be educated, just as much as men do. That is, she argues for women's right to education on the basis of principle.

But she also argues:

Do passive indolent women make the best wives? Confining our discussion to the present moment of existence, let us see how such weak creatures perform their part? Do the women who, by the attainment of a few superficial accomplishments, have strengthened the prevailing prejudice, merely contribute to the happiness of their husbands? Do they display their charms merely to amuse them? And have women, who have early imbibed notions of passive obedience, sufficient character to manage a family or educate children?

But these littlenesses would not degrade their character, if women were led to respect themselves, if political and moral subjects were opened to them; and, I will venture to affirm, that this is the only way to make them properly attentive to their domestic duties.

But it is vain to expect the present race of weak mothers either to take that reasonable care of a child’s body, which is necessary to lay the foundation of a good constitution, supposing that it do not suffer for the sins of its fathers;b or, to manage its temper so judiciously that the child will not have, as it grows up, to throw off all that its mother, its first instructor, directly or indirectly taught; and unless the mind have uncommon vigour, womanish follies will stick to the character throughout life. The weakness of the mother will be visited on the children!

In public schools women, to guard against the errors of ignorance, should be taught the elements of anatomy and medicine, not only to enable them to take proper care of their own health, but to make them rational nurses of their infants, parents, and husbands;

Besides, by the exercise of their bodies and minds women would acquire that mental activity so necessary in the maternal character, united with the fortitude that distinguishes steadiness of conduct from the obstinate perverseness of weakness.

Arguments from pragmatism have a long history in feminist thinking.

Yes, I know that patriarchy harms men too, and that in slowly, slowly, knocking away the patriarchal structures that oppress women, we create a better world for everyone. But as Andrea O'Reilly says, and as Wollstonecraft argues in other places, wouldn't it be good for women to be educated, for women's work to be valued, just because women deserve it, for themselves.

clueless

someone seems to have missed the fact that it's 2010:

A Hamilton car dealer who refused to employ a woman in his yard remains defiant that "car selling is a male-dominated thing" and he had a right to do so.

4 Guys Autobarn general manager Monte Wells has paid Hamilton woman Tesa Te Whareturoroa $6500 after she complained to the Human Rights Commission that he discriminated against her based on her gender.

it's been a pretty tough time for car dealers in hamilton in recent years, with several going out of business. so i wouldn't have thought that these kinds of statements would have been considered good for business:

"... statistics from Australia and Canada historically will tell you predominantly it's [the car-selling industry] a male dominated thing. We do require a balance in our sales team.

"We liken it to a person applying for a job in a ladies' lingerie shop."

He said he ran a business turning over $20 million, and had to make sure his staff and their jobs were protected.

"It'd be like 10 60-year-olds applying for a job in a manicurists' shop."

yup, buying a car is exactly the same as buying underwear, you totally have to undress & sometimes get assistance with fittings. it's exactly as personal and private, right? and i can't see the problem with 10 60-year-olds in a manicurists' shop: if they were the best manicurists in town (and i was inclined to spend my money on manicures), then that would be the shop i went to.

really, someone needs to help this guy get a clue, because the only funny thing in this situation is that he sees himself as the victim. wow.

Wellington Local Body Elections - a follow-up

So just before the polls closed I posted my endorsements for the Wellington local body elections. A number of candidates posted on replies to my blog - most of which I found pretty amusing. Now that it's all over and Celia Wade-Brown has shown how appalling she is in record time by speaking at the "giving government cover to lower the legal protections of film-workers" rally, I thought I'd respond to two of those comments.

It was awesome to see Kerry go - the day after the announcement a friend of mine drunkenly yelled out "Kerry's gone" in a cheap malaysian restaurant, and everyone cheered back at him. In the days between the election, and the announcement that Kerry had really lost, I got some pointed comments from some friends and family members who knew I hadn't voted for mayor.

On my blog I had criticised CWB for being a greener tinged Kerry Prendergast, and not being left wing. She replied:

How about for/against a casino? for/against more road tunnels? for/against Hilton hotel on outer T? All differences between incumbent's and my vote.

So when I suggested that her economic policies were no different from Kerry's and this was all she had. This is her best demonstration of her commitment to redistribution of wealth? Or her commitment to providing services to all regardless of income? I quoted this list to people who gave me shit about not voting for her, while we were waiting for the result - and they had to concede my point.

The other candidate who posted, and the real reason that I'm writing this post(apart from getting in early having a go at our new mayor) was Iona Pannett. One of the things that I expressed lots of frustration with in my blogpost, was council candidates who were more interested in telling us about their family than their policies.

Iona Pannett objected to this:

Your criteria for voting seems a little inconsistently applied to candidates and is an interesting one for a self-declared feminist.

It was after feminist writers and thinkers who have rightly done a great deal to deconstruct the split between the public and the private, a split often upheld by male thinkers and legislators.

I don't think people should have to deny they are parents and think it important that people standing for public office are well rounded people.

Just for the record, feminists who theorised about the public and the private, had more on their mind than the importance of those running for office talking about their family. That was a campaigning trick well before the feminist movement. But I thought I'd talk a little bit more about the serious point I was making behind the jokes.

You only get a few hundred words to convey where you stand to voters in a council blurb. Many of those running throw out inanity after inanity - telling us who they are, not how they'll vote. These blurbs may seem ridiculous, but they have a purpose, a purpose Daran Ponter made clear:

My wife Vickie and I, and our two children, Crystal and Thomas, enjoy all the normal things Wellingtonians love - Saturday morning sports, mountain biking, watching a game at the stadium and occasionally sleeping in!

The purposes of the children, and the heterosexual partner, and the other mentions of family in blurbs is to scream I'M JUST LIKE YOU at the voter. Ponter is particularly specific about the voter he is just like - normal is heterosexual, middle-class and able-bodied, at minimum.

Iona Pannett made this explicit in another way in her suggestion that 'well-rounded' people make good councillors - she was just proving that she was well-rounded when she mentioned her child (I've actually known people of all metaphorical shapes with children). I find this deeply offensive I think those who don't have children, those who can't have children, and those who don't have the resources to raise their children in Lambton ward (another point Iona Pannett made sure to mention) will make just as good councillors as Iona.

If you have only a few hundred words to persuade people to vote for you, and you choose to use it to talk about your family, then what you are saying is screaming your normality is more important than telling people what you believe.

That seems like as good a reason not to vote for someone as any.