Debate on Feminism & The Left over at The Standard

Queen of Thorns has the first post in a two part series up at The Standard and I heartily recommend you have a read and join the debate, if you haven't already. 

Wahine Maori

For a long time Ana at Whenua Fenua Enua Vanua was the only wahine Maori blogging that I knew of. But recently a couple more blogs run by Maori women have started, and I wanted to bring people's attention to them.

Kim from He Hōaka is a friend of mine. This is from the introduction of a post:

Colonisation invented a story of who Māori are: it made Māori a race, and made up a limited set of characteristics for that race. These stereotypes are not controlled by us (Māori), they limit us, and they serve the purposes of ongoing cultural imperialism. They make us uncomfortable in our own skins and on our own land. They are used to blame us for the problems created by colonisation. It is essential that we develop our own answers to the question of what it means to be Māori.

Just a warning Kim's posts tend to be very long - so make sure you have some time to really get into them when you're posting - they're worth it.

Te Whaainga Wahine is more than a blog. It was formed last year:

A national hui of Māori women, Te Whaainga Wāhine have condemned the exclusion of wāhine from national, regional, local and Māori political forums.

The hui made specific reference to the Iwi Leaders Group who do not speak for Māori women.

The hui, the first called in thirty years, has challenged Māori leadership that advance the political agenda of the National-ACT-Maori Party Coalition at the expense of whenua, whānau and hapu wellbeing.

Hui spokesperson Denise Meisster said Te Whaainga Wāhine confirmed Maori women’s political, spiritual and rangatahi leadership to carry current and future generations to 2040.

[....]

The hui affirmed Tino Rangatiratanga by 2040 and implemented a specific plan of action to achieve this. Te Whaainga Wāhine will be reconvened in Feb, 2011 in Palmerston North.

There's more about the hui here. Their blog has the press releases they put out, and links and copies of other awesome material from wahine Maori.

For another discussion of Maori bloggers, see Maui St - most of those listed are men.

Does anyone else have any links to share?

Open thread about Egypt and Tunisia

I haven't had time to keep up with everything happening in Egypt and Tunisia. I have just ducked in and out of news sites, and seen so many stories of the incredible strenght of collective revolt (and prison break-out - I do love stories of prison break out). I thought I'd start an open thread where people can contribute plcaes for good sources of news, and interesting links

My contribution is this amazing gallery of images Women of Egypt.

My only comment I can give at this point of ignorance is: know where you stand. I've read a lot of supposedly progressive blogs, particualrly from America, which talk about 'we' and 'us' as if the author's stand with the American government. I know I don't stand with the NZ government, or any government. I stand with people fighting for their liberation.

The promotion of drivel

I heard this on Checkpoint last Thursday, as part of a story about research that had found a correlation between strokes and living close to a road

The author's did find that people with lower incomes tended to live in areas with more traffic noise and we know that socio-economic status is also a predictor for strokes, but they didn't control for that in this study and it could be less about the noise and more about other lifestyle factors

I didn't even have time to get angry about the fact that, poverty is not a fucking lifestyle factor, because I was so horrified that they didn't control for class. What were these researchers doing? And why did such a ridiculous study get international news coverage? Why was 2 minutes 19 seconds of so the lives of Radio NZ listeners wasted with this drivel?

If you're researching people's bodies - no scratch that - if you're researching people and you don't take into account that people have different access to resources, then your research has no meaning and no value. And if it is picked up and promoted and treated as interesting, that's because it's lack of truth makes it a useful ideological tool.

exactly what it was supposed to do...

a quick post to direct you to a rare piece that has something positive to say about single mums and beneficiaries:

The two-dollar heroes bagging her out make me sick. You roll in here with your lynch ropes and your nail-studded clubs screaming for vengeance against some woman you think dudded you out of your hard-earned. Two words. Bull and shit. You paid about one tenth of 1 per cent of bugger all to keep her children fed when she couldn't find work.

[...]

If a woman like Sandra Reynolds needs a hand up via the welfare system when she's at her lowest point, I'm happier to see my tax dollars spent on her than I am on the middle-class welfare you've probably got your hands out for. Your baby bonuses. Your family tax benefits. Your private school subsidies. Your superannuation tax breaks. Your private health insurance rebates. Your first-home owner schemes. Shall we go on?

The attack on Reynolds reminded me of a Henry Kissinger quip about academic in-fighting. The fighting is vicious because the stakes are so low. There are so many other, worthier, targets than a single mum who used the long, dark teatime of unemployment to fashion herself a slightly alternative income stream. News flash: that's what welfare does. It helps people until they can help themselves. It didn't fail in the Reynolds case. It wasn't rorted. It did exactly what it was supposed to do, and now she'll pay it all back and then some when the ATO [Australian Tax Office] does its sums at the end of financial year.

please do go read the whole thing. and the comments are worth a read as well. hat tipped to my very cool facebook friends.

Why does no one seem to remember or care that President Zuma of South Africa is a rapist?

I'm not AVAAZ's biggest fan at the best of times. I'm wary of activities that make people feel like they're doing something, without encouraging any sort of collective action that could actually create change.

But AVAAZ's latest campaign is particularly free of analysis and I disagree with it in more ways than I'll be able to articulate in this post. Their petition is directed at President Zuma and says:

We call on you to publicly condemn 'corrective rape', criminalise hate crimes, and ensure immediate enforcement, public education and protection to victims. This terrible practice can only be stopped with leadership from your office and throughout government.

I disagree with the general principle, that the only way misogynistic violence can be stopped is through leadership from the President's office, or that leadership from a President's office can stop misogynistic violence.

I disagree with focusing on 'corrective rape' for many reasons (for those of you who don't know this is a term invented by aid agencies to describe women who are raped by men for being lesbian). It is grotesque to focus on one group of rape survivors and say "Hey this is super duper bad, and different from the other ways people are raped, we need to do something about just this".* (I think I was making a related argument the last time I was writing about President Zuma)

But to me the worst thing about this petition, is that each person who signs this petition, asking President Zuma to do something about one single category of rape, is devaluing the experience of and rendering invisible one woman in particular: the woman he raped.

He raped her in 2005 in his home; they knew each other, it is the . He was found not guilty. But I followed the case and read the misogyny soaked judgement, and I'm as sure that he raped this woman as I am that Clint Rickards is a rapist. Here's what I wrote about the case at the time:

The trial sounds hideous, and familiar. She was put on trial and her sexual history, including other times she had been raped, was put into evidence. When Zuma took the stand he argued that she consented by wearing a knee-length skirt and complaining that she didn't have a boyfriend:

She had never in the past come to my house dressed in a skirt. Including times when I was living in Pretoria. When she came to me in a skirt after those talks I referred to earlier on, well, it told me something.

The judge, well the judge is a misogynist asshole, who said that she didn't act as rape victims should.

To write to a rapist and to ask him to do something about a particular category of rape victims, while excluding the woman he raped is disgusting. It's also pretty foolish. Even if everyone had access to a computer signed AVAAZ's petition Zuma's not going to suddenly become an opponent of sexual violence and an ally in the fight to create a new world.

***********

I think there is another element of this - an element that is particularly important right now, and that was explained really well over at Not Afraid of Ruins (a new blog written by a super smart and cool friend of mine so you should all go and follow it right now):

Okay, there’s another reason I don’t like the term ‘corrective rape’. It’s a bit like ‘honour killing’. It’s one of those terms that mean ‘a specific type of misogynist homophobic violence that only happens in non-Western societies’. Having special names for kinds of misogynist homophobic violence that only happen in non-Western societies is super handy because it allows us to pretend that the kind of violence that happens There is different from the kind of violence that happens Here. Because That kind of violence is an intrinsic part of Their culture. But violence that happens Here is always an isolated incident committed by individuals. It is something extrinsic to Western culture, which is a culture of respect and equality.

* I think this is related to the effort by the US republicans to restrict federal funding for abortion to those who have been 'forcibly' raped. I'd write more on that but I can't write about the Hyde Amendment without seething with rage at practically everyone. But I think it's more evidence that dividing up rape into categories is not done to support those who have been raped, but to attack them.

The Candidate's Wife

Just when I thought I'd have some time to get back to blog my partner, Michael Wood, was selected as the Labour candidate for the Botany by-election on March 5th. 

It's an amazing opportunity, and will be taking up a lot of my time and energy for the next wee while.  We've had to re-juggle our divison of labour, and I'm not sure if this will mean I have more or less time to blog, as I'll be upping my childcare duties and it's hard to tell if that might result in a bit more time at home waiting for a child to awaken or be ready for pick up from their centre.  We shall see!

What I can say for sure, right now, is that I'm unlikely to be writing anything about the Botany by-election.  Anything I did write would be taken as conflicted, no matter how perceptive or neutral or just downright correct, so I'm going to stay away from it here. 

This should not of course stop my fellow bloggers from covering Botany to their heart's content.  We don't operate an editorial line here at all, so you can safely assume that anything anyone else blogs about the Botany by-election has not been vetted or suggested by me or Michael or his campaign team.  Just wanted to make that crystal.

In due course, after the by-election, I may write something reflecting on the experience of being The Candidate's Wife.  I've been one before, he's been The Candidate's Husband, and we've both run together (and been elected too) recently, but this time is different because it's so high profile.  There will be new experiences for me both behind the scenes and in the public eye, and I hope to share my thoughts in time.

Thanks for your patience with my blog absence, and for keeping on keeping on, it's nice to be superfluous :-)

Dear Sandra Coney

I am aware of the debt of gratitude that I owe you. I have read every issue of Broadsheet you edited. Your columns in the Sunday Times were one of my early exposures for feminism. I know that so many of the parts of my life that I hold most dear to me were only possible because the movement you were part of changed the world.

But all this compels me to speak, rather than compelling me to stay silent. This week you used your vote on the Auckland City Councillor to support the re-criminalising of outdoor sex-workers in Manakau.

That is not a feminist action.

From memory (I read your column in the Sunday Star Times during the prostitution law reform debate) you favour 'The Swedish Model' decriminalisation of selling sex and the criminalisation of buying sex. I do not. But I do recognise that it is a feminist position, taken as a result of feminist analysis. However, I cannot take those who promote it seriously as feminists unless they are more passionate about decriminalising sex-workers than they are about criminalising Johns.

Instead you supported legislation that criminalises buying and selling sex - but only for poor people. Only those who live in South Auckland (possibly all of Auckland by the time the bill is done) and can't afford to work indoors need to worry about this legislation.

This bill will impoverish women who get caught, tie them to the stress of the court system, and put them in the power of the New Zealand police.

And that should be enough, for any feminist in this country. We know the power the police have, how they have used it, and how many within the force take 'bros before hos' as a life mantra and cover for their mates. How dare you support giving the police more power over a group of our sisters, for any reason?

The bill hasn't passed yet, you still have time to change your position. You have time to stand in solidarity with street sex workers , rather than with those trying to punish them.

In sisterhood,

Maia

********

For those who want to know the voting break-down went like this:

In support: Len Brown, Cameron Brewer, Sandra Coney, Chris Fletcher, Mike Lee, Des Morrison, Calum Penrose, Noelene Raffills, Sharon Stewart, John Walker, George Wood.
Against: Arthur Anae, Cathy Casey, Michael Goudie, Ann Hartley, Richard Northey, Wayne Walker, Penny Webster.
Absent: Penny Hulse, Jami-Lee Ross.

Friday Feminist - Fiona Kidman (2)

Cross posted

One night she took issue with a middle-aged lawyer who had been defending a rape case.

'Of course, my dears,' he said, looking round conspiratorially at them all, in the candlelight. 'You know she asked for it. Women nearly always do.'

'That's an absurd generalisation,' said Harriet sharply.

There was a quickness in the air around the table. Max moved uneasily, for the lawyer was considered the best in town, and as sharp as a flick knife. If Harriet was about to take him on on his won ground, she was obviously due for her comeuppance. The women sat back to enjoy the sight of blood, though only half believing that Harriet would pursue such dangerous quarry. The lawyer, Nick Thomas, waited; it was clear he expected the battle to be brief.

'Come, come my dear girl, a woman like this one sets up charms to attract men. If she succeeds, then she can hardly complain, can she?'

'Presumably most women set out to charm men at some stage of their lives. Haven't we all?' said Harriet, looking round at the women. 'Or did all the men here simply come and take you off a shelf marked available for marriage?'

The women smiled tentatively. 'I suppose we must have,' one of them said.

'The point is, we had the right to choose who we slept with, didn't we?' She knew she had reached the point where Max would like her to stop.

'Of course you did,' said Nick, 'But then you must realise that this - lady, if you like to call her that, had chosen to sleep with many men.'

'I can't see what difference that makes,' said Harriet.

'It makes a great deal of difference in the eyes of the law,' said Nick.

'Then the law is an even greater ass than some people already suppose,' said Harriet. 'She didn't choose to sleep with this particular man, did she?'

'We don't know that. We don't know whether in fact she's simply paying him back for a tiff they had afterwards.'

'But you said she was covered in bruises.'

'Possibly self-inflicted.'

'Do you honestly believe that?'

Nick shrugged. 'My client denies it, and although he was foolish to become involved, I consider him of better character than the witness.'

'Because he's a man. Look, Nick, what d'you think about uninvited guests in your house? Would you let them stay?'

'Of course not. I'd throw them out.'

'Because you've got the right in law to choose who enters your home?'

'Obviously.'

'But you do, do you not, invite many people into your home?'

Nick, still not taking her seriously, walked into the trap before he was aware she had made one. He smiled assent.

'Then don't you think that whether a woman has one man or many enter her body, the choice is even more important than who should enter your house? Or do you place respect for possessions ahead of respect for a woman's body?'

Fiona Kidman, A Breed of Women, Harper and Rowe: Sydney, 1979, pp. 212 - 213

I first read this book as a very young woman, before I had even left school. Reading this scene was not so much a click moment, because I had learned my feminism from my mother, but a 'gel' moment, where some unstructured thoughts gelled together, and I understood something, in this case about the nature of consent.

Rereading the passage and the remainder of the scene and its aftermath in my forties, I can see a great deal more to reflect on. What I find disturbing is how little things have changed since Fiona Kidman wrote this book, which is a seminal book in feminism in Aotearoa New Zealand.

yes, it is ok

cactus kate wrote a post in response to this one of mine on the article by dr amy chua published by the wall street journal. naturally, kate disagrees with me & i wrote a pretty long comment over at her place. but i've realised i have more to say, and thought it would be better to put it in a post here rather than write another missive over there.

the thrust of kate's post appears to be that dr chua is right and that the message "it's all right if you fail" is a weak one that will inevitably lead to failure. she sees it as a fear based approach, and believes that success can only be measured economically.

the bit of her post that i want to address here is the notion that the message "it's all right if you fail" is a bad one. the chua style of parenting demands success and doesn't accept failure. this is seen as motivational for children. and it seemed to work for dr chua, even when she took it to the extreme.

however, there are downsides to the approach of "you will succeed, no matter what it takes", some of which i wrote about at kate's blog so won't repeat here. but there's another one i didn't mention, which is that this type of approach strongly discourages risk-taking. i've seen it with children who are programmed for success: they will simply not take on activities where there is a strong risk of failure.

this can actually be reduce the chances of a person being successful (using chua's and kate's definition of success, which i still don't agree with, but that would take a whole other post to deal with). i've seen an example of a young child refusing to go into a maths extension class because the problems were difficult and this child didn't want to risk failure. the child preferred to stay in a lower group where success was assured.

and this doesn't only apply to parenting. i've seen it applied in companies that invest heavily in R&D - those that allow their employees to have several failures tend to get the big successes, because those employees are more likely to take a wider range of risks which increased the likelihood of coming across something really spectacular.

the message that it's ok to fail is actually one which liberates the mind and encourages a much wider variety of experiences. not only that, it enriches the mind as we learn from our mistakes and improve our situation. i've found that it has actually improved performance, motivation and the level of happiness. successes are just as sweet and as keenly sought after, and often more easily achieved. in fact, i'd say success is more valued when you've taken a huge personal risk to achieve it.

so i'd rather ensure my kids get the message that it's ok to fail, as long as you put in a solid effort. i know they are better human beings because of it.

on another note, i mentioned in my previous post that we hadn't heard from dr chua's daughters. one has now entered the public arena, and totally supports her mother and her mother's parenting style. make of that what you will. there have some terribly sad stories coming out of this discussion from children who didn't do well in similar situations, and one could also argue that we don't know how successful this young woman might have been had she been brought up with a different style of parenting. on the other hand, here is an obviously intelligent young woman telling us how she feels, and we have to respect that.

New bloggers

A couple of new blogs written by New Zealand women, which I've added to our blogroll.

The End is Naenae is written by Annanonymous, and has a fantastic mix of parenting, feminism, life, sociology, quirkiness, and anything and everything.

Teaching the Teacher is written by TeacherTrainee, and reflections on her experience as she does a post-grad teacher training course this year.

Our blogroll aims to include any women blogging in Aotearoa New Zealand. If you're writing a blog, and you would like to be included, leave a note in comments.

And I've shifted blogs myself, given that I am no longer living in Australia. My new blog is A Bee of a Certain Age.

leading active & fulfilling lives

this is a follow-up post to this one about the muslim women's conference last weekend, for those who are interested. as i mentioned, we've been having these conferences every year since 1990, with a 3 year gap around 2001 to 2004, when i think the whole community was feeling pretty disspirited. for each conference we have a theme, and in the past we've had themes such as education, the environment, and last year's was "raising children in western society". this year's theme was "muslim women leading active & fulfilling lives".

the speakers at our conferences are almost all women. we've only ever had three male speakers in all these years: in 2006 when the race relations commissioner and the FIANZ president were invited to speak at the public forum, and this year, when the current president was also invited to speak. other than that, this is a conference for women, run by women, on issues that are of importance to us.

the difference with this year's conference was the amount of physical activity. in previous years, we've always had an exercise component, usually fulfilled with an early morning walk. but this time, we had someone from sports waikato come in and run a session called "sit and be fit". this was more targeted to the senior women and those with less flexibility, although all the women took part. the teens were busy in a separate room, getting to know each other & doing a trash-to-fashion thing that was judged by the rest of us later in the evening.

the main physical activity was on saturday afternoon. it was pouring down with rain, and yet the women were still enthusiastic and excited. a group of them went on the horse riding/canoeing trip, another group did rock climbing/waka ama, and the third group (those who were less mobile) went out to visit the clydesdales and have a ride on the wagon. for many of the women around the country, this was a first. for us hamilton women, well some of us have already been doing this stuff over the last couple of years. we're lucky to have a wonderful woman in our community who organises this stuff for us.

you may wonder how the women manage to take part in these physical acitivities with their style of dressing. it was made easier for them by hiring female instructors, and many of them wore jeans or track pants with long tops. i'm not sure if there were any niqab-wearing women doing the rock-climbing thing, but we've certainly had a woman in niqab do horse-riding and waka ama in the past.

saturday morning was busy with a range of workshops. we had one on the media, targetted towards young women, and run by the lovely dr sapna samant from holy cow media. there was another one on how to set up a childcare centre by a muslim woman from christchurch who has done this and is now running her own successful centre. there was one on optimism and resiliency, and another on "active citizenship and supporting community" run by ann dysart from MSD. tariana turia was supposed to be running a workshop, but she kind of got caught up with other things.

there was another one on legal rights and responsibilities, run by women from the fatimah foundation. this one covered the immigration act, s59 of the crimes act, domestic violence legislation and a component on self-care. we've actually received funding from the american east asia pacific development programme, with support from the american embassy, to run this particular workshop & it will be taken around the country.

we had a public session at midday on saturday, which was really well attended. our overseas speaker, silma ihram, gave a great speech which i actually managed to get to. saturday night was the conference dinner, and sunday was our AGM.

at the AGM, when we were talking about plans for the coming year, one of the women ended up telling us her very moving story of having a son who was a drug addict at age 16. it came up because we want to run a series of workshops across the country on drug and alcohol education across the country. when we suggested it, we got the expected look on many women's faces: our community doesn't need this! we don't do alcohol or drugs. except the reality is that there are young people suffering from addiction, and there is now a small number of women in jail for these kinds of offences. prison visits have been started in auckland, but there is so much more need for awareness in our community, and the need to develop support systems for families who have to deal with these issues.

so i'm hoping that we get around to doing that, once the legal workshops have been delivered. it will be dependent on access to funding, and of course social services are the most poorly funded area of endeavour in this country.

one of the difficult issues we faced in hamilton was getting a venue. many of the camp grounds are owned by christian groups who weren't prepared to hire them to us. we had that trouble with a boarding school as well. other venues had catering contracts in place, and those contracts come at a pretty high price - certainly more than we could afford to spend on food. it's really frustrating when community groups are kept out of publicly owned venues because of such contracts.

still, it all got done and the feedback from the conference has been really positive. it was a lot of hard work for a dedicated group of women, but because the conference rotates around the country, it won't be our turn again for another 5 years. so we can put our feet up and enjoy the conferences run by women in other cities for the next few years.

useless speculation

ranjeeta sharma was [allegedly] burned to death by her husband, who has now left the country with their four-year old son. it's a tragic and awful death, and my condolences go to her family and friends.

i'm sure their grief is not made any easier by widespread speculation of whether or not this is an "honour killing", though there has been no evidence that i've seen in media reports to date which could give any rise to such speculation. it's enough that ms sharma is of indian ethnicity, and bride-burning happens in india.

isn't it enough that this is a crime of domestic violence, that this woman has been cruelly murdered by someone who was close to her? i don't understand why there's the need to add the extra level of sensationalism, especially at this stage. really, would fewer papers be sold, would fewer people follow the news of this if it didn't have the possibility of an honour killing? i would hope not, yet sadly i have to consider that it may be so.

at least one positive thing about the reporting is that there is no mention anywhere of her religion. had she been muslim, i doubt that would have been the case. yet the focus on her ethnicity rather than on the violence that lead to her death is disturbing. it not only serves to other the victim, it also has an underlying tone of othering the violence ie the violence becomes something "they" do and that "we" don't do, or at least not so much. it takes focus away from the fact that violence against women happens everywhere, and needs a strong response across the whole community.

in the meantime, i desperately hope they catch the murderer. i hope her son will find caregivers who can help him to deal with this tragedy and protect him from further violence. and i wish we could have more constructive conversations around violence and how to stop it happening.

Invitation to Hand Mirror readers to the 2011 pro-choice gathering

Action for Abortion Rights Wellington warmly invites you to a national gathering of pro-choice organisers and activists. It will take place 9am-5pm, 12-13 March 2011 in Wellington. This is an opportunity for individuals and groups to share resources and ideas and to plan for the future.

This gathering is for those who want to take part in planning and organising a campaign to make abortion legal, safe and accessible. We also welcome pro-choice discussion and planning around broader reproductive and sexual health needs. 

The weekend will involve a series of facilitated workshops/discussions and some guest speakers. We are still setting the programme. You're welcome to contribute by running a workshop, speaking or suggesting speakers/topics. We recognise that pro-choice groups and individuals differ in priorities and strategy. Our hope is that a rich variety of perspectives will be presented and respected at this event. 

The event is open to pro-choice people of all ages and political standpoints. As a pro-choice event, the gathering is only open to those who believe that a pregnant individual is best qualified to decide the outcome of their pregnancy. 

If you will be able to come please register on our on-line registration form. Registrations close 2 March 2011. 

About us: Action for Abortion Rights is a group at Victoria University of Wellington. We think that the outcome of a pregnancy should be determined by the person who carries it. Our goals include legalised abortion, vastly improved abortion access including access to/ awareness of medical abortion, and the destigmatisation of abortion.

Hoping to see you there. Please contact us at actionforabortionrights@gmail.com if you have any questions. 

Update: I got the registration address wrong in the original post. Please register (link now working) if you want to come so we'll have ideas about numbers for feeding purposes.

a humble life, but well worth the recognition

i've been busy for the last little while organising the muslim women's conference in hamilton. it was a great conference, attended by 200 people at various points. we started on friday night & finished sunday around midday. the biggest day was saturday, as a lot of women are only able to attend for the day.

as i was busy behind the scenes, i didn't get to any of the workshops. i'll try to post about the topics covered, and the afternoon activities at a later date. today, i wanted to write about part of the conference dinner on saturday night. although we have been holding these conferences annually since 1990, this was the first time we formally recognised the achievements of muslim women.

there were four women who were recognised for their service to their communities. what i loved most about the women chosen was that they worked quietly, without ever seeking recognition nor making a big noise about what they were doing. more than that, a lot of the recognition was for "women's work", work that is generally devalued and little rewarded. the sort of work that doesn't count for much with a lot of people, but which takes a lot of time and energy, making a big difference to the way communities function.

i haven't asked three of these women if i can publish their details, so i won't speak about them here. even though they are absolutely amazing, generous, kind-hearted, compassionate and giving women & i'd love to write a whole post on each of them. but the fourth woman, who achieved a lifetime achievement award, is my mother. she was nominated by someone else, but i was asked to write about her life, and i've reproduced below the bio that was read out at the conference dinner. she knows that we will be sending this out to various forums and has given her permission.

i can't even begin to say how incredibly proud i am of my mum. it wasn't until i began writing about her that i realised just how much she has given. i don't think i've managed to convey her contribution adequately at all, but i hope readers are able to get a sense of it. this has been written from faith-based perspective, because that's who she is & it's the perspective that is most important to her.


Qamar Rahman was born in a small village near Banaras (Varanasi) in India, where she grew up and did most of her schooling. After marriage, she migrated to Canada to join her husband who was studying there. Four years later they migrated to New Zealand, and settled in Hamilton. Her family was the first Muslim family to settle permanently in Hamilton. There was one further family in Ngaruawahia & and another in Putaruru, with whom there was close contact. There was a larger Muslim community in Auckland, and the family would make frequent trips to meet with Muslims there.

After a visit by a group of South African Muslims, Jum'ah prayer was started in the Waikato in 1975. Initially the prayer was rotated between Ngaruawahia and Hamilton, but as the community started to grow a little, both Jum'a and Eid prayers were held at Qamar's home. She would clean the house every Thursday evening, then spend Friday morning cooking lunch, which included curries, rice & chapatis, for all the worshippers who attended the prayers. She continued to do this even though she had two small children with only a year between them, and no extended family support. It was not until the Hamilton mosque was purchased in 1982 that this work stopped.

Qamar has been a stalwart of the local community, and often put her time towards teaching others how to read Qur'an along with basic Islamic knowledge. She increased her own level of knowledge by spending time studying the Qur'an daily, and by investing in numerous Islamic books during overseas visits. For some years, she wrote and delivered a weekely lecture in the Urdu language on community radio, broadcast on Friday nights. She carried out extensive research of the Qur'an and Hadith to write these speeches. She also wrote speeches and articles in English which have been published in a number of overseas publications.

As a mother, Qamar encouraged her children to be as active in community service as she herself was. She was a devoted mother, teaching her children to love Islam and to always have high standards of behaviour. She taught her children to aim for the stars in everything they did - academically and Islamically. She understood that a vital ingredient in a strong community is the strength of the next generation. And so for many years she made this task of bringing up the next generation one of her life's most important works.

She also completed a bachelor's degree (with a double major in English literature and politics) at the University of Waikato, even though English was her second language and she had only managed to complete 10 years of schooling in India. Qamar first completed Hajj in 1978, and since then has completed Hajj twice more. She has actively been involved in social service, as many members of the community would come to her with their problems, seeking her advice and an Islamic viewpoint on the issues they faced. She has been extremely active in welcoming new members into the community and inviting them to her home, as well as taking the time to visit them.

Qamar has been a founding member of the Islamic Women's Council, contributed willingly to Annual Conventions and Youth Camps and has encouraged others to be active within the community. For several years she worked as a voluntary English tutor for new migrants. She has travelled extensively through Europe, North America, Asia and Australasia. She has never sought any position nor any recognition for her work, but has worked quietly all her life. These days, she devotes a large part of her days to prayer and worship, as well as encouraging others towards the same.

Friday Feminist - Sue Kedgley

Cross posted

It was there, in the cigar and testosterone filled basements of this ultimate male sanctum, that Germaine Greer's warning began to echo in my ears again. As the token woman among 70 men, I was conditionally accepted - but only on their terms. If I was prepared to work 10 hour days, wear managerial woman suits, put up with cigar smoke and bad behaviour, with being treated at times like part of the furniture, and at other times like a bit of flesh they could flirt with when they needed a diversion, I could achieve a measure of acceptance. But if I wasn't prepared to make work the number one priority in my life and conform utterly to their codes of behaviour, I would be excluded from their game. I would be squeezed out of my position, to return once again to the ranks of outsider, a marginal creature men would not tolerate in their inner sanctums.

Was this, I began to wonder, the point of all our striving. To have the same opportunity as men to sacrifice our personal lives, work 80 hours a week, drop dead at 45, and otherwise trap ourselves in lives that were as stressful and sterile as I perceived most of the lives of these chief executives to be.

Sue Kedgley, "Heading Nowhere in a Blue Suit", in Sue Kedgley and Mary Varnham (eds), Heading Nowhere in a Navy Blue Suit, Daphne Brasell Associates Press: Wellington, 1993, pp. 18 - 19

Sue Kedgley is writing of the late 1970s.

Urgent help needed

Heather Corinna, of the awesome Scarleteen is urgently looking for a legal or personal advocate for a young woman in Christchurch who is being abused by individuals & the system (here's her original tweet about it).

She's from America, so she's not going to have the contacts naturally. I thought our readers might be able to help - contact her on twitter if you tweet or through e-mail: heather@heathercorinna.com.

Interesting read on mothering and working

Thanks to a FB friend for directing me towards this thought-provoking column at Salon, including:

When Paul Krugman warns that many of the currently jobless "will never work again," I am petrified -- hello, 3 a.m.! -- that he means me. I long ago lost track of how many jobs I have applied for, including some I wouldn't have looked twice at in my 20s, but I can count the resulting interviews and have fingers left to twiddle idly. Before I left full-time work in 1996, my then-husband and I, both reporters at the same newspaper, earned the exact same salary. Now my ex, still a reporter, is making $30,000 a year more than that, while I have been passed over for jobs paying $20,000 less.

Quite terrifying reading, although I think the author's situation may be a bit exacerbated by the industry she is in (journalism).  At least that's what I'm telling myself as I contemplate my return to the paid work that pays most of our bills in less than two months, when Snuffly will be a little over six months old. 

The article is of course quite US-centric, but I suspect many of the troubles Read is facing may translate here.  I haven't job-hunted for six years, so I'm totally out of touch with the realities of that quest - what are your experiences, whether you are seeking to mix paid work with child-rearing or not.

Desperately seeking justice

A reader emailed me today with a couple of snaps of some graffiti outside the Auckland High Court:

 Below is a close-up so you can read the words*:

Regardless of the means used to make this point, it is very salient.

*  UPDATE:  The original photo I was sent had 1.3%, I've now been sent one with the correct statistic of 13%.  Thanks very much to the reader who sent it on earlier today, the delay in correcting it was mine.

Breaking: Suffrage Memorial to stay says Mayor Brown - Wohooo!

Just got an email through of Len Brown's latest media statement, which I've copied below:

Mayor acts to protect suffrage memorial
The Mayor has acted on an election promise to save a memorial commemorating 100 years of the suffrage movement in New Zealand.
During the election campaign, Len Brown signed a petition to keep the memorial in its current position in Khartoum Place.

At that time, the Mayor promised to fight to keep the memorial in Khartoum Place, saying it represented one of the most significant events in New Zealand history – becoming the first nation to give women the vote.

His promise followed suggestions that the memorial should be moved to make way for a set of ‘Spanish Steps’ from Lorne St to better profile the Auckland Art Gallery, which is currently undergoing a $121 million upgrade.

The memorial was unveiled in 1993 by Irish President Mary Robinson and Governor-General Dame Catherine Tizard.

The Mayor says he is not opposed to measures to clean up Khartoum Place and to make it more attractive for Aucklanders and visitors.

“There is much that can be done to improve the environment around the memorial,” says Len Brown. “The one thing that is not negotiable is the position of this monument to the suffrage movement.”

The decision on Khartoum Place is one of the Mayor’s 100 Projects in 100 days.

Ends

Well done everyone who has worked so so hard to save the Suffrage Memorial, and for the second time in recent history too.

So nice to have a win for once!

depends how you measure success

random lurker, a commenter here, popped over to my blog a couple of days ago to ask me what i thought about this piece in the wall street jounal about chinese mothers. it's written by a chinese mother, one amy chua who is a professor at harvard and has raised 3 daughters.

dr chua (i'm assuming the phd, given she's a professor) basically compares chinese parenting to western parenting. though she does make the effort at the beginning to say that she is using these terms loosely & that she acknowledges that many in both groups don't fit the stereotype, and what she labels as "chinese" parenting is practiced by people of many cultures & countries.

she then goes on to stereotype these parenting styles throughout the article, and her basic premise is that western parents are soft, chinese parents are tough but better because they expect & demand more of their kids. what she calls chinese parenting is really an autocratic & dictatorial style of family management, where failure is punished, success is rewarded, and giving up (for the child) is not an option. these parents are direct in their criticism of their children, because children can handle it, because it's better for the children, and because this motivates children to behave and achieve in ways that won't be criticised. in all, she believes this style of parenting is better because chinese children are more successful.

of course, feel free to read the full article for yourself, and let me know if i've missed out anything or if i've unfairly mischaracterised what she has tried to say.

as to my reaction, well, where to start. my own parenting style is much more "western" ie more relaxed than the dictatorial model which dr chua describes. not surprising since i've grown up in the west and am basically a westerner with an eastern ethnicity. however, when she goes through her experiences as a parent, they are quite familiar to me.

but i hate her labels so am not going to use them henceforth. i'm trying to think of terms that are less loaded and judgemental, but i'm struggling. so i'll go with autocratic and relaxed.

my gut reaction as i read through the piece was one of disgust. i tried to think about my own internal bias as i read, i looked at my reactions from all angles to see whether there were elements of racism, of a blinkered world-view that i was projecting on to the situation. was i simply being intolerant? those are difficult questions and i'm not sure i know the exact answer.

the basic problem for me is that the autocratic style she described didn't seem to allow enough respect of the children: respect of their wishes, their preferences, and sometimes of their essential humanity. she speaks of achievement, but it seemed to me that this achievement came at too high a cost. on the other hand, we haven't the voices of the children in this piece. we don't know how they feel about their structured lives, and maybe they're actually very happy. maybe the positive benefits of their achievements make them feel good about themselves and the lives they lead. even so, i don't think i could do.

on the other hand, i don't think i'm a completely relaxed parent either. i do expect my children to do well, i expect them to try hard. but i try not to criticise them for their failures, unless i believe that they really haven't put the effort in. in other words, the message i give them is "as long as i know you've worked hard and tried your best, i don't really care what result you achieve. i just want to know that you really, sincerely tried". i've also set more concrete expectations, but unlike dr chua, i'm not prepared to put the details of my children's lives into the public sphere and open them up for scrutiny, so you'll just have to guess at those.

i'm relaxed in that i've let them make their own choices about sport and music. i've let them make choices about the school they attend. i certainly haven't and don't intend to direct them into any area of study, though i've made a couple of suggestions. some of these suggestions have been ignored & that doesn't bother me at all.

my definitions of success tend to be quite different to dr chua's. i'll never judge my children's success by what they own, how high they reach in their career or such things. i want to know that they're happy with what they're doing and i want to know that they spend some of their time in serving the community they live in. i want them to have enough of a social conscience that it translates into action. but even with that, i'm not prepared to dictate it or criticise them for failing to do so. i'll continue to encourage them in that direction, but in the end it's up to them. even community service often depends on privilege - on having the time and money available to put towards those causes.

so. i can't say that i'm particularly impressed with the parenting style espoused by dr chua. i'm not impressed with the self-righteous tone of the article, nor with the stereotypes it portrays and buys into. it completely rubs me the wrong way, and some of that may be because i look at it with western eyes.

here's another review of the piece at racialicious, and they don't like it either.

Whose holiday?

I've observed this quite a bit lately, the domestic division of labour that results in (some) women doing the grunt work when it comes to holidays, while (some) men kick back with a beverage and get a break.  This is not a gripe about my own partner - I feel that he generally takes on his fair share, although we both sometimes need reminding that we could help each other out.

Partly it's a generational thing, I suspect, and I'd be interested in readers' views.  In your household, and in those of your broader acquaintance, who takes responsibility for:

1. Organising any holiday away from home
2. Organising any holiday activities if staying at home
3. Buying the Xmas presents
4. Cooking for special events like Xmas Day, New Year's Eve parties, etc
5. Cleaning up before and after guests come around
6. Organising any special purchases you need for your household in the summer sales
7. Ensuring children/pets have sufficient care, e.g. holiday programmes, cattery, etc

I'll put my own answers in comments. 

My observation of the women in my life is that this imbalance in holiday labour is not a re-balancing from less work done during the year to allow for the holiday, e.g. the man paid for the holiday, presents etc, through his paid labour so he has contributed sufficiently in that way.  I can't think of a single woman I know who doesn't contribute significantly to her household through her labour, paid and unpaid, to the extent that extra holiday work isn't an unfair additional burden. 

What do you think?

Mantrol and Manghurt?

One of the great traditions of New Zealand advertising is that no portrayal of masculinity can be too over-the-top or too ridiculous to sell beer.

However, recently beer's place as the pinnacle of ridiculous masculinity by some products which are less deeply ingrained in NZ's idea of manhood - such as Yoghurt. Yes the same dairy product that made Sarah Haskins famous:

Ok now we've had that break for the awesomeness that is Sarah Haskins we have to go back to this bizarre new development in New Zealand which is manly yoghurt. What is manly yoghurt, well it's thick, packed with nuts and seeds and comes in flavours such as Apricot Manuka Honey, Mango Coconut Flakes, Lemon Passionfruit, and Apple Blueberry.

So how do you sell the idea that the official food of woman in apricot and manuka honey flavour is manly? Silly question - all you need is to emphasise misogyny, homophobia and the extreme danger of girl germs. This is from their website:

Man. It used to be the best job title in the world.

Man has lost his place in the world and his place in the fridge. There are scarce few products we can call our own. At Mammouth Supply Company, we've decided to do something about this and offer men something for men - non-nonsense, fill-you-up yoghurt, iced cofee and ice cream.

The boxes come with simple instructions about what men do and don't do - they do eat yoghurt but only manly yoghurt, but stay away from all things that might ever have been coded women or gay (although I do recommend reading the packages at the supermarket - they're even more ridiculous than you can imagine).

I find this deeply weird. I can guess the origins of these products. Fonterra was sitting round worrying about what to do with all its milk and thought "Men! We need to get men to consume more milk derived products." But does this really resonate? Who could it possibly resonate with? Do people suddenly forget that apricot honey is a body lotion flavour if there's enough homophobia on the packet?

And that's not even the strangest form of masculinity advertising products let me introduce mantrol:



There's also two shorter versions that makes it even clearer that according to some arms of the state New Zealand masculinity is about pakeha well-resourced homo-social leisure time.

I honestly don't understand these ads (but I am sometimes very slow about some aspects of NZ masculinity - I used to often have to have tui billboards explained to me). Is the point supposed to be MANLY THINGS! MANLY THINGS! MANLY THINGS! MANLY THINGS! DRIVING SAFELY IS ALSO MANLY BECAUSE IT'S IN THE AD WITH THESE OTHER MANLY THINGS! STOP KILLING PEOPLE!

I'd understand that. Even if I don't really understand the association between BBQ, cricket, video games, and not killing people, I can see NZTA's point. I'm sure they have many many statistics that show that the demographic they're targetting (I'm guessing it's young pakeha men) are dangerous drivers, and probably they've reached the time when they want address it head on.

But then there's this line: "If we're not in full control of such a manly thing [as driving] then what does this all mean? [and he gestures to many different depictions of homosocial leisure]"

And at that point I stop being amused, or weirded out, or confused, and become angry. That a government agency would spend millions of dollars reinforcing the idea that to be manly is to be in control sickens me. As if that idea wasn't deeply ingrained enough. As if it wasn't understood by so many women who have been at the receiving end of men's control.

That's the problem - each piece may not seem like much. Portrayals of masculinity can seem ridiculous and insignificant - it's just an ad, just a piece of packaging, just a beer company. But each piece normalises an idea of what it means to be a man that is so damaging for men and women and for men who conform to it and for men who don't. And those who want to use it to sell their products seem to be winning over those who want to tear it down.

easy targets

with the government deficit blowout, there's going to be a push in the next budget to cut spending (of course, given that tax cuts haven't worked in pushing the country out of recession, it would be heresy of the government to consider reversing them). one of the biggest areas of spending is on social support - for the unemployed, the ill, the elderly, and sole-parents.

unsurprisingly, mr key has been pretty forceful in protecting payments to the elderly, refusing to contemplate raises to the age of eligibility of superannuation & making no mention of cutting or keeping constant the amount paid out. yet the government cut payments to the cullen fund and cut support for employers who paid into kiwisaver, thereby ensuring that there will be less money in the future to meet the expected rise in super costs. but it's hard to vilify older people as a class, because everyone gets old & there's not much that can be done about it.

the unemployed, the ill and sole-parents are much easier targets, even though many who fall into these groups are there through circumstances beyond their control. in some cases, the circumstances may have been better controlled, but the decisions taken were the best in the circumstances. and of course, there are some cases where people are rorting the system. it's usual to use a few examples of the latter to vilify entire groups of people, to try to minimise or erase any sense of empathy, social responsibility or inclusion for these groups.

sole-parents, being largely female, become the easiest target in a society ready to label these women selfish & promiscuous. expect to see a lot more of the same in the coming months, and for life to become increasingly difficult for sole-parents & their children as the state seeks to punish them for failed policies that have led to the recession and budget blowout. as this is a group that is often underpaid & overworked and struggling to keep afloat, there are few opposing voices. those who have dared to oppose government policies have been targetted by a minister of social development who has been willing to reveal partial personal information & has yet to face any consequences for doing so. this is an effective strategy to silence any kind of dissent.

given this, it's nice to see a reasonable response in the herald by donna wynd to a piece from lindsay mitchell that i haven't the stomach to read:

What, then, do we know about sole parents? There are about 160,000 sole-parent households in New Zealand. About 113,000 of these are on a benefit. The number of sole parent beneficiaries has increased markedly since the onset of the recession in late 2008.

This is as expected, as sole-parent employment is highly sensitive to labour market conditions. Despite this, more than 40,000 sole parents, or more than a quarter of the total, are not on a benefit. Clearly there is little economic gain in being on a benefit for a significant proportion of sole parents. This is supported by data that shows consistently that on almost every measure, sole-parent beneficiary households are the most impoverished.

The benefit data shows that most sole parents have children aged under 5, and are off a benefit within four years. Those who stay on benefits for longer periods tend to be older, or much younger.

There has been little research on this but discussions with social workers suggest that some parents are looking after older children who have been de-institutionalised. These older children often have high needs and require constant care.

i'd really recommend the whole piece, though a warning about the comments which are pretty hostile. i continue to be amazed at the vitriol and hatred some people are willing to dish out to others, without even bothering to learn about their individual circumstances. yes, i know i should be used to it, but it's something i never do want to get used to. i hope to continue to be shocked and appalled by this kind of nastiness as long as i live.

Being a feminist is a lot like being a bowl of petunias

I was in the middle of reading Gordon Campbell's mostly sensible article about wikileaks, and I came to this paragraph:

In one of the two incidents, the alleged conflict over consent reportedly turns on whether or not (in the midst of what had hitherto been consensual sex) Assange knowingly proceeded after a condom failure had occurred. In the other incident, consent is reportedly not the issue – it is whether the act involved unprotected sex, which is a (minor) offence under Swedish law.

The idea that Sweden has sexual assault laws that would be unrecognisable in the rest of the world has been repeated lots, but it's wrong. Plenty of English language sources have been explaining this for a while now.

There is no longer need for any prevaricating or lack of clarity about what Assange has been accused of. It is three weeks since the Guardian posted a full account of the accusations of sexual assault against Assange. There is no excuse for misrepresenting those accusations.

This is what one woman described:

Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

That is not an account that "turns on whether or not (in the midst of what had hitherto been consensual sex) Assange knowingly proceeded after a condom failure had occurred."

Gordon Campbell describes the second accusation like this: "consent is reportedly not the issue – it is whether the act involved unprotected sex, which is a (minor) offence under Swedish law." This is how the woman describes it:

The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

I really like Gordon Campbell; I think he's written some really important stuff. There aren't enough solid left voices in the New Zealand media.

I hoped, I still hope, that this was a mistake based on ignorance and not paying attention. I left a comment making most of the points I've made here on his post on Scoop. It hasn't been posted yet, although other comments on that article have been.

There are better ways of being the New Zealand Michael Moore or John Pilger than misrepresenting women's descriptions of sexual abuse. Please Gordon Campbell, delete that paragraph and replace it with an accurate one.

Some excellent reading

Some of us are still on holiday, some of us are heading back to work, some of us are child-wrangling until school starts up again, some of us are caring for partners and parents and babies and pre-schoolers, some of us are doing a mixture of all these things. Whatever you may be doing, if you have time for a break, here's some good reading.

First up, the 32nd Down Under Feminists Carnival, put together by Profligate Promiscuous Strumpet. Great work, thank you PPS. For anyone who is interested in why Profligate Promiscuous Strumpet is so called, check out her post, "Why Profligate Promiscuous Strumpet?"

Sandra has written an excellent series of posts on the Julian Assange affair. I recommend them.

Julian Assange and Michael Moore

Julian Assange and John Pilger

Julian Assange and Naomi Wolf

Friday Feminist - Fiona Kidman

Cross posted

I once sat in a room full of aspiring women writers and listened to an academic poet from Auckland University tell us how to write. He placed his hands on the table in front of him and intoned: 'Lady writers, eh? A nice little hobby. Now would you like to hear what real writers do?'

So there it was. Men's work was real, women's a hobby.

Fiona Kidman, "A New Breed of Women," in Sue Kedgley and Mary Varnham (eds), Heading Nowhere in a Navy Blue Suit, Daphne Brasell Associates Press: Wellington, 1993, pp. 132 - 146

Later in the essay Fiona Kidman says that this happened when she was 24. That places the event in the mid 1960s.

women in haiti

while we're all (hopefully) enjoying our holidays, i thought i'd share this video clip posted on facebook by helen clark, about women in haiti:



below is the description that goes with the video (not a transcript, though the clip is subtitled).

Prior to the January 12th earthquake, Haitian women were already suffering from severe inequalities: in income, access to basic services and political participation. But the disaster further exacerbated womens needs and injustices. The challenge now is to spearhead women in the recovery process, building a new country where women and men share equal rights and opportunities. Empowering women is crucial to shape the countrys future.

Today, over 40 per cent of families are single headed; the majority is lead by women. Around 40 per cent of people currently employed by the cash-for-work programme are women. The initiative helps jumpstart the local economy, providing short-term jobs to Haitians to clear rubble and rehabilitate essential social infrastructures, such as street repairs and electricity. It injects urgently needed cash in the economy, accelerating the resumption of small businesses and trade.

NZ women writing blogs

We try to maintain a blog roll of New Zealand women and women in New Zealand writing blogs, which you can check out in the side bar. If you've started a blog recently, or a long time ago, or sometime in between, and you would like to be in the blog roll, leave a comment, and I'll add you to the roll. Any type of blog is welcome - feminist, political, craft, mummy, life, cooking, books, gardening, academic, writing, fashion, fitness, all or none of the above.

On that note, may I introduce Anna Caro's new blog - Anna Caro - which she started on New Years Day.

New Quote

You may have noticed that the quote at the top of this blog had changed. We have replaced "I became a feminist as an alternative to becoming a masochist" with "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people".

We had an e-mail from a reader who saw our previous quote as being a statement about mascochism as a sexual practice/preference/desire. We agreed that that wasn't a message that we wanted to send to readers.

While I didn't understand the quote in the same way as our reader, I do prefer this quote. I don't think the choices are to fight oppression or to enjoy it. I think the options for women are much more complicated than that, and resistance is often much more about hope than suffering. In contrast, I love the many different ways you can understand 'the radical notion women are people.'

Anyway I thought this would be a good opportunity to gather reader feedback. Are there things that make the hand mirror welcoming or unwelcoming? Accessible or inaccessible?

What are your plans for 2011?

The New Year has drifted upon us, in a haze of summer days. Did you make any New Year resolutions? And what are your plans for 2011? Leave a comment and tell us what's in store for you this year.

Wahine Maori

For a long time Ana at Whenua Fenua Enua Vanua was the only wahine Maori blogging that I knew of. But recently a couple more blogs run by Maori women have started, and I wanted to bring people's attention to them.

Kim from He Hōaka is a friend of mine. This is from the introduction of a post:

Colonisation invented a story of who Māori are: it made Māori a race, and made up a limited set of characteristics for that race. These stereotypes are not controlled by us (Māori), they limit us, and they serve the purposes of ongoing cultural imperialism. They make us uncomfortable in our own skins and on our own land. They are used to blame us for the problems created by colonisation. It is essential that we develop our own answers to the question of what it means to be Māori.

Just a warning Kim's posts tend to be very long - so make sure you have some time to really get into them when you're posting - they're worth it.

Te Whaainga Wahine is more than a blog. It was formed last year:

A national hui of Māori women, Te Whaainga Wāhine have condemned the exclusion of wāhine from national, regional, local and Māori political forums.

The hui made specific reference to the Iwi Leaders Group who do not speak for Māori women.

The hui, the first called in thirty years, has challenged Māori leadership that advance the political agenda of the National-ACT-Maori Party Coalition at the expense of whenua, whānau and hapu wellbeing.

Hui spokesperson Denise Meisster said Te Whaainga Wāhine confirmed Maori women’s political, spiritual and rangatahi leadership to carry current and future generations to 2040.

[....]

The hui affirmed Tino Rangatiratanga by 2040 and implemented a specific plan of action to achieve this. Te Whaainga Wāhine will be reconvened in Feb, 2011 in Palmerston North.

There's more about the hui here. Their blog has the press releases they put out, and links and copies of other awesome material from wahine Maori.

For another discussion of Maori bloggers, see Maui St - most of those listed are men.

Does anyone else have any links to share?

Some sad news

I came home from a family holiday to find some sad news from our co-blogger here, Anne Else. Anne's beloved husband, Harvey McQueen, died in the early hours of Christmas morning.

I didn't know Harvey at all, but I have been reading his blog, Stoatspring, for quite some time. He was managing a debilitating and terminal illness, but he wrote a blog post most days, reflecting on small joys in the garden, poetry, some political events, books and literature, life and love. He had a lyrical voice. He was a participant in Tuesday Poem, and recently, he edited a book of New Zealand poetry, These I Have Loved: My favourite New Zealand poems, which has been very well received. If you have a moment, you might care to read what Fiona Kidman had to say at the book's launch: Fiona Kidman on 'These I Have Loved'.

We are thinking of you, Anne, and remembering Harvey.

Update: Anne has put up The Last Post at Harvey's blog.