Thursday, 30 June 2011

Why is Dita De Boni wrong? Because grammar

I am only going to respond to half a sentance of Dita De Boni's ridiculous article about slutwalk, because life is too short to pay attention to the rest. She says:
I can't see the value in putting yourself out there to complete strangers as a sexual object - especially in social situations where alcohol blurs the ability of people to moderate their behaviour.


Actually I'm ignoring the second clause in the bit I quoted too - because it's stupid. And I've been a feminist blogger too long to have new ways to say "That's victim-blaming nonsense and if you don't mean to victim-blame then you should stop talking."

No the bit I'm interested tonight is the idea that you can put yourself out to strangers as a sexual object.

You can't - it's nonsense. If you are putting yourself out there you are the subject in that sentence, not it's object. This is a really important and basic point, which can very easily get lost. You can't objectify yourself - it's not possible. If you are acting then you are the subject of that action - you can't act to make yourself acted upon. Because in everything you do, even things that people suppose take away your agency, you are using your agency.

I keep saying the same thing, but getting increasingly more convoluted in saying it, because it's a really simple grammatical point.

But it's also an important political point; you can't present yourself as a sex object. Objectification is something that is done to you, it is not something you can do to yourself. Without this understanding any attempt to talk about the politics of objectification descend into gibberish.

Tuesday, 28 June 2011

A day of protests and babies

The weather forecast had been ominous. But it was the perfect winter day - the sky was blue, the sun was shining, the sort of day that they made up the slogan 'You can't beat Wellington on a good day' for. And I was going to protest. I had a busy protesting schedule. Youth rates at midday and then slutwalk at 2pm.

The youth rates demo was 25 people with banners and a megaphone - theoretically we were outside the National Party Headquarters, but actually we were down the road a bit, which didn't matter, because it was a Saturday, so not many of them would have been there either. A perfectly respectable way of demo-ing, but not sustainable for very long.

But I didn't have to spend any of my time concentrating on demo-ing, because I saw a friend I hadn't seen for ages, and he had his baby with him. "I'm here for you" I tell the baby. The baby responded by dropping a rattle and making sure gravity was working.

2 4 6 8

No More Youth Rates

"Technically, the fact that there isn't a minimum wage for those under the age of 16 isn't a youth rate - it's a lack of rate." Pedantry over slogans written around bad rhymes and worse - it's my favourite.

I think fighting youth rates, and demanding the same minimum wage protection for under 16s that over 16s have, is incredibly important, and there's nothing wrong with hastily called demos (I have organised enough of them in my time). But hastily organised demos are not a substitute for that fight, or even a beginning - actual fight back needs organising, not just calling together the same two dozen people to stand outside Unity Books.

The demo was mercifully short, leaving plenty of time for a between demos coffee (or ginger beer in my case - I'm not a coffee fan). We talked a bit about slut-walk - because one of the people there had never heard of it.

I had resolved to go, but the Close Up piece on Friday night had nearly made me change my mind. I'm going to leave my thoughts about the problem of 'slutwalk' as an idea for another post. But I knew, ultimately, that I had to go. As this report of two demos in one day demonstrates - I go to demos. I think standing collectively with people who are advancing a cause you agree with is important enough to over-ride any non-monumental disagreement. I went along to a CTU budget day rally where Phil Goff was speaking - the finer nuances of the politics of rape, bodies, gender, sexuality, dress and good sound bites were not going to keep me away from 'slutwalk'.

I walked up Courtney Place and down Tory St, quite astonished at the wonders of the sun. Would Slutwalk be big? One of my friends had thought over a thousand. I sort of thought he was right, but didn't want to be disappointed.

I wasn't disappointed. When I got there, the not-yet-march was spread out along several different paths - so it was multi-pronged and hard to guess at size, but it was big. I saw so many people I knew from areas of my life besides trouble-making. My ex-next door neighbour, and her no longer tiny children, someone who I'd met at a friend's wedding. And, most exhilerating for someone who makes a habit of going on protests, there were so many people I didn't know.

Then I saw Strypey.

I had made a mental list of men who shouldn't be there. He hadn't been on my list, but he should have been. I know little about how he has treated women, but I do know how he treat rapists. I've known him defend multiple rapists and abusive men. I've seen him criticise survivors of intimate abuse and those who stood with them. I couldn't believe a man who was so open about doubting women's accounts of rape would dare come to this event.

I saw some people I knew, got distracted, spent some more time being impressed at the size and adorableness of babies. And then the march was off.

I made my way to the front to do a head a head count (at this point it's become a compulsion) - and it was a fab march for counting - long and not too wide. But I knew I wouldn't be able to count everyone. I counted groups of ten up to 100, and used that first hundred to count out blocks of a hundred down the march. Not 100% reliable, but better than journalists "make up a random number about half of what it actually is." I reckon there were about 1,200 people on that march, and it was beautiful.

Then, just as I stopped counting, I saw Strypey again. I walked up to him and said "I don't think you should be here. The way you have acted as a rapist apologist, and defended abusive men. I can't believe you would come along to something like this. I don't think you should be here." As I said this I remembered the time his bullshit discussion of lying women had driven people out of the room. He didn't leave, just said "I appreciate your point of view." But I was so glad that I'd said it.

It was quite literally a slut 'walk' - as the route was pretty inaccessible for those with buggies or in wheelchairs (and possibly rollerskates - although it wouldn't surprise me if regular roller skaters have less problems with stairs than I do). The march went over the city to sea bridge, and while there were ramps it followed the steps. Then on top of that the council was doing some works on the other side of the bridge which blocked the ramp alternative to the last lot of steps. Obviously any form of march is inaccessible to many people, but steps make things inaccessible for people. Those with buggies, in wheel-chairs, or with other problems with steps had to peel off from the main group and take the bits with steps on their own (or in a small posse). In a demo that was about collective solidarity, I thought this was a real shame (an organiser's perspective is here).

The rally was up on the bridge over civic square. I heard part of the first speech, (if I inherit vast sums of money from an eccentric relative whose existence I wasn't previously aware of I'm going to buy a really good sound system and the generator to power it and provide it free for Wellington demos*) but then I went to meet a friend and after that I wasn't somewhere I could hear the speeches. Except Brooklynne Kennedy - whose speech was both audible and amazing.

As I didn't hear the speeches I don't know if anyone mentioned (or anyone knew) that the City to Sea Bridge, the very ground we were standing on, was designed by a rapist. To me that's the most important message, that rapists are not a scary other group of men, they're just men who have listened to the many messages in our society that they shouldn't take consent seriously and they're everywhere. And while I can understand why a woman brought a placard "rapists R Freaks", to me the opposite message important, rapists aren't freaks, they're the people you know, so believe people when they say they've been sexually violated.

It was an amazing day. Two of my friends have just had daughters, and the day felt like a promise to them, and all the kids I saw that day - a promise that said "we'll keep on fighting. We know this world isn't good enough. We want it to be better for you."

* The demo of October the 28th 2007, protesting against the raids and demanding bail would have always been memorable for me. But it was the most captivating rally I've ever been part of, partly because the speakers and singers were amazing, but that would have been meaningless if the sound system hadn't meant that you could hear every word.

Monday, 27 June 2011

Questioning? New group through Akl Women's Centre

Thanks to Leonie at AWC for sending this through :-)

Questioning? This group fills a gap in the current offerings of social support provided to the lesbian, bisexual, queer women’s community. At present there is no where that operates as an open age, safe space to discuss and ask questions about same sex attraction.

Starting Monday July 4th, 7pm-9pm

Topics covered will include:
  • Stereotypes/labels
  • Gender
  • Telling friends and family
  • Out at work?
  • Finding community
  • Dating
  • Sex

Questioning will run over 7 weeks as a facilitated support group. The 3 facilitators, Ellie Lim (Auckland Women’s Centre), Cissy Rock (Low down) and Vicky Wood (independent) will steer the sessions, using a mix of exercises, discussion topics and post-boxing. The format will be mostly participant directed and resources will be distributed over the course of the 7 weeks.

If you have clients, friends or loved ones who could benefit from attending Questioning? please ask them to register their interest with Ellie on 09 376 3227 before the group starts.

Sunday, 26 June 2011

SlutWalking in Auckland in June

Here are my photos from yesterday, in Auckland. I'm not sure if people would like to be named or not (except Cathy) so I haven't shared any of the names I do know - if you want to out yourself in comments feel free, but please don't out others.

It was a really good march, and I was heartened to see that so much of the anger and determination is still there from an International Women's Day march against rape that I went on about four years ago.  That event was a chance to express the rage many felt at the acquittal of some policemen accused of rape earlier in the week. 

This was not an easy event for many to attend.  Protests of this nature never are.  I want to acknowledge that  - some of those who came were probably uncomfortable and it was a great struggle to even make it along.  Others couldn't come for the same reasons. 

Ultimately whether or not you attended a SlutWalk yesterday doesn't matter.  What matters is that you reject rape, reject the myth that those raped are to blame for the assault, and challenge rape culture when you come across it and have the spoons to do so. 

Here are my photos:

Gathering at the start at QE2 Square, great speeches, especially Chloe King who was incredible.
Some awesome people with awesome placards, listening to the awesome speakers at QE2.
One of many great, colourful placards
Walking up Queen St.  "Sexual Assault is the Rapist's Fault" was one of the chants.

More fab placards, at the rear of the march.

The front of the march, as we got further up Queen St.  What you can't see is all the photographers & TV cameras swarming around behind me and up on the pavement getting shots.
Auckland Councillor Cathy Casey took her dogs for a SlutWalk.

I think this is my favourite shot of my ones; feminists and allies in action!

True dat.

Saturday, 25 June 2011

SlutWalk sharing

ETA: Updated this morning (Monday) to include more links, in the sections with purple headings :-)  I'm also slotting in new blog stuff as I stumble across it.

A post giving people a chance to chat about their experiences at SlutWalk in Akl and Wellington, and maybe share links to photos. media coverage etc too :-)

Big ups to the Auckland organisers, really good job.  I hope to put some of my pics up in a separate post later Sunday night.

Linky love for SlutWalk:
Gigantic SlutWalk Auckland 2011 Post at Because Feminism.
Photos of Auckland SlutWalk, 25 June at Auckland Photo Blog
SlutWalk - Twitter Messages of Love! at La Vita e Bella
Slutwalk Aotearoa in Wellington, a review at g.blog
Wellington Aotearoa Slutwalk 25/6/11 at Sexshitandrocknroll's Blog (where I found some of these links)
A very productie day / Slutwalk Aotearoa Wellington 2011 at Good Gravey!

New linky love for Slutwalk:
Walking at The Lady Garden
Me (in a sea of people) at La Vita e Bella
Rape: A Local Problem by Gong Foam as a Facebook note
SlutWalking in Auckland in June at The Hand Mirror
Slutwalkin' at Crevice Canyon 
A slutwalk addendum at Good Gravey! 
Slutwalk - Perspectives and Apologies as an Organiser at La Vita e Bella (one of the Wellington organisers responds to issues raised in the comments to this post)
Slutwalk, Wellington at Life is a feminist issue


Media coverage:
SlutWalks brave cold to get message across - TVNZ
Slutwalkers 'tired of bodies being a battleground' - 3News
Hundreds of Kiwis protest in SlutWalk - Stuff (v good video on this link I thought)

New media coverage:
I understand The Listener this week will be featuring a major story on SlutWalk.  Nothing about it that I could see on their website just yet.
Hundreds turn out for Auckland's Slutwalk - Te Waha Nui (includes video)
Radio NZ bulletin on the Slutwalks including JoHubris' comments


Photo Albums 
Auckland SlutWalk shots on Imgur by an unknown photographer
Nikki's Auckland photos on flickr
Auckland pics on Facebook:  album by Jia Luo, album by Richard Symons Makeup + Photography, album by Nykie Grove-Eades, album by Showgirls,
Wellington shots on Facebook: album by Mike Bryant, album by Andrea Skews, album by the Greens, album by Jason Mann Photography.

Let me know if you find anything I've missed, has been a frantic weekend so this is pretty patchy!

Friday, 24 June 2011

SlutWalk stuff

Saturday June 25th is SlutWalk day for Aotearoa New Zealand.

 I'll be at the Auckland SlutWalk, weather willing*, which is 2pm at QEII Square (bottom of Queen St), marching up Queen St. Some of the Auckland-based THMers, and friends, will be meeting outside the Muffin Break by the Queen St entrance to the Downtown Westfield at 1.45pm.  More info on the Auckland SlutWalk can be found here.  I have heard that Louise Nicholas may be speaking?

Other THMers may be at the Wellington SlutWalk, which is at 2pm at Waitangi Park, marching to Civic Square.  Wellington Young Feminists Collective are meeting up beforehand at Te Aro Park at 1pm, and they are so onto it they even have a Facebook event for it :-)  More info on the Wellington SlutWalk can be found here.

The SlutWalk concept, and how it has been realised in different parts of the world, have been imperfect imho, however I still feel that it's worthwhile, and I'll be marching tomorrow (I hope) to walk with others who unreservedly put the blame for rape where it belongs; on rapists.  I look forward to a future where discussions of rape centre around the behaviour of rapists, not survivors. 

There have been many many great blog posts in the build-up to SlutWalk and I think it would be totally awesome if people had the energy to add their favourites in comments, but if not that's ok too.  I'm looking forward to the reports and pics after the marches. 

I heartily recommend the amazing & wonderful Deborah's opinion piece on Stuff today about how SlutWalk came about and why it matters.  Here's part of the end:
It's time for a change. It's time to realise that the one thing in common in all rapes is the presence of a rapist, someone who couldn't be bothered to get consent. It's time to understand that the only thing that signifies consent to sex is the participants' willing and enthusiastic consent. Not what people are wearing, not what people have had to drink, not what people have done in the past. What is required is the presence of that wonderful word "Yes!" For both women and men.

I'm SlutWalking for all these reasons. I want to reclaim the word, I want to enable women to celebrate their sexuality, I want an end to victim-blaming.
DON'T READ THE COMMENTS on Stuff.  I haven't, after being fore-warned.

From what I am hearing from a wide variety of women intending to attend there will be all sorts of different outfits on display.  I'll be in Mummy Couture I think.

Good luck everyone, and thanks to the organisers for your hard work.


*  Sadly I have a low threshold for acceptable weather tomorrow as I'll have Snuffly and Wriggly with me.  

An open letter to the NZ media regarding slutwalk

Cross posted from my home base.

Dear NZ media.
I will be attending tomorrow’s “slutwalk” and I am so scared I am seriously considering not going.
I am scared that you will film me, and then use my image to misinterpret what is happening and why I am there.
I am scared that it will affect my job.
I am scared my boyfriend and I’s friends and family will think less of us.
I am scared that people who do rape and assault women will see me, and that will make me more of a target than simply being a young woman already does.
This march is TERRIFYING on so many levels.

But I WILL BE THERE.
But I will be there because I want to raise kids in a country where they do not have to drop rape charges just because they have had sex in the past, and their dating history is visible online.
I want to raise my kids in a country where the first question the police ask is “are you ok?” not “did you fight back?”
I want to hear that my kids can talk about their experiences of assault without the event being a mark on THIER reputation.
I want victim blaming to STOP NOW.

So let’s start with you shall we?
Here is how we will start.

Use our full quotes, don’t cherry pick my words to portray me as anything other than as how I present myself. My mother, great uncle, boss and friends will be watching the news.

Please accept that 99.99% of the attendees are not ACTUALLY marching for their right to wear a short skirt. We can already do that, as noted in all the judgemental footage of the viaduct that you use when covering the drinking culture in NZ.

Please do not only use footage of those dressed provocatively to cover the march – show footage of the wide range of men and women attending.

Please don’t show footage of us crying and call us victims. We are survivors.

Please don’t use footage of us shouting and make assumptions about why we are angry, or whether we should be.

Try for once to actually RESEARCH what we are marching about rather than just guessing by looking at us.

Make it very clear that we are not angry at one ignorance Canadian policeman.
Here are some nice quotes from rape crisis that you can use.

We are angry that we get judged for what we wear even though only 3% of offenders in NZ are actually strangers.

We are angry that people still feel comfortable saying someone is “rape bait” or “asking for it” because of what they wear or how they behave, when we would NEVER make the assumption that someone is a prospective rapist just because they have had a few drinks. What is the difference in judgement?

We are angry that the media spends very little time identifying that it is ok to set boundaries - even with people you love, and lots of time on what we wear when the majority of our offenders are blood relatives (30%) or a friend/acquaintance (30%) of the survivor.

We are angry that you waste time discussing where rape occurred as though we can prevent it by avoiding dark places. Those dark alleyways are in the minority of cases. Most rapes occur IN OUR OWN HOMES (61% of reports)

We are angry that you continue with thoughtless reporting, which adds to an environment where we feel so unsafe about this culture of blame that we DONT REPORT.
(56% were not reported to the Police)

Thank you for your time. I will see you tomorrow.
Kind regards,
Scube

For realsies?

So someone somewhere declared it the national week of anti-feminists shooting themselves in their feet. Alasdair Thompson has done his part, but Right to Life refuse to be out-done. They've decided to seek leave to appeal their recent Court of Appeal rout, on grounds including the following:

The legal recognition of children before birth as human beings endowed at conception by the Creator with human rights, the foundation right being a right to life.


That sounds like an argument based on firm legal footing.

I appreciate their ability to throw good money after bad. If the supreme court take the case then it seems very unlikely that they would find in Right to Life's favour - and if they don't that's more costs awarded.

But the kicker is if Right to Life did succeed in their aim and get abortions declared illegal, then all they'd do is hasten the speed of liberalisation. Almost all New Zealand MPs may be cowardly fucks when it comes to abortion, but New Zealand women need access to abortion and will make sure that we get it - that's the whole lesson from the last time they decided to try and make abortion harder to get.

Thanks Right to Life, thanks Alasdair Thompson - it's been an amusing few days.*

* I actually think the implications of what Alasdair Thompson said are not at all amusing and am in the middle of writing a post about them. But his TV3 interviews are comedy gold.

alisdair thompson must go

i don't know if it's possible to embed tv3 clips (can't find any codes) so you'll have to go over to their place to watch the abomination fo an interview with alaisdair thompson. it's almost 28 minutes long, so you may not want to waste so much of your life on such a thing. the last 5 minutes is hugely illuminating, but the full things give more insights (as if his press release and tweets hadn't already) into how truly misguided this man really is.

a brief rundown of the interview: mr thompson starts by dictating the terms of the interview and how it is to be conducted. you see, he has been gracious enough to grant the interview in the first place, so it should be entirely on his terms. it's not like he has any responsibility to explain himself or anything like that. it's not like he made some atrocious public comments, or holds a role that requires him to make media statements which he should then be accountable for. oh no, he has "granted" an interview out of the goodness of his heart. he does state that he doesn't mind being asked "the most difficult questions you like" and assures the interviewer he will answer them. bear that in mind when you see his meltdown in the last 5 minutes.

once he has done that, he proceeds to tell us about his extremely busy life, with extremely important people. about his late nights and early mornings, because mr thompson is a hugely productive man who has no time to be taking sick days for weak womanly purposes. he's the man, the very important and busy man, who was pretty worn out by the time he go to the interview where he made his insightful remarks. not that he's making excuses of course. he just wants to impress on us how very busy and well-connected he is.

oh, and i missed the bit where he fusses about his appearance. because for some reason, people will be more interested in the tie and the hair than in what he's going to say.

mr thompson is prepared to apologise and does apologise. even though he's "not that unhappy" with what he's said. he gives us the apology, directly looking at the camera . hint 1: if you follow your apology with the word "but" and then go on to say a whole lot of other stuff, it shows you aren't actually sorry. so it really isn't an apology. hint 2: if you keep reiterating and reinforcing the thing you said which was offensive, then what exactly is it you're apologising for?

he reminds us that "fortunately" women are different to men and men are different to women. great insight there. women take more leave, as records show - although there aren't actually any stats on it (i've deliberately avoided writing the word out in full, in consideration of the fact that mr thompson so struggles with it). but he's the full expert now on what women do, how women manage (mostly with tablets, didn't you know).

and to show us how super non-sexist he is, he assures us that most women are more productive than most men, because of all the housework and childcare they do as well as work. he has been listening to the criticism he's been receiving all day, you see. he's showing us that he's taken it on board, that he's totally not sexist at all, because women are so different and so wonderful. it still doesn't occur to him to state that it's wrong for women to have to be the ones to take time off when their children are sick. he concedes later on that it's wrong for women to be doing more of the unpaid work in the home but can't think whose fault it might be. hint 3: if you want to convince us about how non-sexist you are, it pays not to use a hugely sexist term like nanny-state.

he thinks we need to take the emotion out of this. all this talk of menstruation and baby-making makes women so very emotional, obviously. it isn't helpful. let's all be non-emotional and just talk about productivity.

the bit that really gets me is the discussion of the personal lives of his two top women lawyers. the interviewer asks if they have children - relevant because he's so busy praising their productivity - and he answers in the negative. but then he goes on to discuss their marital status. how is that even relevant? and are those employees happy to have their personal lives thrown out into the public arena, just so he can make some tragically useless point about productivity? if i was them (& particularly since they are lawyers), i'd be filing some kind of complaint with the privacy commisioner pretty promptly.

as should all the other female employees who get to be used as examples of his "records" that are supposed to prove his point about the reasons for leave. we see the meltdown begin when he's asked for the research to support his assertions. he then decides that he should tell the interviewer what the question should be. she's apparently only there to do as she's told, not to hold him accountable. he knows he can't answer the question about research, because there isn't any. so he expects her to ask a differently worded question.

and when she does ask a pretty reasonable question about women giving heavy periods as the reason for taking sick leave, he has a complete meltdown. it's not even a difficult question, it's certainly not an offensive one, and it's asked in a completely polite and calm manner. his behaviour is shocking, and clearly bullying (but we're supposed to take the emotion out of the situation and be all rational-like). he knows it's being filmed - he specifically gave permission by saying "you can roll the camera now" a few minutes earlier.

his comments of earlier in the day were enough of a reason for him to step down from his position. but this? i really can't see how he can continue.

Thursday, 23 June 2011

The benefits of Travelling While White

I've just come back from the activity that has made me most think about white privilege. Travel. Every time I cross national borders, following all the rules we have deemed necessary to move from one arbitrary idea of place to another, I am slapped in the face again with how much easier it is to do this when you're white.

Now I know this isn't exactly news. Helen Clark even officially apologised in 2002 to Chinese New Zealanders about immigration discrimination going back to 1881 - when Chinese migrants had to pay 10 quid for migrating while being Chinese.

And then there were the dawn raids in the 1970s, when Pacifica people were targeted by the Police for "overstaying". Were they? Yep, probably, some of them. But given Pacifica migration over that period was tiny in comparison with our largest group of temporary migrants (then as nearly always, British people), the dawn raids focus seems curious. After all, if the real issue was overloading social services and resources, as claimed, shouldn't we have been worried about those pesky white people?




But travelling still prods me into thinking about being white. First there's all that racial profiling that goes on in airports. You know, who customs officials stop and 'randomly' search. Disproportionately when travelling in Europe, the Caribbean, south east Asia, hell any airport I've walked through, the people who have been stopped and searched have been people of colour. So even though I often look like a bit of a scruffy hippy.....because I am a bit of a scruffy hippy.....I've been stopped maybe once. In quite a bit of travelling. But I've been on flights, several times, where the only people searched have been people of colour.

This, of course, has ramifications down the line. One of the manifestations of my dislike for national borders is my (extremely white privileged) recurring "forgetting to bring my passport" problem. I can blame this on thinking you should be in an airport to need it (rather than a train station or boat), I can say I'm ideologically opposed to immigration controls. Those things are both true. But somehow, I doubt my forgetting passport experiences would be quite as funny as stories if I wasn't white, because I think the consequences would have been more serious.

Now I don't want to make this sound like it's every second trip. But I have been deported, denied entry, and, on one memorable occasion, held for 8 hours in Brussels in a room with a number of other people the Belgian immigration police were investigating. In that holding cell, I was the only white person. Everyone else being "investigated" was Black, from the Indian sub-continent, or Arabic looking. I couldn't talk to everyone there as my language range is pretty limited, but since many people were allowed to leave while I was there, I don't think I was in a cell with scary terrorists. I think I was in a cell with people Travelling While of Colour.

Another trip through Australia, a friend travelling on a British passport was strip-searched. Her passport wasn't relevant, they didn't look at it until afterwards. I'm not sure the same was true about her ethnicity - Egyptian mother, Indian father.

Travelling While of Colour again, what was she thinking?

Going into the UK remains an all-time low point for me, I have to say, and since I lived there for more than a decade, I've done it many, many times. I've sat waiting at Heathrow to go through immigration while an Arabic man vomited continuously next to me, and when I asked for medical attention from the officials, been told "he's just putting it on to get into the country."

Which brings me to another white privilege activity.

I make up different professions for my immigration forms, because I object to being asked what I do for a living. So far I've been a rocket scientist, a farmer, an astronaut, a professional sportswoman, a rock star......the only time I've felt even vaguely guilty about this was when I said I was a brain surgeon. I've fainted about once or twice a year all of my adult life, so it's likely if tested on this one I'd have had trouble.

I find the silly risk-taking to poke fun at such an irrelevent piece of bureaucracy amusing.

But then, I expect immigration to be something which is all White for me.

New Delhi Slutwalk

I had known that Slutwalk is an international movement but it made me happy the other day when I saw a friend's comments on Facebook about the Slutwalk he attended in Edinburgh last weekend. Similarly, it is cool to know that plans to hold a Slutwalk in New Delhi has triggered a debate in that community about the status of women in India.

Plans by a group of women to hold a “SlutWalk” in New Delhi to protest sexual violence have triggered a debate on whether the march can change mindsets in India about women’s status in the conservative society... New Delhi protest organizer Umang Sabarwal said Wednesday that the march in the Indian capital would be aimed at shifting blame from the victim to the perpetrators of crimes against women.

From here.

See you Saturday!

Is it just me or did the EMA just reinforce their sexism?

Very quick post from me on the Issue of the Morning - Alasdair Thompson's incredibly sexist comments that women are paid less because of taking sick leave off for periods and childcare.

 This would be worrying on it's own, but the fact that Thompson leads the major employer body in New Zealand, the EMA, leaves me chilled.  These are the views he encounters when he talks to the employers he represents, and what echoes around the EMA and thus to other bodies it has a close relationship with like other employer bodies, the Business Round Table, and so on.

I wonder what it feels like today to be a woman employed by Thompson?  Or a woman in his family?

There are some great posts out there about this already by others, here's just a few of them, feel free to add more in comments.

unequal pay is ok with employers & manufacturers association - stargazer
This is what makes periods painful - stef
I'm sick of this bullshit. Period. -Tallulah Spankhead

I would like to add one thing to this discussion - which is to point to the EMA's media statement which went up on Scoop around ten minutes ago.  I believe this statement makes things worse, because it includes this kind of rubbish:
"Alasdair Thompson, chief executive of the Employers & Manufacturers Association, says its only right that women should be paid more than men when their output and productivity is greater than men.


We back higher pay for women when they're doing a better job than men, he said."
We are not talking about higher pay for women, we are talking about equal pay.  The problem is now that men are getting higher pay, as a group, and if you turn Thompson's statement above around then assumedly he means that men get higher pay than women because they're doing a better job than women.  Is it just me or did he just say something incredibly sexist?  Again.

ARGH!

unequal pay is ok with employers & manufacturers association

great. alisdair thomson's response to catherine delahunty's equal pay bill:

... EMA chief executive Alasdair Thompson today admitted there was a gender pay gap -- 12 per cent according to figures -- but said women took the most sick days.

"Why? Because once a month they have sick problems. Not all women, but some do, they have children they have to take time off to go home and take leave," he told NewstalkZB.
Therefore their productivity was lower.


"I don't like saying these things because it sounds like I'm sexist, but it's a fact of life."

once again, i'm refraining from swearing because of internet filters, but really? all you ladies are taking sick days once a month? how come no-one told me? i'll have to start doing that immediately.

aside from the stupidity of the comments, he doesn't want to consider (and actually advocate for) the possibility that men who have children be taking time off around the birth to be active fathers. he's not interested in promoting policies that would make workplaces more family-friendly. he doesn't consider that many women are being more productive on a daily basis than their male counterparts.

nope, he's happy with the gender pay gap & wants it to stay. because heavens forbid that employers be faced with the costs of paying people equally for the same level of work.

i'm with helen kelly - the man has to go.

Wednesday, 22 June 2011

lawyers and mental illness

i really wanted to share this piece about scrutiny of mental illness in the australian legal profession. i like it so much that i want to just reproduce the whole thing here, but that would be rude. so here's an excerpt but please do read the whole thing over there:

Two NSW magistrates have had to front up before the Parliament and explain to a bunch of politicians why their mental illness should not render them unfit to perform their duties. One wonders how many of the honourable members listening have (or should have) appointments with psychiatrists pencilled in their diaries.

[...]

With respect, those who judge our judges and lawyers should understand that law is one of those professions very conducive to depression in its practitioners. Perhaps a good way to describe a lawyer’s job is to always assume the worst scenarios are going to happen and then protect his or her client from each of them. The best lawyers are almost always the ultimate pessimists. Too much positive thinking is dangerous in the legal game.

Life is especially tough for many small operators whose sources of work are drying out or legislated out of existence. These are often the lawyers prepared to do low-paying legal aid work for average punters. These are the lawyers who would struggle to pay their own hourly rate let alone the fees of the average private psychiatrist.

As magistrate Maloney told the NSW Parliament: “Interestingly, researchers have found that 40% of law students, 20% of barristers and 33% of solicitors have a mental illness. It is from this demographic that judicial officers are drawn. In the past 12 months three barristers have sadly taken their own lives. In recent years, two judges.”

it appals me that lawyers & judges would have to prove a lack of depression or other mental illness. it's hugely discriminatory as well as self-defeating.

Cleaning as a Skill

[This post isn't in response to the recent discussion about the 'I would have got away with it...' cartoon - I've actually been thinking about it for some time, but you may find the links relevant.]

A lot of the defenses of the value of housework come from the perspective of those who do a lot of it. But I think it is just as important for such perspectives to come from those of us who don't do very much at all, and particularly those of us who find it difficult.

A couple of years ago I was living in a house with an old switchboard, the sort where you have to wrap fuse wire round two points. The fuses also happened to be unlabeled. At one point a fuse blew, and so I worked out which fuse was which by testing which lights/appliances when off when I removed various fuses, bought some fuse wire (which is surprisingly hard to find) and replaced the offending fuse.

When I mentioned this to friends, they were shocked that I hadn't called the landlord to send an electrician. Honestly, as someone who had spent half her childhood fiddling round with electric circuits (and though I've forgotten a lot of what I knew then, as may be evident from my vague description, it still makes an instinctive sense) the idea would never have occurred to me.

Yet I imagine a lot of people who couldn't understand why I didn't call an electrician would have been confused or quietly critical (or even loudly critical) if I paid someone to come in and do my vacuuming, and this independent of how much I would pay them. I find vacuuming really, incredible difficult. I literally haven't done it in years (my partner and I have a deal: she vacuums, I empty the vacuum). Yes, in my case I do have a diagnosed neurological condition that this is at least partially the result of, and that would make hiring a vacuumer more acceptable in many people's eyes, but I don't think my argument depends on that fact. Some people are just not good at housework.

I've struggled a bit with a workmate, who I think really does not understand how my struggling when it is my turn to deal with the office kitchen is in any way like her struggling with understanding html (which I find relatively easy). That's because some things, like cleaning, are assumed to be natural, instinctive, anyone can do them, and in particular women are expected to know how to clean without an instruction or effort.

Valuing these things as skills, which take ability and learning, does help lead to greater respect for those who do them, and whilst I do not think this is the cause of the financial disparity between, say, cleaning and other equivalent male occupations, dismissing it as unskilled is used as a justification for that financial disparity, which we need to counter. But it is also a step for those of us who struggle with these skills as seeing this not as a failing as a human being or laziness, but one skill set amongst others which we may lack or have to a lesser degree, and one ability amongst others that may not come naturally to us.

I am absolutely not saying that some people are born to do housework and others aren't. I am particularly wary of how that may be used to justify the greater portion of housework falling on women because they are 'naturally better at it' or some other such bullshit. To the extent that housework is necessary - and I am aware many people take it beyond this, which is their prerogative but not a universal standard - members of a unit need to come to a fair arrangement (which may include contracting of people from outside that unit) that takes account of everyone's skills and abilities, and people are going to need to put some effort into things they find hard, or learn new skills they lack. But I think recognising housework as a skill leads to more respect, and recognition of abilities, all round.

Tuesday, 21 June 2011

Taking up more space

Last week Anthea wrote about taking up space:
But it's much more than that. I've recognised this tendency in myself, and in others, to apologise for your size, to make yourself as small as possible. Clearly if a seat is too small for the people sitting on it, in the short term both are going to be in some discomfort and, all else being equal, it's up to both of them to absorb some of that discomfort - but it should be about just that, a mutual effort to deal with a problematic situation, not the onus being on one to not inconvenience the other.


Anthea's basic argument is one that can't be repeated enough - people's bodies are expected to fit the built environment not the other way round and that's ridiculous (and also all capitalism's fault). But what her title made me think of was something I've been meaning to write about for a while - some of the subtler ways we reinforce the idea that people can pathologise taking up space.

I don't know if it's just a verbal quirk of the people I know, but reasonably often when a friend is ranting about someone who is annoying her she'll say "he takes up so much space."*

Most of the time if I'm going to respond to something people say that bothers me I have to have a line that I use (in fact few things make me feel cooler and more high than responding to fuck-wit things people say just off the cuff). In this circumstance, if I say anything at all I say "I hate that metaphor." Most people I know who use the concept of 'space' in this way don't think of it as a metaphor, but it is.

When you use a metaphor you're making a statement not just about what you're talking about, but also what you're comparing it to.** So when people criticise someone for 'taking up space' if they mean taking up time or attention they're implying that there is a scarcity of space, and there's not. Any scarcity of space is about the way the world is organised, and we should not legitimise that organisation by policing other people's physicality, even by implication.

* The pronouns here are representative of most of the conversations, which represents the strong pressure women feel not to take up space - either physically or metaphorically.

** I have known people whose metaphors make me want to say: "OK I disagree with your metaphor and your analysis of thing B, but actually we need to stop the conversation for a while to talk about your analysis of thing A, because that's even more disturbing to me."

I would have got away with it if it wasn't for those pesky teachers

Another <3 in the direction of Judy Horacek.

ETA:  There's quite a bit of friendly debate about this cartoon in comments - feel free to join in!  

Monday, 20 June 2011

Topp Twins in Toronto.

This summer I had the opportunity to see the Top Twins live at Womad.
Their music set was fabulous and had me and all the rest of the crowd laughing, singing along and kicking up our heels to the great music.
But what I really enjoyed was ‘Ken and Ken’,
They did an hour long show on the food stage and their fabulous warm hearted characterization of the typical kiwi bloke was so neat to see live.
My partner had heard me rant about their political awareness work for nuclear-free New Zealand, the bastion point protests, and gay rights. I had tried to explain how most kiwis knew these twins who were gay, and they felt like family.
In essence, anyone with a TV could be educated out of fear of the “otherness” of gay people, by the sheer goodwill and approachability of these women.
I think I told him; “If you don’t love them, there is something missing in your chest cavity.”

He loved them.

After their food show I hovered by the stage hoping just to say hello and get a pic with either Jools or Linda. I was pleasantly surprised that when I approached Linda and she took the time to step away and grab Jules so they could both be in the picture.
I’ve met Zach Braff, Mandy More, Jon Cryer and a bunch of other celebrities and I’ve never felt out of depth.
With the twins I only just managed to stutter out an awkward blushing “I love you both – you are AMAZING” before they saved me from idiocy by making inane chit chat and posing for the photo.
I will treasure that photo forever.
While waiting to say hello, I saw a young woman throw herself at them and gush that they gave her courage to come out, and a heavily pierced woman break down in tears, unable to express exactly why they meant so much to her.
They have impacted an entire country.

I was pleased to see this write up on the Women’s media centre website by Emily Wilson.
An international audience is starting to sit up and take notice of the pair, now that their film “Untouchable Girls” won the audience award at the Toronto film festival.
It’s a shame they aren’t getting tvnz show spots for their shows, because the two of them are both still very keen to work, and it is simply a lack of interest from NZ broadcasters that stands between the NZ audience and them.

I will be very embarrassed if they get better recognition from an international audience than their own home, where they work so hard for their communities.

Moments from the Wrigglyverse

Wriggly:  Stop the rain!
Me:  I can't stop the rain.
Wriggly:  RAIN STOP!!!!!!
Me:  Did that work?
Wriggly:  No

---


Wriggly:  I'm going to buy a new TV, oh yeah.
Me:  Why are you going to buy a new TV?
Wriggly:  Because the old TV is old.  And I like LG because I like LG. 
Me:  Why do you like LG?
Wriggly:  Because I like it.
Me: What will you use to buy the new TV?
Wriggly:  I'll go to the TV shop and I'll buy it.
Me:  What will you buy it with?
Wriggly:  Oh I'll get some money, oh yeah.
Me:  How will you get some money?
Wriggly: 
Me:  How do Mummy and Daddy get money?
Wriggly: 
Me:  When Daddy goes to the shops with you, how does he buy things?
Wriggly:  He gets some money.
Me:  Where does he get the money from?
Wriggly:  The tramspectrer.
Me:  Can you say that again?
Wriggly:  The tramspectrer.
Me:  Tramspectrer?
Wriggly:  Oh yeah.
Me:  What colour is a tramspectrer?
Wriggly:  Green, yes, because green is my favourite colour.
Me:  Whereabouts have you seen a tramspectrer?
Wriggly:  At the shops, with Daddy.
Me:  Which shop?
Wriggly:  Oh it was only a pretend shop.
Me:  (Silent ARGH!)

---

Wriggly:  I haven't got any broccoli!
Me:  Would you like some broccoli?
Wriggly:  That's not broccoli! It's not!
Me:  You're right, it's cauliflower.  Here's some broccoli, would you like some broccoli?
Wriggly:  No, not really.

---

Wriggly is almost three and a half years old.  I've just spent most of four days away from him, for the first time in a very long time.  I missed him, and Snuffly, and I really enjoyed the time away for my partner and I to just be ourselves, not wearing any hats for a couple of days.  He welcomed me back with big smiles, they both did, and a bit of anxiety that he wasn't coming home which was easily soothed.  The three incidents above all happened today, since we met him at his Nana's at lunchtime.  I feel v lucky, every day.

on white privilege

there is something that has been bothering me about some of the things that were happening on the blog last week. i've left posting about it because i thought an apology from me was much more important, but i don't want to leave it unsaid.

this post is not an attack on any particular person, because i felt that there have been several people who have made this mistake, and not just in the last week. let me spell out the problem clearly: i think it's unacceptable to generically criticise all the writers of this blog (or the blog as a whole) as having white privilege. let me tell you why it's wrong: i am not white.

so when you accuse the group of having white privilege (or imply such), or being a bunch of white feminists, there are three possibilities:

1. you haven't even considered the possibility that one or more of us aren't white. that's plainly racist, regardless of what race you might be.
2. you have considered the possibility but couldn't be bothered to take the trouble to find out (by asking, for example), what is the make-up of our team here. that's still racist, but it's also lazy.
3. you actually know that not all of us are white, but you don't care, you're going to ignore that and label us anyways. that is quite plainly racist, with a huge degree of extra nastiness piled on top.

there is another aspect. if you're a white person criticising the writers of this blog (as a collective) for having white privilege, when the issue you're taking up with them doesn't even involve race, that is damaging to people of colour. what you are doing is appropriating the arguments of racism, the arguments needed by people of colour to fight institutionalised inequality, and misusing them. in effect, you devalue those arguments.

if you, as a white person, are going to accuse another white person of white privilege, please at least make sure that you are talking about issues of race. don't just use it as another tool to bludgeon people with, to try to add more weight to the thing that you are actually upset about. when you do that, you are not being an ally to people of colour. if that's not important to you, then you shouldn't be talking about white privilege at all.

now, many of the writers at this blog are white. and there are times when they may clearly show their white privilege. i'm not saying that you shouldn't point that out when it happens. i know that i will. but at least then, you will be dealing with a specific issue of racism, and you will be directing it towards the person concerned, and not randomly lashing out at everyone who writes here.

that is all.

Friday, 17 June 2011

i'm sorry

i've been taking my time about this because i wanted to get it right, and i wanted to process all the things that have been said. we've had a lot of anger expressed at the blog over the last week, and i acknowledge it is justified. for myself, i apologise for not being a better moderator. i saw things that i plainly knew were wrong and did nothing, and its inexcusable.

for those who felt hurt and angered by that, i do understand. i understand about there not being many safe places on the internet where you can feel able to participate. i know that feeling myself, and can't even begin to number the places i never visit because of the bigotry and hatred directed towards people like myself. the places i don't visit because i don't want to be looking at certain things or hearing certain arguments.

so when you come across a place that looks to be somewhere you can participate and be yourself, it is a big deal. a place where you don't have to find constant battles just for the right to be. and when that place lets you down, i understand how frustrating it can be.

the thing is that it also takes a lot of courage to fight back, to tell people what they've done wrong & where they need to change. i also know how that feels, because i've looked at sites where i would have thought i would be comfortable, that are run by people who are progressive in a lot of areas. and then they aren't, in a way that is more than just careless. there is no way that i would have the energy or the strength, knowing the strong possibilty of a hostile or defensive reaction to my concerns, to even take the trouble to speak out.

so to those who we hurt by our actions and inactions, who came back here and spoke up, thank you for doing so. thank you for persisting and for clarifying, and in the end, for your acceptance of julie's apology. i can only hope that you will also accept mine. i also want to acknowledge that my first attempt at an apology was lacking. i should have taken the time to listen, instead being defensive.

as for preventing this sort of thing in the future & making changes, we are working on that and i can only ask for your indulgence as we work through the process. i am going to be away from the internet this weekend, so won't be able to respond to any comments on this post. possibly not a good time to be posting it, but i didn't want to leave it too long.

Taking up Space

An Auckland public transport blogger - I'm not going to link, you should be able to google it if you want - has just posted about teh horrorz of fat people on busses, taking up seats from thin people. I pretty much headdesked all the way through, not knowing whether to be very, very slightly relieved or really fucking angry that the pictures of Random Fat People on Busses actually included faces. I thought of my own commute - I'm fat by any estimation, and I've had people larger than me sit next to me, and neither of us have been uncomfortable, because the bus I get is the one that eventually goes to the airport, and has larger seats, and wondered - again - why it is so much of an ask to expect busses, buildings, anything to be designed round people, rather than asking people to fit it. I remembered how at my previous bus stop the seats were replaced with ledges that were too high for me - a shorter than average woman, but not unsually so - to sit on (great article about gender and town planning here).

But what really got me was a comment (yup, I read the comments section - many of them are horrendous):

I am very conscious of this issue on the bus, and I make an effort to take up as little room as I can – I put my bag on the ground between my feet when standing, or on my lap when sitting. I move over as close to the edge as I can, and I keep an awareness of my surroundings. I move to areas where I have more room to get out of the way and I genuinely think that my girth does not impact negatively on those around me in most cases.

...realise that some of us know perfectly well how large we are, and that we attempt to be as considerate as possible.


I'm not against consideration in public spaces. I've squashed up to help other people on, or given up seats on trains to those with clear difficulty standing (I have a level of difficulty myself, but I usually found I could sit on the steps with no problems). I'm wary of judging how people are positioned, because I don't know the reasons for this, but I have no doubt that some are just being plain inconsiderate.

But it's much more than that. I've recognised this tendency in myself, and in others, to apologise for your size, to make yourself as small as possible. Clearly if a seat is too small for the people sitting on it, in the short term both are going to be in some discomfort and, all else being equal, it's up to both of them to absorb some of that discomfort - but it should be about just that, a mutual effort to deal with a problematic situation, not the onus being on one to not inconvenience the other. But I've myself as small as possible to try and prove I don't need the whole seat, even when there is plenty of room. I've been reluctant to spread myself out on long haul flights when there's been a vacant seat next to me, in case someone thinks I can't fit in the seat.

Consideration for other passengers is one thing, but this isn't about that. It's entirely about self worth and whether we feel we have the right to expect public transport that accomodates the size and shape of our bodies. Or our disabilities. Or doesn't take the average male body as the default. Maybe if those who feel squashed on bus seats could recognise it as a design issue, and become allies, they'd achieve a whole lot more.

Thursday, 16 June 2011

School balls

When I was at high school there was one girl who was out, she was the year below me. When the school ball came a lot of girls went together (double tickets worked out cheaper than singles). But this one girl brought her girlfriend - turned out the girlfriend had been my babysitter. I found this terribly embarrassing; in that vague way I found anyone talking to me embarrassing when I was a teenager. I don't know now - because I didn't think at the time - how hard that had been from her - what reactions she had faced.

St Pats has forbidden a student from taking another boy to the school ball. I just think it's awesome that students are fighting these rules - but shit that they have to do it at such risk and cost.

There was a facebook event for people to support them, but it seems to have disappeared - I am worried that the personal cost on them for taking this stand has been high.

Which seems like a good time to remind people of the follow-up meeting for Queer the Night - we are stronger together than we are alone.

When: Thursday 16 June 7pm
Where: Trades Hall
What: Homophobia and Transphobia - how we respond.

Note: The people involved have received a lot of media attention. I've left their names out of this post deliberately any comments that name them will be deleted.

Wednesday, 15 June 2011

the usefulness of gift duty

gift duty is set to be abolished later this year. the due date is 1 october, but with all the fluffing around & the various issues to be considered, it's looking likely that there will be a delay.

i tend to assume that people know what gift duty is & how it works. but just in case you don't, basically a person can only gift $27,000 a year in cash or forgiveness of debt before a 4% duty kicks in. these days, so many people are transferring their major income-earning assets to a trust (big mistake for most people, but that's a story for another day). so the trust owes them back the value of the assets they've transferred.

this isn't helpful, especially if you want to protect your assets from resthome subsidies, spouses, creditors, people who are suing you for negligence or the like. so people gift off their loan to the trust, so they can personally become asset free and their assets are protected. gift duty has meant that they can't gift off the loan all at once, but have to do it in chunks of $27,000 if they want to avoid the duty.

the thing with trusts, though, is that people tend to manage them so badly and seem to immediately forget that assets belonging to the trust are no longer actually their own. they behave as though they still own the assets, which makes them very vulnerable to trust-busting by creditors, the IRD, and other beneficiaries. and there are a heap of cases going through the courts. so removing gift duty is not necessarily going to mean much, if your trust isn't run as a totally separate entity from yourself.

but there's one thing that has really been bothering me today about the removal of gift duty, and it relates to elder abuse. i know that some of our senior citizens are treated horrendously and can be put under enourmous pressure to part with their finances. gift duty is a actually a protection for them - it's much more difficult to force (or nag or push) them into gifting off huge chunks of their wealth when there is tax to pay. they have the protection of the law as a reason to not gift off any more than that amount.

when it comes to decisions about tax, it's disturbing that some people only look at the economic and legal implications, but not the social ones. i'd actually like to see a social impact assessment done for most major tax changes. because the effects on people's lives will often go way beyond the economic.

Tuesday, 14 June 2011

The other Welfare Forum

You may have noticed that a conference on Welfare and Social Sector Policy and Reform is due to be held in Wellington on 20-21 June. The discounted advance payment cost to attend is $895. So I won't be going to it.

Instead I'll be going to the Welfare Forum being run by the Alternative Welfare Working Group on 20 June. It costs $8.95, or a koha. Beneficiaries can come for free.

The $8.95 Welfare Forum
Monday 20 June 2011, 2.00 – 5.00 pm
St John’s Centre, Willis St, Wellington.
Speakers include Mike O’Brien, Paul Dalziel, Sue Bradford, Wendi Wicks, Māmari Stephens, Kay Brereton.

To find out more or say you're coming, please email lisa@caritas.org.nz or phone 04-496-1765. To see the reports already put out by the Alternative Welfare Working Group, after they held public meetings from Whangarei to Invercargill in the second half of 2010, go to

Adventures in icing - feminine baby cupcakes edition

This one is for Rageaholic ;-)


Personally I don't like cupcake toppers, they feel a bit like cheating in regard to icing.  Which makes me a total hypocrit, given that the difference between cupcakes I iced and cupcakes Wriggly iced is barely discernable. 

Monday, 13 June 2011

sophie's legacy

this last week has seen the launch of the book by lesley elliott, outlining her experiences around her daughter's murder and the resulting interaction with the justice system. i have huge respect for this woman, who has not only come through such a terrible tragedy, but has gone on to talk to high school students & other groups about the warning signs of a violent relationship.

she has also been doing some excellent media interviews around the book launch: there's this one from radio nz (nine to noon, 10 june, 10:07am); here's a clip from tv3 news and another from campbell live. she'll also be appearing on good morning tomorrow morning.

one of the key issues that lesley elliot raises is the fact that it seemed like sophie elliott was as much on trial as her murderer. that personal details of her life were made public in such a manner, with her family and friends having to sit and listen to it, is yet another injustice added to the whole situation.

in any case, all proceeds from the book will be going to the sophie elliott foundation. so if you are in a position to do so, i highly recommend buying it.

SlutWalk letter to ed in Herald today

Below is a letter to the editor in the Herald today, from Leonie Morris of the Auckland Women's Centre, who is also involved with Feminist Action. 

I'm putting it up because I think it's quite useful to read in the context of some of the discussion around SlutWalk.  I've seen stuff that has focused on the word slut and whether or not that should be used, reclaimed, or not.  Leonie's letter imho very effectively shifts the discussion from acknowledging that relatively minor issue to the bigger one of getting across what SlutWalk is about, rather than the language used to express it; i.e. No one ever asks for rape. 

New clothes
The Perspectives article headlined "Sex and feminists' new clothes" was accurate.  Regrettably, women in sexually provocative clothes are likely to be objectified by men.

On Auckland's SlutWalk on June 25, some women will choose to wer sexually provocative clothes and others will not, but our nited message is against the rape myth that what women wear can be an invitation to rape.

Many rape myths are prevalent in New Zealand, and busting them is critical as a rape prevention measure and also so juries in rape trials are no longer influenced by these misogynistic and deep-rooted myths.  "She invite him home", "she was walking in town late at night," "she had been drinking", therefore "she asked for it".

"Only yes means yes" is a slogan favoured by today's feminists emphasising the difficulties around consent to sex and the importance of both parties being clear about their intentions and needs.

SlutWalks from Toronto to Birmingham to Auckland are demanding we stop blaming rape victims and adopt the simple truth - "Men can stop rape". 

Please note, the headline is picked by the Herald. 

Sunday, 12 June 2011

All apology

I stuffed up, with my moderation on the Queer the Night guest post promo, on Friday afternoon.  I've hidden comments on it for the timebeing (which were closed anyway).  Anyone who wants to see them will of course make the effort, but hopefully the degree of difficulty will put off the casual observer who wants to just goggle at the feminists fighting.

I wasn't happy with what was happening on the thread - any of it really.  I identified earlier on that I was too close to it and asked Maia to step in, which she did, and things calmed down, but then became inflamed again when a new voice entered the thread.  I could see the comments coming in but was not able to do anything to step in, wasn't sure if Maia was either, and then finally just did something on Friday.

This was definitely a case of doing something being worse than doing nothing.  I am deeply sorry.

By the time Maia emailed me to tell me, gently, that that wasn't my best moderating work I was aware I'd stuffed up, because I felt bad about how I had handled the thread.  The comment I made to close things off didn't even make proper sense - I asked someone to stop commenting on the thread at the beginning and then a sentence or so later said I would be closing comments entirely.  How nonsensical is that?  And it should have been a signal to me that I wasn't in the right headspace to deal with it, and should think about doing something less definite or just keeping away and seeing who else was available.

I've seen a few critical tweets and I'm pretty sure there are some critical blog posts out there too - I haven't read those yet, and I mention that only so that you have that context in mind as you read this.  I may not be responding to a question or point you've made because as yet I'm unaware of it.  Yes it's a willful ignorance, in part, although mostly born of having no online time this weekend to look at blogs or write this, any earlier than just now.  I sincerely wish I could have got to this sooner.  I hope to be able to read that stuff, and reflect on it, sometime this week.

For the record, I think the key error I made was picking a side.  And picking a side not based particularly on merit but on who was annoying me least at the time.  Crappy decision-making process leads to crappy decision.  Both the process and the outcome were mine to control, and I stuffed it up.

What to do now with that thread vexes me, and I welcome feedback, in comments here or by email if people prefer.  I am not that keen on reinventing history by just deleting my mistakes.  That feels dishonest.  However there are things on that thread, some written by me and others not, which probably shouldn't stay here.  And, as said previously, the only tools we have for moderation here are total deletion or making a guidance comment ourselves.  So none of us can excise the bad bits from any comment and leave the rest untouched, or indicate that we've made some snips.  

Please accept my heartfelt apology.  I know some people may feel they can't and that sucks, and it is my fault and I have to wear that.


Comment direction:  If people could kindly stick to topic, which is discussing what to do with that comment thread now, and/or tips for moderating better, that'd be appreciated.  If you want to ask me questions I'm ok with that, but may not be able to reply promptly over the next week.  Please don't take silence as anything other than I can't get to the blog much over this time.  I won't be the only person modding on this thread, and in fact I may not mod on it at all, will see who else is able to do so.


ETA, 1050 Monday:   Very quick note to say as a result of the discussion in comments my thinking has shifted on a bit since I wrote the above.  Please read the comments if you want to engage in this discussion.  And a warning, it is quite a robust discussion, so I suggest people be prepared for that.  Hope to be able to write a proper update to this post in the next day or two.  Just to confirm, I am not moderating this thread, but am participating (although probably not much today).


ETA, 11.59pm Monday:  Things have moved on quite a lot for me since I wrote this.  You can follow that thought process in the comments, where I've tried to record it.  As this post is no longer accurate and at the risk of disappearing into my own navel, I'm going to summarise where my thinking is now at so that this is a bit of a more accurate record for those who don't/can't wade through the nearly 70 comments currently on here.

  • Basing moderation decisions on who was annoying me least = WRONG.  And for clarity it was Acid Queen who I found difficult to deal with in comments, not Scar.  This has led me (with some appreciated prompting in comments) to think about why I found that difficult, and reflect on AQ's v valid point:  "If you find yourself getting annoyed by what somebody is saying, please take the time to question whether that irritation is actually a feeling of privilege being called out. Often it is."  I'm particularly ashamed that I didn't even understand that the sides I was putting people on and picking between were lining up as cis versus trans.  What a dolt! 
  •  My moderation stuff up was intrisincally related to the subject matter of the thread, i.e. transphobia and cissexism. I was thinking about them (in my post above) as separate things, but understand now that wasn't right.  I apologise wholeheartedly for enabling and reinforcing transphobia in a way that was in itself also transphobic.  
  •  Writing the moderating comment that closed the thread in a manner that acknowledged the difficulty some parties must have had in writing on the thread, yet missing the difficulties for those calling out the transphobia in the first place was an awful way to end things.  I was trying not to read as thanking one side, but that's totally how it came across, so I failed badly.
  • Good intentions don't mean a whole lot to the person who you've hurt.  While I think there is value in doing the right thing for the right reasons, if you do the wrong thing for the right reasons, well, you've still done the wrong thing.  Which isn't to say good intentions are worth nothing - they are imho the best starting point for doing the right thing next time.
  •  In moderation I have struggled with identifying transphobia and cissexism in comments.  I have deleted some blatant (to me) stuff in the past, but the more subtle (to me) bits evade me.  This is not because they aren't there, or can't be understood, but because I haven't noticed them.  And I can improve what I know and what I notice.
  • I've written all this not to make excuses or to justify.  I genuinely want to learn from this and do feel like I have learnt (although a lot of what I've learnt is that I have a lot more to learn!).  For me part of how I learn is to discuss, clarify, think things through, and I do this most effectively in writing and with assistance from those with more knowledge.  I've written all this to explain what I thought I did wrong and why, and it's turned out that actually I was largely off target about that, so I'm glad I went about it this way, otherwise I probably would have worked that out by making a similar stuff up in the future. For those who think this is an unnecessary exercise in excessive apologising on my part, you can think that and I can't do anything about it.
  • This whole experience has been a big wake-up call for me and I have some significant self-educating to do.  Thank you sincerely to those who have been helping me to do that with their comments below (and privately, and elsewhere), you shouldn't have to do this and I appreciate the effort very much.

Immigrant

I was described as an expat again this week. I've started correcting people and telling them I'm an immigrant.

I think the term 'ex-pat' has its place - others may disagree on the definition, but to me it describes people who live in a new country for a significant but finite period of time, maintain strong links to their country of origin, primarily associate with people from their country of origin - or other expats in general. They often work for international organisations, are (semi) retired or run a small business, particularly in hospitality. Most of those using the term, though, and most of those about who it is used tend to be white and middle class to wealthy.

Those who come from poorer countries to wealthier ones, work to send money home in low paid jobs, hoping to return in a few years, often associating primarily with those of the same national origin/who speak the same language tend to be classed as immigrants. I've no idea what terms people in this position prefer, but it underscores just how so many of the negative connotations of 'immigrant' are based in racism.

Immigrant or migrant are pretty neutral terms for me. They describe what I've done - migrated from one place to live in another. I confess I like challenging people's perceptions, pinpointing why they thought I'd not consider that term to apply to me - or for it to be an insult. At the same time I don't want to do that by reinforcing the idea that I must be a better type of immigrant because I'm white/English speaking etc.

Use of the expat term does make sense to me, though, for those who feel it accurately describes them. It's hard to find the words to talk about experiences of migration, to pinpoint one's own specific experience. So many differentiations - economic migrant, for example - have acquired negative connotations. Sometimes I really want to be able to describe my migration experience in a way that gives a more specific impression, without shunting the conversation off track or going into the details of what was a somewhat complicated and at times really painful experience.

I played with the word refugee for a while, but ultimately felt it appropriative. Yes, that may describe my reasons for leaving the place I grew up but (a) I believe I would be physically safe if I went back now (b) I have always had a passport that allowed me to settle in other places to New Zealand without going through a significant process and (c) I did not apply for residency status as a refugee (and wouldn't've been accepted if I had) and had a vastly easier ride by having other options opened to me. These may or may not be logical reasons - I'm aware that the definition and understanding of the term differ globally and historically - but it just doesn't feel right.

These words don't describe any of our experiences, really. The closest I've come is queer diasporic but that annoys me on semantic grounds, and is only half the story anyway. I don't mean that words like migrant aren't all of who we are - that's a given. I'm talking about the story - about the advantages my whiteness and financial resources and education afforded me, about the stress, the fat and disability discrimination, which were still less than some people experience, the assumptions that this was for fun when it was for survival, the knowledge that I was not faced with the discrimination queer friends faced immigrating to other countries, the mixed feelings when I had no relatives left in the country I spent most of my life, and as laws and situations changed and I began to feel guilty for feeling unsafe, for not sticking it out, for not fighting harder, the denial of people as to just how bad things were. How much I love my home and this city and how I'm still scared enough that my passport is permanently in my handbag.

There are people who could reverse every statement I've made to make it true for them. And in the end, that's why I've increasingly become comfortable describing myself as an immigrant. Because I'm not going to be able to describe my experience in a few sentences, it's better than making a poor attempt to use a word which I know can carry so many varied stories.