It's the putting right which counts

I went to Camp Betty a while back now, and have been meaning to blog about it since. Billed as a "three-day festival celebrating and unpacking sex, sexuality & gender against a backdrop of radical politics and DIY action," Betty wasn't all that for me, but I loved the "Intersex 101" workshop run by some intersex activists from Australia and beyond.

I loved the fact feminism was regularly mentioned as part of the ways in which gender oppression (against intersex people) might be challenged. I loved it because I learnt lots, being woefully ignorant about the kinds of experiences intersex people have in the world, and I felt humbled because it was probably the only workshop I went to where I discovered a new to me way of treating other human beings with the utmost disdain.

By that I don't mean I'm some sort of pain groupie - I'm not, these revelations made me cry - but that I'm pretty familiar with most of the ways gender and sexuality oppression happens. So workshops about trans hatred and same-sex domestic violence, for example, were awful, but not really new to me.

Anyway, the Intersex workshop, and a definition:

Intersex people are people who, as individuals, have congenital genetic, hormonal and physical features that may be thought to be typical of both male and female at once. That is, we may be thought of as being male with female features, female with male features, or indeed we may have no clearly defined sexual features at all.

Basically, intersex people confuse our binary world - not with behaviour, though perhaps that too - but with anatomical differences from medical ideals of female and male. Their very existence proves that our binary world view is flawed. But this flaw has, increasingly since the 1950's, been "put right" by medical professionals with cosmetic surgery and treatments designed to make sure all the external bits of children and infants "look right."

Many believe such medical response should not be performed on children and infants, due to the psychological and physical damage such treatments cause. Since the 1990s, hundreds of intersex people all over the world have come forward to say these treatments should be stopped until intersex people are old enough to come to an informed decision.

What I found even more disturbing though, were some medical interventions being trialled here and now in Cornell University by Professor Dix Poppas. Professor Poppas cuts off bits of little girl's clitorises which are "too big." Then, in front of their parents, he engages in "follow-up clitoral sensory testing" - he uses a vibrator on girls as young as six to see if they still have any feeling in their butchered clitoris. Of course, if they don't it's a little late, but that doesn't seem to worry the medical profession, as he's one of New York Magazine's Doctors of the Year for 2011.

Let me be very plain about this. This is sexual abuse. It should be being shouted from the rooftops by those who care about sexual violence. How this procedure was ever ethically approved is completely beyond me. And the idea that a clitoris can be too big? Sounds like binary-supporting, woman-hating, pleasure-phobic nonsense to me.

If, like me, you find this completely repulsive, feel free to join intersex activists in telling Cornell University.

Then there is the dexamethasone controversy. Dex is being given, now, to pregnant women in US, to make sure their daughters, if they have congenital adrenal hyperplasia, do not develop "ambiguous genitalia." It's not being given to mothers of sons with CAH, because it does nothing to impact on the other characteristics of CAH - it just makes girls "ambiguous genitalia" nice and womanly.

These treatments haven't been medically approved. In fact, there's some ethical concerns because giving dex to pregnant animals leads to birth defects. Early studies with people show brain cell death.

Dr Maria New is one of the world's experts in CAH apparently, and the most enthusiastic cheerleader for pregnant women being given dex. Turns out she also writes papers on women with CAH, not only about "ambiguous genitalia," but on them finding other women sexy in higher numbers than average. One of her collaborators also talks about CAH girls not being interested enough in getting married or playing with dolls. Hell, why wouldn't you prescribe something which might cause brain damage if it's going to result in fewer queers/unnatural women, right?

Pre-natal dex is opposed by intersex activists, endocrinologists and bioethicists.

These are human rights issues beyond doubt. "Intersex 101" was open in it's invitation for non-intersex people to support the struggles for intersex people to have autonomy over their bodies.

And I love their slogan "Everybody equal, nobody left behind."

Quickie: Right to Life NZ appeal, again

Earlier this week Right to Life NZ were granted permission by the Supreme Court to appeal to them on one of the two grounds they applied for, namely around the role of certifying consultants.  The SC denied them an appeal on the issue of the whether or not embryos and fetuses are human beings.   Here's a Stuff article, which focuses on the ground rejected rather than the ground allowed, but is none the less somewhat informative albeit totally unbalanced by failing to get a counter-point to Mr Orr.

Here's a couple of links I've found on the issue, feel free to suggest more pro-choice ones in comments and I'll add them later:

• Abortion access again at risk in court case - ALRANZ media release
• Saying don't make it so:  Right to Foetal Control edition - by QoT
• Links to the judicial decisions list - it's currently the one at the top.

ALRANZ made the point, on Facebook, that Right to Life NZ have been sueing over abortion laws for six years now.  Which just makes the case for pro-choice law reform even stronger imho.

An afternoon discussion with Dame Fiona Kidman - WGN

What:  Afternoon tea organised by ALRANZ, with Dame Fiona Kidman talking about her latest book of short stories The Trouble With Fire
Where:  Mezzanine Community Room, Wellington Central Library, Victoria St
When:  Saturday 3rd September, 1pm to 3pm

Message from the organisers:

ALRANZ is delighted to invite you to hear Dame Fiona Kidman speaking to us about her latest book of short stories 'The Trouble with Fire'. In her writing Dame Fiona explores the many facets of relationships. One of the stories called “Extremes” (set in the 70s when trips to Australia were common) poignantly considers two women's choices one to have an abortion and another to continue with the pregnancy – and the consequences for the next generation.

There will be plenty of time for questions and discussion afterwards. Unity Books will be there selling copies of both Dame Fiona's book and also Margaret Sparrow’s recently published book “Abortion then & Now: New Zealand abortion stories from 1940-1980”.

Afternoon tea will be provided. There is no charge to attend this special event but donations are always appreciated.

 
Facebook event listing.

Sometimes a red scarf is just a red scarf

Lately there's been a daily misunderstanding I've been striving to overcome.  Most days someone will assume I am in the NZ Labour Party.

I've signed people up to Labour (three at last count) and I've done stuff to help out (mainly by releasing my partner to do the masses of voluntary work he does for the party, or helping him to learn how to do vaguely technical online campaigning things).  I'm a member of a union (SFWU) which is affiliated to Labour, so some people reckon this makes me a member, but it doesn't really unless I choose to be active, which I don't.

The other day I was getting my photo taken by the Central Leader outside the future site of a Warehouse store in my constituency, which I've been assisting locals to oppose (on the grounds that it's a stupid place to put any big box retail, but that's a whole other blog post).   It was first thing in the morning and chilly with it, so I was wearing my black wool coat and a warm red scarf.  The photographer and journalist asked me if the red scarf was "because it is the Warehouse or because of the Labour Party."  I explained that I hadn't even thought of the Warehouse's colours, that I wasn't in the Labour party, and that actually it was because black next to my face makes me look really washed out in photos.  We all laughed about it. 

I've had this scarf since before I met my Labour partner, I think; it was a present from my Mum years and years ago.*  Twice in the last fortnight other people have assumed I'm Labour** based on said scarf.  On other occasions the nominal reason for the assumption is a red jumper or hand-bag or shoes.

Two things:

1. The colour red does not belong to the Labour party.  In other contexts it might be assumed I'm in the Bloods, or supporting the Dragons.  How come when I wear green no one assumes I'm Green?***
2. Because really the assumption is not about the scarf, or the jumper or the shoes or the handbag.  It's about who my partner is; i.e. a prominent Labour person.  

Interestingly, when I was very active in the Alliance, including being on the National Council, co-convenor of the youth wing, and an election candidate, no one ever assumed my partner (the same person as now) was a fellow party member.  Partly because it was commonly known he was in Labour, but also, I think, because there was a respect and assumption that he might have different political affiliations from me.

I don't entirely mind the Labour assumption.  I spend a lot of time with Labour people,**** and I have to say my local government electoral success was in large part a result of a lot of hard work from Labour supporters and members, who campaigned for me even though I wasn't one of their own.

But I do find the gender difference intriguing.  As is the label that I'm a "politician's wife".  I've been involved in politics since well before I met my partner.  If you want to get technical, I was a politician before he was by some measures, and started at the same time by others.  For several years now it's been clear that his political future, in terms of limelight, may be more significant than mine, but that doesn't reduce me to an appendage clutching my pearls on the sideline while my man does the real work. He definitely doesn't see me that way and neither do I.


*  Thinking back I suspect she gave it to me to get me to stop wearing my North Harbour scarf incessantly. 

**  I'm not Labour but I am definitely in the labour movement.  The difference is very clear in my mind.
***  Although someone did say I was "looking very National Party today" last week because I was wearing blue tights.  And here I thought I was looking like a Blue Stocking.  
****  Yes some of my best friends are in the Labour party.

Insight and understanding

I first learned about Living Below the Line at the Wellington Candidates Meeting - it was not auspicious introduction. James Shaw mentioned that he was doing it and therefore he wouldn't be putting on weight to look like the other Wellington Central candidates; the audience laughed in that way people do when you mention fatness - there doesn't need to be an actual joke. And I sat at the back rolling my eyes - "because obviously there is no correlation between poverty and fatness in New Zealand."

"Living Below the Line" is a five day challenge where people live on $2.25 a day, with the purpose of both raising money and awareness. Apparently: "it allows thousands of people in New Zealand to better understand the daily challenges faced by those trapped in the cycle of extreme poverty"

This 'understanding' is facilitated through a completely arbitrary set of rules: you're not allowed to accept anything free, you must include the cost of a whole packet of anything you use a bit of, you don't have to count the travel to get food, you don't have to worry about the cost of cooking fuel, and you can use whatever fancy pants equipment you've got in your kitchen.

I find everything about it, the rules, the blogposts, the tweets, horrific and offensive on a very fundamental level.

Poverty is not a fucking game.

Poverty does not have rules except you have to do it again tomorrow. Poverty is not new or exciting. Poverty is not neatly quarantined to one area of your life. Poverty is not something you can control with neatly defined parameters. And it does not come with prizes.

If people want to use stupid gimmicks to fundraise then I'm probably not going to both writing a blogpost about it. But to pretend that this highly structured game will promote insight or understanding is an insult to the women and men (but mostly women) who have to feed themselves and other people with inadequate resources year in and year out.

Turn the page on hate

Everyone has words they love. I describe good-looking people as “beautiful.” I use “delicious” for all kinds of sensual pleasures. I say a concept is “contested” when I believe bringing it up in a pub chat would provoke raging debate.

And in 2011 I still thank people by saying “choice.”

I wonder just how much these fave words say about a person?

This isn’t a moment of self-reflection. Yesterday I opened the Sunday Star Times, saw Micael Laws was, once again, leading with the word “feral,” and turned the page.

Seriously, Micael, feral? It litters your columns, spat out with bile and venom. It’s true you use it liberally, not just to describe the brown underclass you appear to hate so much, but that’s the primary target.

Most recently, feral culture:

Ferals beget feral kids. No amount of state intervention – be it social worker, probation officer, child psychologist, police or health authority – can make a blind bit of difference.

For one very simple reason: ferals prefer being feral. It is a lifestyle that suits them and their outlook. It is their culture.

The week before, ferals go global, but apparently those riots in Britain have nothing to do with poverty and inequality:

In allowing the new feral underclass to not only breed, but to always be insulated from their bad decisions and worse attitudes. WE HAVE grown a culture of resentfuls in this country but not by giving them too little. By allowing them too much. Too much latitude at school, too much welfare, too much access to booze. The combination is toxic.

This isn’t a new shiny word for Micael. He’s been using “feral,” regularly from at least 2008, when his mourning for Nia Glassie took the form of calling for the death penalty and asserting:

Let’s admit that most of the underclass cannot be trusted with children. Ever. They may have the ability to procreate, but possess no sensibility to accept the responsibility. They are the underclass for a reason.

And his views about resolving the feral underclass, also from 2008?

As long as society insists upon allowing anti-social idiots to breed, and raise their children, then society will still be required to pick up the pieces.

Micael wants the feral underclass to “burn in hell.” Well, those that commit crimes at least, but it’s hard not to believe he thinks a good purge wouldn’t do NZ good when he says:

More than a year ago, when the Curtis siblings were first arraigned for the murder of the Rotorua toddler, I made the point that such persons existed as a feral underclass so removed from society and social sensibility that cruelty to small children was not perceived as either immoral or as a wrong.

Continually calling people words which dehumanise them, words which blame them for everything which happens in their lives, has only one outcome. It allows the rest of us to “other” these people. And in a New Zealand becoming progressively more divided, this means for those of us not part of the “underclass,” divorcing ourselves from how poverty, inequality, racism and colonialism operate and impact on all of our lives, right now.

Micael, I don’t have the bile and venom for you that you aim at others. But I wish you had no platform for your hate. At least I can turn the page.

the art of scruff.

Cross posted from ScubaNurse’s Blog.

I went to a shopping mall today to grab some birthday presents and do some chores.
While I was there I passed a stand designed to promote some kind of fancy-pants-hair-straightening-miracle- treatment-thingameebob. As I passed, looking completely disinterested and focused on something else, the two women working the stand went BANNANAS.
It was like a kid seeing candy in the checkout isle.
Like a girl spotting her crush.
Like a rugby fan in 2000 seeing Jonah Lomu.
Like a sceptic seeing a crack in someone’s iridology theory.
If my startled reaction hadn’t been to leap backwards, eyes wide and alarmed looking, I’m pretty sure they would have had me on the seat and being wrangled with the fancy-pants-hair-straightening-miracle- treatment-thingameebob in an instant.
As it was, they kept a bit of distance but began hollering at me (at the same time).
“Oh my god your hair is Amaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazing.”
“you would looooooove this product.”
“The curls are soooooooooooooo awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwsome”
“Do you love to straighten?”
“We can heeeeelp yoooooooooooooooooou.”

I vanished as fast as I could, trying very hard not to laugh.

One of the things I like very much with my curls is that I can deliberately appear homeless. If I don’t put product in it, it takes on a life of its own and develops a protective radius around me which strangers avoid.

I suspect they saw the hair and assumed no one would DELIBERATELY do that to themselves, and assumed they could save me from my ignorance.

Ha, I pity the fools.
The maintainance of hair that can look wayward and terrifying for doing chores, then look fab for tapas with my best friend tonight is ENTIRELY deliberate, and I feel sorry for you, only using your hair for good, not evil.

Embrace your inner anti-social hair, and enjoy the benefits you shall reap.
Shorter queues
Less annoying shop keeper questions.
No small talk (people assume you are having a REALLY bad day, and don’t ask)
People you know pretend they never saw you (see above)
Staff will help you efficiently without silly banter.
Clothing shop staff automatically direct you to the sales racks.

Brilliant. Have fun!

On an associated note, I went to go and put on make-up last night and couldn’t find my mascara or key pieces anywhere.
I found them in my work bag which I haven’t opened since I left almost three weeks ago.
No make-up in three weeks, and I didn’t even notice. I’m going to call it effective minimising of annoying chores while on holiday.

Mum raised a good daughter.

Who Are You?

The Wellington Sexual Abuse Network (WSAN) is a collaboration between three of the specialist sexual violence intervention agencies in Wellington. Wellington Rape Crisis and Wellington Sexual Abuse HELP Foundation provide services to survivors and their support people after sexual violence has happened. Wellstop works with people with sexually harmful behaviour.

You could say the three agencies have a 360° perspective on sexual violence – what supports it, the harm it causes, why people do it, how survivors feel afterwards.

You could also say this brings a unique determination to stopping sexual violence happening in the first place.

That is WSAN’s focus, and, in order to be totally upfront, it’s also my day job. WSAN runs programmes with young people on negotiating mutual, respectful, fun sexual encounters and relationships – programmes which we know reduce sexual and dating violence. We run programmes with bar staff, community police and city council staff with on the street safety roles in how to intervene in precursor situations to sexual violence. We run workshops with secondary school students on safe partying. We go into schools to talk about sexual and dating violence.

“Traditional” sexual violence prevention – or sexual violence prevention in the “western” world informed by the second-wave feminist movement – focused on telling communities about the impacts of sexual violence. How awful it was, how prevalent it was, what it was. The key message was “no means no” – and the key aim was to stop rape happening – by asking men to listen when women said no. (The gendering around this is another blog post discussion, but at this point rape prevention was definitely aimed at the statistically vastly more common male violence against women).

These campaigns were culture-shifting. In Aotearoa and elsewhere, they resulted in significant law changes – like introducing the right for wives to charge their husbands with rape for non-consensual sex (before the law change, consent for every sexual encounter was presumed within marriage) and extending legal protections to male survivors. They led to an increasing number of survivors coming forward to report rape to the Police and to people around them. They made rape and sexual violence a hugely contested social issue, at the heart of which lies a question “who gets to decide who I share my body with?”

These “traditional” campaigns were also highly unsuccessful, much to many feminists disappointment, because they did nothing demonstrable to reduce the rates of sexual violence happening in the first place. It seemed providing information did nothing to change behaviour.

Which is where “who are you?” comes in.

WSAN, alongside a number of other community groups, were part of designing this Radio Network campaign for the Rugby World Cup. It features a video and a number of radio “ads” which run for 60 seconds at a time and tell stories of intervening in sexual violence scenarios. Not heroic stories, but stories where ordinary people step in and look out for one another. No spoilers here, but rest assured they feature a range of different people deciding sexual violence is their business. They will be running for 8 weeks over the Rugby World Cup on Classic Hits, ZM and Radio Sport. The “voice” of the campaign is ZM DJ Grant Kereama.

This campaign is aimed at the public, and the aim is to introduce the idea that we are all responsible for ending sexual violence. That it’s not the “victim’s” fault if they are sexually assaulted. The campaign isn’t saying “it’s not the perpetrator’s fault” – it’s saying it takes a community turning a blind eye to allow sexual violence to flourish the way it does at the moment in Aotearoa New Zealand. And that if our community stops doing this, sexual violence will be dramatically reduced.

This campaign is going to be controversial with many of the general public, because it’s moving the responsibility for sexual violence away from the person targeted. If you doubt that, visit ZM DJ Polly Gillespie’s Facebook page, with 18,000 plus followers, slugging it out over victim-blaming (unanimous victory to those who love Who Are You? so far).

It’s also, already, before the radio ads have been aired, been controversial with feminists, on the grounds that the message “don’t rape people” isn’t part of the campaign. The problem with that message, as I’ve said above, is that there is no evaluation anywhere in the world showing that it works. What evaluations of primary prevention show is that we need to focus on changing behaviour not providing information.

People will intervene – act as “ethical bystanders” – when they recognise a problem and think they have some ideas about what to do about it. The sexual violence sector have been exploring and developing this concept as a way to disrupt rape-supportive social norms and beliefs for about the last six or seven years. Family Planning use it for their work with young men. WSAN is using it in all the work we do now, and it’s why the radio ads and video in Who Are You? feature examples of how to intervene.

Evaluations show the concept works because everyone can relate to it – we’re all bystanders at one time or another – and, while there are all manner of reasons why some people intervene and others do not (gender, culture, ideas of victim responsibility, fear of violence, geographic location etc etc etc), we can substantially increase the likelihood people will intervene.

The “Who Are You?” campaign will be heard by 236,000 radio listeners over the Rugby World Cup. The website is accessible to many more. WSAN usual “ethical bystander” intervention rates for participants after our programmes are one in two. The rate will be lower here, it’s a campaign, not a programme, but say we reduce that by a factor of ten, one in twenty of these listeners intervene in something around them (tell a friend to back off coming onto to someone who’s clearly not consenting, make sure their flatmate gets home ok, stop serving the person in the bar buying their date triples without their consent, check out how drunk the person they’re going home with is etc etc etc etc) we just might have more than 12,000 odd incidents of unwanted, coerced or forced sex – sexual violence – stopped.

Now that’s social change.

The cost of being a woman in public

Felicity Perry has talked to both Stuff and Nine to Noon about her experience on the Independent Youth Benefit. This is one of the benefits that National is planning to target with its latest scheme to pathologise young people.

David Farrer wrote a post about her (I'm not linking to it). In the comments thread someone posted her cellphone number. In that thread she has been repeatedly denigrated. She has also been harassed by phone.

She told a small part of her life story. Of her experiences on the Independent Youth Benefit, and what these policies would have meant for her. Her experience was not the experience of MPs, businessmen and international financial traders. It was not enough for those who disagreed her to denigrate her and attack her legitimacy to speak; they also had to harass her personally and extract a toll from her for what she'd said.

*******

On Friday's New Zealand Next Top Model the contestants were given a "Pacific Blue Courtesy Challenge". They had actors making life hard for the contestants, and this included an actor playing a papparazzi. The fake papparazzi took a picture of one of the contestants, Aroha, in her underwear when she was getting out of the taxi, and when she tried to get away from them she was the most assertive.

Aroha was deemed to fail the "courtesy challenge" and kicked off the show.

She was blamed both for being harassed, blamed for her harassers success, and blamed for fighting back.

*******

Drawing attention to misogyny on either kiwiblog or New Zealand's Next Top Model, is kind of like talking about the wetness of the sea. Women's bodies and lives are treated as public property, and these are just two of an ocean of examples. But as well as being examples they normalise it. NZTM is fun Friday night entertainment, and the huge number of tampon adds on TV3 OnDemand makes it very clear whose its ideas of what it means to be a woman are for. While Kiwiblog is happy to exact a cost for stating opposing views - a cost that'll be higher for those who are more marginalised.

So my opposing narrative is to offer solidarity to Aroha and Felicity. To applaud their strength and resistance. To offer the same to other women who are experiencing variations of the same horrible harassment, whose lives and bodies are treated as public property, and who are penalised for any difference with what the viewer expects.

poverty, inequality and cultural privilege

the human rights commission diversity forum is an annual event that has been going on for several years. you can get a background information here. this year, for the first time, it's going to be held in hamilton, at the claudlands event centre on 21 - 22 august. it's an excellent opportunity for the people of the waikato to get involved in discussions around various aspects of diversity.

the main part of the forum starts from sunday afternoon, and the only problem is that there are so many wonderful sessions happening at the same time. at 1.30pm on sunday, there are two sessions run by organisations i'm actively involved with - the session on raising awareness of religious diversity hosted by the waikato interfaith council, and the session on domestic violence run by shama (hamilton ethnic women's centre).


however, i won't be at either of those two sessions, because i've been working with poverty action waikato on a session that deals with the intersection between race and poverty. it's called living in nz in your culture: poverty, inequality and cultural privilege. i was really keen to have a session on poverty as soon as i attended a meeting in april regarding the forum, where the HRC was seeking expressions of interest from organisations wanting to host sessions. i approached poverty action waikato because of the excellent programme they'd put on for international women's day - i've put up posts about them here and here.

the purpose of the session on sunday 21 august is to gather stories from people who live with or have ever lived with poverty, or who work with those living in poverty. the key focus is on the way racial or cultural discriminations feeds into poverty and vice versa. the goal is to compile these stories into a document, which the human rights commission have assured us they will use to push for policy change and which we also hope to use to push for social change.

of course, we understood immediately the challenge. it isn't easy to share stories at a time of vulnerability, and particularly in a culture that is so judgemental. it's hard to share personal stories at the best of times, and to share stories around things which society deems a failure is that much harder still. so we've had a think about how we can create a safe space for people to share.

one thing we have done is provide a variety of mediums. if people feel comfortable with small group discussions, we have those. if people want to leave short and simple messages on post-it notes, we'll have those. if people would prefer to share through a longer written piece, we'll have the materials available. and for those who don't feel comfortable with writing, we'll have a dictaphone and a booth, so that can provide a short recording. in all cases, we will preserve anonimity.

in all the demonstrations, rioting and public agitation across the middle east, europe and now england, there is the common thread of people feeling disaffected and angry at economic inequality and the daily struggles of survival. there is the common thread of voices needing to be heard. in a nz context, this is one small way for people to have a voice. maybe it won't make a difference, but hopefully it will. there are enough people around this particular project who care and who want to take the message further - as far as we possibly can.

so. i'm asking those of you who read this to promote this event and to encourage people to attend. please use your organisational and social networks to pass on the message.

Writing about my mother

I wrote and shared my mother’s eulogy, on behalf of my family, three weeks ago today.

I love to write – it’s one of my creative joys, giving me an almost unparalleled sense of achievement and connection to others – yet this was not a simple joy.

It was difficult, and painful, to write a piece which did justice to what my mother meant to me, to my sister, to my brother, to my father. Like all families, we have relationships impacted by personal frailties. Mum wrestled with depression and an addiction to alcohol throughout much of her mothering, and they both impacted on all three of her children, and my father, in varying ways.

We talked together about the stories we wanted to share with the people who’d travelled from Canada and all over Aotearoa. Family memories that made us laugh, like Mum making up travel songs or singing awful pop songs regardless of audience. Family herstory that made us proud, like Mum’s brilliant mind being so sought after she was invited by her local Canadian university to do a Masters degree in chemistry when that was a fairly unusual event for women. Family stories of being loved and cherished, in all the ways she did that, for all of us.

One of the gifts my mother gave me as a teenager was joy in being sexual. She told us repeatedly how much fun sex could be, and embarrassed us regularly by expressing her delight with and admiration of my father. Her sexual agency, her expression of active and independent female desire, has been deeply formative for me in my own relationships, in my feminism and in the way I’ve approached working to intervene in and prevent gendered violence.

So one of the stories we shared was Mum telling a nurse, in the last days of her life, when she could no longer eat, drink or breathe without assistance, that her heart rate was irregular because he was so handsome.

After Mum’s service, the eulogy I’d written ran through my head for days and days. As a complete piece of writing, over and over again. Remembering all the stories we’d shared. Replaying a collage of memories of my independent, free-spirited and strong-willed, brilliant and beautiful mother. The stream was both a comfort and a torture. I didn’t want it to stop, yet it was blocking me sleeping and being present.

Usually I find writing about something helps clarify it for me. I often work out how I feel about an issue by arguing it out in text. There have been some parallels for me in writing Mum’s eulogy. Wrestling with all the ways my family wanted to remember Mum, writing it down and sharing it with my family, and then speaking it aloud. I will never forget how it felt, to condense the complexities of a full life, a life so intimately connected to my own, my sister’s, my brother’s, my father’s. I cannot imagine I will find public speaking as challenging, after standing at that podium, breathing deeply with my siblings holding me on either side, willing myself to start speaking about our Mum in front of the people gathered there to remember her.

My grief is so raw, every time I talk about Mum in the present tense, my eyes well up with tears. I’m frightened that when it feels less raw, I’ll be losing memories I’m desperate to keep. I don’t think I had even the slightest comprehension of how painful this was going to be, despite the fact my mother has been unwell for 15 years, and dying for the last 4.

I’m hoping that writing will be a comfort for me in this process. I'm not sure yet how much more I want to write about this, but I know I want to start writing again.

Guest Post: Hollaback Wellington launches this week!

A guest post from Josephine at the Wellington Young Feminists’ Collective, cross posted on the WYFC blog. Many thanks to WYFC for submitting this.

 The WYFC is launching Hollaback Wellington this week and we’re really excited!

Hollaback was started by a group of people in New York as a website and mobile application to raise awareness of the street harassment many women and LGBTQ folk were experiencing on a daily basis. The idea was so simple but effective that soon Hollaback chapters were being launched across the world, and now we are bringing it to Wellington.

The idea behind Hollaback is that people who experience street harassment need a voice. Hollaback’s aim is to do this through harnessing mobile and web technology, creating a global network of blogs and a mobile apps relating to different countries and cities. All chapters are unique but linked by a common goal - to reduce the amount of street harassment that happens in their city.

Harassment in the home, workplace or at school is widely considered unacceptable but it seems that in our public spaces all bets are off. Street harassment is a form of gender and sexuality based violence that a huge number of people all over the world experience everyday.

Street harassment includes touching, groping, lewd comments, following, flashing, assault and other violent acts. The logistics of reporting these events involves users filling out a form on the Hollaback website, which is then posted by a site administrator to a map of Wellington, showing a red marker where the incident occurred and outlining the story in full. We’re primarily targeting women and LGBTQ people, but anyone who experiences street harassment is welcome to post.

We’re setting this up in Wellington because we felt the need for a service of this kind. My own motivation came from some awful experiences I had at university, where a guy from my maths class decided to start following me around campus, and when he saw me out in public, following me on the street. Not knowing this guy’s name, I couldn’t report him to anyone. What I really wanted to do was tell someone about how his behaviour made me feel: unsafe, alone and disgusting. Hopefully Hollaback Wellington can be some sort of outlet for people who have similar experiences to mine - we want them to know that this is not something you have to brush off or that you have to deal with by yourself.

As we continue to get set up we will promote other organisations that deal with gender based violence, such as HELP Sexual Abuse and Wellington Rape Crisis. We’re also interested in holding self defence workshops, bystander intervention workshops and working with the Council, Students Associations, and engaging with our lawmakers on these issues.

Longer term, we want contribute to making this kind of behaviour socially unacceptable. One of the ways to achieve this is by encouraging people who witness street harassment to speak up. Hollaback International’s most recent fundraising campaign - “I’ve got your back” - raised money so that we can redevelop our blog and mobile app platform to include stories from bystanders who have intervened in street harassment situations. They will be mapped with green marker, and each story will have a button similar to the Facebook ‘Like’ button so that readers can show their solidarity.

Please share this site with your family and friends in Wellington, and contact Hollaback International if you are interested in launching one in your town or city. We’re also having a launch gig at Happy on the 13th, so if you’re in town you should come along.

Loves,

Josephine.

Wellington Central: Abortion and other matters

In general, I don't think Meet the Candidates forums are particularly useful. It's fun to say to James Shaw (Wgtn Central Green Candidate) "I won't vote for the Greens because Russell Norman said that Louise Nicholas had consensual sex with Clint Rickards", but not an hour and a half of my life fun. Anyone who cares enough to go to a Meet the Candidate forum probably already knows where the parties stand. However, there is one thing you can learn at a meet the candidates meeting that it is very hard to learn anywhere else - and that's candidates' position on 'conscience' issues.

Like abortion.

So when Victoria University had a meet the candidates forum, this seemed like an excellent opportunity to figure out where Wellington Central candidates (many of whom end up deciding things for the rest of us) stand on abortion.

I thought a bit about how to phrase it. Give them an inch wiggle room and they'll not answer your question at all - one person asked about child poverty and whether they would commit to raising benefit rates - and Grant Robertson waxed very lyrical about the evils of child poverty and didn't mention benefits at all. So I made it very focused on law change.

Grant Robertson emphasised that he was pro-choice and that he thought the law should be changed.

James Shaw just said ditto.

Then the New Zealand First candidate and the United Future candidate agreed as well. The United Future candidate said that UF was pro-choice - which may surprise Peter Dunne, although at this point who knows.

Then came Paul Foster-Bell, the National party candidate. He began with a long spiel about how every abortion is a failure, and then said that he supported a woman's right to choose.

It was neat that he got shit for this response on twitter. Although I was more interested in the second part of his response than the first. Obviously ideas like that are ridiculous and should be challenged. But when it comes to MPs, I'm much more focused. They can believe that abortion angers the Wombles, but pleases the Fraggles if they like. I care how they're going to vote.

Although I was interested in why he thought we cared that he thought abortion was a failure. I had asked for his position on the law, not I understand why the Nats run liberal candidates in Wellington Central - but of all the places to

*******

The debate as a whole was one of the most male dominated events I've been to for a while. All the candidates were men, and James Shaw introduced two other local Green candidates who were also men. The chair was a man, and I'm pretty sure that only one woman asked a question. This did not reflect the audience. No-one appeared to notice.

It feels almost cruel, in events like this, to pick on the candidates from the smaller parties. For some reasons candidates from smaller parties which are trying to portray themselves as middle of the road are always much, much, weirder than anyone else.

So I'm not going to say anything about the United Future candidate, although he was hilarious - because he was just some guy who said yes when asked. Is that any reason that he should be mocked on feminist blogs for going along to a student focused election forum and talking about hunting and fishing?

But I am going to say that Ben the NZFirst candidate who said that there never used to be child poverty in New Zealand and blamed current poverty on poor parenting is as ignorant as his politics are terrible.

Apart from that I hate them all (although Grant Robertson almost got me appreciating him when he argued with Ben's ideas about child poverty - which just made me hate him more).

******

Here at The Hand Mirror we've got a plan to encourage people to use election meetings to agitate about abortion and make potential MPs say what they think - more next week.

Observations

Observation the First - If kids are going without breakfast their mums probably are too
I get really fed up with the narrative that seems to go with child poverty, as exhibited by the number of kids going to school without breakfast, that seeks to blame the parents.  When food is short in a household often mum is the first to cut her rations.  This is not a situation where there are gluttonous parents hoovering up all the food and not caring that their kids are hungry.  It is a situation where there are families in our society who cannot afford to buy food.  By framing it as the former we can Otherize it - it's Their fault, they are not like me/us, and it's therefore Someone Else's Problem.  To accept it's actually the latter I guess we may need to step up and recognise that our society is something that we can have some say over - we make choices, particularly political choices, that have consequences for others.  To change society is daunting, but shouldn't the systems we live in serve rather than hinder?

Observation the Second - There are not enough jobs
There's been multi-purpose whining about how the youth unemployment rate is a direct result of the abolition of youth rates.  Employers are supposedly giving jobs to older people instead of youf because they can't get away with paying less than the adult minimum wage for young workers.  Older people are competing for places that traditionally went to the young uns because they are losing their own jobs, or their financial situations have changed resulting in the need for second and third incomes.  I really noticed over the weekend the high number of shops shutting, empty commercial spaces for lease, and a large number of retail sales that looked like the immediate precursor to closing down (shelves emptying out, no new stock coming in, quite big discounts on everything).  I also spotted a lot of older workers in the kind of retail jobs that used to be predominantly filled by those in their teens or early twenties.  The layoffs, public and private, don't seem to be getting much media but they are real, and it's definitely a buyer's labour market at the moment.

Observation the Third - A lot of people are moving to Australia for better prospects
In the 90s most of my friends were people I met through university, where we were studying together, and so hardly anyone I knew shifted to Australia.  Then in the 00s a lot of my peers did the OE thing, and some have not come back, but very very few actively moved across the Tasman as a result of a failure to find work here.  Lately week after week I feel I'm hearing of a new acquaintance, relative or friend who is making the shift.  Then there was the woman on Nat Rad from Christchurch last week who sounded very bitter about the lack of support for her family to stay.

What is this Government actually doing about job creation?  Whatever happened to whatever mysterious wondrousness came out of the Jobs Summit?  The Market is not providing; for kids, for their parents, for young, for old, for inbetween.  When do we start asking questions about the system we live in, not the individuals caught in it?

Women's Choice 2011 - this year's Suffrage Eve debate

WHAT: Women's Choice 2011 - The second Suffrage Eve Debate, featuring women , political discussion, and cupcakes

WHEN: Thursday 22nd September 2011, 7pm

WHERE: Lecture Theatre LibB10, under the University Library, University of Auckland, Alfred St, City

WHO: Female candidates from each of the Parliamentary parties giving a short stump speech and then responding to questions from various women's organisations and the floor (see below for more info).  Chaired by Dr Judy McGregor, the EEO Commissioner.

WHO BY:  Organised by the Auckland Women's Centre plus bloggers at The Hand Mirror, and with the graceful assistance of the Campus Feminist Collective of AUSA.

HELPFUL LINKS:

• Facebook event page
• UOA City Campus Map [PDF] - look for building 109 (General Library), includes locations of parking (including accessible parking) and bus stops
• Google Map of UOA City Campus

As part of our mission to boost the signal of women in politics, Women's Choice 2011 aims to bring together anyone interested in women's issues and politics to hear from all the Parliamentary parties about their relevant policies.   There may be tea and cupcakes afterwards, along with a chance to mix and mingle.  All are welcome, and a gold coin donation never goes astray to help cover costs.

Confirmed speakers so far are:

• Chair - Dr Judy McGregor
• Greens - Catherine Delahunty
• Labour - Carol Beaumont

And invites have gone to National, Act, Mana, Maori and United Future.  We'll let you know as more confirmations come in.

We are approaching various women's organisations for a written question from each which they can supply ahead of time.  Feel free to suggest organisations for us to approach in comments.  

Please note this is NOT an Auckland Central debate.  We have specifically asked parties not to send their Auckland Central candidates as we want this to focus on women's issues in Aotearoa New Zealand.  Would love to see any Auckland Central candidates in the crowd, of course!

The inaugural Suffrage Eve debate was in 2008.  While intentions to do this annually have been frustrated by Real Life, maybe we'll get around to making that work in 2012...

default human

i've read plenty of posts around the feminist blogosphere about how the default human is male. there's plenty of evidence this is true, but i had another reminder in this weekend's paper.

gwynne dyer is a well-known columnist who is published in the fairfax papers, and i think the herald also published his pieces at some point. he certainly comes across as progressive, and i generally enjoy reading his columns. until this week's one, which includes the following:

And it's Muslims (British Muslims this time), who keep their women indoors or make them cover up when they go out, who are the main victims of this disease.

so, the default "muslim" is male. the women belong to the males, apparently, and have no individual identity or agency. according to mr dyer, it's not even a possibility that the women might choose to cover themselves, having thought about the issue and come to a decision. the possiblity that some of these women are covering themselves when the men who apparently own them would rather they didn't.

the whole construction of this sentence sickens me. that it comes from a writer that is clued up on so many issues rather than jihad watch or pamela gellar just makes it worse. it's so much harder when you have to try to convince people who, on the face of it, appear to be on your own side, that you come under the definition of human being (or muslim human being in this case). and i don't believe he's using "muslim" to mean muslim men in opposition to the arabic "muslimah" for muslim women, because he doesn't bother to use "muslimah" anywhere in the article to describe muslim women. he just sees them as appendages to the actual humans, being the men.

it all brings to mind the whole richard dawkins thing, and his use of muslim women to put down the very valid concerns of another women. this atheist wants to speak for us or about us in other forums, as if we couldn't possibly speak for themselves, as if we need this white knight to come to our rescue, as if we're just tools to be used in argument.

this all goes back to the point i was trying to make in my last post: that there is so much cr*p out there about muslim women, and it takes so much effort to get just one article giving us a voice and allowing us to talk for ourselves. sometimes it feels like an impossible task.