20 hours childcare =/= twenty hours of work

Cross posted

I want to explain some basic facts of life to our Prime Minster, about how work and childcare fit together for people who don't have a wife at home to keep everything running smoothly.

New Zealand's Welfare Working Group has recommended that people who receive the DPB (Domestic Purposes Benefit), should be subject, in certain circumstances, to work testing. The DPB is mostly paid to sole parents, to enable them to care for themselves and their children, and as it turns out, those sole parents are for the most part, female. According to the Welfare Working Group, instead of bludging off the nation (I'm being sarcastic), those wretched women should be working. In some cases, they should be working from when their child is 14 weeks old, and in all cases, they had been look for work when their youngest is three years old.

Mr Key is a bit queasy about that 14 week requirement. But...

...work testing when the youngest child was aged three was more reasonable. The parent would only have to work 20 hours.

"That makes sense because it ties up the the Government's 20 free hours... I think that basically makes sense.

Source: Key: Work-testing when child three makes sense

In other words, because you can get 20 hours of free childcare, then you will be able to work 20 hours a week.

Mr Key has come up with this thought in response to the Welfare Working Group's final report on how welfare should be reformed in New Zealand. It is, as you would expect, nasty. But oddly enough, it is not unrealistic with respect to childcare. Unlike Mr Key.

What our Chief Executive Officer Prime Minister doesn't understand is that 20 hours of child care doesn't equal 20 hours at work. Even if you are lucky enough to have childcare provided at your place of employment (and hey, good luck with finding that), you still need to allow a few minutes each day for dropping your children off, and collecting them again. More realistically, if you need to take your children to childcare, and settle them in, and then get from their childcare centre or preschool or kindergarten to your place of work, you need to allow extra time. My guess is that you need to allow an hour a day, depending on where you live. I suppose that if you are lucky, you might be able to find a job where you work your 20 hours over three days, so that you limit your drop-off-and-travel time to 3 hours. But then you will need to allow time to take lunch breaks, but of course, your child still has to be cared for. My conservative guess is that in order to work for 20 hours a week, you need 25 hours of childcare.

But that only works if you have pre-school children. If you have school age children as well as a pre-schooler, then you'll need to arrange school holiday care, for the 12 weeks of the year when schools are closed. You will be able to cover four weeks with your own leave, but that's still eight weeks when you will be juggling children and childcare and work. Not an easy task at all.

The Welfare Working Group itself acknowledged these problems. Even though it recommended that sole parents receiving the DPB be required to look for work, this was only possible:

...subject to the Government addressing issues with the current availability and affordability of childcare and out-of-school care which we recommend are urgently addressed...

The final report also noted that:

We have proposed that sole parents (and other carers of children in the welfare system) be required to work at least 20 hours per week once their youngest child turns three years old. To meet this work obligation, these parents may need more than 20 hours of care per week, once travel time to work is factored in.

And:

The expansion of out-of-school services would enable more parents to work full-time and have hassle-free care for their children before and after school and in the school holidays. Increased availability and affordability of these services is critical to enable a full-time work expectation to be introduced for sole parents once the youngest child reaches school age. In addition, it may be necessary to require schools to open earlier to give parents more flexibility about when they can start work. We propose that the Ministry of Education urgently develop proposals to facilitate the expansion of out-of-school services on school property, including during the school holidays.

(Emphasis mine)

Whatever else may be, shall we say, problematic in the Welfare Working Group's report, at least they were not unrealistic about the connection between a parent's ability to work, and the availability of good childcare.

Unlike our Prime Minister, who clearly has little idea about just how much work it takes to combine paid employment with parenting. And that worries me. The Welfare Working Group's report is just that - a report. Now it is up to the government to read and understand that report, and decide which bits it will adopt as policy. And the leader of our government has just demonstrated, in one simple little phrase, that he has no understanding of the reality of day to day life for working parents.

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

I realise that it's been a week since the Welfare Working Group's report came out. But take a look at the datestamp on the article I linked to: 11.16am, on Tuesday 22 February. Slightly over an hour and a half later, Christchurch was torn apart by a lethal earthquake. All this last week, we have been watching and waiting and grieving with the people of Canterbury. However as I said last Friday, something we need to do now is get on with it. Get on with working and thinking and writing, because "they are depending on us to keep the place running and to support them while they work to get their lives, their homes, their communities, back together again."

I hope to write some more about the Welfare Working Group's report in the next few days.

we're all in this together

i think most of us have been glued to the television and/or radio, as well as following print media over the last week, as we are desperate for news on the christchurch earthquake. we want to know what's happened, how we can help, what help is already being provided, and how people are coping. the media stories shape our understanding of the event, in the way they present the information to us. what is left in, what is missed out; what is highlighted and what is forgotten; these impact the way we see the event and the players involved.

the horror and sadness affected us all. media stories covered the devastation and loss, but also the tales of heroism, the stories of those waiting to hear about loved ones who were missing, and stories about those who pulled up their sleeves and worked in a variety of ways.

by the fourth day of coverage, i noticed a distinct bias in the coverage - or rather, in the type of people being covered. aside from the politicians and public servants (by which i include civil defence staff, police, army, DHB chief exec etc), there were the stories of individuals. and those individuals, with one major exception which i'll mention later, were white and mostly middle class.

whether it was those who were pulled out of collapsed buildings, people who were interviewed about their experiences, those who were struggling to survive, those who were offering help, almost all the people selected to share their stories were white and middle class. it's hard to say whether the bias was in-built and un-noticed, or whether it was a deliberate strategy because stories of these types of people are received better by audiences.

but it's not like there weren't other stories to be told. it's not like there weren't other groups who had suffered, who had been heroic and who had pulled their sleeves up to help out their neighbours. i can't say that i watched every bit of coverage all the time, but i did watch and listen to a reasonable amount. and in that time, i did not see coverage of maraes and the effort being put in by the maori community to support the homeless. i didn't see what happened to the mosque, to temples or other places of worship. perhaps none were damaged, but it would have been nice to have some basic coverage of that. i didn't see what was happening with the refugee community.

i heard about price-gouging by some dairies (and let's not forget our cultural expectation that dairy owners will be asian) but would have loved to see some in-depth stories told about the heaps of other dairy owners who weren't, many of whom were doing their best to ensure their communties had adequate supplies of basic necessities.

as i mentioned above, there was one major exception, being the international students studying in the CTV building, and the search and rescue teams from taiwan and japan. of the latter, there was nowhere near as much coverage as we got of the aussies and the americans. language might have been a problem, but i'm sure there were a significant number in the asian teams who spoke good english. while there were some brief interviews with the asian crews, they didn't have reporters following them into buildings or building that audience rapport with them in the way that we got stories of western crews.

but more than that, because the coverage of non-white faces was mostly limited to foreigners, it embedded the notion that white faces are local and non-white faces are foreign. that selective lens that focused on white people for the stories of local residents served to embed the notion of what a nz'er looks and sounds like. it shapes our collective understanding, in a very subtle and subconscious way, when we grieve with and identify with one particular representation of nz'ers to the exclusion of others. aside from being unjust, it's really unhelpful in building that community spirit that is so necessary for long-term survival.

so that was last week. this week is looking better. the sunday star times had a story of a pacific islander who had saved someone's life by shifting some heavy rubble (sorry, can't find it online just now), as well as revisiting the story of young myro mckee, who they had featured as part of their coverage of the september earthquake. today the dominion post covered a refugee family and the effect of the earthquake on refugees. during the midday news, radio nz had some coverage of work being done by the maori community. we're seeing tv crews go into the poorer areas of the city, and cover families that are living in very overcrowded conditions (again, can't find the link).

this may seem a trivial point to raise in the midst of so much destruction and hurt. it's important to me, because who is covered is who we identify with and who we want to help. it's important because every community has suffered, and we all need to hear and see the various different types of nz'ers that make up this country. it's a matter of justice, and a matter of bonding and togetherness. if we really want to develop the feeling that we're all in this together, then we have to make sure that create an environment where everyone feels that they belong.

In lieu of a Friday Feminist

Cross posted

I am heartsore this week, sad about the deaths caused by the earthquake in Christchurch, aware that the weeks and months ahead will be difficult beyond belief for the people living there, regretful about the loss of the beautiful buildings.

In lieu of a Friday Feminist quote, I ask you to spend a moment thinking of the people of Christchurch. I know that most of us have had Christchurch in our minds all week, just as we have been so aware of the slow flooding disaster in Queensland and New South Wales and Victoria. Even so, take a moment.

And then, carry on. People in the eastern states of Australia, people in Christchurch need us to carry on, to keep working, to keep caring and loving, to keep on scrutinising our politicians and our officials. They are depending on us to keep the place running and to support them while they work to get their lives, their homes, their communities, back together again.

Each time I have seen photos of the toppled spire of Canterbury Cathedral this week, I have thought of a plaque I saw there many years ago, when I was still a student.

He aha te mea nui o te ao?
He tangata! He tangata! He tangata!

What is the most important thing in the world?
It is people! It is people! It is people!

Helping Women's Refuge in Christchurch

So many of us are looking for something, anything, to do to help our sisters and brothers, our friends, our family, so many of them not known to us at all, our country women and men in Christchurch. Here's something, beyond donating to the official appeals. The Christchurch Women's Refuge is appealing for:

new bedding, nappies, sanitary items, non perishable food for example.

Contact them on info@refuge.org.nz

Check out their Facebook page here: Women's Refuge Christchurch Earthquake Response.

offering accommodation

those who are able to provide accommodation, there is information from here:

Places to find and offer accomodation for Christchurch people

Facebook group. Offering free temporary accomodation for Christchurch quake victims

Couch Surfing christchurch.

Google spreadsheet, People are offering by adding a row to the spreadsheet, deleting when filled

3 news. People are adding comments to the story for offers of a bed (includes missing person messages)

If you know of other places please email brenda@coffee.geek.nz
We are aware of a combined effort to build a custom website. If you're a programmer/ webdeveloper, and wish to assist, please join the #eqnz irc channel on freenode, or email brenda@coffee.geek.nz.

numbers for those with poor english

a copy of the email i received from ministry of ethnic affairs:

Support for ethnic communities affected by earthquake

The 6.3-magnitude earthquake near Christchurch has caused significant damage. The Police are working to determine the number of dead. Numerous injuries have been reported. The quake occurred at 12:51pm, February 22, 2011 10 kilometres south-east of Christchurch, at a depth of five kilometres.

For the latest information and advice visit the Ministry of Civil Defence website People concerned about the wellbeing of friends and relatives in Christchurch should call 0800 REDCROSS (0800 733 276). A special phone help-line has been set up for people seeking information about Government services and support. It is 0800 77 9997

For those with little or no English the Office of Ethnic Affairs’ telephone interpretation service is available. Language Line can help provide everyone with the help and information they need. The Director of the Office of Ethnic Affairs, Mervin Singham says: “in times like this it is essential that people with little or no English are able to access information, advice and entitlements in the same way that any other New Zealanders can.

The Office of Ethnic Affairs is committed to ensuring that this occurs”. The numbers below offer Language Line and assistance in your language. Other agencies which use Language Line and the list of languages can be found at http://www.languageline.govt.nz/
· ACC Claims................................................................................. 0800 101 996
· Christchurch City Council............................................................. 03 941 8999
· Work and Income......................................................................... 0800 559 009
· Child, Youth & Family................................................................. 0508 326 459
· Housing New Zealand Corporation.......................................... 0800 801 601
· Earthquake Commission............................................................ 0800 326 243
· Inland Revenue........................................................................... 0800 227 774
· Heathline...................................................................................... 0800 611 116

More phone lines are available here.

Advice from the Ministry of Civil Defence

The Ministry of Civil Defence advises that people in the affected area should:

· Expect aftershocks. Each time one is felt, drop, cover, and hold on.
· To minimise overloading on the phone network people should use text messaging to check if family and friends are safe.
· There are 38 confirmed fatalities and numerous reports of injuries. The death toll is likely to rise.
· Stay out of damaged areas. There are reports of widespread building collapse, especially in the central city.
· Listen to the radio for updated emergency information and instructions.
· Welfare centres have been set up in several areas of the city.
· Help people who require special assistance - infants, elderly people, those without transportation, families who may need additional help, people with disabilities, and the people who care for them.

For more information on Language Line a telephone interpreting service of the Office of Ethnic Affairs contact:

Sue Ingram
Senior Communications AdvisorOffice of Ethnic Affairs, Te Tari Matawaka
The Department of Internal Affairs, Te Tari Taiwhenua
46 Waring Taylor Street
Wellington
Direct Dial: 64 4 494 0584
Mobile: 027 541 4696
sue.ingram@dia.govt.nz

sleepless night

i really don't know what to say. sat in my office trying not to cry (and not entirely successful at that), listening as the news came in. death and devastation in region barely recovered from the last lot of earthquakes, and so much worse than last time. i wonder how many cantabrians are going to get through the night, i know there won't be much sleep for them. not tonight & not for quite a few nights.

i'm sitting here in my comfortable bed, in my intact house, & wishing i could at least offer a family a place to stay. a nice hot shower & toilets that work, a night's sleep without fear of aftershocks.

we had a meeting at my place tonight of members of the waikato interfaith council. we were planning for the 2012 interfaith forum, but took time to have some silence and prayers for the people of christchurch. time for us to shed tears together and think about what practical support we can offer. time to share bits of news and comfort each other, even though we aren't actually the ones suffering.

i'd like to acknowledge and personally thank a whole heap of people. the search & rescue teams. the police. the army. the fire service. members of the public who are pulling their sleeves up and doing what they can to support the rescue effort. the medical teams at hospitals and shelters. those who are supporting friends and neighbours. public servants and civil defence staff. all those who work in the media, including camera operators, producers, journalists, technicians & any others behind the scenes getting the information to us. workers for NGOs and faith groups, offering whatever support they can. those organising shelter for people who have no home left. those working frantically to get communication services and power working again.

and to anyone i've missed who is doing what they can to help out, whether in a big or small way. thank you for doing what i'm unable to do. thank you for your courage and determination, your strength & presence of mind. thank you for making a difference.

finally, to those suffering from physical injury, shock, trauma and fear, i wish you well and sincerely hope that your situation improves soon. for those who have suffered the loss of a loved one or unable to find someone, my condolences. i wish i could offer you comfort or ease.

Oh, Christchurch

I cried when I heard the news, and I held my breath as I waited to hear from people on Twitter and Facebook, and I cried again when I saw the shots of the PGG building, and the cathedral, and thought, people must have died this time.

I think all of New Zealand was crying today. Oh, Christchurch.

Crying won't do, of course. Because now there's work to be done, supporting the people who live in Christchurch.

going beyond the individual

i think we've had some great posts put up here in the last week, and have really appreciated being able to think through the issues raised. i wanted to take up one point raised by deborah in her post on everyday feminism & knitting, which she put extremely well:

Part of the way it plays out is in the relationships I form with other people, which I try to base on respect. Respect for them as people, respect for their purposes. That respect can include criticising their choices, or approving of them. It certainly involves holding them responsible for those decisions. Only children and some people whose capacity to act autonomously is in some way diminished are immune from responsibility. Being up for criticism is part of being adult. Equally, those who criticise are responsible for what they say. There are no one way streets for adults.

for me, feminism goes further and looks at improving the choices available for women. i also hate it that so much of the discourse concentrates on individual choices and ignores the way institutional and cultural structures impact on those choices. it is, in effect, the neo-liberal approach of reducing everything to the individual, which i think is a deliberate strategy intended to actually alienate individuals from each other and to protect power structures from collective opposition.

i've seen it played out in practical terms on the stop the the rock's win a wife campaign facebook page. i've been following most of the discussions there (and may i once again express my admiration for those who are fighting the good fight, and apologise for not being able to put more time into helping them).

there have been any number of people who stop by to tell us that it is the choice of ukranian women to join these agencies, and that we feminists are evil for trying to restrict these choices and deny the ukranian women a chance at a better life. the disconnect is funny - they recognise that the individual choices of these women may be influenced by economic conditions in the ukraine, but have no interest in the factors that lead to those conditions, nor are they interested in measures that might be taken to improve those choices. neither are they interested in the fact that all women are affected by the way these agencies are set up and the way the competition is set up.

reducing everything to individual choice, by pretending society doesn't exist (hello margaret thatcher) and that if it does, it has no impact on that choice, makes it easier to ignore our collective responsibility to improve choices for women and for other marginalised groups.

i think we need to be saying "that choice isn't good", even while we support the individual who made that choice, acknowledge that it actually might be the best choice in the circumstances, and make sure we don't blame or shame the individual for making that choice. it's not always easy to do, and i know that in some cases it might well be impossible to criticise the choice without being seen to criticise the individual. and i know it sounds too much like the "love the sinner, hate the sin" doctrine that we see to excuse marginalisation of various kinds. but i think what i'm trying to say is something different, ie support the individual while working towards better choices for all individuals.

Friday Feminist - Audre Lorde (2)

Cross post

There are many kinds of power, used and unused, acknowledged or otherwise. The erotic is a resource within each of us that lies in a deeply female and spiritual plane, firmly rooted in the power of our unexpressed or unrecognized feeling. In order to perpetuate itself, every oppression must corrupt or distort those various sources of power within the culture of the oppressed that can provide energy for change. For women, this has meant a suppression of the erotic as a considered source of power and information within our lives.

We have been taught to suspect this resource, vilified, abused, and devalued within western society. On the one hand, the superficially erotic has been encouraged as a sign of female inferiority; on the other hand, women have been made to suffer and to feel both contemptible and suspect by virtue of its existence.

It is a short step from there to the false belief that only by the suppression of the erotic within our lives and consciousness can women be truly strong. But that strength is illusory, for it is fashioned within the context of male models of power.

As women, we have come to distrust that power which rises from our deepest and nonrational knowledge. We have been warned against it all our lives by the male world, which values this depth of feeling enough to keep women around in order to exercise it in the service of men, but which fears this same depth too much to examine the possibilities of it within themselves. So women are maintained at a distant/inferior position to be psychically milked, much the same way ants maintain colonies of aphids to provide a life-giving substance for their masters.

But the erotic offers a well of replenishing and provocative force to the woman who does not fear its revelation, nor succumb to the belief that sensation is enough.

Audre Lourde, Sister Outsider, 1984

Why yes, Mr Key, beneficiaries do make lifestyle choices

Something interesting is happening out there in medialand. After scores of examples of people rushing into the comments pages to trash beneficiaries in general and sole mothers in particular, John Key's comments on Wednesday about beneficiaries finally seem to have stirred up lots of angry accusations that as a well-paid millionaire, he is completely out of touch with the realities of life even on low wages, let alone a benefit.

Asked about the large increases in demand for food parcels and the Salvation Army's report showing that "food poverty" was at nearly double the level of four years ago, Key said that "anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice. If one budgets properly, one can pay one's bills....the bulk of New Zealanders on a benefit do actually pay for food, their rent and other things. Now some make poor choices and they don't have money left."

As many comments have shown, beneficiaries certainly do make choices. Faced with the need to choose between buying healthy food and going to the doctor, or buying children's shoes versus paying the phone bill, I wonder what Mr Key would consider to be the "poor" choice.

Meanwhile over at Scoop, Gordon Campbell injects a much needed dose of accurate facts, as well as excellent amalysis, into the looming "welfare reform" debate (I hate that Americanism, "welfare" - its proper name is social security.)

Good News

Yesterday the Court of Appeal upheld the SFWU & PSA case against IDEA Services - more usually known as the 'sleepover case'.

For those who haven't been following it - across the country there are residential houses, which offer around the clock care for people who need for disability or mental health reasons. These are funded (or rather underfunded) by the government. At the moment, the caregivers in these houses are paid what are called 'sleep-over rates' overnight. IDEA Services pays its works $34 for a 9 hour shift. This is obviously well below the minimum wage.

The unions involved took a case in 2007 to argue that workers should be paid the minimum wage. They won in the Employment court, and have now won in the court of appeal. Consistently the courts have found that since the workers have to be there then it is work (I could have told them that for free, but oh well) and should have been paid the minimum wage (for more information see the Service and Food Workers Union website - which is where I got the picture from).

I think this is one of the most important active feminist struggles in New Zealand at the moment. New Zealand feminists have been fighting for equal pay for equal work for a very long time. And we haven't won yet jobs that are preformed by women are consistently judged of less worth than jobs that are performed by men.

And this is a classical example: jobs that are dominated by men, Doctors, Firefighters, and ambulance officers, all get paid far more than minimum wage and are able to sleep on the job. Whereas disability service workers are mostly women, so they're not even working.

However, unfortunately victory in the courts may not deliver either backpay or a new. The IHC has made preparations to go bankrupt if they have to pay the money. Unless the government, which is the funder of services and so was, and has been, complicit in this whole thing. The government has also indicated that it would be prepared to change the law specifically to stop the payment of minimum wage over sleep overs (it's willing to make exceptions to the labour law for itself, as well as film studios).

So it's important not to just rely on the courts to make this change, but to actively support the workers in their struggle to get the very most basic wages and conditions.

Everyday feminism and knitting

Cross posted

When I think about the core of feminism for me, I come up with this:

it is [recognising] that women are autonomous adults, capable of making decisions for themselves, of being rational and competent, of conceiving of a vision of the good life, and making choices in order to achieve that vision of the good life.

Or to put it in Stef’s fine words – being a feminist means that you are free to fuck up. Your life, your decisions, your responsibility. Just because you are an autonomous adult.

I've taken that from a post I wrote a year or two ago, about why feminists must be pro-choice.

Thinking in terms of autonomy means going further than just making choices. It means that a person has not only made a choice, but that choice is considered, it is unconstrained, it can be put into practice, in the longer term, it adds to her status as an adult.

But that's all very abstract, very much a theorised position, rather than a guide to everyday living. How feminism manifests in my life is a different matter.

Part of the way it plays out is in the relationships I form with other people, which I try to base on respect. Respect for them as people, respect for their purposes. That respect can include criticising their choices, or approving of them. It certainly involves holding them responsible for those decisions. Only children and some people whose capacity to act autonomously is in some way diminished are immune from responsibility. Being up for criticism is part of being adult. Equally, those who criticise are responsible for what they say. There are no one way streets for adults.

Partly it plays out in listening to women's experience, and understanding that if someone says that her experience is A, B, and C, then really, it is not up to me to tell her what her experience is, nor that her experience doesn't matter in the light of my theory. Shut up and listen already is a very, very useful heuristic to live by.

Feminism sees me viewing everything through a gender lens. A gender analysis is my first approach to an issue. Does this affect men and women differently, and if so how, and does it matter? Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it just doesn't matter.

Feminism pushes me to think in terms of inclusion and exclusion, not just for women, but for anyone who doesn't fit into the nicely fitted moulds of contemporary society. The teenagers' reading room at the library is great for teens, but deeply exclusive for pre-teens who want to read the books held there. The ramp up to the first floor entrance to the library means that everyone can get into the library, but it's a long way further to go for people using mobility devices. Sitting on a work table while lecturing may mean nothing to pakeha students, but it causes a jolt of discomfort for many Maori students, making the room a difficult place for learning. And so it goes.

Feminism means that I value women's work. The first time I went to the Royal Adelaide Show, I was astonished to see displays of knitting and sewing and lacemaking, even tatting, baking and preserving, quilt making and embroidery. Well, not so much the quilting and embroidery, but the trays of ginger crunch and filled sponge cakes and jars of jellies amazed me. That one could enter a competition for such things, and get certificates. Very, very old-fashioned, I thought. And then I thought again, because it could be seen as a celebration of women's work, of the things that so many women do so well, every day, but because it is housework and home care, baking and cooking rather than creating meals like a chef, it is not valued. My feminism values and celebrates that work.

And my feminism values women's spaces. For some years, I belonged to a book group. We were a group of women ranging in age from early thirties to late fifties, we read classic works and every six weeks or so, we got together on a Friday night to talk about them. The conversation would start with the book we had all read, then move on to Jane Austen (of course!), and from there segue to work and family and children and current events and partners and on and on. Some of the women in the group were explicitly feminist, some were not, all of us enjoyed each other's company, and we enjoyed the women-space. The group functioned differently from gender mixed groups I have been involved in, and I suppose it functioned differently from all-male groups, but I wouldn't be able to tell you about that (pace Jane Austen and conversations between men). I couldn't say that the all-women group functioned better than mixed groups I have been involved with, because that's not the point. Nor would I describe it as feminist, although as a feminist, I valued the women's space that it created, just as a place to be.

So is knitting feminist? No. Not in itself, and not every feminist knits, nor does every feminist like knitting and crafting work. (Though it's hard to go past these daleks created by a feminist of my acquaintance.) But when a group of women get together, and knit, or bake, or garden, or read books, or engage in the slow conversation of blog posts, then with a feminist eye, I see the joy of creating space for women to be.

None of which means that men's work, men's spaces, are not valuable too. Nor that a group such as my book group must always be women-only. Nor that men can't enjoy craft work. Nor that a blog tagged as feminist is necessarily a space only for women. Just that as a feminist, I recognise and value the way that women's work and women's spaces can enable women to flourish.

Aesthetics, Lifestyle and survival strategies

Ten years ago I was attending a reunion of a Women's liberation group, as an observer. It was an incredible experience and an honour. And on the first day, in the first session, one of the women got up excitedly and said "I just want to say look at all the people wearing trousers, when we first met, every one of us would have been wearing a skirt, Isn't it fabulous."

She was an awesome, friendly, loving woman. She had the best of intentions.

And over the next two days I heard pretty much every woman who was wearing a skirt talk about what she'd said. She'd made them feel self-concious and judged. And other women who were wearing trousers that day felt the same way.

By celebrating one form of dress within a feminist space, a well-intentioned woman had alienated many of those there. And I don't think that she ever knew the effect her words had.

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

I have been misquoted pretty consistently as arguing that The Wellington Young Feminist Collective 'should' take issues of aesthetics/lifestyle/survival strategies off the table. I didn't say that. What I said was this:

This is the reason I wrote my post: "I used to think I couldn't be a feminist because I like looking a certain way and I am interested in certain things."

I think this is a real danger - equally the inverse - that women can feel that they can't be a feminist because they don't look a certain way and aren't interested in certain things. And I think the easiest way to avoid that is to make aesthetic/lifestyle/survival choices off the table for feminist discussion.

Now I want to talk about why I think that, what I meant by it, and why I think it's important.

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

I'm going to take as a basic assumption of this post that it is not OK to criticise another woman's aesthetic/lifestyle/survival strategies in the name of feminism.* I know that this isn't a universally held belief. This post and the discussion at Boganette's makes that clear. But I think it also makes it clear why other women's survival strategies should not be open to criticism.

Why isn't it OK to use the language of feminism to judge other people's decisions?

Because it's alienating, none of your business, and the survival strategies other people choose has nothing to do with your liberation.**

I am happy to argue about this in the comments, but I am going to spend the rest of the post speaking to people who don't support criticising other people's aesthetic/lifestyle/survival strategies in the name of feminism, but don't understand why they should be off the table. I'll try and explain why I think celebratory, or supposedly neutral comments about aesthetic/lifestyle/survival strategies can be damaging in feminist spaces.

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

I opened with a story, here are some more.

My friend was at a feminist action. She had been given free razors as part of a promotion. She didn't shave her legs. She gives them to someone and says "here you shave your legs have these". Later, much later, the person she gave the razors too tells her how shit she felt in that moment, how judged. My friend doesn't even remember it happening. [Please respect this story. I'm not going to accept any second guessing of it in the comments]

------

It had been advertised as a feminist meeting, but it was actually a clothes swap. Indeed it wasn't really a clothes swap at all, but one woman giving her clothes away. People tried on clothes, and they mostly didn't fit . One woman, who was probably half my size, put her hand on her hips and thighs and said "They're huge, that's why this is never going to fit."

------

An older feminist is running a feminist workshop. She makes frequent references to where she does and doesn't shave. She was trying to put us at ease. In fact it just made me feel like this mattered.

------

I could give many more examples like this. Think of the effect of celebrating a particular aesthetic/lifestyle/survival strategy in the name of feminism has on those who for whom it is financially impossible, or for those for whom it is inaccessible because of the way society disables their bodies.

When you're celebrating a particular survival strategy it still has nothing to do with anyone else's liberation, it's still alienating, and it's still none of anyone else's business.

In particular, in my experience, discussions about aesthetic/lifestyle/survival strategies take on more meaning and become more fraught when they happen in feminist spaces - and even more so the larger the feminist space.

This is just an observation. It may not be true in all feminist spaces, but it has certainly been a consistent experience of mine. I'm just guessing, but I think this is a result of the impossibility of women to win with their choices - they're always too much something, and are juggling so many different expectations, as well as their own and other people's needs. Therefore any kind of expression within a feminist space about these issues becomes a whole nother axis of pressure.

You'll notice that I only feature as an observer and the one excluded in these stories. This is not because I have some magic non-alienating super power. It's because what these stories have in common (as does the Trousers one I mentioned) is that the people who have made others feel alienated and excluded by discussing survival strategies have no idea that they've done unless someone tells them.

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

I stand by my statement that the easiest way to solve the problem that I have now explored in quite some detail is to make discussions of aesthetics/survival strategies/lifestyles off limits in feminist spaces.

Let's consider a different way of dealing with discussions of clothes shops on the WYFC feed. Another way of doing it would be to post "Hey we all know clothing yourself can be super difficult. I just found this neat boutique called Emma's which works for me for [x reasons], but it might not work for you. What are your favourite clothing shops?" That's less universalising and I would have made no comment on a post like that.

Would people feel posting that they liked City Chic? The Warehouse? Hallensteins? Glassons? Supre? Each of these spaces provide different types of clothes at different prices for different people. Is this a space where people would be able to say, actually I can't afford to shop for clothes. Or I don't go to the clothes shops because of anxiety. If those things don't get posted how do you know why?

So what if someone comes a long and all the shops seem to them super-femme, or expensive, or don't cater to bodies anything like hers, and she's think "oh", and feels like feminism is a bit further away. My experience suggests that this is not just a hypothetical. This is a likely outcome.

The reason I say that I think the easiest solution is to take these matters off the table, is because I think having a good conversation about survival strategies/aesthetics/lifestyle is really fucking difficult. (for ones that go badly see any number of discussions on Feministe) If you want to initiate these sorts of conversations you have to know what you're doing and take the responsibility really seriously.

Can it be done? I was very interested in some of the conversations they had a FWD. They put a lot of effort into making sure that different experiences were heard. But who knows if people felt alienated by the way they did it.

***********

I know how useful discussion with people, those who share your experiences, about your aesthetic/survival strategy/lifestyle can be. They're useful for understanding why you do things the way you do, what meaning you've given to them, they can help making you stronger. I know what a difference it's meant so much to me having not just a name for the set of things that I found hard (dyspraxia) but someone who finds some of the same things hard.

I think spaces which tell individual women's stories and describe their aesthetic/lifestyle/survival strategies are really awesome and important. I follow a lot of blogs about women's lives, with their experiences and their analysis all rolled around. And then it's really clear 'this is me'. Locally, I love, and learn a lot from Letters from Wetville and Tales of a Redheaded Devil Child

The discussions which are useful for one person - will be unbearable for another. A description that one person finds really speaks to them is super alienating for another. There is value in creating spaces for all of us where we can feel comfortable, relax and socialise, but they won't be the same spaces.

***********

And I know, many people have said, that it can seem ridiculous that when I've caused so much division to be so concerned about alienating people. But to me divisions based on ideology - 'what is feminism' are necessary and important. And if I write a follow up post - a response to all the people who asked me "Who the fuck are you to say what feminism is?" I'll try and explain why.

Alienating people who are wearing trousers, or who shave their legs, or who can't use the products you promote when you don't even mean to, that's completely unnecessary and avoidable.

* Just to be clear I differentiate betweens survival strategies and the use of power. So, for example, if you take a job that gives you management responsibilities then you can and should be criticised for the way that you use that power. However, almost all survival strategies don't involve the wielding of power over someone else.

** The other exception I would lay out to when other people's survival strategies become other people's business is if you cross a picket line, but I don't think that applies here.

Bad news

So according to the Right to Life (I'm not recommending you follow this link - just providing for information sake) website the Family Planning Assocation have withdrawn their application to provide medical abortions from their Hamilton clinic.*

If this application was successful Family Planning would have been able to apply to provide medical abortions in all their clinics.

Family Planning have clinics in Greymouth, Invercargill, Timaru, Tauranga, Ashburton, Whanganui, Ashburton and Rangiora - at the moment women in those places have to travel to another town or city to access abortion. They also have multiple clinics in Auckland and Wellington - so women from Porirua wouldn't have to take two buses and a train to get to Newtown Hospital, and women from South Auckland and the North Shore wouldn't have to make their way to Epsom. It would have completely transformed abortion access in New Zealand.

It would have not solved all the problems that our horrific abortion legsilation creates for women seeking abortion. It would mean that women in larger cities would have a choice between surgical and medical abortions, but those in other areas could only easily access medical abortion. And women who go to Family Planning would still have to jump through the hoops to prove to doctors that they deserve an abortion.

But it would have made a real difference to abortion access in New Zealand. And now it won't happen.

Right to Life have had marches and law suits against the Family Planning Association. That's how worried they were about it.

I think this is another sign of the importance of building an active pro-choice movement in this country. Come along to the 2011 Pro-Choice Gathering.

Updated to add: It is possible that this is not family planning withdrawing from trying to get medical abortions, but it could be a temporary withdrawl. That seems to be what Right to Life think (again provided for informations sake - only follow if you can stand it) - thanks muerk for the link.

* And just to make fun of Right to Life they include in their press release the statement that medical abortions have killed 12 people - worldwide. Where pregnancy and childbirth is normally totes safe, and has never lead to any maternal deaths, ever, anywhere.

in support of exclusion

as i mentioned on my own blog a couple of days ago, i've been busy this week doing the taku manawa human rights facilitation programme. one effect is that i'm away from the internet all day & am so busy in the evenings trying to catch up with various things that i don't have time to engage on the blog.

i've been reading what maia has written regarding the wellington young feminists' collective and the various (and often angry) responses to that. i'm sorry that i haven't been able to support her in that discussion, and honestly feel a litte initimidated and nervous about treading into that territory. however, as part of the course, i have to give a 3-5 minute speech tomorrow (huge challenge for me in keeping it that short!) on an aspect of human rights, and this whole issue maia raised & the discussion around it has been churning in my mind all day.

so i'm going to be talking tomorrow about inclusion and exclusion, because i think we don't have enough decent conversations around that. and when we do try to have those discussions, it becomes quite distraught and pretty emotional very quickly. which is not a bad thing. emotion is important, the way people feel about an issue is important, and the fact they are moved to anger or hurt or frustration - well, that needs to be expressed.

but most importantly, disagreement (or maybe dissension is a better word) is a healthy thing. i was concerned by many commenters on maia's thread dismissing the issue she raised as trivial, unnecessarily disruptive & causing feminists to nitpick with each other. i have a very different view - i think that it is in the discussions around small things that the big issues get raised. the raising of the seemingly trivial or minute actually opens the door into things that have major implications, and it allows us to explore our own assumption and the way we are interacting. despite all the anger and some nastiness on that thread, i found so much of value, so much to think about and it made me challenge my thinking about something that i would otherwise have passed by without even noticing. i really don't see how that can be a bad thing.

i know that it's difficult, when there's a group that thinks it has a shared understanding, to dissent or disagree on something, knowing that by doing so you are disrupting that sense of common purpose. and it is highly likely that those with the most power within the group will feel attacked by the challenge. how they responsd is critical: to dismiss the dissent is actually dangerous to the group. it stifles the expansion of thought and the exploration of ideas. it teaches individuals to keep silent when they feel hurt or excluded, and so those individuals disengage from the group and something valuable is lost.

however, there is another side this notion of being inclusive versus feeling excluded, and this is what i'll speak about tomorrow. a lot of the field of human rights is about inclusion (and i don't claim to be any kind of expert in this area, 3 days of training so far can only give me a very shallow overview). it's about behaving in a way that makes others feel welcomed and valued, makes them feel part of the group.

but that very notion, the notion of being inclusive, actually excludes some people. it excludes the people who don't want to be inclusive, who want to stick to their prejudices and who want to make moral & ethical judgements based on the characteristics of another. so, in other words, we are actually not being inclusive when we take a rights-based approach - we can't be if we are to protect those very rights. if we are totally inclusive, then we in fact say that human rights don't matter.

the problem then comes down to who we exclude and how we exclude them. who decides? how do we draw our boundaries so that each individual can clearly determine whether or not they fall within them?

the problem becomes even more difficult when various rights compete against one another. we see that most clearly on this blog at the intersection of ethnicity/race and gender. some of the discussions we've had around the te papa memo on menstruation, for example, or on discussions about the burqa. to generalise, there are times when a person's right to practice their own religion or cultural traditions will clash with the right to not be discriminated on the basis of gender.

i can't find the post now [ETA: ok, i've finally found it], but i do recall writing one where i argued that the wearing the burqa was not a feminist act, even though it is a valid choice for women to make. in that case, i'm excluding women who wear the burqa from the tent of feminism, even though i totally accept that they themselves may believe they have made the choice to wear it from a position of strength and empowerment, and even though they may come under the tent on many other issues. so one person can be both in and out, can be a feminist on some issues and not on others. similarly, i believe that the whole boobquake thing was not a feminist event, even though the majority of those who took part thought of their own participation as an act of empowerment. (i won't go through all the arguments regarding my position on that, as it was very fraught at the time, and i'm only raising it as an example of drawing boundaries.)

but again, we come back to the basic question: who decides? and on what basis?

for many of these issues, the community or the group has to decide. it decides based on debates on a variety of forums, and through these, coming to a shared agreement. of course, there are plenty of times when agreement doesn't happen, when a whole subset feel excluded and rejected, and might leave the group to form another. or the whole group just collapses because no resolution can be achieved.

that is the reality and messiness of human interaction. but just because the end result is often negative (eg a split or collapse of the group or a failure to come to any kind of understanding), it doesn't mean that exclusion is bad, or that discussions about what should be excluded should be off the table. i think, in fact, that we don't have enough discussions about what should be excluded. we don't spend enough time at the edges, trying to determine where the boundary might actually fall. often, we're too afraid to have that discussion, and i know i've chickened out many a time because i just don't feel safe enough and strong enough to fight my point.

that's why i really admire maia (even though i've had my disagreements with her). she has done exactly that: challenged a particular boundary and stated why she thinks a particular post on a facebook group falls outside the boundary of feminism. having read through all the comments, i believe that her arguments are valid, though i might not agree with her solution & prefer alison's instead.

to conclude a rather long & rambling post, what i'm trying to say is that not only is it ok to exclude some things, it is actually crucial to do so. i'm saying it's important to have those difficult discussions about where the boundaries lie. and it doesn't really matter if we can't come to a consensus, because there are some principles that should never be compromised and people should stand their ground and fight for those. to take any other approach is to expect easy answers to difficult solutions, and is often to silence those who are feeling marginalised or hurting.

Have some fun

It's election year, and Family First are responding by running a poll about how the government should leave families alone, except poor families and women, and also the government should define families more.

Go have your say it's all democratic like.

Possibly we should also take a poll on favourite illustration. I'm quite taken by the poor soft toys being exposed to a bra.

Is this what feminists look like?

There's this awesome new project The Wellington Young Feminists' Collective. I'm super excited about it, but don't quite know how to orient myself towards it.

Because in about one in every twenty things they post makes me want to have a massive city wide discussion about what feminism means. Here's the latest:

Hey ladies, here is a shop I discovered in Berhampore today which is FANTASTIC. Lovely handmade, locally designed ladies clothes and jewelry. And they fit ladies with big boobs, which is rarer than it should be. Yay for awesome local businesses! x

That was posted on Saturday, and about every four hours since I've gone backwards and forwards about responding to it, and how I should respond to it. Which maybe has a little bit to do with the fact that I've been travelling alone and the alternative was walking in the rain to Pak 'n' Save to discvoer they don't stock Whittakers Dark Almond Chocolate. But it's also because feminism is really important to me and things which I would normally just be 'eh' about really agitate me when they're done in the name of feminism. On the other hand I know it's very easy for me (particularly in full rant mode) to come on very strong. In this case I want to start a discussion, rather than just rant about why am I right and everyone else is wrong (which to be honest which is what I want a lot of the time), but I don't know that I've got that setting. So far I've stayed silent (and started an argument about Seasame St on facebook to make myself feel better).

But the more I thought about it, the more I realised that there was an important feminist principle at stake that I wanted to try and articulate. I think (and maybe the admins of the Young Feminist Collective will disagree) that posting anything to a feed of a feminist group is to promote that post as a feminist act. I have three main objections to that in this particular case:

1. Cutting for some body shapes (like a large bust) will make clothes fit some body types better, but other body types worse. Clothes shops sell a hole that your body should fit into. And promoting any particular sized or shaped hole is problematic from a feminist perspective.

2. Promoting clothes shops that only sell straight sizes in a feminist space is exclusionary. But actually what I find even more offensive, is that nowhere on Emma's website does it mention what sizes she stocks. So people have to go out to Berhampore to learn they're not welcome to buy her clothes. By looking at another website that sold her stuff, I was able to discover that she has a very few 16s, a few more Ls which is 14-16, and some styles which have 14 as their largest size (and a lot of her clothes don't come in an 8 either). Fine different shops stock different ranges of sizes. But to not specify what body types you sell for, to act as if they really limited range which you do stock covers everyone is perpetuating particularly damaging ideas about women's bodies.

3. And then there's the capitalism issue. Because actually no I don't support locally owned businesses, even the supposedly awesome ones. The idea that local businesses are any better than larger ones is not an evidence based assertion. While I know nothing about Emma, I do know a reasonable amount about the New Zealand clothing industry - and the way clothes are produced in New Zealand is absolutely the opposite of everything I think feminism stands for.

I'm not dissing clothes shopping - I understand that clothes shopping can be awesome for some women at some times(my question of the moment is how many LucieLu dresses with zips up the front do I need - and the answer is ALL OF THEM). What I object to as promoting clothes shopping (particularly at a specific shop) as something that is going to appeal to a group of women who have nothing in common other than they're young feminists.

Feminism isn't a particular aesthetic or lifestyle or survival strategies. We're not all the same, we don't all like cupcakes, knitting, cute dresses, cool accessories, moon-cups, op-shops, roller-derby, Joss Whedon, gardening, and bicycles.

There's a reason I didn't post all my Dollhouse reviews to the Hand Mirror, and partly that's because of spoilers, but it's also because the Hand Mirror isn't just my playground the way my blog is. The Hand Mirror is a group feminist blog, and the only one (that I know of) in the country. What I do in The Hand Mirror, more than what I do anywhere else, is done in the name of feminism and that comes with it a certain responsibility.

To me a core part of that responsibility is to never suggest that liking the things I happen to like is part of being feminist. Feminism is an ideology not an aesthetic. Feminism should be about massively different people coming together with ideas in common.

courage

[update: here is a link to the article on stuff about this wonderful young woman. and here is the unicef webpage, where you can make a donation if you wish.]


i went to a fundraiser today. i was invited by a friend of mine whose daughter is scheduled for neurosurgery this week. since she was going to have her head shaved for the surgery, this young teen decided to turn the experience into a fundraiser, inviting family and friends to an event that would raise funds for unicef.

it was a beautiful event, with 4 men and two other teenage girls shaving their heads in solidarity. there were songs, dances, poetry readings and a choreographer got us to do the moves to thriller. such a lovely event, a celebration of this young woman and what she has to go through.

this the second friend i have who has to deal with serious health issues that arose in their teenage years. the other one has a daughter who developed a degenerative disease. the girl doing the fundraiser today was diagnosed last year with a rare condition that will require surgery to her brain stem. it's likely that she will require more surgery in coming years, this is only the first step in a process. i can't imagine what it must be like to have to cope in situations like this. somehow, i don't think i would cope very well at all.

so i thought it was incredibly courageous of this young woman to put on a fundraiser, even though she was feeling incredibly nervous about shaving off her hair and even though she is terribly afraid of the surgery to come. it's not only the way she is facing her own situation, but also that she can think of others and focus on supporting others in the world is amazing.

i have to admit that i lost it a little when we were singing the second verse of "lean on me". and then again, when seeing the tears of the proud mother of one of the other teens who shaved her head in support. this is why i hate it when people carry on about "young people these days", because i seem to continuously come across wonderful young people. they're never perfect, but then neither are the adults around them.

it is in these everyday stories that we see the true strength and beauty of the human character. i'm truly humbled by this young woman, and i hope everything goes well for her particularly in the next couple of weeks, but also in the longer term.

support the campaign

some fantastic women have started up a facebook campaign against the radio station running a competition to "win a wife". please do go and support them.

there's also a twitter hashtag #winawife, where you can also wield some teaspoons.

pickled think has done a round-up of links on the topic, and there a couple of posts here as well.

it's good to see that many advertisers are distancing themselves from this promotion. but they need to do more. they need to distance themselves from the station.

Friday Feminist - Susan Sontag

Cross posted

Beauty, women’s business in this society, is the theater of their enslavement. Only one standard of female beauty is sanctioned: the girl. The great advantage men have is that our culture allows two standards of male beauty: the boy and the man. The beauty of a boy resembles the beauty of a girl. In both sexes it is a fragile kind of beauty and flourishes naturally only in the early part of the life-cycle. Happily, men are able to accept themselves under another standard of good looks-heavier, rougher, more thickly built. A man does not grieve when he loses the smooth, unlined, hairless skin of a boy. For he has only exchanged one form of attractiveness for another: the darker skin of a man’s face, roughened by daily shaving, showing the marks of emotion and the normal lines of age. There is no equivalent of this second standard for women. The single standard of beauty for women dictates that they must go heaving clear skin. Every wrinkle, every line, every gray hair, is a defeat. no wonder that no boy minds becoming a man, while even the passage from girlhood to early womanhood is experienced by many women as their downfall, for all women are trained to continue wanting to look like girls.

Susan Sontag, "The Double Standard of Aging", Saturday Review, September 24, 1972.

language matters

so i failed to be impressed with brian edwards' attitude towards the high school student who objected to being told she looked like a slut (or somesuch). there was a healthy dose of not getting the point that using abusive language towards a student was not actually going to shock her into behaving in a manner whereby she would be safe from sexual violence. because there is in fact no such behaviour that will guarantee safety.

he tops that effort with a post highlighting the lack of courage shown by tradespeople who won't be honest about the fact that they are unable to take on a small job. which is a reasonable complaint - if you're too busy to do the job within a reasonable timeframe, say so and let the potential customer deal with someone else.

but look at the descriptors he uses to describe this lack of courage:

These pathetic wimps, wusses, chicken livers, cream puffs, crybabies, fraidy cats, milksops, momma’s boys, pantywaists, sissies, yellow bellies and big girl’s blouses do not have the cojones to tell even a little old lady they can’t concrete her drive...

surely it's not just me who objects to the fact that most of these descriptors equate lack of courage with feminity ie with being like a woman or being close to women. really, you couldn't have made your point without "momma's boys", "sissies" or "big girl's blouses"? it's such a terrible thing for a man to be close to his mother that this mere fact needs to be used as an insult? and just to ram the point home, he adds the implication that courage is dependent on having male genetalia. nice.

i'm also not liking the fact that he is equating a "lack of assertiveness" with lack of honesty. the problem is not that these tradespeople have trouble in being assertive, it's that they have trouble being honest about their workload and their ability to do the job. lacking assertiveness is not a bad thing, in and of itself. some people aren't assertive by nature, but that certainly doesn't make them less than anyone else. having seen a couple of people being put down simply for not being outgoing and assertive, i know how harmful that kind of judgement can be. perhaps mr edwards doesn't believe that the meek shall inherit the earth, but that doesn't mean they deserve contempt.

as i've said before, language is often a tool of discrimination, and he has provided a healthy dose of it here. language matters, it shapes the culture and environment people live in, it can aid in marginalisation, especially when it's used in the way it is here. mr edwards works in the field of media and communication, so i can't imagine that he would be unaware of this fact. i can only deduce that he chose to ignore it.

The week isn't ending

Last week was a week of feminist rage - this week was supposed to be something new. I wasn't quite expecting a week of feminist revolt and joy, but I was hoping to rage about something else for a week.*

But no - The Rock were determined that my week of feminist rage should never end. To be fair he mention of "the Rock" in the news in itself is like a lighthouse warning that rocks of misogyny are ahead. They did after all used to have billboards which said "We gave you something to listen to while your girlfriend was talking" (printed on the t-shit of a woman while not showing her head - naturally).

But now they have started a competition to 'win a wife':

The winner of MediaWorks' The Rock promotion will fly to the Ukraine for 12 nights, be given $2000 spending money, and be able to choose a bride from an agency.

There are really no words besides 'gah' and 'argh' and obviously their obnoxiousness is in part seeking an outraged reaction.

But what got me were the questions you have to answer to enter the competition. A large number of them ask about the various things contestants have done to 'score'. And then:

All women are nuts, but what can you tell us about your craziest Ex that sets her apart from the other nut-jobs?

The internal contradictions of a masculinity which hates women but requires hetrosexuality are so stark that whenever I try and think about it my brain short circuits.

It's like women are bogs of eternal stench with islands in the middle. And sex is catching a butterfly on one of those islands taking it home and pinning it on your wall for your mates (who are very judgemental about bog smells) to see.

It seems so ridiculous, so contrived, so obviously not connected to anything real or true that I find it hard to understand how this house of cards stands.

And it doesn't quite stand. The Rock, and beer ads, enforce masculinity in ways that dance so close to parody - and a sturdy house wouldn't need this sort of scaffolding. Our radical notion that women are people is a powerful counter-weapon.

* I have had lots of rage about the treatment of minimum wage workers both by the government and their employers. Tomorrow maybe.

I am here for my father

Metiria Turei, co-leader of the Green Party, gave a speech in reply to the Prime Minister's opening address to the House.

It is a stunning speech, which she opens by saying, "I am here for my father."

She goes on to talk about her father as an ordinary New Zealander, who just wanted a decent job, so that he could earn enough money to support his wife and their two children.

Even as text printed on a page, it is a powerful speech. I urge you to read it.

Green Party response to the Prime Minister's opening statement: I am here for my father

(Disclosure: I am not a member of the Green party, nor of any political party, and I have never voted Green.)

*headdesk*

A local radio station is running a competition to 'win a wife'. The winner gets to fly to the Ukraine and choose a bride from an agency.

Yes, that's actually true. I'm appalled by it. Scuba Nurse has the details, and an analysis of the problems with the competition, and importantly, a list of the companies that advertise with this station. Head on over there for details.

Win a wife? WTF?

I've loaded a screen cap to preserve the web page where they advertise it: http://yfrog.com/h4x83oikj

Guest post: About a girl

This is a guest post from Stef. It is cross-posted at her own blog, A Touch of the Crazy.

I think I need to stop reading the newspapers, it really isn't good for my blood pressure. First we had the Prime Minister talking about which women he'd like to fuck with a man who broke his partners back, which was followed up not by a 'me too' rather than 'Don't be a dick John' from the the male leader of the opposition. Now we have a radio station running a 'win a wife' competition in which the winner gets an all expenses paid trip to the Ukraine to choose a wife from the candidates carefully selected by an online matchmaking service.

While you are picking your jaw up off the floor I'm going to off on tangent for a minute.

On a friends blog I was recently schooled for a rather lazy and inane comment by a young teenager.

I say this without any fear of embarrassment because damn that girl, no fuck it, that young woman was impressive to the point of scary. Her arguments were clear and well reasoned but what impressed me the most was that she had this air of confidence that she had. This teenager wasn't going to take any shit from anyone, least of all me, a person twice her age. I wish I could have been like her at 13. And perhaps I was. I looked at her blog which at the moment is chronicling her adventures of starting high school. Rather than being forlorn at the prospect of impending doom she is so excited about the possibilities for the future. She thinks anything is possible and I hope for her that they are. As a bonus she loves the Gilmore Girls, which as a person who spent Christmas re-watching the entire series for possibly the 500th time I say HELLZ YEAH.

I'm not going to link to her. Not because I don't think she is wonderful, she is, but because I really, really don't want to her to read what I am about to say.

In the next few years there will be people that will go out of their way to crush everything I think is so amazing about this girl right out of her.

She'll start being judged on her appearance, fuck that's probably already started. She's probably been told she's too short, too tall, her breasts aren't big enough, her hair is the wrong colour and that makes her ugly. Everyone knows men don't like ugly women. Good girls are beautiful.

She's probably already been asked if she is sure wants to eat *insert bad food item here* because she'll get fat. Everyone knows men don't like fat women. Good girls are skinny.

She's probably been called a swot or a nerd because she is smart. Everyone knows men don't like smart women. Good girls know that they aren't smarter than men.

At some point she'll stand her ground on an issue and will be called a bitch. Everyone knows men don't like women who disagree with them. Good girls nod and smile to keep the peace.

At some point she'll have sex with a person she likes and get called a slut. Everyone knows men don't like women who take charge of her sexuality. Good girls wait to be chosen by a man.

At some point she'll be walking, running or just existing in public and will get told she has nice tits or a cute ass. Everyone knows that men are just being 'normal.' Good girls secretly like this kind of attention and the ones who don't get it are just jealous.

At some point she'll get passed over for a job or paid a little less. Everyone knows that women just want to stay home with the babies. Good girls are just good mothers in training.

At some point she might have babies and continue her career but is breaking under the strain of trying to combine a career with motherhood. Everyone knows women do the housework and child-rearing, that's what good mothers do.

At some point she might not have children but instead be leader of country. Everyone knows that there must be something secretly wrong with women who don't have children. It must mean she's ugly, fat, stupid, a bitch, a slut, a lesbian, a bad mother or, crime of all crimes, unfuckable.

I want to tell this teenager that they are wrong. I want to tell her what is in her head and the content of her character are far more important than what is on the outside that she can have a happy and fulfilling life and still be her.

But I'm going to have scream over the thousands of incidents, both big and little, which are telling her that her worth as an individual is derived solely by how many men want to have sex her and how many babies she manages to have.

Because in order for the guys, whether they be the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition, a radio station or the boys in her class, to 'have a bit of fun' or a 'joke around' someone needs to be the punchline, and that punchline (both literal and figurative) is her. The girl daring to be different, daring to be smart and most importantly willing to tell others when she disagrees with them.

Damn it, I want to go back to the time I was that girl. Before I had been schooled in the art of being a good girl.

New women in NZ blogging

Two new blogs for you to read:

Feminethicist is written by ladybroseph, who is studying bioethics and heath law, and who writes from a feminist perspective.

Look up at the sky is written by a personal friend of mine, and a wise woman, Denny, who lives with a spinal cord injury.

marie curie lecture series

thanx to stef for alerting us to the marie curie lecture series. from the blurb on their website:

Female Chemists from New Zealand reflect on how chemistry improves our lives and society

The Marie Curie Lecture Series is a year- long national tour of talks by female New Zealand chemists in honour of Curie’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry for her ground-breaking studies in radium and polonium.

looks like a fantastic line-up of women who will be speaking, as well as good geographical coverage around the country. the first one is in wellington at 6pm on 24 february, at te papa's marae. professor margaret brimble speaks on the followin topic:

The intricate chemistry of nature has evolved over millions of years and we are in the exciting position to be able to recreate and craft the compounds that already exist in the world, in the laboratory.

This lecture explores such possibilities and how we can best use these discoveries to create new medicines. It will showcase how natural products derived from microorganisms that live in extreme environments, and natural products produced by algal blooms, can be harnessed to develop novel anticancer, antibacterial and antiviral drugs and drugs to treat neurodegenerative diseases.

hope our wellington readers will try to get along.

33rd down under feminist carnival

The 33rd Down Under Feminists Carnival is now up at leonineclaire at her tumblr page, leonine anti-heroine. It's yet another wonderful effort, with a lot of kiwi bloggers included. Please do go over and have a read.

Topping off my week of feminist rage

The existence of the New Zealand police taps pretty much into the core of my rage at the best of times. And their recruitment campaigns are always appalling. There was one that was all about how boring and stupid teaching was. And then there was this one:

Girl germs are super catching - and they don't impress his manly bbq-ing friends - obviously the only solution is his own baton.* That whole series of ads was basically "work that is coded feminine is gross and not suitable for men."

But their latest set of ads are about communicating a slightly different message:



Yes, Clint Rickards, Brad Shipton, Bob Schollum, and many other men who have never been publicly named did like them young. Police rapists don't rape indiscriminately; they focus on powerless women.

The message of the latest campaign is clear: "We're over even pretending to care about police officers who rape. Instead we can go back to what we do best. We've even got a guy at the training college to make sure everyone understands the 'bros before hos' message"

Ideologically Impure (who gets credit for the picture) and Luddite Journo are much more coherent than me on these posters. I don't think I've got anymore words for my anger at the New Zealand police force, at least not at the moment. So consider this a scream at the end of my week of feminist rage.

* This definately makes me think of the Simpsons: "Dude you kissed a girl that's so gay".

Enough liberation to go round

Queen of Thorns wrote a post Why the Left Needs Feminism and cross posted over on the standard. I think her post is really interesting and important (and it's great to see it at the Standard, which usually only comments on feminist issues when there's a really obvious way to insult John Key in the process). Here I do focus on what I disagree with her about and so I suggest you read the whole post, because there's lots of cool ideas in there.

And I agree with her conclusion - obviously I agree with her conclusion. But I disagree with some of the points she makes along the way. Mostly, I think, because we have a different analysis of the role of the Labour Party within the left.

QoT appears to begin her post by setting up a Labour party: "focused on class struggle or strictly economic leftist ideas." This labour party does not exist. Chris Trotter has indeed tried to portray worshipping at the altar of testosterone as a service to the working class, but that doesn't make it true. Likewise there are those who suggest the reason that the fifth labour government alienated so many working-class people was because of it's crazy feminism, but the actual feminist legislative achievements at that time were minimal particularly with what doesn't done (I'm looking at you pay equity and abortion law reform). At times QoT appears to accept Chris Trotter's zero-sum game and just argue that 'identity politics' things are important - rather than going further and saying that there's enough liberation to go around.

In places of her post she is treading over reasonably familiar ground. One of the biggest intellectual challenges for the left is to understand the why and the how of the fourth labour government? Certainly this has come up on left blogs before and there is an argument which places the responsibility at the feet of 'identity politics' (Chris Trotter, John Minto and Bryce Edwards have all made it). I disagree - and I've written my thoughts on this before, so I'm not going to go over them again.

But at times QoT seemed to be arguing the inverse of Trotter's argument:

Trotter is speaking about the 1980s, that golden age of namby-pamby identity politics when the left got distracted by piffling little side issues like whether men should be held accountable for raping their wives and whether gay men should be allowed to be gay.

A time when the Left wasn’t, to quote Phil Goff’s own advisor John Pagani on that thread, “connecting with things that matter to people”. You can probably draw your own conclusions as to the kind of people he means.

I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again, but this idea that the 1980s was a golden age of identity politics (whether you see that as a bad thing) gets repeated far more often than it gets proved. No-one has been able to tell me what the wonderful legislative feminist gains of the fourth labour government were.

But more importantly here Pagani is clearly conflating the 'left' and 'the parliamentary labour party'. He's also wrong on both counts. Because in the 1980s the parliamentary labour party was 'connecting with things that matter to people' - if you call a kick connecting. It was privatising assets, introducing GST, introducing student fees and selling post-offices. And the extra-parliamentary left were also connecting with those very same things, remember just because we didn't win, doesn't mean we didn't fight.

Likewise while homosexual law reform and rape law reform, both had their home in the extra-parliamentary left, neither sat quite as comfortably in the parliamentary left. Homosexual law reform was a private members bill, and several Labour MPs at the time voted against it. Whereas the act that criminalised rape in marriage had been drafted under Muldoon's government, but not passed before the snap election. I disagree with QoT idea that 'the left' focused on Homosexual and rape law reform during the 1980s and this was good, as much as I disagree with Trotter et al's reverse formulation.

I am concerned about the stories that get told about the 1980s, partly because I care about history, but also because I am worried people will draw the wrong lessons today. I think QoT reinforced Trotter's formulation of class and 'identity' politics standing in opposition to each other with the way she talked about the past even though I think her argument was the opposite of that.

This is not a zero sum game - there isn't a limited amount of liberation available that we have to fight among ourselves for. It's the opposite - your struggle is my struggle, and I cannot be free while you are in chains.

Apparently it is OK

Over the last few days Stuff have inflicted those stupid enough to read it with an endless string excruciating stories about who John Key and Phil Goff find attractive.*

Key and Goff obviously playing a role, and communicating their support of a very particular model of sexual desire. For those who were slow on the culture narrative John Donegan spelt it out for us: "Those women who might be upset at his comments are obviously just disappointed they never made John Key's list and never will." The only reason women object to their role as the objects rather than the subjects of sexual desire is because they're not very good objects.

But I find it hard to care about that angle of the whole thing, because the Tony-fucking-Veitch-ness of this story enrages me.

Tony Veitch broke his girlfriend's back in four places. He was abusive and controlling during their relationship.

And the Prime Minister is prepared to go on his radio show every week, and make it clear that they share a worldview when it comes to women.

* And maybe it's just me, but there's something so weirdly generic about it all. Like they both went to google and entered "safely sexy celebrities". I guess it makes it clear how much discussion of celebrity crushes are often not actually about people's sexual desire, but statements of how they wish to appear to others. That's as true with Jezebel and Ryan Gosling as it is with this entirely painful conversation.

Isabelle Brown is a person

Her name is Isabelle Brown, she's 35. In her picture she is wearing a red t-shirt, with a black longer sleeved top underneath; her hair is cut around her face; she's not looking at the camera. I don't know anything about her. I don't know her as a person.

Neither did her lawyer Tony Bouchier when he decided she wasn't a person, but an incubator.

He was supposed to be defending her against a charge of "possessing instruments for methamphetamine use" - the police were not seeking to remand her in custody - they were happy for her to be out on bail.

He decided this was wrong - not because of her desires - but because she was pregnant. Because she was pregnant, Tony Bouchier thought that rather than act as her lawyer, he'd act as the fetus's social worker. He sought a treatment order, and in the meantime she remains in jail, while the court tries to figure out it if has the facilities to lock up a woman for being pregnant.

None of which is consistent with the following legal obligations he had to her:

• protect and promote your clients interests and act for them free from compromising influences or loyalties
• discuss with your client their objectives and how they should best be achieved
• protect your client's privacy and ensure appropriate confidentiality
• treat your client fairly, respectfully and without discrimination

He justifies himself like this: "I think looking out for Isabelle is looking out for the baby. Isabelle is not concerned with the baby. Isabelle is concerned about Isabelle." He doesn't think she feels like a pregnant woman should, and therefore the best way to 'look out' for her is to lock her up on the assumption that that's good for her fetus.

Over and over again those talking about her in the news describe her as abusing her 'baby'. Their anger is not directed a world where a woman can have so few resources that she is sleeping in a shed. I've no idea what her story is, but I'm far angry that she has had to get by with so little, not that her fetus is exposed to the conditions that she lives in. Because she is a person, not just an incubator.

Tony Bouchier was betting that no-one would see her as a person. She is poor, brown, and addicted to drugs. She is described as having unspecified mental health problems. The newspaper describe the dirt of where she was living in great detail, but don't even try to capture her voice. So far it has paid off, he has been called a hero, and praised by almost all who comment on the case.

Tony Bouchier is not a hero. Tony Bouchier is using his power over Isabelle Brown to incarcerate her, because he does not respect her as a person and the courts are letting him.