there's been a lot of news lately about the use of twitter to disclose information suppressed by the courts, brought to our attention because of a british football player. in all the discussion about loss of privacy, and the inability of law to keep up with technology, the focus tends to be on defendants, and very little on their victims.
one of the things we know about twitter is that it is a power tool for harassment of women who dare to file complaints of sexual assault. we've had the very famous case of julian assange, and the use of twitter to disclose the identity of the swedish women, who were then subject to threats and harassment.
even for less high-profile cases, victims of crime are equally at risk if their own name or the name of the accused/perpetrator is released. given the culture into which the names are released, one which blames and attacks victims & makes their lives extremely difficult (to the extent of being unable to work, in the case of the dominic strauss-kahn victim), it's yet another massive barrier that prevents reporting of rape and sexual violation.
there are those who think privacy is a waste of time, and not a realistic objective. i doubt those people realise the extent to which victims of crimes can and do suffer when privacy is breached. while the law in this area is being reviewed, ultimately i suspect that it will be the economics of the situation that will determine outcomes. it is costly and time-consuming to go after thousands of people on twitter or facebook, and unlikely to be practical.
this is not good news and will do nothing for the reporting rates of sexual abuse and rape which are already spectacularly low.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
A Woman's Place - Greens' list 2011
The Greens are a party with some significant internal commitments to gender equity, not least the co-leadership, and co-convenor positions, which must be filled by one woman and one man.
Historical representation of women:
The Greens first stood in their own right under MMP in 1999, and in that time they have had 16 MPs of whom 5 have been female (31%). They have long had gender balance for shared leadership positions both of the caucus and the party.
In 2008 the Greens had their best result ever, but only brought in one new woman MP, Catherine Delahunty. In addition long-time female co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimmons retired and sitting MP Sue Bradford left Parliament after failing to win a contest with Metiria Turei to replace her. Both were replaced by new male MPs (David Clendon and Gareth Hughes) who were in the next two spots on the Greens' party list from 2008. The Greens have only ever won a single electorate; Coromandel which has since returned to National incumbency, making the Greens a party with only List MPs.*
2008 Green Party List:
Women represented across the whole list: 20 out of 48 (42%), with 50% in the top 10.
Current representation of women:
The Greens currently have 9 MPs in total and three are women (Catherine Delahunty, Sue Kedgeley and Metiria Turei), making 33% of the caucus. Turei is co-leader. It will be interesting to see how the TV debates are divided up in the forthcoming election campaign. Also, Kedgeley is retiring at this election.
2011 Green Party List:
Women represented across the whole list: 16 out of 42 (38%), with 40% in the top 10.
Top 5 - Two (Turei at 1, Delahunty at 4) 2/5 = 40%
Top 10 - Four (As for Top 5 plus Eugenie Sage at 6, Jan Logie at 9) 4/10 = 40%
Top 20 - Ten (As for Top 10 plus Denise Roche at 11, Holly Walker at 12, Julie Anne Genter at 13, Mojo Mathers at 14, Jeanette Elley at 19, Sea Rotmann at 20) 10/20 = 50%
Top 30 - Twelve (As for Top 20 plus Dora Langsbury at 22, Saffron Toms at 28) 12/30 = 40%
After 30, the remaining 12 Green candidates are unranked and listed alphabetically, with four women, giving an overall list of 16 women out of 42 total, or 38%. This treatment of candidates sub-30 repeats the Greens' practice from 2008 (and is one I personally think is highly sensible for smaller parties).
Likely future representation of women:
The Greens are likely to return 9 MPs again on current polling. My suspicion is that they may come in with less than that, but I'm never very good at predicting these things. So based on returning the top 9 on their 2011 list, the Greens would have four female MPs out of 9 (44%), including two new women (Sage and Logie). The co-leadership arrangements will ensure a gender balance in the top spot for the forseeable future.
Other observations on candidate diversity:
Much has been made of the lack of Auckland candidates in the top ranks this time around, but to be honest geographical spread isn't as concerning to me as the lack of cultural diversity. The Greens are good at finding great Maori candidates (Turei being the obvious example, ETA: and David Clendon is also part-Maori), but they do seem to fall down in regard to including those who are neither Pakeha nor tangata whenua. Being the Greens, and concerned about diversity, I suspect this is something that bugs them and which they are trying to address. Would be interested in comment from those with more knowledge than I.
There's lots of young faces, in particular some great activist younger women. I'm aware that at least one of their sitting MPs, who would be returned, openly identifies as gay (Kevin Hague) ETA: and that Jan Logie is also out. In terms of people with disabilities, I've got no idea so would be grateful if readers with some would share in comments. ETA: Big thanks to those who have informed me that Mojo Mathers is deaf and Catherine Delahunty also has personal experience of disability.
Overall I'm a bit disappointed that the Greens haven't been able to match or better their gender balance from 2008.
Links:
Official Green Party release of List
Idiot/Savant's analysis, including ups and downs since 2008's list.
Index of A Woman's Place posts from 2008 and 2011
* So I won't be bothering with examining their electorate selections by gender.
not quite saved
whitcoulls goes into receivership & looks like it might fold. whitcoulls is miraculously saved when a buyer steps in to take over the business. a nz icon is saved.
but at what cost? as usual, it's the employees who are being asked to pay, even though it is not their fault that the business has struggled:
"Whitcoulls workers are being asked to sign away any entitlement to redundancy compensation, notice of termination of employment and any claims or grievances from their previous employer. If the administrator made workers redundant today, it would have to make a lieu-of-notice payment and redundancy payment, up to a cap of $18,600 per person."
Reid said under this agreement, the new owner James Pascoe Group could hire a worker for one week and make them redundant the following week with no redundancy compensation.
"Even at a conservative estimate, the 900 Whitcoulls workers in the sales process could have lieu payments and redundancy entitlements of $5000 each.
"This means that Whitcoulls' workers are being forced to contribute almost half a million dollars of entitlements to the sale....it could well be double that."
see also this press release by the CTU:
Peter Conway, CTU Secretary, said today “the normal procedure is for workers to transfer across with their same terms and conditions including any redundancy entitlements. Instead these workers have had the squeeze put on them over a weekend to sign away their future entitlement to redundancy pay.”
“If they don’t sign the agreement, they will be deemed to have resigned, that’s hardly a choice. This isn’t fair treatment and places these workers in a very vulnerable position.” Said Peter Conway.
mr dave norman talks about certainty of employment with the new contracts, when there actually is none. i'm sure there's nothing in those new contracts that says they don't need redundancy payments because they can never be fired.
and the "staff purchase benefits"? this isn't a grocery store, so those benefits aren't going to put food on the table, nor will they help pay the rent. many of the employees will be on a low wage, and they need the money to live. cheap books won't help with that.
also worth reading is tapu misa, being brilliant as always, this time on the topic of the minimum wage being raised to $15.
but at what cost? as usual, it's the employees who are being asked to pay, even though it is not their fault that the business has struggled:
"Whitcoulls workers are being asked to sign away any entitlement to redundancy compensation, notice of termination of employment and any claims or grievances from their previous employer. If the administrator made workers redundant today, it would have to make a lieu-of-notice payment and redundancy payment, up to a cap of $18,600 per person."
Reid said under this agreement, the new owner James Pascoe Group could hire a worker for one week and make them redundant the following week with no redundancy compensation.
"Even at a conservative estimate, the 900 Whitcoulls workers in the sales process could have lieu payments and redundancy entitlements of $5000 each.
"This means that Whitcoulls' workers are being forced to contribute almost half a million dollars of entitlements to the sale....it could well be double that."
see also this press release by the CTU:
Peter Conway, CTU Secretary, said today “the normal procedure is for workers to transfer across with their same terms and conditions including any redundancy entitlements. Instead these workers have had the squeeze put on them over a weekend to sign away their future entitlement to redundancy pay.”
“If they don’t sign the agreement, they will be deemed to have resigned, that’s hardly a choice. This isn’t fair treatment and places these workers in a very vulnerable position.” Said Peter Conway.
mr dave norman talks about certainty of employment with the new contracts, when there actually is none. i'm sure there's nothing in those new contracts that says they don't need redundancy payments because they can never be fired.
and the "staff purchase benefits"? this isn't a grocery store, so those benefits aren't going to put food on the table, nor will they help pay the rent. many of the employees will be on a low wage, and they need the money to live. cheap books won't help with that.
also worth reading is tapu misa, being brilliant as always, this time on the topic of the minimum wage being raised to $15.
Monday, 30 May 2011
A Woman's Place - Index for 2011
In the lead-up to the 2008 General Election I put together a series of posts on the gender breakdown of the various party lists (and in some cases covered electorate selections too, where relevant/revealing). I'm hoping to do this again for 2011, although probably not in a very timely manner. Maybe I'll get them all done by election day...Here's what I wrote about doing this series, back in 2008, and it holds true this time around too:
The idea of this analysis is not to say "you should vote for the party with the most women candidates." The point is to provide some information that may give you some insight to the role of women within the party in question, and to also highlight the women who are standing in this year's General Election.Huh, guess that whole thing about having women in the roles of Prime Minister and Speaker, has rather changed. But we still have a lady Queen and Chief Justice, phew.
When we our current and immediate past Prime Minister have both been female, a Queen is our Monarch, a woman sits in the Speaker's Chair, and [laydeez] fill a variety of high profile roles in our democratic institutions it is sometimes easy to forget that our current Parliament has only 40 women MPs, out of 122. That's around 33%, when women are a little over 50% of the general population. Better then most other countries in the world, but still a long way from parity.
And how do women get to be MPs? They need to rise up through party organisations to be nominated for electorates and for list spots, and in order to actually make it into the House they need to be candidates in winnable positions. So it's important to not only consider how many women a party puts up as its representatives, but also whether they are likely to get that opportunity in a practical sense.
The 2008 A Woman's Place series (alphabetical order):
- Act 2008 - 12% over whole list (7 out of 60) - 20% in top 10
- Greens 2008 - 42% over whole list (20 out of 48) - 50% in top 10
- Kiwi Party 2008 - 20% over whole list (2 out of 10)
- Labour 2008 - 42% over whole list (32 out of 77) - 40% in top 10, 38% in top 50
- Maori Party 2008 - 55% over whole list (11 out of 19) - 50% in top 10
- National 2008 - 25% over whole list (18 out of 73) - 20% in top 10, 28% in top 50 - additional post on electorate seats
- Progressives 2008 - 44% over whole list (12 out of 27) - 40% in top 10
- United Future 2008 - 23% over whole list (5 out of 22) - 30% in top 10
The 2011 A Woman's Place series (alphabetical order, added to as I do them):
- Act 2011 - 22% over whole list (12 out of 55) - 30% in top ten
- The Conservative Party - 27% over whole list (8 out of 30) - 30% in top ten - also looks at the significant number of candidates not on the list too.
- Greens 2011 - 42% over whole list (16 out of 42) - 40% in top ten
- Labour 2011 - 40% over whole list (32 out of 77) - 40% in top ten, 42% in top 50 - also analyses electorates and likely 40% women in projected caucus
- National 2011 - 32% over whole list (24 out of 75), 20% in top ten, 28% in top 50 - also analyses electorates and likely 25% women in projected caucus
- NZ First 2011 - 15% over whole list (5 out of 33) - 40% in top ten
- United Future 2011 - 12% over whole list (2 out of 17) - 10% in top ten
KAZAM! Rainbow Youth Fundraiser - Akl, Wed 1st June
Many thanks to aboveandbeyondgender for the tip off :-) Come join in a lil bit of Wednesday night fun..... JUNE 1st - 7:30PM - @ Kamo Bar and Cafe – 382 K Rd, AKL.Facebook event page here.
We are raising money for our upcoming national Takatapui, Queer and Trans Youth Hui in West Auckland over queens birthday weekend.
Please join Rainbow Youth, Blake Skjellerup, Toby from Kamo Bar and his staff, MC Steven Oates and Ms Heidi, plus special guests for an evening of entertainment and help us blast thru our final fun...draising goal!
Up to 200 youth from across Aotearoa are gathering together for a weekend of fun, activities and discussion. In joining us on June 1st and donating a lil bit, even by purchasing a drink at Kamo, you will help to assist youth to travel the country to be there, cover registration costs for each youth and give these young people an opportunity to belong in as vibrant a community as the one we have in Auckland.
Toby and Kamo staff have offered Kamo Bar and Cafe to host this event, and entertainers have generously offered their time and support free of any fees, so thanks to them.
Sunday, 29 May 2011
Let's not tell rape jokes
The Labour Party's Let's Not game has been out for a few days.* I'm not linking to it, for reasons that will become apparent, but I do want to discuss one of the offensive parts of it.**
If someone puts their finger in someone else's anus without their consent then that is sexual assault. This is still true if the two people involved are on a rugby field.
Ten years ago John Hopoate puts his finger in three other players anuses during a rugby league match. Apparently the people who were making this flash game thought "You know what we should do? We should animate this in an amusing way. That'll help us win the election and be awesome." Apparently people being violated without their consent is kind of funny if it's men on the rugby field.
One of the basic rape-myths that help uphold a culture where sexual assault is endemic is that sometimes consent doesn't matter. If you ever say that some people's violation doesn't matter - if you ever set some people up as unrapeable - then you, or in this case the Labour Party, are upholding that rape myth.
* I do incidentally think it's a terrible, terrible, terrible, piece electioneering even if you take all the offensive material out (it makes me think of David Mitchell - but thinking of David Mitchell could just be my brain's defense mechanism).
** It's not the only offensive part. I may try and write a follow-up post of what is so offensive about its portrayal of the treaty, Hone Harawira, the relationship between daughters and fathers in general and Maori women as a group.
If someone puts their finger in someone else's anus without their consent then that is sexual assault. This is still true if the two people involved are on a rugby field.
Ten years ago John Hopoate puts his finger in three other players anuses during a rugby league match. Apparently the people who were making this flash game thought "You know what we should do? We should animate this in an amusing way. That'll help us win the election and be awesome." Apparently people being violated without their consent is kind of funny if it's men on the rugby field.
One of the basic rape-myths that help uphold a culture where sexual assault is endemic is that sometimes consent doesn't matter. If you ever say that some people's violation doesn't matter - if you ever set some people up as unrapeable - then you, or in this case the Labour Party, are upholding that rape myth.
* I do incidentally think it's a terrible, terrible, terrible, piece electioneering even if you take all the offensive material out (it makes me think of David Mitchell - but thinking of David Mitchell could just be my brain's defense mechanism).
** It's not the only offensive part. I may try and write a follow-up post of what is so offensive about its portrayal of the treaty, Hone Harawira, the relationship between daughters and fathers in general and Maori women as a group.
Friday, 27 May 2011
Play: Silver Ship
Silver Ship is a play by Victoria University theatre students, based partially on the life of Mary Wollstone craft:
More details, including booking information, here.
In the play, a group of present-day students is researching the concept of
'becoming-woman', when a spectre materialises in their midst. It is Mary
Wollstonecraft, the 18th-century British writer, philosopher and passionate
advocate of women’s rights. Silver Ship follows two intertwining strands of
story; the ongoing concepts of 'becoming' in modern society, and the life of an
incredible woman.
"By contrasting the life of a women who lived in
revolutionary times with those of present-day students, the play brings into
question how our ancestors experience informs our future, like a kind of
haunting,"
More details, including booking information, here.
Thursday, 26 May 2011
asian gamblers
the front page of the waikato times today is dominated by one story: the plans by the sky city casino to stay open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. and how does the first paragraph of this story start? let me show you:
Hamilton's Sky City Casino will move to a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week operation in a move to attract high-spending Asian gamblers.
i don't know about you, but that seems to be a pretty nastily loaded statement. first, it's steeped in the assumption that asian and new zealander are two distinct & separate groups, and that a person couldn't be both at the same time. if they mean international tourists (which i suspect they do), then why don't they just say high-spending international gamblers?
then there's the question of why it would be more palatable for asians to be losing their money than any other race or demographic. to me they seem to be implying that it's ok for those asians to be losing their money because they are less than, i don't know, us kiwis.
it's clearly a statement made to divert attention from the fact that it is the poor and the problem gamblers who are going to be providing the bulk of their business in these extended opening hours. and it is whole families and communities who will end up paying the price. but to so blatantly use race to do is pathetic and of course, racist. here's a big fat raspberry in your direction, sky city.
Hamilton's Sky City Casino will move to a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week operation in a move to attract high-spending Asian gamblers.
i don't know about you, but that seems to be a pretty nastily loaded statement. first, it's steeped in the assumption that asian and new zealander are two distinct & separate groups, and that a person couldn't be both at the same time. if they mean international tourists (which i suspect they do), then why don't they just say high-spending international gamblers?
then there's the question of why it would be more palatable for asians to be losing their money than any other race or demographic. to me they seem to be implying that it's ok for those asians to be losing their money because they are less than, i don't know, us kiwis.
it's clearly a statement made to divert attention from the fact that it is the poor and the problem gamblers who are going to be providing the bulk of their business in these extended opening hours. and it is whole families and communities who will end up paying the price. but to so blatantly use race to do is pathetic and of course, racist. here's a big fat raspberry in your direction, sky city.
Paul Quinn's response to our outcry.
This post refers to yesterday's episode of Backbenchers and the post I wrote last night.
Other than a quick (not-sorry) tweet Paul Quinn has not fronted to the numerous people on twitter and other social media questioning his comments, today TVNZ (reported by stuff with video link) had the following response from him…
Quinn said he hadn't heard the slutwalk presentation (a great brief from Pollyanne Pena) and didn't understand why he was being asked the question.
He ''absolutely regretted'' the misinterpretation.
''I couldn't hear the speaker's presentation and I didn't know what she said. Wallace asked me what did I think of girls wearing short skirts at 2am in the morning in Courtenay [Place]. I looked at him and thought 'what the hell is he asking me that for?'
''Clearly rape is not justified for anything.
''I thought the question was around drunkenness on Courtenay Place at 2am. That's what I thought the discussion was initially about. Others started talking about rape and I thought what the hell are they talking about.''
He added: ''The mis-interpretation was around the fact that I hadn't heard what the discussion was about. I explained that to them afterwards.''
So let me clarify, you didn’t know what they were talking about, and so launching into a tirade about women still being out at 6am partying was the best response?
And then when Wallace Chapman clarified the question by saying ''Do you think there is something to this idea that girls ask for it...they'll be saying that?''
Then you STILL didn’t understand?
What did you think you were talking about?
Girls who go out partying and drinking til all hours are asking for:
help?
A lecture?
A headache?
A bad reputation?
A pregnancy?
A theft of their purse?
What exactly DID you think you were talking about Paul? Because I cant think of anything that someone asks for by going and drinking other than (and this may surprise you):getting drunk.
And later, once it was VERY clear, and Trevor Mallard had very clearly stated that there is NEVER a reason for rape you felt the need to clarify.
At this point it should have surely been the clarification that you didn’t realise they were discussing assault?
No, what you said was…
“I should, I should say… Your question was aimed at women, so I responded to women – boys are just the same”
Yep. Don’t want to leave those boys out.
So men, if you get raped, it is probably because you were asking for it too.
And boys…
No I’m sorry, I’m not even going there.
I feel sick.
I think the country needs an apology, and an acknowledgement that this attitude is not ok.
I would love to see a live debate on one of our news stations, between several panelists, because the more we bring this topic out in the open, the quicker we can change this crap.
If anyone does want to write to Paul his email address is paul.quinn@national.org.nz
Other than a quick (not-sorry) tweet Paul Quinn has not fronted to the numerous people on twitter and other social media questioning his comments, today TVNZ (reported by stuff with video link) had the following response from him…
Quinn said he hadn't heard the slutwalk presentation (a great brief from Pollyanne Pena) and didn't understand why he was being asked the question.
He ''absolutely regretted'' the misinterpretation.
''I couldn't hear the speaker's presentation and I didn't know what she said. Wallace asked me what did I think of girls wearing short skirts at 2am in the morning in Courtenay [Place]. I looked at him and thought 'what the hell is he asking me that for?'
''Clearly rape is not justified for anything.
''I thought the question was around drunkenness on Courtenay Place at 2am. That's what I thought the discussion was initially about. Others started talking about rape and I thought what the hell are they talking about.''
He added: ''The mis-interpretation was around the fact that I hadn't heard what the discussion was about. I explained that to them afterwards.''
So let me clarify, you didn’t know what they were talking about, and so launching into a tirade about women still being out at 6am partying was the best response?
And then when Wallace Chapman clarified the question by saying ''Do you think there is something to this idea that girls ask for it...they'll be saying that?''
Then you STILL didn’t understand?
What did you think you were talking about?
Girls who go out partying and drinking til all hours are asking for:
help?
A lecture?
A headache?
A bad reputation?
A pregnancy?
A theft of their purse?
What exactly DID you think you were talking about Paul? Because I cant think of anything that someone asks for by going and drinking other than (and this may surprise you):getting drunk.
And later, once it was VERY clear, and Trevor Mallard had very clearly stated that there is NEVER a reason for rape you felt the need to clarify.
At this point it should have surely been the clarification that you didn’t realise they were discussing assault?
No, what you said was…
“I should, I should say… Your question was aimed at women, so I responded to women – boys are just the same”
Yep. Don’t want to leave those boys out.
So men, if you get raped, it is probably because you were asking for it too.
And boys…
No I’m sorry, I’m not even going there.
I feel sick.
I think the country needs an apology, and an acknowledgement that this attitude is not ok.
I would love to see a live debate on one of our news stations, between several panelists, because the more we bring this topic out in the open, the quicker we can change this crap.
If anyone does want to write to Paul his email address is paul.quinn@national.org.nz
Asking for it
Found via Twitter
Have I mentioned recently how much I heart Judy Horacek? This is apparently from 1997.
Have I mentioned recently how much I heart Judy Horacek? This is apparently from 1997.
However we dress, wherever we go
I guess I'm a little late coming to the party to talk about SlutWalk. Partly because it just seems such a no-brainer to me - of course I'll be marching in support of the idea that it doesn't matter how women (or anyone else for that matter) dress, we are not responsible if someone rapes us. Partly cos lots of others got there first and said lots of great stuff I completely agree with.When I heard about the awe-inspiring responses all over the world to that Police Officer telling women "dressing like sluts" was causing rape, I just felt happy to be part of a feminist movement which makes connections between the ways in which women-hating and victim-blaming reinforce rape culture. The idea that men who fancy women, faced with women in short skirts, will inevitably fall about with the raping, is one I hope to see lots of women-loving-men out there challenging as well. Seriously, is the "uncontrollable male sex drive" not one of the most degrading things possible?
Why on earth should men ever be let out into the world, if they are really that unsafe to have around?
SlutWalk, for me, is deeply connected to many of the "Take Back the Night" marches I've been involved in organising and participating in over the last twenty-odd years. The point is that women are not responsible for being raped. Full stop.What is different is the marketing. And this, for me, is a wonderful and provocative thing - but also the reason I'm writing this now, as more and more feminist responses are critical of the marketing.
The critique of how the media will and are covering SlutWalk? Valid of course - why cover an issue in depth when you can just take pictures of women's breasts?But why are we so frightened of the word "slut"? And why is reclaiming that word - "slovenly or promiscuous woman" - the bit people are struggling with?
The reason is context, or how the word "slut" is used to shame us:
It holds nothing for us but humiliation, subordination and the weight of centuries of sexual inequality and oppression. We demean ourselves by applying it to one another.The problem with this argument is that it only works if we are ashamed, or can be made to feel ashamed, of either being untidy, or of being sexual "too much". And this is inherently problematic, because how much is "too much"? Promiscuous, ok, that means I'm not supposed to have sex with what, more than five people in my life? Ten? Twenty? One hundred?
But if sex is a good thing - which I fervently believe, and I know many feminists would agree - then why is having sex a lot, whether it's with many others, or lots with the same person - why is that a problem? Why should we be ashamed?I'm not. The parallel for me with this is the deliberate reclaiming by lesbians of the word "dyke" in the 1970s and 1980s. A word still spat out with hatred and bile today at lesbians, or any woman not behaving in ways the person using the word likes - but which many lesbians love because it feels strong in it's statement of woman-loving. I feel the same about the word "queer" - a very problematic reclaiming for non-heterosexual people older than me; fairly comfortable for people my age; default word of choice for younger non-hetties today.
Reclaiming a word is about making nonsensical the idea that what it signifies is shameful. Being a woman who likes sex is not shameful. Sure, it's hard at times, in this world we live in, to celebrate that and to challenge that without being "punished" and I've personally been described as a slut more times than I can count because I insist on talking about sex with enthusiasm and joy.So I'll be out there on June 25th, reclaiming "slut" and no doubt shouting out the odd "Yes means yes, no means no, however we dress, wherever we go" in the spirit of connecting this fabulous new feminist response with fabulous older feminist responses to victim-blaming and rape culture.
And while I absolutely respect every feminist's right to have their own analysis, I really hope to see lots of you there.
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
I am now sure that the Slutwalk is needed here and NOW.
Crossposted from ScubaNurse's blog.
I was willing to understand a police officer making a stupid comment out of genuine concern, at a small gathering. I get that some people who work in Law enforcement get tired of going to scenes of abuse and rape and would do anything to stop them, even try to protect people from the wrong direction.
I did wonder at times if slut walk was an over reaction to a small incident, and then I thought about all the jerks (and wonderful people) that I know who genuinely believe that what women wear has a part in whether they are raped or not.
Tonight’s episode of “Backbenches” sealed my resolve to attend and promote the Auckland branch of Slutwalk on June 25th.
I give the police a long leash, giving that they are on the front line of violence and the sicker levels of our society, but politicians are another breed altogether. By the time you have worked in high level corporate, and then had 3 years in parliament I would expect that you would
A) Have a good grasp of the smooth lines people want to hear.
B) Know when to keep your mouth shut if what you believe is blatantly misogynous.
Wouldn’t you Paul Quinn??
But no…
On tonight’s episode of Backbenches Paul (and the entire room and cameras) was told why slutwalk is occurring. He was asked to weigh in on women’s clothing choices and the link with assault.
And his response (I am waiting for a direct quote here and what follows is from memory – so please forgive any inaccuracy) was to reply that alcohol intake was more of a risk and women who went out drinking until all hours were putting themselves at risk.
He also made some disparaging comments about people in short skirts being out at 6am when he goes to the gym.
– Because us sluts really should be nocturnal, and we are asking for it – right?
This is someone who was being beamed out to the entire nation, who is in charge of policy decisions and represents the people of this country.
He didn’t even look EMBARRASED!
This is why we need Slutwalk, because the perception that victims are EVER to blame for an assault or rape is entirely wrong and incredibly sick.
And yet it is not rare, and this has proved that it is pervasive enough that even our political leaders feel comfortable expressing these themes.
And that is not ok.
Shame on you Paul Quinn, I feel sorry for you.
I was willing to understand a police officer making a stupid comment out of genuine concern, at a small gathering. I get that some people who work in Law enforcement get tired of going to scenes of abuse and rape and would do anything to stop them, even try to protect people from the wrong direction.
I did wonder at times if slut walk was an over reaction to a small incident, and then I thought about all the jerks (and wonderful people) that I know who genuinely believe that what women wear has a part in whether they are raped or not.
Tonight’s episode of “Backbenches” sealed my resolve to attend and promote the Auckland branch of Slutwalk on June 25th.
I give the police a long leash, giving that they are on the front line of violence and the sicker levels of our society, but politicians are another breed altogether. By the time you have worked in high level corporate, and then had 3 years in parliament I would expect that you would
A) Have a good grasp of the smooth lines people want to hear.
B) Know when to keep your mouth shut if what you believe is blatantly misogynous.
Wouldn’t you Paul Quinn??
But no…
On tonight’s episode of Backbenches Paul (and the entire room and cameras) was told why slutwalk is occurring. He was asked to weigh in on women’s clothing choices and the link with assault.
And his response (I am waiting for a direct quote here and what follows is from memory – so please forgive any inaccuracy) was to reply that alcohol intake was more of a risk and women who went out drinking until all hours were putting themselves at risk.
He also made some disparaging comments about people in short skirts being out at 6am when he goes to the gym.
– Because us sluts really should be nocturnal, and we are asking for it – right?
This is someone who was being beamed out to the entire nation, who is in charge of policy decisions and represents the people of this country.
He didn’t even look EMBARRASED!
This is why we need Slutwalk, because the perception that victims are EVER to blame for an assault or rape is entirely wrong and incredibly sick.
And yet it is not rare, and this has proved that it is pervasive enough that even our political leaders feel comfortable expressing these themes.
And that is not ok.
Shame on you Paul Quinn, I feel sorry for you.
a women's revolution
got this via email about developments in saudi arabia:
As election centers across Saudi Arabia opened on April 23 for voters to register for forthcoming municipal elections, groups of women turned up asking to take part.
as you would expect from a piece by CNN, the whole article has a very western framing. but the one thing that i really do appreciate is that the narrative is not the usual "oppressed eastern women need saving", but rather "strong eastern women are taking up the fight".
then there is the whole social media thing, again showing itself as a powerful tool for connecting and organising. not only that, but providing access to information & ideas from outside of the country. now i know that saudi has very strong controls on the internet, but they obviously haven't yet taken the step of blocking social networking sites. that may indeed be a possibility.
and finally, i would also have to say that the arab spring has inspired people around the world, and i suspect this group have also been motivated by what they have seen happening in other countries. i wish them all the best in their endeavours, and hope to hear some good news coming out of saudi in the near future.
As election centers across Saudi Arabia opened on April 23 for voters to register for forthcoming municipal elections, groups of women turned up asking to take part.
As expected, they were turned away -- women will not be able to stand or vote in September's municipal elections -- but just by showing up they had made their point.
This was one of the first public acts of the newly-formed "Saudi Women Revolution," a movement set up to campaign for the end of Saudi Arabia's discriminatory laws.
Their chief aim is ending male guardianship, which means Saudi women often need permission from their husband, father, brother or even son to work, travel, study, marry, or access health care, according to Human Rights Watch.
They also want to be allowed to drive, which is forbidden for women in the Kingdom.
The Saudi Women Revolution was started as a Facebook page and a discussion topic, or hash tag, on Twitter in February, by Nuha Al Sulaiman.as you would expect from a piece by CNN, the whole article has a very western framing. but the one thing that i really do appreciate is that the narrative is not the usual "oppressed eastern women need saving", but rather "strong eastern women are taking up the fight".
then there is the whole social media thing, again showing itself as a powerful tool for connecting and organising. not only that, but providing access to information & ideas from outside of the country. now i know that saudi has very strong controls on the internet, but they obviously haven't yet taken the step of blocking social networking sites. that may indeed be a possibility.
and finally, i would also have to say that the arab spring has inspired people around the world, and i suspect this group have also been motivated by what they have seen happening in other countries. i wish them all the best in their endeavours, and hope to hear some good news coming out of saudi in the near future.
The invisibility of rape in war
Trigger Warning for this post for rape & violence. I found the three paragraphs below absolutely chilling when I read them last week. So much is left unsaid, and yet to me the implications are clear.
Excerpt from Ask That Mountain: The story of Parihaka, by Dick Scott - first published 1975, this is from the 2006 reprint:
The night raids were stepped up to find which houses to destroy and the women were frequently victims of drunken and diseased troopers. Once the officers got their wires crossed and a unit raided where it was not expected. The sequel, as the Auckland Herald delicately reported, was the discovery of 'a gentleman who has taken a very prominent part in the recent proceedings under circumstances that recall the earnest terms in which the West Coast Commission deplore the existence of semi-connubial relations between officials and natives.'Even in 1975, and in more recent reprints, it seems that it was not acceptable to call terrible things by their true names. This was rape. It was repeated rape, systematic and used to demoralise and exercise power in a shameful exhibition of a piece with the unfair confiscation of the land. There is mention of the syphilis that affected the population of Parihaka after these rapes, but no mention of the other effects that violence would have had - not only the physical and mental impact but also no doubt pregnancies and possibly children who resulted from these "semi-connubial" encounters, and then the potential shattering of adult relationships too. Does the "semi" indicate the only the men consented?
The reality behind the indulgent amusement was that syphilis was brought into the town once given a clean bill of health by Taranaki's medical officer, Dr. O'Carroll, and congenital cases, a direct result of the invasion, were reported through the province for years aftewarrds.*
* Dr EP Ellison, of Manaia, told the writer: 'There was looting and debauchery. Perhaps I speak too strongly but the truth must be told. In my work as a young man I saw cases of congenital syphilis in Taranaki that were the result of the occupation of Parihaka.' Not all excesses were condoned. At one stage of the Taranaki campaign some of the armed constabulary were court-martialled for copulating with dogs...
One of the things I find true about the way that George RR Martin portrays war in his A Song Of Ice And Fire series is how he doesn't make rape invisible. He doesn't make it prurient either, or paint it as titillating - it is more told than shown, if that makes sense - but he acknowledges it as another form of the violence of war.
It's only by naming it, by acknowledging it, that we can fully recognise that rape is there, it is real, and it must be stopped.
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
Stories of Debating Societies and Tennessee
When I was fifteen my English teacher set up a debating society and encouraged me to join. I was a bit of an opinionated little shit, but at the same time deeply socially awkward, with a history of speech difficulties which whilst mostly cured by that point left behind a lot of anxiety.
We met every Wednesday lunchtime, and I loved every minute of it. I made solid friendships. My confidence increased by an order of magnitude. I was encouraged to take an informal leadership role. I took pride in learning technique and debating from a side I disagreed with (I once gave a speech against abortion rights which I was told later was filled with 'obvious passion' (um, yeah) something I'm pretty sure I couldn't do now). Having previously been terrified of opposition, I took sides in good-natured ongoing rivalries.
I'm aware this is an utter cliche, but it's also completely true.
Two other things were happening to me at this time. One were some quite desperate attempts to repress the fact - which had been obvious since I was very small - that I was very clearly not straight. Explaining the context for this is beyond the scope of this blog post, but to summarise: The country (comments which speculate on the location will be deleted) we lived in was part-way through a two decade long removal of homophobic legislation, from a starting point of absolute illegality, through various age of consent decreases and introduction of anti-discrimination legislation. This had all kinds of interplays with other sentiments I'm only just beginning to understand, but what I did understand was that it was very, very nasty - and before I learned to hide myself properly I suffered a lot. So by this point I was (a) terrified and (b) had about 80% convinced myself I was straight.
The second was a developing interest in activism. This wasn't surprising; though my parents weren't activists I grew up in a left wing environment, and though not much was happening locally, I started to make connections online. I was so totally sure, in that typical teenage way, that I could change the world.
When the society had been running for a while, the teacher concerned asked if I could come up with some new topics - we were struggling to think of them. On a school trip overseas another member and I wrote a long list on the ferry. Somewhere on the list, he scribbled 'gay rights'. I felt sick, but told myself that was ridiculous. It was just another of those stock standard topics - abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, death penalty...
We got to that one a few weeks later. In retrospect I realise the teacher was uneasy about it. I wasn't on either of the teams and I only heard we'd been shut down by a classmate. A parent had complained, and the teacher and parent threatened with the full force of a law that I'd never heard of before, but apparently made discussion of homosexuality illegal. I was utterly on fire with rage, but also convinced I could do something about it, and pulled together a meeting of members. I'd love to tell you that we organised a protest, bowed by youthful idealism, and forced a backdown. What happened was that I yelled impassioned statements to a roomful of kids who looked mostly bewildered. I suspect this is not an alien experience to anyone with any experience of activism - the difference was that there was literally nowhere else to go for support.
When that failed, I penned a letter to the local paper, and collected signatures. That somehow got into the hands of the deputy head, who I had some rather loud disagreements with in the corridor until he called my parents. Blessings I count: lack of homophobia on the part of my parents. What they did tell me about were the huge prison sentences that teachers risked for allowing this to go ahead.
I freaked, I backed down, I apologised to the teacher concerned for putting her at risk - to her credit she told me it was okay. This had suddenly go way too big for me to handle. The emotional effects on myself were huge - I think being in an environment where discussion is dangerous carries its own particular brand of fear. I had already learned not to do anything that might out myself, of course (which possibly makes my actions a little stupid, but), but for the concept to be so terrible we couldn't discuss it had an impact I still can't discuss a decade later.
We never really got debating society going again properly after that.
My parents told me - after I finished school, literally had my bags packed to get as far away as possible - that another of my teachers had told them they should be proud of me. They hadn't said anything earlier because they didn't want to risk problems for him. It was too late by then.
* * * * *
In Tennessee now there's a bill in progress, dubbed the 'don't say gay' bill, which will prevent teachers in elementary and middle schools discussing any types of sexual behaviour other than heterosexuality. Whilst it is not as far reaching as the legislation I'm describing here, it is along the same lines, and there is a fear a lot of the effects - particularly making it harder for schools to deal with homophobic bullying - will be similar.
* * * * *
I should've hated high school. As a queer, fat, anxious kid with an undiagnosed learning disability, it's practically de rigeur. Truth is, for all its faults and problems, I didn't (intermediate* is another matter). I look back on this incident and realise that so many people, staff and students alike, were trying really hard to do the right thing in terrifying circumstances.
This is far from the worst result to have emerged from such legislation. There were people of my acquaintance who literally did not survive, as what I believe to be an indirect result of this law, but I do not know their stories well enough, and they are not mine to tell.
This is the story I can tell. The lessons I learned ten years ago are that my very existence was wrong, that I was alone, that I was out of my depth, and that asserting my right to exist can be a major risk for not just myself but others as well. That legislation was removed recently, and looking back I have some new lessons. That things can change. That legislation like this must be stopped. And that whilst those directly affected are the best people to be at the forefront of the fight against it, for kids in particular that's a scary, dangerous and isolated thing. Which is why we need to be supporting them every step.
*I'm substituting NZ equivalencies for ease of understanding.
We met every Wednesday lunchtime, and I loved every minute of it. I made solid friendships. My confidence increased by an order of magnitude. I was encouraged to take an informal leadership role. I took pride in learning technique and debating from a side I disagreed with (I once gave a speech against abortion rights which I was told later was filled with 'obvious passion' (um, yeah) something I'm pretty sure I couldn't do now). Having previously been terrified of opposition, I took sides in good-natured ongoing rivalries.
I'm aware this is an utter cliche, but it's also completely true.
Two other things were happening to me at this time. One were some quite desperate attempts to repress the fact - which had been obvious since I was very small - that I was very clearly not straight. Explaining the context for this is beyond the scope of this blog post, but to summarise: The country (comments which speculate on the location will be deleted) we lived in was part-way through a two decade long removal of homophobic legislation, from a starting point of absolute illegality, through various age of consent decreases and introduction of anti-discrimination legislation. This had all kinds of interplays with other sentiments I'm only just beginning to understand, but what I did understand was that it was very, very nasty - and before I learned to hide myself properly I suffered a lot. So by this point I was (a) terrified and (b) had about 80% convinced myself I was straight.
The second was a developing interest in activism. This wasn't surprising; though my parents weren't activists I grew up in a left wing environment, and though not much was happening locally, I started to make connections online. I was so totally sure, in that typical teenage way, that I could change the world.
When the society had been running for a while, the teacher concerned asked if I could come up with some new topics - we were struggling to think of them. On a school trip overseas another member and I wrote a long list on the ferry. Somewhere on the list, he scribbled 'gay rights'. I felt sick, but told myself that was ridiculous. It was just another of those stock standard topics - abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, death penalty...
We got to that one a few weeks later. In retrospect I realise the teacher was uneasy about it. I wasn't on either of the teams and I only heard we'd been shut down by a classmate. A parent had complained, and the teacher and parent threatened with the full force of a law that I'd never heard of before, but apparently made discussion of homosexuality illegal. I was utterly on fire with rage, but also convinced I could do something about it, and pulled together a meeting of members. I'd love to tell you that we organised a protest, bowed by youthful idealism, and forced a backdown. What happened was that I yelled impassioned statements to a roomful of kids who looked mostly bewildered. I suspect this is not an alien experience to anyone with any experience of activism - the difference was that there was literally nowhere else to go for support.
When that failed, I penned a letter to the local paper, and collected signatures. That somehow got into the hands of the deputy head, who I had some rather loud disagreements with in the corridor until he called my parents. Blessings I count: lack of homophobia on the part of my parents. What they did tell me about were the huge prison sentences that teachers risked for allowing this to go ahead.
I freaked, I backed down, I apologised to the teacher concerned for putting her at risk - to her credit she told me it was okay. This had suddenly go way too big for me to handle. The emotional effects on myself were huge - I think being in an environment where discussion is dangerous carries its own particular brand of fear. I had already learned not to do anything that might out myself, of course (which possibly makes my actions a little stupid, but), but for the concept to be so terrible we couldn't discuss it had an impact I still can't discuss a decade later.
We never really got debating society going again properly after that.
My parents told me - after I finished school, literally had my bags packed to get as far away as possible - that another of my teachers had told them they should be proud of me. They hadn't said anything earlier because they didn't want to risk problems for him. It was too late by then.
* * * * *
In Tennessee now there's a bill in progress, dubbed the 'don't say gay' bill, which will prevent teachers in elementary and middle schools discussing any types of sexual behaviour other than heterosexuality. Whilst it is not as far reaching as the legislation I'm describing here, it is along the same lines, and there is a fear a lot of the effects - particularly making it harder for schools to deal with homophobic bullying - will be similar.
* * * * *
I should've hated high school. As a queer, fat, anxious kid with an undiagnosed learning disability, it's practically de rigeur. Truth is, for all its faults and problems, I didn't (intermediate* is another matter). I look back on this incident and realise that so many people, staff and students alike, were trying really hard to do the right thing in terrifying circumstances.
This is far from the worst result to have emerged from such legislation. There were people of my acquaintance who literally did not survive, as what I believe to be an indirect result of this law, but I do not know their stories well enough, and they are not mine to tell.
This is the story I can tell. The lessons I learned ten years ago are that my very existence was wrong, that I was alone, that I was out of my depth, and that asserting my right to exist can be a major risk for not just myself but others as well. That legislation was removed recently, and looking back I have some new lessons. That things can change. That legislation like this must be stopped. And that whilst those directly affected are the best people to be at the forefront of the fight against it, for kids in particular that's a scary, dangerous and isolated thing. Which is why we need to be supporting them every step.
*I'm substituting NZ equivalencies for ease of understanding.
in favour of relaxed parenting
there was an article included in fairfax papers over the weekend called "why parents should just learn to relax". unfortunately i can't find an online version, though did find this similar piece at the guardian (via here).
basically, it's an alternate view to the tiger mother, all very scientific and based on research done on twins separated at birth and children who have been adopted. and of course bryan caplan has a book he's wanting to promote - which doesn't negate what he's trying to say. in fact, if what he says is true, i find it very comforting to know that there's very little that i do as a parent that will have an impact on my child's future.
here's a quote:
This new branch of science is called behavioural genetics, which uses mathematical models to compare the similarity of identical and non-identical twins, and the fate of adopted children. Behavioural geneticists don't just believe that your hair colour or your susceptibillity to breast cancer come trhough bloodlines. They test for a wide range of other things, such as happiness and income, that no-one had thought were genetic. Some of these are indirect effects - so, for example, when they say that genes matter for income, there doesn't have to be an "income gene", it's simply that other inherited traits (such as intelligence, or work ethic) matter for income. The age at which you start drinking or having sex relies somewhat on whether you are by nature a shy and cautious person.
[...] It could be good genes that produce good citizens.
Caplan is the first to admit that this can seem "too counterintuitive to believe... as the father of identical twins I readily accept the power of nurture but still struggle to deny the power of nurture." The answer is that parents can make a big impact, but this is mostly restricted to the early years. You can give a child a boost at nursery age, but by the time he or she has left school it has gone. As one twin study concluded: "Adopted children resemble their adoptive parents slightly in early childhood but not at all in the middle childhood or adolescence."
"If you think you're giving your kid a headstart, you're probably correct," says Caplan. Your mistake is to assume that the head start lasts a lifetime. By the time your child grows up, the impact of your encouragement and nagging will largely have faded away."
there's heaps more of this, quoting from studies and so on but i don't have the energy to type it out. i did like this bit though:
"By the time you're an adult, your parents' past mistakes are not the reason for your present unhappiness" says Caplan.
of course he clarifies earlier in the piece that the studies he's using don't "address neglect or abuse, which of course can damage a child". so, the good news is that i don't have to feel any guilt that my parenting style will cause any lasting impact on my kids. the bad news is that i can't blame my parents for my own misery. hmmm. the good news is that it doesn't matter whether you're a working parent or a stay-at-home parent (although i notice that the article stays well clear of that question, but surely one can extrapolate?). the bad news is that all the hard work we put into our children and the money we spend on them will have little impact on their future success.
mr caplan does spend a bit of time baggin amy chua and her parenting style, saying that the success of her children is more due to genetics ("Her girls are the daughters of two Yale Law School professors, and people are amazed that they succeed at the things they try at?") than parenting. he does fail to mention that ms chua's book was a family history rather than a parenting guide but there is no doubt that his message is the more comforting one, one that makes (some of) us feel less inadequate, less able to measure up to the very high standards of parenting that society seems to increasingly expect.
i'll finish off where the article finishes off:
Isn't all this a bit depressing? At least Chua offered us a parental work ethic as a way onward and upward. Genetic determinism smacks of eugenics.
Caplan counters that it is a happy message. He quotes from Mary Poppins. Stop thinking that children, as Mr Banks does, "must be moulded, shaped and taught, that life's a looming battle to be faced and fought!" And, well, just enjoy.
basically, it's an alternate view to the tiger mother, all very scientific and based on research done on twins separated at birth and children who have been adopted. and of course bryan caplan has a book he's wanting to promote - which doesn't negate what he's trying to say. in fact, if what he says is true, i find it very comforting to know that there's very little that i do as a parent that will have an impact on my child's future.
here's a quote:
This new branch of science is called behavioural genetics, which uses mathematical models to compare the similarity of identical and non-identical twins, and the fate of adopted children. Behavioural geneticists don't just believe that your hair colour or your susceptibillity to breast cancer come trhough bloodlines. They test for a wide range of other things, such as happiness and income, that no-one had thought were genetic. Some of these are indirect effects - so, for example, when they say that genes matter for income, there doesn't have to be an "income gene", it's simply that other inherited traits (such as intelligence, or work ethic) matter for income. The age at which you start drinking or having sex relies somewhat on whether you are by nature a shy and cautious person.
[...] It could be good genes that produce good citizens.
Caplan is the first to admit that this can seem "too counterintuitive to believe... as the father of identical twins I readily accept the power of nurture but still struggle to deny the power of nurture." The answer is that parents can make a big impact, but this is mostly restricted to the early years. You can give a child a boost at nursery age, but by the time he or she has left school it has gone. As one twin study concluded: "Adopted children resemble their adoptive parents slightly in early childhood but not at all in the middle childhood or adolescence."
"If you think you're giving your kid a headstart, you're probably correct," says Caplan. Your mistake is to assume that the head start lasts a lifetime. By the time your child grows up, the impact of your encouragement and nagging will largely have faded away."
there's heaps more of this, quoting from studies and so on but i don't have the energy to type it out. i did like this bit though:
"By the time you're an adult, your parents' past mistakes are not the reason for your present unhappiness" says Caplan.
of course he clarifies earlier in the piece that the studies he's using don't "address neglect or abuse, which of course can damage a child". so, the good news is that i don't have to feel any guilt that my parenting style will cause any lasting impact on my kids. the bad news is that i can't blame my parents for my own misery. hmmm. the good news is that it doesn't matter whether you're a working parent or a stay-at-home parent (although i notice that the article stays well clear of that question, but surely one can extrapolate?). the bad news is that all the hard work we put into our children and the money we spend on them will have little impact on their future success.
mr caplan does spend a bit of time baggin amy chua and her parenting style, saying that the success of her children is more due to genetics ("Her girls are the daughters of two Yale Law School professors, and people are amazed that they succeed at the things they try at?") than parenting. he does fail to mention that ms chua's book was a family history rather than a parenting guide but there is no doubt that his message is the more comforting one, one that makes (some of) us feel less inadequate, less able to measure up to the very high standards of parenting that society seems to increasingly expect.
i'll finish off where the article finishes off:
Isn't all this a bit depressing? At least Chua offered us a parental work ethic as a way onward and upward. Genetic determinism smacks of eugenics.
Caplan counters that it is a happy message. He quotes from Mary Poppins. Stop thinking that children, as Mr Banks does, "must be moulded, shaped and taught, that life's a looming battle to be faced and fought!" And, well, just enjoy.
The cupcakes that Wriggly iced
Yeah, so green is his favourite colour. And his icing is nearly up there with mine!
Thanks to Scube for assisting by restraining Snuffly from the Inappropriate Food For A Baby With Only Two Teeth.
Monday, 23 May 2011
Parental notification is defacto parental consent
Make no mistake: parental notification for teen abortions is actually about parental consent for teen abortions.Let's consider the broader position of those who advocate strongly for parental notification (not just those who agree when asked the right magical question).
Do they support the right of pregnant adults to have abortion on demand? No.
Do they support funding for independent counselling services, not run by anti-choice organisations? No.
Do they support Family Planning and their work to improve both sex education and access to contraception? No.
Do they support early medication abortion, because it is easier both physically and psychologically? No.
Do they seek to reinforce the position, shared by our current unfair law, that the pregnant person is not the person who should decide whether or not to terminate their own pregnancy? Yes.
The point of changing the law to get parental notification is to yet again take power away from the pregnant person. Notification will become defacto parental consent. And that is just another way of saying the pregnant person can't, shouldn't, musn't decide.
It is wrong that certifying consultants have the power to deny or allow abortions.* It would be just as wrong for parents to have that power. Even if that power is exercised over their own child, and they are under 16.
Many good points have been made in other blog posts about the relationships of parents and their children, and how while parental involvement can be encouraged it should not be mandated. I'm not able to put a great link farm of all that good stuff together right now. I agree with many of the arguments that have been made - about the right of teens to privacy, about the vulnerability of those who will be in abusive family environments, about the problem with parental notification where someone in a parental role may be the father, about respecting that people should choose who supports them.
I agree with all of that, and at base it all boils down to one thing for me; respecting the right of the pregnant person to control their own body, and acknowledging no one is in a better position to make that choice than they are.
* This should in no way be read as a criticism of the many excellent certifying consultants who do difficult work in challenging circumstances. I heart them.
The support we choose.
Cross posted from my usual spot...
The case of children /young women using their school councillors as a resource to source options for an unwanted pregnancy has had a lot of time in the media. One of the trends in comments from pro-choice and pro “support in schools for all options” has been the concept that teens use the school because home is not a safe environment.
I balked at that, because my own experience of using school support networks was in preference to admitting to my parents that I was not coping. It was my first experience with depression and the first thing the councillor did was hold my hand while I called my mother and admitted I couldn’t do this alone.
I still count my blessings that my parents’ response was one of support, and my family stood by me while I made decisions around staying in school or not, remaining a prefect or not, continuing competitive activities or not.
So while I realise that many, many young people struggle to find safe places and supportive people in their lives, withholding information is not necessarily a sign of dysfunction or abuse.
So when we discuss children requiring the notification of parents before accessing an abortion I have to ask...
Why?
If it is so the parents can have a say, then no. No, no, NO!
I say no for so many reasons, and most of them have been expressed beautifully elsewhere.
Take a peek at Boganette
Or Anthea
Or Luddite journo
Or Ideologically impure
Or over on life is a feminist issue
There is a lot of murmur on the blogosphere around this topic and I don’t need to rehash it.
The other logical (and not unreasonable) reason is that young people going through an experience like pregnancy/ abortion/ adoption should have support.
This I support, but not in the form of “concern trolling” where people act like they are being concerned about someone’s well being in order to maintain control (would any one like to quote some patronising pro-slavery quotes here?).
If taken at face value the key element of support can be provided by any adult in a child’s life.
I’m a support to several young people who are family friends and I really hope that they would feel safe and free from risk of judgement if they came to me.
So why not require an adult (by all means legislate the age if needed) chosen BY THE YOUNG PERSON to be notified? (Not the sexual partner of the youth if under age).
This seems to fulfil all the needs of the group.
The young person is able to access all healthcare options available.
They have a support person to assist them through the process.
There is an adult in this process.
There are SO MANY massive issues with this.
Young people may not choose the most ‘responsible’ person around.
That person may not have the young person’s best interests at heart.
That person may be involved in the relationship that led to the pregnancy.
The person may be covering for a rape that occurred.
The person may use their influence to pressure the youth to make a decision that the youth is not fully comfortable with.
Like I said; a lot of issues.
The problem is that all of the above issues apply to parents as well.
So we are back to square one...
Anyone got any good ideas?
The case of children /young women using their school councillors as a resource to source options for an unwanted pregnancy has had a lot of time in the media. One of the trends in comments from pro-choice and pro “support in schools for all options” has been the concept that teens use the school because home is not a safe environment.
I balked at that, because my own experience of using school support networks was in preference to admitting to my parents that I was not coping. It was my first experience with depression and the first thing the councillor did was hold my hand while I called my mother and admitted I couldn’t do this alone.
I still count my blessings that my parents’ response was one of support, and my family stood by me while I made decisions around staying in school or not, remaining a prefect or not, continuing competitive activities or not.
So while I realise that many, many young people struggle to find safe places and supportive people in their lives, withholding information is not necessarily a sign of dysfunction or abuse.
So when we discuss children requiring the notification of parents before accessing an abortion I have to ask...
Why?
If it is so the parents can have a say, then no. No, no, NO!
I say no for so many reasons, and most of them have been expressed beautifully elsewhere.
Take a peek at Boganette
Or Anthea
Or Luddite journo
Or Ideologically impure
Or over on life is a feminist issue
There is a lot of murmur on the blogosphere around this topic and I don’t need to rehash it.
The other logical (and not unreasonable) reason is that young people going through an experience like pregnancy/ abortion/ adoption should have support.
This I support, but not in the form of “concern trolling” where people act like they are being concerned about someone’s well being in order to maintain control (would any one like to quote some patronising pro-slavery quotes here?).
If taken at face value the key element of support can be provided by any adult in a child’s life.
I’m a support to several young people who are family friends and I really hope that they would feel safe and free from risk of judgement if they came to me.
So why not require an adult (by all means legislate the age if needed) chosen BY THE YOUNG PERSON to be notified? (Not the sexual partner of the youth if under age).
This seems to fulfil all the needs of the group.
The young person is able to access all healthcare options available.
They have a support person to assist them through the process.
There is an adult in this process.
There are SO MANY massive issues with this.
Young people may not choose the most ‘responsible’ person around.
That person may not have the young person’s best interests at heart.
That person may be involved in the relationship that led to the pregnancy.
The person may be covering for a rape that occurred.
The person may use their influence to pressure the youth to make a decision that the youth is not fully comfortable with.
Like I said; a lot of issues.
The problem is that all of the above issues apply to parents as well.
So we are back to square one...
Anyone got any good ideas?
Sunday, 22 May 2011
More one-sided media beat-ups - Sunday on reproductive technology
Tonight Sunday (TVOne) ran a highly emotive, remarkably one-sided story about people travelling overseas to buy eggs or embryos, focusing on two examples. It repeatedly attacked New Zealand law, which prohibits the sale of eggs, sperm or embryos, just as it prohibits the sale of children or human organs. Only one person spoke defending the law, near the end. There was no mention of the issues relating to children conceived from "anonymous" eggs, spern or embryos, or the fact that one of the prime reasons for the law was the lessons learnt from closed stranger adoption. It repeatedly said we needed to have the debate about this, when that was what we had when the law was drafted. It implied that we were the odd ones out in not allowing such sales to take place, although this is not true. I'm just more and more appalled by the dire state of socalled journalism here now.
SST's illusion of objectivity
If there's a newspaper article discussing politician plans to limit access to abortion - by introducing a requirement that parents consent - then shouldn't that article tell us what views the named politicians might hold on the issue?
Otherwise we have the illusion of neutrality.
So well done SST, for giving us Judith Collins history on this issue. She tried to introduce a similar bill in 2004 which was not supported by the College of General Practitioners or the Medical Council or enough MPs to pass.
Not such a good mark on the second MP they quote however:
When it comes to abortion, every media article that quotes Bill English should inform readers that his wife, Dr Mary English, actively campaigns against abortion.
We should also always be informed that Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child considers Bill "strongly anti-abortion."
As Minister of Health in the mid 1990s, he even supported SPUC in producing a booklet, with taxpayer money, on "options around abortion" that clinics and Family Planning clinics refused to use.
Bill English's views on abortion have been quietly erased from the general public's viewing for a few years now, presumably to make him more palatable to the many people in Aotearoa who consider access to control over conception and child-bearing a fundamental human right.
The media should not be helping National with this public relations campaign. That's not their job.
Otherwise we have the illusion of neutrality.
So well done SST, for giving us Judith Collins history on this issue. She tried to introduce a similar bill in 2004 which was not supported by the College of General Practitioners or the Medical Council or enough MPs to pass.
Not such a good mark on the second MP they quote however:
Finance Minister Bill English supported the amendment. "If a school doctor wants to give a pupil a Panadol, they have to tell parents ... It is time to swing the pendulum back in favour of parents," he said then. "Where there are significant events affecting children, and real risks to their welfare, parents should be involved.
"The idea that the law allows your 12 to 14-year-old daughter to have an abortion on her own and go back to school is repugnant."
When it comes to abortion, every media article that quotes Bill English should inform readers that his wife, Dr Mary English, actively campaigns against abortion.
We should also always be informed that Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child considers Bill "strongly anti-abortion."
As Minister of Health in the mid 1990s, he even supported SPUC in producing a booklet, with taxpayer money, on "options around abortion" that clinics and Family Planning clinics refused to use.
Bill English's views on abortion have been quietly erased from the general public's viewing for a few years now, presumably to make him more palatable to the many people in Aotearoa who consider access to control over conception and child-bearing a fundamental human right.
The media should not be helping National with this public relations campaign. That's not their job.
SST and their scenarios
Gotta give the Sunday Star Times credit, at least they're trying to make their scare-stories about parents not having complete control over their teenagers a little more equal opportunity. So whilst girls were disproportionately targeted last week, today they've come up with some hypothetical scenarios aimed at increasing the net of vulnerable teens they're concern trolling on behalf of:
Look, they've said that they will inform parents if there is a risk (I would hope/assume other procedures would come into place in certain circumstances, eg abuse). Sometimes people have vague, fleeting suicidal thoughts when things are going badly that they have no plans to act on. Of course expressions of these need to be taken seriously until it's determined what the risk level is, but isn't it best for teens to be able to express them and have help dealing with them?
And, yknow, gender identity can be very fluid for teenagers. Some people will know that they're not cisgendered from a very young age - but others will only start to explore the idea at puberty or later. And of those that do, some will be trans* and take medical steps, others will not but identify differently to how they were assigned at birth. And some will be cisgendered but have been exploring - say - an uncomfortableness with gender roles they were expected to take. Imagine being outed to your parents at such an early stage in your exploration, when you're really not sure what to tell them.
We didn't have counselors in my high school, so this is quite a new concept to me, but if they're providing a safe space for teenagers to talk about these issues, conducting risk assessments to keep them safe but not breaking their privacy unnecessarily, then this is a fantastic and needed service. Shame on you, SST, for your scare-mongering. I can guarantee that if you manage to destroy the confidentiality, kids are going to die because of it.
I also recommend Boganette's post on Judith Collins' call for a law change.
A counselor takes a student to a doctor who prescribes Prozac. "Once the student has seen the doctor, the responsibility for that decision is the doctor's. Counselors don't administer medication."Actually, this is the one I'm closest to sympathetic to. Prozac does carry medical risks, particularly early on and in teenagers, and I'd like someone to be monitoring their health - and ideally that would be a main caregiver. But the counsellors aren't objecting to that - they're simply saying that it's the doctor's responsibility to assess the risk and take precautions. Seems eminently reasonable to me. And if a teenager needs a medication (and yes, I do have concerns about how antidepressants are prescribed - but I also know they can be a lifesaver) isn't it better they get it?
A student has suicidal thoughts. "Our job is to make a risk assessment. If our assessment is the kid really is at risk then there's no choice – the parent must be told. When kids are genuinely at risk, there's no fight in them, and they actually want someone to take responsibility for their safety."They make a risk assessment? Can't have that. That would make too much sense.
Look, they've said that they will inform parents if there is a risk (I would hope/assume other procedures would come into place in certain circumstances, eg abuse). Sometimes people have vague, fleeting suicidal thoughts when things are going badly that they have no plans to act on. Of course expressions of these need to be taken seriously until it's determined what the risk level is, but isn't it best for teens to be able to express them and have help dealing with them?
A student considers a sex change. "If there is no indication of serious imminent harm, then there's no choice; we can't tell."Oh yes, here's the ultimate scare story! Note the really vague term 'sex-change' which most people are going to associate with surgery. Let's get this clear. Little Bobby is not going to go to school one day and come back as Roberta, minus a penis. Surgery happens at the end of a long, long process, and is rarely publicly funded. There probably isn't even any medication involved at this stage (and if there is, see Prozac argument above). What we are talking about is teens discussing their gender identity in a supportive environment. I think that's fucking fantastic - I can't imagine that anyone would have felt able to to that at my high school.
And, yknow, gender identity can be very fluid for teenagers. Some people will know that they're not cisgendered from a very young age - but others will only start to explore the idea at puberty or later. And of those that do, some will be trans* and take medical steps, others will not but identify differently to how they were assigned at birth. And some will be cisgendered but have been exploring - say - an uncomfortableness with gender roles they were expected to take. Imagine being outed to your parents at such an early stage in your exploration, when you're really not sure what to tell them.
We didn't have counselors in my high school, so this is quite a new concept to me, but if they're providing a safe space for teenagers to talk about these issues, conducting risk assessments to keep them safe but not breaking their privacy unnecessarily, then this is a fantastic and needed service. Shame on you, SST, for your scare-mongering. I can guarantee that if you manage to destroy the confidentiality, kids are going to die because of it.
I also recommend Boganette's post on Judith Collins' call for a law change.
Saturday, 21 May 2011
Sportswomen, what sportswomen?
Tomorrow there's a thrilling final of a Trans-Tasman sporting competition happening. Two teams, stacked with internationals from Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica and Samoa, will be battling out a fixture which pits the Australian (unbeaten all season) side against the New Zealand (first time in the finals in four years) side.
The best player in the league is playing for the Aussie team, lining up against a 19 year old kiwi who has impressed beyond all expectations this year. The best player in the Commonwealth Games final, whose last play won New Zealand a gold medal, will be lining up for the kiwi team, alongside the Samoan shooter with the best conversion rate (93%) in the league.
And this is what the sports page on Stuff looks like today:
Marina Erakovic and the New Zealand women's football team on up there. Yay.
But where's the bloody netball, Stuff? Go the Mystics.....
The best player in the league is playing for the Aussie team, lining up against a 19 year old kiwi who has impressed beyond all expectations this year. The best player in the Commonwealth Games final, whose last play won New Zealand a gold medal, will be lining up for the kiwi team, alongside the Samoan shooter with the best conversion rate (93%) in the league.
And this is what the sports page on Stuff looks like today:
Marina Erakovic and the New Zealand women's football team on up there. Yay.
But where's the bloody netball, Stuff? Go the Mystics.....
Trying to talk about my body
I'm not sure how to even start the internal conversations I want to have about my body. I always seem to be on the defensive, trying to prove myself one way or another. I guess it comes with the territory of being fat, being female, and a whole host of things that put me in a constant war in which my body is weapon, territory and battleground, usually all at once.
I've been thinking about a lot of things around this; about why I feel so strongly that my arms up to at least my elbows, and my whole legs, should be covered - and this isn't any kind of religious or moral principle, and I'm pretty sure it's not a phobia or an anxiety thing, it just is. I've been thinking about my utter lack of awareness, where I've done things like stood on a nail and known I was in pain but had no idea which part of the body the pain was in, and what this says about my relationship with my body.
If you read my posts regularly you'll realise that I tend to give a lot of examples with no real point. If there is a point in this it's that my body and the way I think about it are really fucking complicated. I'm not sure if it's any more complicated than anyone else's because hey, half my point (yes, I've gone from no real point to between 0.5 and 1.5 points, what of it?) is that I don't tend to express this often. And lately I've been finding that a lot of the fat acceptance/HAES type models that have done so much to change - arguably save - my life, really limiting.
I understand why people find it so important to talk about bodies as neutral - sometimes it's a shorthand for morally neutral, which I utterly agree with - and sometimes it's creating a space away from the constant shit about how seemingly everything isn't acceptable. And I understand why people want to celebrate them, as a reaction against the constant shit. And I understand that many people simply feel that their bodies are neutral, or awesome and something to be celebrated.
Bodies as neutral is a good starting point. But for me my body carries a lot of history, the evidence, both positive and negative, of a lot of my life, in all kinds of different ways. I gained a lot of weight in my teens dues to medical error - and not the sort of "crap I measured out the wrong dose" error that we all understand how we could make, but a series with a deep institutional basis, a whole heap of prejudice, and an utter disrespect for the autonomy of, and unwillingness to listen to, a teenage girl who didn't interact with them as teenage girls should. There have been other, unpleasant factors outside my control that have influenced my weight as well.
I'm trying to work out a way to acknowledge this. To acknowledge the physical effects of having bodily autonomy removed without going back to hating my body. To talk about this in appropriate spaces without coming across as being a good fatty because I have an excuse, unlike everyone else (I very much doubt I'd have been skinny anyway, but this isn't the point). I'm not even sure there is a way, in the context I live in, to acknowledge the link between my body and hurt without buying into a societal disapproval directed at myself, but it's an attempt I'm beginning to make anyway.
I've been thinking about a lot of things around this; about why I feel so strongly that my arms up to at least my elbows, and my whole legs, should be covered - and this isn't any kind of religious or moral principle, and I'm pretty sure it's not a phobia or an anxiety thing, it just is. I've been thinking about my utter lack of awareness, where I've done things like stood on a nail and known I was in pain but had no idea which part of the body the pain was in, and what this says about my relationship with my body.
If you read my posts regularly you'll realise that I tend to give a lot of examples with no real point. If there is a point in this it's that my body and the way I think about it are really fucking complicated. I'm not sure if it's any more complicated than anyone else's because hey, half my point (yes, I've gone from no real point to between 0.5 and 1.5 points, what of it?) is that I don't tend to express this often. And lately I've been finding that a lot of the fat acceptance/HAES type models that have done so much to change - arguably save - my life, really limiting.
I understand why people find it so important to talk about bodies as neutral - sometimes it's a shorthand for morally neutral, which I utterly agree with - and sometimes it's creating a space away from the constant shit about how seemingly everything isn't acceptable. And I understand why people want to celebrate them, as a reaction against the constant shit. And I understand that many people simply feel that their bodies are neutral, or awesome and something to be celebrated.
Bodies as neutral is a good starting point. But for me my body carries a lot of history, the evidence, both positive and negative, of a lot of my life, in all kinds of different ways. I gained a lot of weight in my teens dues to medical error - and not the sort of "crap I measured out the wrong dose" error that we all understand how we could make, but a series with a deep institutional basis, a whole heap of prejudice, and an utter disrespect for the autonomy of, and unwillingness to listen to, a teenage girl who didn't interact with them as teenage girls should. There have been other, unpleasant factors outside my control that have influenced my weight as well.
I'm trying to work out a way to acknowledge this. To acknowledge the physical effects of having bodily autonomy removed without going back to hating my body. To talk about this in appropriate spaces without coming across as being a good fatty because I have an excuse, unlike everyone else (I very much doubt I'd have been skinny anyway, but this isn't the point). I'm not even sure there is a way, in the context I live in, to acknowledge the link between my body and hurt without buying into a societal disapproval directed at myself, but it's an attempt I'm beginning to make anyway.
Friday, 20 May 2011
we care nz
a quick post to direct you to the "we care campaign", who are directing their efforts towards advocacy for carers in the health sector. from their website:
if you're interested, there's a facebook page as well.
remember that the majority of these 420,000 carers will be women, and those who get paid get the minimum wage - unless they are a close family member of the person being cared for. again from the website, here is brian easton's article on the latter subject (pdf).
More than 420,000 New Zealanders care for ill, frail, injured or disabled family members and friends.
Carers are New Zealand’s biggest health workforce, and their unpaid work has an annual value of more than $7 billion. We will all give or need family care during our lives.
Despite their important role in family life and society, carers can feel invisible … taken for granted.
Add your voice to ours to call for genuine support and good decision-making for carers!
Send an email to the Prime Minister, John Key, or submit a photo to our visual petition with your own message about caring!
remember that the majority of these 420,000 carers will be women, and those who get paid get the minimum wage - unless they are a close family member of the person being cared for. again from the website, here is brian easton's article on the latter subject (pdf).
Thursday, 19 May 2011
budget links
some budget links that might be of interest.
here's pinky agnew at the pre-budget protest of around 1500 people, with a poem:
here's a short clip of david do on education:
and his quick summary of the impact on student loans:
Today’s Budget does nothing for jobs when unemployment is high and risks prompting a return to recession. It forecasts low growth continuing this year, and that even by March 2012, unemployment will still remain high at 5.7 percent.
Bill Rosenberg, CTU Economist said “Despite this gloomy outlook for the coming year, the government will be spending little more than last year. This amounts to a $2 billion cut in real terms when inflation forecast, at 3.1 percent is taken into account. Even Treasury says that this will provide zero stimulus, and the government is resting on assumptions of growth resulting from reconstruction in Christchurch. There is a real risk of continuing high unemployment or even going back into recession.”
“We do need to face up to debt but when it is the third lowest in the OECD, it should not have trumped the immediate needs of people who are struggling, and a stagnant and fragile economy. It ignores the hard times that many families are facing at present,” said Rosenberg.
here is phil goff on "the least imaginative" & "lack-lustre" budget that breaks some major elections promises from 2008:
and here is david cunliffe on radio nz's checkpoint (17.38, 19/5/11).
here's bernard hickey (and yes, i'm not a great fan, but this bit does make a lot of sense) on the government's decision to bet on growth:
[John Key & Bill English] will argue the Christchurch earthquake rebuild and an historic boom in commodity prices will power GDP growth to over 4% over the next couple of years.
and keith ng is brilliant as ever, on the kiwisaver cuts and an interesting donut thingy.
hat tipped to all my facebook friends who have directed me to these links.
here's pinky agnew at the pre-budget protest of around 1500 people, with a poem:
here's a short clip of david do on education:
and his quick summary of the impact on student loans:
- total savings of $447 million over four years
- restricting eligibility to students overdue with payments,
- limiting students aged 55 and over to borrowing only for tuition fees
- removing part-time students to borrow for course costs.
- repayment holiday for borrowers based overseas is shortened to 1 year from 3 years
- definition of ‘income’ broadened for student loan repayment purposes
Today’s Budget does nothing for jobs when unemployment is high and risks prompting a return to recession. It forecasts low growth continuing this year, and that even by March 2012, unemployment will still remain high at 5.7 percent.
Bill Rosenberg, CTU Economist said “Despite this gloomy outlook for the coming year, the government will be spending little more than last year. This amounts to a $2 billion cut in real terms when inflation forecast, at 3.1 percent is taken into account. Even Treasury says that this will provide zero stimulus, and the government is resting on assumptions of growth resulting from reconstruction in Christchurch. There is a real risk of continuing high unemployment or even going back into recession.”
“We do need to face up to debt but when it is the third lowest in the OECD, it should not have trumped the immediate needs of people who are struggling, and a stagnant and fragile economy. It ignores the hard times that many families are facing at present,” said Rosenberg.
here is phil goff on "the least imaginative" & "lack-lustre" budget that breaks some major elections promises from 2008:
and here is david cunliffe on radio nz's checkpoint (17.38, 19/5/11).
here's bernard hickey (and yes, i'm not a great fan, but this bit does make a lot of sense) on the government's decision to bet on growth:
[John Key & Bill English] will argue the Christchurch earthquake rebuild and an historic boom in commodity prices will power GDP growth to over 4% over the next couple of years.
This all seems sensible until you look at the track record of these forecasts in the last three years since the global financial crisis. Every economic forecast by the Treasury under-estimated the impact of an epic change in the way New Zealanders think about debt and spending since the crisis. In May 2008 Treasury forecast growth rates for the next three years of 1.5%, 2.3% and 3.2%. Instead we got -1.1%, -0.4% and -0.1%.
The inaccuracy of these forecasts isn't just Treasury's doing. All the economic forecasters have missed out on a structural shift.
New Zealanders have stopped borrowing overseas to pump money through the housing market into consumer spending, which makes up almost 70% of the economy. It has been stalled for three years and there is no indication it is picking up quickly. New Zealand households have got the message, even if the government hasn't, that they can't live beyond their means.and keith ng is brilliant as ever, on the kiwisaver cuts and an interesting donut thingy.
hat tipped to all my facebook friends who have directed me to these links.
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
a high price
as with most high-profile rape cases, the one involving dominique strauss-kahn (head of the IMF) has left me feeling a little sick. the woman alleging sexual assault is apparently in hiding, unable to return to work and who knows how she is surviving.
details of her ethnicity, immigration status and religion are now in the public arena. yet again, the media response gives a clear lesson to women: if you're raped by a high-profile man and don't keep quiet about it, expect for your life to be made miserable. there will be no waiting for justice through the court system and very little about your identity will remain secret. expect every aspect of your past and present to be scrutinised. that is the price you pay for being in the vicinity of a rapist who has a public profile.
i can't find links to it, but i heard in the news today that the woman concerned did not know who mr strauss-kahn was when she made the complaint. she had absolutely no idea that her life would be drastically affected. the underlying implication seems to be that she probably would not have spoken to police had she known that this would be the result of her actions.
yup. this is rape culture in action. pretty hard not to feel sick about it.
details of her ethnicity, immigration status and religion are now in the public arena. yet again, the media response gives a clear lesson to women: if you're raped by a high-profile man and don't keep quiet about it, expect for your life to be made miserable. there will be no waiting for justice through the court system and very little about your identity will remain secret. expect every aspect of your past and present to be scrutinised. that is the price you pay for being in the vicinity of a rapist who has a public profile.
i can't find links to it, but i heard in the news today that the woman concerned did not know who mr strauss-kahn was when she made the complaint. she had absolutely no idea that her life would be drastically affected. the underlying implication seems to be that she probably would not have spoken to police had she known that this would be the result of her actions.
yup. this is rape culture in action. pretty hard not to feel sick about it.
standing up to the banks
it's been a little while since i posted here - partly because of blogger going pear-shaped last week but mostly because we have been having so many wonderful posts from our new grouping of brilliant women. i've been sitting back and enjoying everyone's contributions.
today i went to a professional development course. like all professionals, accountants are required to keep up-to-date by attending a certain number of hours of training during the year. many of the issues covered at these courses are mind-numbingly dull, though presenters will usually do their best to liven up proceedings. but really, how exciting can you make changes to private use adjustment calculations for GST? not very.
the course today was a rural update, and started off pretty dull. mostly because i find it hard to get enthused about changes in commodity prices and predictions about fonterra's payouts over the coming 2-3 years, what sheep & beef prices are doing, and the like.
well, they have a little bit of interest in that my mind immediately equates this rise in prices to people going hungry and struggling to make ends meet. and discussions about the growing demand for our dairy exports from the middle classes in china and india make me wonder if the middle classes in those countries are going to price out the poor in our country, so that people here will have to be middle class to afford butter, cheese and maybe even fresh milk. it certainly looks like this will be the case based on current projections, and there is absolutely no strategy or thought being put into ensuring that everyone in our country will enjoy the fruits of our natural resources. as well as the fact that the lower classes in india & china deserve to enjoy quality dairy produce just as much as anyone else.
but no, we didn't really discuss those issues. we were given these economic updates and forecasts so that we could think about tax planning for our farming clients and how they were going to deal with all the extra income. for many of them, it's a very nice problem to have and some will happily rail against the amount of tax they have to pay and the lazy bludgers they are forced to support through the extortion that is the tax system. i can't think of anything i could say that would encourage to view things differently.
but there are another group, and quite a concerning number who are presently up to their necks in bank loans. for them, it's not such a nice story. now, it would be easy to say that these particular farmers are fully responsible for taking on too much debt, but that would hide the role played by banks.
our presenter today gave us some really interesting insights into the working of the major banks in relation to the rural sector. between 3-5 years ago banks were aggressively pushing debt onto people, and particularly in the rural sector. there was a high degree of competition between two banks in particular competing against each other, which lead to these banks probably approving debt that they otherwise wouldn't have done.
but more than that, it lead to some pretty unethical banking practices, and there is no evidence that these kinds of things have stopped. i've had experience of our clients being pushed to buy fully geared rental properties, who are now really struggling. they can't afford to pay the loans, and the value of the properties have dropped so that selling is not going to help them out of their situation. unlike in america, they can't drop the keys off at the bank & walk away debt-free.
it has been equally bad in the rural sector. we were given an example of a farmer who was constantly nagged to buy a neighbouring property. the person from the bank had done all the numbers, and showed that the purchase was completely viable if a portion of the existing farm was sold. the farmer was assured that there would be no hiccups, and the farmer's solicitor was also assured that nothing could possibly go wrong.
except that once the sale & purchase agreement was signed and the $900,000 deposit was paid, the bank decided they weren't going to lend money for the full purchase. in the meantime, the existing farm hadn't done so well and the bank forced a sale on that property, at a loss of $1.5 million. the farmer also lost the $900,000 deposit. the bank person, well they got to keep the commission on selling the debt to the farmer, and suffered no harm. neither did the bank.
our presenter raised the very concerning issue of bank staff, who are going to personally benefit by way of a commission if a deal goes ahead, also acting as budget advisor and in this case pretty much acting as a real estate agent as well. the conflict of interest is huge. the standing that some of these staff have by virtue of their position in the bank is a major factor in creating a sense of trust in their clients, so that clients don't seek independent advice.
there were other examples of the commissioned staff making promises that were subsequently not kept - such as a promise that no changes to the overdraft would be made if further indebtedness was taken on, only for the client to find that their overdraft limit had been reduced from $100,000 to $50,000 as a result of the loan.
on a wider level, a certain one of our foreign-owned banks who has been involved in pushing debt in the rural sector has now decided that asia is a much more profitable prospect, and is tightening up the money supply. given the increase in commodity prices, farmers will be pushed to repay principle at a level that will be very difficult for them to manage, and they are unlikely to obtain further loans for large the large tax payouts that are looming.
the best part of this presentation though, was hearing this presenter advocate for struggling clients. he encouraged us to stand up against the banks by ensuring any budgeting was done by us, and by making sure we were in the room any time banking staff were meeting with our clients. more than that, he said we should do it without charge. i think that's the first time i've heard a presenter say that, and it was really genuinely meant. he didn't mean that we should do screeds of work for free, but that we should consider giving some of our time to ensure that clients were protected and helped to get out of debt through careful plannning. accountants with a social conscience - yay!
i'd dearly love to give this man's name, but i didn't get his permission. the room was packed though, and i really hope that a lot of the people present do take this on board.
today i went to a professional development course. like all professionals, accountants are required to keep up-to-date by attending a certain number of hours of training during the year. many of the issues covered at these courses are mind-numbingly dull, though presenters will usually do their best to liven up proceedings. but really, how exciting can you make changes to private use adjustment calculations for GST? not very.
the course today was a rural update, and started off pretty dull. mostly because i find it hard to get enthused about changes in commodity prices and predictions about fonterra's payouts over the coming 2-3 years, what sheep & beef prices are doing, and the like.
well, they have a little bit of interest in that my mind immediately equates this rise in prices to people going hungry and struggling to make ends meet. and discussions about the growing demand for our dairy exports from the middle classes in china and india make me wonder if the middle classes in those countries are going to price out the poor in our country, so that people here will have to be middle class to afford butter, cheese and maybe even fresh milk. it certainly looks like this will be the case based on current projections, and there is absolutely no strategy or thought being put into ensuring that everyone in our country will enjoy the fruits of our natural resources. as well as the fact that the lower classes in india & china deserve to enjoy quality dairy produce just as much as anyone else.
but no, we didn't really discuss those issues. we were given these economic updates and forecasts so that we could think about tax planning for our farming clients and how they were going to deal with all the extra income. for many of them, it's a very nice problem to have and some will happily rail against the amount of tax they have to pay and the lazy bludgers they are forced to support through the extortion that is the tax system. i can't think of anything i could say that would encourage to view things differently.
but there are another group, and quite a concerning number who are presently up to their necks in bank loans. for them, it's not such a nice story. now, it would be easy to say that these particular farmers are fully responsible for taking on too much debt, but that would hide the role played by banks.
our presenter today gave us some really interesting insights into the working of the major banks in relation to the rural sector. between 3-5 years ago banks were aggressively pushing debt onto people, and particularly in the rural sector. there was a high degree of competition between two banks in particular competing against each other, which lead to these banks probably approving debt that they otherwise wouldn't have done.
but more than that, it lead to some pretty unethical banking practices, and there is no evidence that these kinds of things have stopped. i've had experience of our clients being pushed to buy fully geared rental properties, who are now really struggling. they can't afford to pay the loans, and the value of the properties have dropped so that selling is not going to help them out of their situation. unlike in america, they can't drop the keys off at the bank & walk away debt-free.
it has been equally bad in the rural sector. we were given an example of a farmer who was constantly nagged to buy a neighbouring property. the person from the bank had done all the numbers, and showed that the purchase was completely viable if a portion of the existing farm was sold. the farmer was assured that there would be no hiccups, and the farmer's solicitor was also assured that nothing could possibly go wrong.
except that once the sale & purchase agreement was signed and the $900,000 deposit was paid, the bank decided they weren't going to lend money for the full purchase. in the meantime, the existing farm hadn't done so well and the bank forced a sale on that property, at a loss of $1.5 million. the farmer also lost the $900,000 deposit. the bank person, well they got to keep the commission on selling the debt to the farmer, and suffered no harm. neither did the bank.
our presenter raised the very concerning issue of bank staff, who are going to personally benefit by way of a commission if a deal goes ahead, also acting as budget advisor and in this case pretty much acting as a real estate agent as well. the conflict of interest is huge. the standing that some of these staff have by virtue of their position in the bank is a major factor in creating a sense of trust in their clients, so that clients don't seek independent advice.
there were other examples of the commissioned staff making promises that were subsequently not kept - such as a promise that no changes to the overdraft would be made if further indebtedness was taken on, only for the client to find that their overdraft limit had been reduced from $100,000 to $50,000 as a result of the loan.
on a wider level, a certain one of our foreign-owned banks who has been involved in pushing debt in the rural sector has now decided that asia is a much more profitable prospect, and is tightening up the money supply. given the increase in commodity prices, farmers will be pushed to repay principle at a level that will be very difficult for them to manage, and they are unlikely to obtain further loans for large the large tax payouts that are looming.
the best part of this presentation though, was hearing this presenter advocate for struggling clients. he encouraged us to stand up against the banks by ensuring any budgeting was done by us, and by making sure we were in the room any time banking staff were meeting with our clients. more than that, he said we should do it without charge. i think that's the first time i've heard a presenter say that, and it was really genuinely meant. he didn't mean that we should do screeds of work for free, but that we should consider giving some of our time to ensure that clients were protected and helped to get out of debt through careful plannning. accountants with a social conscience - yay!
i'd dearly love to give this man's name, but i didn't get his permission. the room was packed though, and i really hope that a lot of the people present do take this on board.
Tall Poppy syndrome is alive and well in the blogosphere
There is feminism, and then there is Feminism.
There is first wave, second wave, a token wave to, and ‘the revelation hit me like a wave” Feminism.
There are young people just learning and starting out, and older women who have battled for a generation or more already.
None of us are alike, but all are invested in equality, it is only our knowledge of the world around us that varies how we practice what we do.
I must confess that one of the biggest deterrents to blogging was the large amount of sniping and criticism that goes on in blogging circles.
This isn’t a “lady problem” or even uniquely feminist. I find the same thing in atheist circles, parenting blogs, and science groups.
If someone is passionate enough about something to write at least once a week on the topic, then they have got confirmed theories, opinions and issues around the topic already. Add to the mix the amount of anger that can stand behind marginalised groups, and the fact that each person is a different medley of minorities and it is a volatile mix.
I love the debate of the comments sections because I can choose or not choose to engage.
It gives all sides an opportunity to explain themselves if needed, and provides an open forum to potential resolution and understanding in both parties.
I’m less fond of the growing trend of passive aggression by the way of writing a critical analysis of someone else’s point of view and separating into two camps without constructive discussion between the two. It's all well and good if you overtly disagree with the entire thing (my example would be the tits out campaign). However if you like a concept but they have missed mentioning something that is YOUR baby (whether it is the forgetting the inclusion of your group, or the way something is worded) don’t immediately run back to base and undermine an entire cause.
Discuss with the organisers your concerns in private.
Discuss with the organisers your concerns in public.
Then look at reasons that have been put out there, and if they are still unreasonable by all means, step up and take a stand.
Before you do all this, take a look at the organisers.
A corporate group with their own legal team and plenty of moolah to research should know better, and should take feedback on board and make changes swiftly.
(Hello The Rock FM and HAHAHAHA to your latest ratings btw).
A volunteer group may not have the resources, but should also have people’s best interests at heart.
A blogger... well who are they?
Are they just some shmuck who likes to write, a person with their own passions for human rights but a fledgling knowledge of all the issues?
Or are they a well informed person who should know better and is well respected and widely read?
Are they a cover for someone on the other side trying to undermine a cause?
(The “vote on my abortion” fiasco would be a good example of this).
Take a look at who you are trying change, and why.
The range of opinions on the internet is what makes it so cool, and I would hate to pasteurise our feminist movement through fear of criticism.
So next time you decide to jump on a good cause because there is something you don’t like about it take a deep breath.
Is it really their job to cover ALL the issues at once?
Is there a trend of offensive behaviour or exclusion?
Have you even asked why they have done what they did?
Have you given them the opportunity to improve?
What are YOU willing to do as far as putting in working hours to help find a solution?
Or are you just doing this to bolster your own profile and have something to write about in your own space?
Tall poppy syndrome is international, not just a kiwi issue. The internet has shown this to me.
Disclaimer: I started writing this when I first started my blog and it always sounded like "why are people so meeeeeean?" it has taken me this long to whittle it to a more functional version. If I didn’t know you 18 months ago, it has nothing to do with you! (except you jerks mentioned in the examples!)
There is first wave, second wave, a token wave to, and ‘the revelation hit me like a wave” Feminism.
There are young people just learning and starting out, and older women who have battled for a generation or more already.
None of us are alike, but all are invested in equality, it is only our knowledge of the world around us that varies how we practice what we do.
I must confess that one of the biggest deterrents to blogging was the large amount of sniping and criticism that goes on in blogging circles.
This isn’t a “lady problem” or even uniquely feminist. I find the same thing in atheist circles, parenting blogs, and science groups.
If someone is passionate enough about something to write at least once a week on the topic, then they have got confirmed theories, opinions and issues around the topic already. Add to the mix the amount of anger that can stand behind marginalised groups, and the fact that each person is a different medley of minorities and it is a volatile mix.
I love the debate of the comments sections because I can choose or not choose to engage.
It gives all sides an opportunity to explain themselves if needed, and provides an open forum to potential resolution and understanding in both parties.
I’m less fond of the growing trend of passive aggression by the way of writing a critical analysis of someone else’s point of view and separating into two camps without constructive discussion between the two. It's all well and good if you overtly disagree with the entire thing (my example would be the tits out campaign). However if you like a concept but they have missed mentioning something that is YOUR baby (whether it is the forgetting the inclusion of your group, or the way something is worded) don’t immediately run back to base and undermine an entire cause.
Discuss with the organisers your concerns in private.
Discuss with the organisers your concerns in public.
Then look at reasons that have been put out there, and if they are still unreasonable by all means, step up and take a stand.
Before you do all this, take a look at the organisers.
A corporate group with their own legal team and plenty of moolah to research should know better, and should take feedback on board and make changes swiftly.
(Hello The Rock FM and HAHAHAHA to your latest ratings btw).
A volunteer group may not have the resources, but should also have people’s best interests at heart.
A blogger... well who are they?
Are they just some shmuck who likes to write, a person with their own passions for human rights but a fledgling knowledge of all the issues?
Or are they a well informed person who should know better and is well respected and widely read?
Are they a cover for someone on the other side trying to undermine a cause?
(The “vote on my abortion” fiasco would be a good example of this).
Take a look at who you are trying change, and why.
The range of opinions on the internet is what makes it so cool, and I would hate to pasteurise our feminist movement through fear of criticism.
So next time you decide to jump on a good cause because there is something you don’t like about it take a deep breath.
Is it really their job to cover ALL the issues at once?
Is there a trend of offensive behaviour or exclusion?
Have you even asked why they have done what they did?
Have you given them the opportunity to improve?
What are YOU willing to do as far as putting in working hours to help find a solution?
Or are you just doing this to bolster your own profile and have something to write about in your own space?
Tall poppy syndrome is international, not just a kiwi issue. The internet has shown this to me.
Disclaimer: I started writing this when I first started my blog and it always sounded like "why are people so meeeeeean?" it has taken me this long to whittle it to a more functional version. If I didn’t know you 18 months ago, it has nothing to do with you! (except you jerks mentioned in the examples!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)