The Hand Mirror

not quite so funny?

2012-01-29T21:00:00.004+13:00

some anonymous person just posted a link to this clip on my blog, which i thought deserved to be shared more widely. it an interview with josie long about the discrimination she faces as a woman comedian:

i always find the "women aren't as funny as men" line quite telling. it's possibly because men are quite happy to laugh at male comics denigrating women, talking about their wives as irrational jailers who stop men from enjoying life at all. or any of the other sexist stuff that is supposed to be hilarious. but suddenly it isn't funny if a woman is doing something similar about men. they're not laughing so hard when it's their own foibles pushed out in nasty stereotypes for the entertainment of everyone.

surely if they find the one funny, they should find the other just as hilarious? but watching the audience reactions to female comics, the men are still laughing when the women talk about weight issues or how bitchy/slutty other women are, but quite a few barely manage a smile when she dares to turn her attention on to men.

so perhaps it isn't that the women aren't as funny, it's just that the man making that complaint just doesn't know how to laugh at jokes about his own demographic? could it be that this guy just needs to get a sense of humour?? or the better option is that they stop tolerating nasting shit about women that isn't actually all that funny either.

out of uniform

2012-01-28T22:48:00.004+13:00

a school that forces kids to wear roman sandals is a school that hates children. seriously? these are the ugliest and most uncomfortable footwear ever designed. what torturer designed them i don't know or care, but i don't see why our kids should be lumped with. for goodness sake, i had to wear these monstrosities when i went to school. have there been no acceptable innovations in footwear design in 30 years that would be acceptable to persons in charge of deciding on school uniform?

i've never been a supporter of uniforms. hated them when i had to wear them, hate that my own kids have to wear them. i hate the loss of individuality, the conformity of it all. to me, it teaches kids that they have to lose anything which makes them different, individual and their own person. they lose their personal identity to the identity of the institution forcing the uniform on them.

i understand the arguments for them, especially for school age children, around the peer pressure to dress in fashionable and expensive clothes. uniforms are apparently the cheaper option. but given that kids need clothes for after school and socialising anyway, i don't know that there is that much saving. maybe uniforms are the better option for some people, but no, i still hate them.

our uniforms were so uncomfortable. disgusting drab brown tunics. and for PE, we had to wear rompers. rompers are truly worse than roman sandals, if that's at all possible. thank goodness sports uniforms have evolved to something more decent. i think the only way to ensure our kids have decent uniforms (if they must have uniforms at all) is to force all the adults in the institution to wear it as well. let's watch the principals and teachers being forced to push their feet into roman sandals, and i bet that rule would be gone in a day.

to add insult to injury, our teachers are being forced to spend their time policing these uniforms, when they really should be spending that energy on teaching our kids. ok, with the basic uniform, i can accept that they have to enforce it otherwise there would be no point. but to police the roman sandals, and to punish kids if they aren't wearing them? that is just a total waste of time. it's certainly not how i want my tax dollars being spent.

Transphobia stole my social event

2012-01-27T07:30:00.000+13:00

It's rare - but not unheard of, thank you Audre Lorde - that I completely agree with everything I know about someone's political analysis. Sometimes I feel in complete agreement, and then I meet them and realise they deliberately use power and control in their interactions, or they are only interested in people they think are important, or they treat waiting staff like lackeys, or they talk to their partner without respect.

I often learn from the ideas or concepts or experiences or political analysis of people with whom I disagree, sometimes vehemently, about other things.

When I went to see the leader of the Black Panther Party in London a few years ago, he was fascinating on race, and much more thoughtful about gender in terms of African American women's experiences than I'd expected. But he called anyone he didn't agree with a faggot. Repeatedly. This was unchallenged by everyone there, including me and my straight but not homophobic Black British friend. The reasons I didn't challenge were complex - partly I didn't think I was going to change his mind, partly I was very aware of being nearly the only white person in the room, partly I was there to learn about a struggle I was less familiar with than battling homophobia.

So in theory I could go and see Germaine Greer, second wave feminist legend, author of one of the most important feminist texts in the 1970s, exponent of women's liberation rather than just equality with men (which men?), the butt of much misogynist hatred.

Oh, and a raving, offensive, hateful transphobe.

Who deliberately outed transwomen in the 1980s and 1990s. Knowing that there were no protections for those transwoman from reactions like being fired, or losing their homes, or facing transphobic violence and rejection from their communities.

I could forgive Germaine this if it was a view she held thirty years ago, and after listening to transpeople and those for whom the gender binary just does not fit, she could re-examine those views. After all, we're all capable of getting things wrong and changing our minds. But some of this transphobia is recent, and even though I abhor the way Germaine is criticised on the basis of her age, the fact is this is hate speech.

I've loved being a girl since I knew I was one, I've loved messing with gender in terms of what I wear or how I cut my hair since I had control over these things. I love that I can throw seventy metres, like a girl, and do many, many other things which traditional gender roles told me I shouldn't.

Despite my gender play, I'm comfortable in the gender I was assigned at birth. This means going to see Germaine would feel like treachery to those experiencing an oppression I'm privileged around. A very different thing, for me, than listening to an expert in challenging racism express homophobia.

Protest anyone?

Guest Post: #transphobictampons: It’s Not Offensive, It’s Oppressive

2012-01-26T09:00:00.000+13:00

This post was originally posted on the Workers Party blog. It's by Kassie Hartendorp, Workers Party member and Queer Avenger. Thanks Kassie for letting us repost it.

At the end of 2011, an advertisement for Libra tampons was pulled from air after members from the queer community called out the company for its transphobia. Many argued that the company was sending a strong message to those who did not identify as the gender they were assigned at birth, that they were not as ‘authentic’ as their biological counterparts.

The issue was framed as being problematic for only a small amount of ‘oversensitive’ members of the trans community but the advertisement can be linked back to the way that negative images work to oppress many on the gender and sexuality spectrum.

Featured on Australian and NZ television, as well as the Libra website and Youtube, the advertisement featured two women applying their make-up in a bathroom at a club. One appears to be a cis-woman[1] and the other appears to be a drag queen. The two embark on a competition to see who the ‘real woman’ is by both putting on mascara, lipgloss and adjusting their breasts. The contest is ‘won’ when the cis-woman pulls out her Libra tampon causing the drag queen to storm off defeated, due to her apparent biological deficiency – the fact that she cannot menstruate like her cis counterpart.

Comments flowed in on the Libra Facebook page and various news, blog and social networking sites accusing Libra of being, at best ignorant, at worst, blatantly transphobic and misogynist. Those who spoke out were labelled as being ‘too sensitive’ and disregarded the issue as ‘political correctness gone wild.’ The main discourse being used, or ways of talking about the advertisement were framed around the idea of ‘personal offence.’ Some gender variant people made the argument that they were not offended, which implied that the whole issue was moot. The drag queen appearing in the advertisement made the public announcement that she saw no need to apologise and saw the problem as coming from a ‘small portion of the trans community’ who have ‘chosen to view the ad as a personal attack.’

Aside from the fact that most gender variant people do not ‘choose’ to feel attacked by advertisements that use their often difficult lives as the butt of a joke by a multimillion dollar corporation, the entire framing of the discussion should be readjusted. Advertisements such as this one should be seen as having an oppressive effect, rather than an offensive one.

Labelling a comment, slur or stereotype as offensive, lowers the problem to that of the individual rather than identifying it as a structural problem. Someone could be offended by loud music or bright coloured clothing. An old co-worker of mine felt personally offended every time she saw someone wearing pyjama pants tucked into Ugg boots to a shopping mall. At the same time, someone can be offended by a woman who strongly speaks out in a male-dominated environment, or a queer couple holding hands down the street. A corporation could be offended when a marginalised community protests against their transphobic advertisement – a CEO could feel personally attacked in much the same way as those being degraded or insulted by their media campaign.

The point here, is that while offence is an important component in this debate, it cannot be the only way in which we describe and discuss how media and oppression works. As one blogger puts it: “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can mobilize an entire society in violent hate against me.” Depicting a gender variant person as being ‘less woman’ than a cisgendered woman due to the fact she does not menstruate is oppressive. Reinforcing a gender binary that assumes and expects that you fit into one gender category or the other is oppressive. Profiting off the fear of someone not being able to fit into one of these gender categories is oppressive. These are not personal attacks on individual members of the trans community; they are the product of an oppressive system.

Issues of oppression need to be understood at a material basis – that is, not just social phenomena that happen to random individuals, which only make sense through a lens of personal experience. Transgender people are the subjects of discrimination when it comes to basic rights such as employment, housing and medical care, as well as being threatened by verbal and physical harassment in their daily lives. This oppression is at its very core, structural as it is reproduced within institutions such as workplaces, hospitals, schools and governmental agencies. While, these oppressive forces can be clearly felt on a personal basis, the way of articulating the problem and arming against its destructive effects must be done on a wider level that takes our economic and social system into account.

Capitalism is often thought of as just an economic system but it should also be understood as a social relation. How we relate to each other as individuals, groups and identities is shaped by capitalist logic. These social relations, such as the gender binary, are reproduced through the capitalist media.

While gains have most certainly been made, trans people are often stigmatised, insulted and ridiculed within the mainstream media. The Libra advertisement is just another message that reinforces the oppressive idea that gender variant people are second class citizens. If you ask any transgender person, they will feel the very real effects of this at some point in their lives, if not on a daily basis. Furthermore, it cannot be forgotten that a company is profiting off these very messages because of an advertising industry that uses fear and division as a tool to sell products.

Many members of the queer community failed to recognise the oppressive nature of the message the advertisement sent. If we are going to combat queer oppression that has negative effects on both same-sex attracted people and the gender variant population, there needs to be a recognition that an attack on the trans community is an attack on us all. We need to shift away from the mode of thinking that blames the individual for taking a ‘personal offence’ at an oppressive act.

An advertisement may seem small, but it is one building block of many that have over history, built a mighty wall of structural oppression. Unfortunately that one brick isn’t going to cause the whole wall to crumble, but if we can together get a foothold, and find the right tools to start chiselling away at those ruptures, then maybe we can tear it down and build a world in which no-one is treated as second class.

*****
[1] Cisgendered or cis-woman: Identifying as the gender assigned at birth. Equivalent term to “trans,” identifying differently to the gender assigned at birth.

Benchmarking masculinity with Sam Orchard

2012-01-25T21:58:00.000+13:00

Awesome resource I got from the Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programmes on negotiating consent if you're a transman or want to be sexual with a transman, featuring local cartoonist Sam Orchard:

Guest Post: Review Colonising Myths—Māori Realities: He Rukuruku Whakaaro

2012-01-25T09:00:00.000+13:00

I’ve been struggling with this review for a couple of weeks now. Do I start with a disclaimer? I was formally a student of Ani’s for three years, she is now my immediate boss, and I am part of Te Tākupu who jointly published her book (with Huia Publishers). But I admit no bias—the first time I read Ani’s writing I was stunned. Her writing is passionate, intelligent, brave and clear. She doesn’t disguise her emotions with academic disinterest—she speaks honestly about what drives her, be it despair, frustration or wonder. She doesn’t hide her assumptions and logic behind jargon or convoluted arguments—her writing is so clear that her thoughts are exposed for the reader to judge. Often, she takes a topic that is supposed to be complicated, and strips it back to simple truths and lies. It is for all these reasons that I choose to continue to learn from her, and why I am so excited by this book.

”It is crucial that Māori continue to think and to imagine beyond the intellectual imprisonment of what our colonisers deem to be realistic. So long as we do, and so long as we do so in concert with our Indigenous sisters and brothers in our common struggle for self-determination, who can predict where the relation of forces may lead us” (p 204)

The book is arranged into five sections (twelve essays in total, most previously published, two written for this book), which together form a trajectory hinting at where those forces may first take us.

Stories of survival: working inside the imposter legal system

Talking back: a Māori view of Pākehā hopes and misconceptions

The relationship between tangata whenua and the Crown

Tikanga Māori and Western values

Tikanga at the centre

Starting within Pākehā law schools, where Māoriness was so marginalised that Ani’s priority was her and her students’ survival, the first three essays are revealing, upsetting, and strangely affirming. Pākehā may find them uncomfortably familiar. They should be compulsory reading for anyone teaching in a Pākehā dominated school, and everyone at university (if only I had the power to make it so). By focusing on her experience, these essays show the strain that Pākehā ignorance of their monoculturalism/ cultural imperialism puts on Māori. Māori staff and students are always expected to be gracious and generous in supporting the learning of Pākehā, despite the racism and cowardliness that those Pākehā may show. Ani talks of dissatisfaction, despair, hopelessness and despondency. Whilst caught up in the day-to-day grind of striving to create a space for Māori within the confines of Pākehā law... it was extraordinarily difficult to achieve any true clarity of analysis with respect to my objectives or my actions. (p xix)

In the second section, Ani moves from the Pākehā law school environment to working at Te Wānanga o Raukawa, where Māoriness is at the centre. This gives her freedom to react against the system she had been trapped in, to explore her frustration with the “misconceptions” that many Pākehā have about their history and place in the world, and the cynical way this ignorance is used against Māori. The irony of being lectured by Trevor Mallard on the necessity for Māori to trust the perpetrators of our oppression is, quite frankly, breathtaking. (p 117)

“As a first step, Pākehā need to own up to the truth about how they have come to occupy their position of dominance in our country – and to deal with it... The ease with which Pākehā cast themselves as victims of their own past never fails to amaze me.” (p 91)

The two articles in this section were written with a Pākehā audience in mind, but there is a lot here for Māori readers.

By the third section, Ani is focused on the relationship tangata whenua have with the Crown, a relationship that she argues should be based on tikanga. She tears apart Treaty jurisprudence, exposing Treaty principles as a lie. She challenges Māori to address social harm by first rejecting the Crown legal system. She breaks down the Crown’s criminality towards Māori.

”The Crown has been responsible for a relentless campaign of criminal violence against us. Every day that it continues to assert its authority in this land, it demonstrates that violence carries its reward and that crime pays. It has vicously attacked our physical, social, emotional and spiritual well-being over a long period of time, thus setting in train a crippling cycle of violence from which some of us, unsurprisingly, have struggled to escape.”

Having argued that tikanga Māori is the only legitimate way forward, in the fourth section, Ani shows how colonisation has affected our understanding of tikanga. She includes two essays confronting patriarchy head on, powerfully and beautifully. This is the work she is most famous for. She concludes this section with a discussion of the way Crown law has incorporated or co-opted aspects of tikanga.

By this point, Ani has shown how destructive a Pākehā dominated environment is for Māori. She has established that Pākehā need to face the future with an honest understanding of the past, and willingness to engage with Māori to heal that past. She has exposed the abusive, victim-blaming relationship that the Crown forces on Māori. And she has shown that colonisation has even infected our understanding of tikanga. Even so, she has consistently argued that tikanga Māori holds the only appropriate solution. In the final section, Ani explores tikanga Māori. The two papers in this section are wide-ranging and inspirational. Ani places whakapapa at the centre of all tikanga. Whakapapa dictates that relationships are of paramount importance: relationships between past, present and future generations – which include, by necessity, relationships between humans and atua and, therefore, between humans and all other living things –must be nurtured. (p 289) She speaks of a whakapapa imperative behind the drive to save our reo or repatriate our taonga. This is an inclusive, non-hierarchical and practical philosophy, always striving for balance.

Ani’s examination of the implications of a worldview based on whakapapa is an uplifting end to a book which has laid many challenges. This is the final stage, returning to the past to secure the future.

Kia ū ki tōu kāwai tupuna

Kia mātauria ai, i ahu mai koe i hea
E anga ana koe ki hea

Trace out your ancestral stem
So that it may be known where you come fromAnd in which direction you are going.

Details
Colonising Myths—Māori Realities: He Rukuruku Whakaaro
Ani Mikaere 2011
Preface by Moana Jackson
Published by Huia Publishers and Te Tākupu, Te Wānanga-o-Raukawa
339 pages plus index

When I grow up I want to be an old woman

2012-01-25T06:30:00.000+13:00

I don't know much about Age Concern, though I respect their work identifying elder abuse in New Zealand, where we have four referrals each day, and like most other kinds of intimate violence, women are over-represented at 65-70% of those referrals.

I do know I hate the poster I walk past in their national office every morning, which, irritatingly enough I can't seem to find online. All I can find is this, part of one of their Annual Reports:

This is some of the poster adorning their national office, but not all. The rest of it features more white men. In fact, it ends up with men outnumbering women (despite there being 122 women to every 100 men after age 65) and with no one recognisably Pacifica or Maori. I don't think the woman second from the left on the bottom features either, I think the sole representative of people of colour is the man on the right at the bottom.

Obviously there's dangers in judging ethnicity or cultural identity by just looking at people, but I think it should be possible for Age Concern to have recognisably Maori and Pacifica symbols and people on their main poster, just like the rest of the Annual Report cover.

Then there's what people are doing. In this version, and in the national office poster, the women are smiling. The men are pointing or playing sport and I think there might be another white man doing something important, but we don't want women to be worrying our pretty heads with such things, do we?

I'm going to one cantankerous old woman, let me tell you, if all I get to do is smile after I turn 65. Best I start wearing purple now.

Uncomfortable Overlaps

2012-01-24T15:24:00.000+13:00

A few years ago, I sought counselling from a feminist organisation. I had effectively untreated and quite serious PTSD from events earlier in my life, and there were a couple of other smaller stresses on me at that time. I've never had a good time with counselors; my previous experiences had ranged from outright homophobia and pretty significant verbal abuse to my pissing them off for reasons I simply couldn't identify. Suffice it to say that I didn't try again until I really needed to.

Said feminist organisation was the only option - at least that I was aware of - that was possible given my budget. I wasn't comfortable with it from the start; I knew people whose employment or voluntary work brought them into contact with it in a professional capacity. Rationally, most of the people I had in mind were caring and supportive - or at least capable of acting so. But every week I sat in the waiting room on the verge of throwing up from the fear that I would meet someone I knew and explain that I was not there in my usual activist role. However much I believed there was no shame in being there, I was utterly ashamed.

This post is an attempt to untangle, both from personal experience and a more theoretical standpoint some of the issues around the uncomfortable intersection between the activist community and the provisions and receipt of services (none of these are ideal terms, but I lack better ones). And the first point is criticism. Because my experience wasn't good. It involved - and I won't go into the details - significant amounts of implied victim blaming, repeated dismissal of my disabilities, telling me to do things I'd explicitly identified as triggering and ultimately - when the counselor left the service - dropping me when I was in an obviously incredibly vulnerable state without any kind of follow up.

Yet I really hesitated about writing this post. It's been brewing in my head for a while, and I'm still not sure if I'll actually click 'publish'. And one of the reasons is I feel uncomfortable criticising this organisation when I know many people who do important work to support it. I don't think I personally know anyone who works or volunteers there, but I could. They're the sort of people I organise events alongside, go to meetings with, march with. It goes against a lot of instinct - even though the only place my criticism gets personal is against that one counsellor - to criticise when we should be standing together against some scary common enemy, or something like that. Moreover, I know this organisation and others like it are horribly underfunded and need support - and they do help a lot of people and I really don't want to undermine that in any way. It's not a new, or an unusual quandry - how to criticise from within a marginalised group or perspective without reinforcing that coming from without, but I think it has a particularly concerning place here.

The second point is about supporting people who are within activist groups. This is a much bigger topic than I have the scope for here, and a lot has been written about it. But all I've found is centred on two things; one is when someone is being supported with an issue that relates to the group (for example abuse by another group member) or short term support - such as someone being triggered within a meeting. I don't necessarily consider this a bad thing, or that activist groups should be taking on long term support roles - in fact, I think often the danger is taking on too much and it is better to draw a clear line around what can and can't be done well. But where activism and service provision are mixed, things can become problematic, and I'm not sure a lot of people involved even note this as an issue.

Part of this relates to heirarchy. This is not to discount the hierarchy present within activist organisations, and part of this is personal - I really struggle with interacting with medical and related services and I tend to thrive in environments where I get to talk loudly, organise things and play with websites and mailing lists. I appreciate this isn't universal. But the movement of the same people, involving the same issues, between the fuzzy, ill defined and informal roles and heirarchy of informal activist groups and the really clear cut roles of (say) counsellor and client is not necessarily an easy one. And then - more simply but perhaps hard to resolve - simpler issues like confidentiality and how relationships change between spaces.

I think also, there are different stories told in service provision and activist groups. I'm sure there are a lot of exceptions to these, as there are people about whom they are true, but as much as anything it's the assumptions that are made that's relevant. One, by (generally charitable) service providers, is of the client who comes to them with a problem; usually there are multiple things wrong in their life. They are helped by the organisation, they grow in confidence. They volunteer for the group and become a campaigner on the issue they experienced. The other story is - well I've found it most common in socialist groups, particularly around sexual orientation, but I think it's wider than that - of people who participate in activism for a cause, perhaps defending people they care about, perhaps because it relates to something else they're involved in, perhaps seeing it in pretty abstract terms initially. It's that involvement that gives them the knowledge and confidence to address it in their own lives.

And there are problems - probably for both groups - in reconciling these two stories. It was really hard to explain that yes, I'd organised a reclaim the night march (hey look, there's the poster for it on the wall right there), yes, I'd blogged for the best part of the year on victim blaming, but that doesn't mean that I haven't internalised a whole lot of these ideas.

The third angle I wanted to talk about was exclusion. Whilst the counselor crossed some very clear lines with me, as others have done, I'm increasingly seeing my general negative interactions in terms of my disability status. I didn't fit into the typical mold of people they catered for, and they didn't cater for me. The lack of acknowledgement or understanding of this is what makes it particularly problematic, but even with that, it's exclusionary.

I'm reasonably confident in my response to groups that deliberately discriminate against groups of people (it ain't positive). I also recognise that they cannot provide services to all people, and that there are legitimate limits to what they can and can't do. But this indirect exclusion becomes more difficult when there are discrepancies between a funded service provider that may well have a mandate to meet the more typical needs of the majority, versus a dynamic where questioning such exclusions is a discussion that comes naturally to some of the members.

On a personal level, I found options that worked for me and I am doing much better now. Options that required having someone to help me research them, and a disposable income, both of which I had, neither of which should be expected. On a more general level... once again, I feel only that I have a whole heap of issues to raise and no solutions to offer, but it's a start.

Comment direction: no speculation about the identities of individuals and organisations involved please. It makes me really uncomfortable and isn't relevant. I ask you to remember that this post represents my thoughts and experiences and not necessarily those of anyone else at THM.

Decolonise Your Minds: marginalised gendered People of Colour DECOLONISATION hui

2012-01-24T11:02:00.000+13:00

Decolonise Your Minds: marginalised gendered People of Colour DECOLONISATION hui

Sat 4th - Sun 5th Feb 2012
Tamaki Makaurau (Ponsonby Community Centre)
(Auckland, New Zealand)

$20 waged/ $10 unwaged, or whatever you can afford

The People of Colour Decol Hui is a two day celebration of Decolonisation, Feminism and Anti-Racism, for POC/indigenous feminists and activists, all mixed up with DIY workshops, skill share and talks.

The People of Colour Decol Hui is for marginalised gendered people of colour; including women, transfolk, intersex, genderqueers, wimmin (etc)- of marginalised cultures, indigenous and ethnic minorities in Aotearoa.

Examining the inherent power dynamics interwoven into our lives, connections between racism, sexism, colonisation, classism and other oppressions, and working in predominantly pakeha activist scenes... and how these things affect us and the feminist/ social justice/ peace/ revolutionary/creative work we do.

The weekend will be grounded around those main themes. There will be spaces for discusions to happen.

We hope that this gathering will enable us to share some experiences and tools for critiquing, challenging, and overcoming these oppressions.

There will be discussion forums, workshops and skill shares.

For more information see here

Guestie: Fab Feb Fasting Feminist Seeks Same

2012-01-23T21:00:00.002+13:00

Many thanks to Deborah for this guest post, crossposted at her place and The Lady Garden, seeking some fab feminist friends to fundraise fast with this February.

I'm going to do FebFast 2012, and I'm hoping that some of the fabulous feminists and friends that I know would like to do it too, and join the team I have set up for us.

The idea of FebFast is simple. You give up drinking alcohol for an entire month, and you pay for the privilege of doing so - $25 for people in employment, and $15 for concession card holders and students. That sounds like a dud deal, except that the money raised goes to four organisations, all of whom are working with young people who may be vulnerable to alcohol abuse. The four organisations are: Rainbow Youth, Evolve, CareNZ, and the ADHD Association. You can read more about them here: FebFast: Meet the Recipients.

So... are you prepared to give up alcohol for the month of February? It's a short month, 'though a day longer this year thanks to the leap year. Even if you don't wish to give up alcohol for a month, you might care to make a donation in support of the team, and of course, in support of the four organisations working to help young people who have problems with alcohol.

If you have an event you were planning to go to in February, and have an alcoholic drink or two, you can still do FebFast. You can buy a ~~Get Out of Jail Free card~~ Time Out Certificate for $25 for an emergency, $35 for a big event, or $45 if you're looking to purchase absolution.

Please think about joining the fast, or sponsoring someone who is doing it, or making a donation. And if you're doing any one of those things, how about doing it as part of the Fabulous Feminists and Friends FebFast team? You can join the team as part of the registration process, or if you want to make a donation, you can do it by clicking on the "Donate" button on the team page.

I'm really, really, hoping that I'm not going to be a team of one...

If you want to find out some more about FebFast, there's an article in the New Zealand Herald today: Kiwis challenged to February booze ban.

Feminism 101 - Spoons.

2012-01-22T21:06:00.003+13:00

Cross posted from my usual place.

Before we start, head over to Christine Miserandino’s piece from which the “spoon theory” has stemmed. It’s a brilliant piece, and the depth of understanding about what it is to have a disability that she managed to convey with her explanation is wonderful.

When I first started reading feminist blogs it wasn’t long before I started hearing about “spoons”
“I haven’t got the spoons”
“Urgh, I’m getting low on spoons”
“Anyone got the spoons to help me out with this jerk?”
And so-on.
I ended up asking a feminist friend to find out WTF people were talking about, because when you Google “spoon theory” you are more likely to read about the “silver spoon” sort of thing.
The overwhelming understanding in feminist circles appears to be that we only have limited resources to deal with our daily battles, whether they are personal, professional, or online. At times when there are heated debates on topics which may trigger us, those resources get depleted at a higher rate than usual.
Christine’s writing equated resources with spoons in relation to her Lupus, and the fact that those who live with Lupus have a constant struggle to maintain their lives while their condition deteriorates.
When people on the feminist blogs talk about “not having enough spoons” it may mean that they feel like they can’t deal with whatever it is that has been happening, do not have the energy to continue to debate, or just cannot find it in themselves to explain for what feels like the millionth time a concept to someone who may or may not actually want to learn.
Sometimes it is used among friends to ask for help. i.e. “I’m running out of spoons – can you come help deal with this troll?”
Sometimes to display distain at someone asking stupid questions, or repeating the same points. i.e. “I really don’t have the spoons to deal with you anymore.”

What is important to realise is that the Spoons concept was driven by someone with a long term debilitating illness. It is much loved by squillions of people who also struggle with limited spoons.
Go to twitter and use the hash tag #spoonies and you will find a reel of men and women all trying to cope with a myriad of disabilities daily and nightly. Their spoons are so much more valued than mine, just simply because I have more to start with, and do (usually) not have to truly economise with them.
It is for this reason that I don’t use the term “spoons”, because I feel like it isn’t really mine to use. I like the phrase, and I sure as hell think that it is relevant to everyone at some point in time, but it just feels a little like I’m undermining the original meaning now that I am in the fullness of health.

Tea-spoons is another phrasing that is less commonly used (as I have noticed), and the origions of this seem to be Florynce Kennedy. Check out the lovely Melissa McEwan over at Shakesville who uses the term regularly.

Just by nobody doing nothing the old bullshit mountain just grows and grows. Chocolate-covered, of course. We must take our little teaspoons and get to work. We can't wait for shovels."

I hope that this helps out people looking to find out what the heck is being talked about on the blogs when someone refers to “spoons”. Let's grab our tea-spoons and start shoveling hey?

Below I have included what spoons mean to other people, because there seems to be a slightly wider range than just what I thought.

“spoons” is just such a nice, succinct way of expressing “a finite, slowly-renewable resource I have to consciously think about allocating.”

I think it isn’t just good for understanding Lupus, but anyone dealing with any disability or illness.

Maya of “capitalism bad”
“Something that you might like to be aware of is that the person who wrote it, and others who have similar health issues (she has Lupus) are very critical of the way that it has been used much more broadly than originally intended...
There is an argument that the wide adoption of the metaphor for the lives of people under very different circumstances is a form of appropriation."

@Rageaholic_
I always thought it referred to having the patience to spoon-feed information in small and easily digestible chunks. But I think that was an assumption or I made it up-recently read the spoon-theory some1 linked to on THM & it's very different.
I should've made it "patience, time & ability" I realise it's more than just about getting frustrated with newbies sometimes.

1. We, the community of people with invisible chronic illnesses, need a terminology that describes just our experiences to use amongst each other and with the outside world.
2. That terminology, so far, is mostly The Spoon Theory.
3. The spoon theory has been great in getting the message across that our pain and fatigue and other symptoms make our daily lives very different from people who don't have invisible chronic illnesses.
4. People have taken the terminology and run with it.
5. This is great when it's being used to describe the experiences of people with invisible chronic illnesses.
6. This is problematic when it gets used for other things.
7. PLEASE STOP USING THE SPOON THEORY TO TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT AREN'T ABOUT BEING CHRONICALLY ILL.
8. Thank you.

@GraveyDice
I think of #spoons as an inverse of harmful culture, which is created by millions of small actions, each on their own trivial but collectively add up to something monstrous. #Spoons is the neutralizing of harmful culture in the same way - in tiny steps.
And the great benefit of #spoons is that the big problem is too big to comprehend fully, or to try to address. Whereas #spoons allows us to deal with small actions, one isn't overwhelmed by the enormity of the problem.

@TSpankhead
there's this, though it doesn't add anything. :)

@MeganWegan
Can't find the post, but short answer: pick the fights that are worth winning, and self-care is really important. No point trying to be any kind of activist if you're too tired for the fight.

Deborah.
There's another spoon concept, of using a teaspoon to empty an ocean, of misogyny usually. A huge and impossible task for one person, but little bit by little bit, as feminists from all over the world work on a issue, each wielding a teaspoon, the ocean is lowered.

NB: I have found Christine Miserandino very approachable and there may well be a response from her updated to this page in the next few days... fingers and toes crossed :)

ARRRRRGH

2012-01-22T10:42:00.001+13:00

There's some interesting - and worrying - news regarding employment for women in Christchurch in the aftermath of the earthquake:

...research showed female employees were hit hardest by job losses after the February 22 earthquake.
A Ministry of Women's Affairs study found women accounted for 70 per cent of job losses in the city. Women made up 90 per cent of the 12,600 jobs lost in the retail and accommodation industries.
Meanwhile, just one in 10 of the 4500 construction jobs created in Christchurch last year were filled by women

Why this this interesting and worrying? Because of the effect on women? Because women are under-represented in growing industries? Because it may indicate that women are being discriminated against when it come to dismissals?

Ahaha no. No. It's because it's leading to a woman drought, silly.

A FUCKING WOMAN DROUGHT.

Oh, but wait, there's more. Not only are there less women for men to choose from, the quality of them has diminished, because women from university age to thirties are the first to leave. Not only that, "the girls stopped making as much effort with their appearance. They obviously didn't have to try as hard."

So nice to know we've got our priorities sorted.

Lurking.

2012-01-21T23:29:00.002+13:00

I used to read the Hand mirror and other feminist blogs on a semi-regular basis, without ever considering commenting. Then I read regularly. Then I made a few comments, most of which were bitch slapped into place by someone more informed, or evolved, or just more opinionated than me.
99% of the time, I was incorrect about something, or didn’t frame my point clearly enough for people to fully grasp what I was saying. Sometimes people just jumped on me because I was an unknown factor, and it is easier to assume that someone is deliberately wrong rather than just ignorant.
In spite of several moments where I stomped away from the keyboard in tears I continued. And now, I write for the hand mirror. It is still 50/50 whether I think it is worth it. The rapport of my fellow writers, regardless of whether we agree on points, is wonderful. I have met fabulous women in the real world who have changed my life for the better. Other days, I am in a tricky battle to maintain my own positivity while moderating.

I had coffee with a friend this morning who reminded me of all the lurkers out there. The people who read regularly, and irregularly. They talk about issues over coffee with friends, debate topics with family. They work in amazing jobs, and participate in developing amazing families. They may write themselves in other forums, or blogs.

I have no idea how many of you are out there but I wanted to say Hi, and thank you.

My friend this morning said that she wouldn’t be commenting on the hand mirror any time soon because it is too intimidating.
She was concerned about saying something wrong.
Not even a morally wrong concept, or a wrong understanding of someone else’s idea, but just simply WORDING it wrong. She didn’t want to be criticised or misunderstood, and it made me realise that not everyone bounces back stubbornly when smacked down.
There is a lot of talk about who is and isn’t a “101” space and I actually have no idea whether the hand mirror officially is or isn’t. I know my own personal blog, and anything I write always will be, because when I was new, and didn’t know what spoons were, or why the fuck strangers kept all caps-ing “PRIVILEGE” at me, my friend Julie was there for me to email and ask, on top of my google-fu, and other bloggers.
It really upset me to think that we are being robbed of a brilliant young woman’s opinion, ideas and thoughts. She contributes so much in her community, and yet we are missing out.

So how’s about we start here?
Any lurkers, feel free to say Hi, introduce yourself and talk about feministic things…
If anyone isn’t happy, I can pick this up in my own space.

NB: The usual moderating rules apply, so please use a consistent handle, even if you keep it an anonymous one.

So let's get this straight (or otherwise)

2012-01-21T19:15:00.002+13:00

This image has been floating round on my Facebook feed over the past few days, and it's not the first of it's kind. And I understand what people are reacting to, and that it's primarily a reaction to the hypocrisy of those who view same-sex marriage as a threat to their - generally unrealistic - ideals of mixed-sex marriage. But that doesn't make me comfortable with that; as a queer woman one thing I really have zero interest in doing is critiquing the validity of other people's relationships. Sure, some of the practices listed above may be unethical (and others I'd need more information to determine, which I don't care to seek out) but that makes them relationships with bad things going on in them, not non-relationships.

And yeah, it's tempting to turn around, when someone says that queers are destroying traditional marriage (which is, apparently, a bad thing) and list all those examples. But that means letting people who think there are valid and invalid relationships (and that same sex ones fall into the latter category) define the terms of the argument. And the next thing you know, we're falling over ourselves trying to prove why our relationships are valid - we've been together for twenty years, we're completely monogamous, we have three kids, we own a house, we celebrate a big family Christmas...

Our relationships may be all that, and they may be none of that. They're valid because we say they are. And I don't begrudge Britney her 55 hour marriage one fucking bit.

Rape by any other name

2012-01-20T18:30:00.000+13:00

Late last year, the Lady Garden’s Tallulah thoroughly fisked the idea that women talking about sex we like could be one of the reasons some men rape. She also made the compelling argument, again – because it seems it needs making repeatedly – that the negotiation of consent should be our primary benchmark for assessing whether sexual activities between adults are ethical or respectful, not whether or not we personally enjoy the kind of sex being discussed.

But surrounding the facebook discussion she focused on, and in many other online debates I’ve seen more recently, is the repeated idea that there is a clear difference between sex and rape. That we shouldn’t talk about forced sex, or coerced sex, or unwanted sex – because those things are not sex, they are rape. That women can tell the difference between sex and rape – and therefore I’m assuming by inference, men can too – because rape and consensual sex are qualitatively different experiences.

Clearly that’s true for some of us, and that’s wonderful. Wonderful to be able to draw clear distinctions around sex we want, and sexualised experiences we didn’t want, or were coerced into, or were forced into. Rapes.

But it’s simply not true for many of us, and herein lies the rub. In trying to separate off rape so cleanly, we are, I think, not counting experiences which not only in some cases meet legal thresholds for sexual violence, but in others meet ethical thresholds for sexual interactions which are not mutual, not enthusiastic and not respectful of both (or more) people’s desires and personhoods. And in not counting those experiences, we do those who survived them the enormous disservice of supporting rape culture because we’re leaving those experiences as “just sex”.

I get that’s not the intention of this nice, clear-cut distinction. And I truly celebrate that many of us feel able to draw such clear lines from our own experiences.

But let’s try some scenarios. Woman, man, together for years, parents. Great exploratory sex for the early part of their relationship. Consensual negotiation of group sex with other people. As the relationship goes on, male partner wants sex (in this case, vaginal intercourse) more often than female partner. He sulks if she doesn’t say yes. He will only do nice things for her if she says yes. He keeps pestering her until she says yes. He starts watching porn and asking her to try things she’s not interested in, because he tells her he’s not having sex enough and he needs to.

She loves him, and often likes having sex with him. By the time their relationship ends however, after this going on for more than a decade, he makes her skin crawl.

Or how about this? Two men, mutual attraction, playful date, go home together, begin kissing and playing, begin mutually undressing. One man realises he doesn’t feel ready to have sex (in this case, anal intercourse), but also realises if he tries to stop what’s happening, he might not be able to. Decides to allow intercourse because he says it was going to happen anyway. Goes home, never speaks to his date again, much to his date’s surprise.

Or what about this? Bi couple hanging out with another bi friend, longstanding friendships, whenever the three party together the couple repeatedly try to get the other person to be sexual with them – but only when they are all chemically enhanced.

In none of these three “real-life” scenarios are the people concerned calling what is happening rape. Outside observers might, particularly with the first two, and depending on outcome, possibly with the last one. But is this ok, to describe others’ experiences in terms they don’t use for themselves?

That’s why I use the phrases unwanted, coerced and forced sex, especially when I’m exploring with someone how they understand an experience. Because sometimes those phrases capture dynamics around how we enact sexual encounters we are participating in that are not captured by “rape” for the people concerned. They capture the fact that what we want in a sexual interaction can change over time (both in terms of repeated sexual encounters and in terms of a one-off experience). They capture the fact that in this world as it stands, gendered scripts can create completely different understandings of mutual experiences. Being masculine means you hunt and gather sex because you want it all the time and you know how to do it because you da man, and being feminine means you gate-keep sex because giving it up devalues you, and holding onto it makes you moral and worthwhile and pure, and besides you don’t really like it anyway, do you?

These scripts are enormously harmful of course, we all know that. Psychologist Nicola Gavey calls them the cultural scaffolding of rape when she pays attention to how often experiences of “just sex” actually meet legal thresholds for rape.

There’s two parts to challenging this. One is to sit with the ambiguity of people’s lived experiences – and unpack it experience by experience – rather than pretend that rape can always easily be distinguished from “just sex.”

The other is for those active in challenging sexual violence to continue to describe how most sexual violence happens – that we usually know the perpetrator, that it usually happens in our homes or the homes of the perpetrator not in dark alleyways, that people who are vulnerable are targeted, that it’s not usually “violent” in terms of other injuries, that no one has the right to do anything sexual to your body that you are not happy with – so we can continue to take rape culture apart, and enhance every person’s entitlement to joyful, respectful, fun sexual experiences.

there are plenty of better reasons than these

2012-01-18T11:00:00.002+13:00

i'm no fan of brian tamaki, not by a long shot. there are plenty of views he has put forward that really don't sit well with me. i don't like the way he runs his church or the way he lives his life. i don't think he should be getting government funds to set up his planned village (or whatever it is).

regardless of all of that, i don't believe these comments are appropriate:

... Pita Sharples made the comment about Government funding. Could I suggest tha the Rev Brian Tamaki make an application to all the Maori tribes receiving mega dollars from the Treaty settlements to enable him to fund this promised land that he would like to create and accept with open arms all the fallen sinners into his fold - mostly teenagers - to teach the way of the Destiny Church and put them on the right path to righteousness. Or does the reverend only accept paying parishioners who can afford to pay to belong to this church?

Also, Mrs Tamaki could start up her own woman's Institute [sic] within the confines of the new establishment and bring in all the young underage girls who are pregnant and teach them skills and parenting...

these words were penned by one ann ridley of thames, and published in the waikato times. note the attacks on treaty settlements, which pay out very little of the value of assets (mis)appropriated by settlers and lost to maori. there's no acknowledgement of any of the social services that are already being provided with the assistance of these funds. and on top of that, we have the lovely stereotyping of young people, as if plenty of the older generations aren't as disfunctional and destructive as the young.

that letter is immediately followed by this one by s gallop from cambridge:

On January 11, I took a quick look at the Maori news. Brian Tamaki wants the Government to pay for his new church settlement. Excuse me? Why does he have to go to the Government? He has a cheek.

... If he cannot raise the money for his church activities and buildings, he can hold his services in large tents or on a pa.

don't you just love that implication that mr tamaki is a "cheeky darky"? it seems to me that these people don't object to Government money going towards a church group, but they object to the fact that the church group is predominantly made up of brown people. after all, plenty of other religious groups get government funding, or get exemptions from taxation and rates. why so much fuss about this particular one?

it reminds of the fuss made by the waikato times last year when they had the full front page devoted to the fact that tainui holdings is not required to pay tax on its business income. it created all kinds of anger, but the same paper has consistently failed to do a similar front page spread on sanitarium which has been in the same position for many, many years.

there are plenty of grounds to criticise mr tamaki's quest for government funding, but the very thinly veiled racism and the clear double standards are completely inappropriate.

Deceit

2012-01-18T10:45:00.001+13:00

Fairfax NZ article 'Cross-dressing teen dupes friends for sex'

A 19-year-old British girl lived a double life, dressing up as a boy to dupe her friends into dating her.

Gemma Barker, from Middlesex, wore boy's clothes and gave herself three false identities so she could have sexual encounters with her 15- and 16-year-old friends, the Daily Mail reported.

Prosecutor Ruby Selva told the Guildford Crown Court Barker set up Facebook profiles for her different personas and had individual dress styles for them.

She completely fooled her friends and their families by posing as Aaron Lampard, Connor McCormack and Luke Jones.

It's very difficult to know exactly what's going on here, particularly given my low low low opinion of media reporting when it comes to anything relating to sexual violence OR gender identity.

There is no question that pretending to be someone else to someone known to you so they will engage in sexual activity with you is non-consensual and morally wrong.

And it is wrong whether you are male, female, both or neither, whether you use a male or a female or a gender neutral name, whether you wear male, female or gender neutral clothes.

The fact the article fixates on these isn't just irrelevant; it's downright dangerous. I have no idea as to the gender identity of the person in question - zie could be a cisgendered woman who enjoyed pretending to be male or a trans man, or any other of a number of possibilities. Irrespective, the way this has been reported on is dangerous.

Because we live in a world people murder trans* people for 'concealing' their assigned-at-birth gender from sexual partners - and feel justified in doing so. Where dressing in clothes that don't match your assigned-at-birth gender - because you identify with another gender, or you enjoy wearing those clothes, or anything in between - is seen as something for people to be wary of. Where social networking sites routinely shut down accounts for not using your "real" name or "real" gender or having multiple accounts (as I have known several people to do in the early stages of transition) - which may seem trivial, but if you're an isolated teenager, Facebook can literally be a lifesaver.

But it seems it's easier to play into bigoted ideas of gender trickery than it is to have a meaningful exploration of what consent means.

In the spirit of the week...

2012-01-17T22:31:00.001+13:00

This is what happens when I get over excited about an idea.
The words get jumbled in the frenzy of awesome.

enjoy the laugh...

Guestie: Of cupcakes and feminism

2012-01-16T10:14:00.001+13:00

Many thanks to Rachel Rayner for this guest post, resulting from a conversation we were having on twitter about just this very topic.

"Thank you all for coming to this very important feminist debate. We have a panel of female politicians, discussing very important women's issues before the upcoming election. And we made CUPCAKES!"

When did this happen? The cupcake, a symbol of the Sex In The City brand of feminism has been fully embraced by the more sincere, unshaven, blog-reading feminist public. What was once a delight, an excuse to eat calories (calories!) guilt free because it's a cupcake and you deserve it has become a mandatory part of any feminist event.

Part of this is simply good hospitality. Breaking bread with friends is truly a wonderful thing, and a cuppa tea and something sweet makes any event flow more smoothly. The problem is that cupcakes are a faff. They're more labour-intensive than asparagus rolls, and more difficult to transport than biscuits. They're not fairy-cakes, those simple, rock hard little things, smeared with icing and splattered with sprinkles: a cupcake is an immense wodge of cake, topped with a swirl of pastel icing. The icing is sickly sweet, the cake is bland and dry. The paper casing flakes off in skin-like clumps as the still apron-clad baker watches closely. Do you like it? It’s a new recipe. I bought the edible glitter specially.

Cupcakes are representative of privilege in ways that barely need explaining. Even the simplest recipes take hours to pull together, and assumes access to ingredients and money to buy them; some level of skill; tolerance to gluten; and an environment rich with mixing bowls, muffin tins and those little paper cases. While this is arguably a pretty low hurdle (thrifty recipes which don’t call for butter or eggs! No-fail cake mixes! Just buy some damn cupcakes and call it a day!), any privilege creates cliques and excludes those outside it.

There's sometimes a fine line between sincerity and irony. We can ironically embrace cupcakes and high heels and foofy skirts and all the rest - it's when heels become mandatory and cupcakes a chore that it's a problem. Spending hours and hours in the kitchen can be a delight, it’s true, but when cupcakes are baked not out of choice, but to meet the expectations of others, we’ve circled around to a place I thought we’d left behind.

It's the pervasiveness of cupcakes that irritates me. Your discourse is still valid without sprinkles. If baking is your thing, by all means, bake. It can be relaxing, meditative, and delicious baked goods are a wonderfully concrete way to express affection. But let’s leave behind cupcakes for cupcakes sake. Put the jug on, and open a packet of biscuits.

Street wankers

2012-01-11T11:42:00.012+13:00

Well happy new year everyone. Doesn't really feel like the end of the holidays to me yet even though I'm back at work, because I'm about to go dance in the sun at Kaikoura Roots. After which no doubt I'll be beyond compare as a wage slave. Really.

But I digress.

Fantastic series of posts at Stop Street Harassment which I'm only just now catching up with, and which complements nicely the fabulous work of the Wellington Young Feminist Collective in bringing Hollaback to Wellie.

Stop Street Harassment is:

a resource center where visitors can access lists of statistics, articles, films, and campaigns around street harassment as well as ideas for action to stop street harassment in their community.

Stop Street Harassment also provides people with a place to share their stories. International Anti-Street Harassment Week is one of Stop Street Harassment’s campaigns.

So the posts I enjoyed - post one details international successes in stopping street harassment, from new laws in Chile and Saudi Arabia to UN awards for Egyptian groups combating street harassment.

Post two lists new or expanded campaigns world-wide, including of course the extraordinary phenomena for 2011 that was Slutwalk.

Post three shares new creative initiatives focussing on street harassment - films, cartoons, posters, placards, and maybe my fave, the Catcaller Form from The Riot.

Post four are street harassment stories from people who stood up to harassers. Inspiring and fabulous, and brings me to my last feminist act for 2011.

Walking home after eating ripe strawberries in the spa in the local aquatic centre (read on, that's not the feminist act :-)), I notice a man with both hands down his pants sitting at my local bus stop, masturbating and leering at me as I walk past.

I sneer - which believe me, is quite fearsome - walk on for twenty metres, call the police, then follow him down the road when he starts to move so that when the police arrive, they can take a statement from me and deal with him. I did have to discuss the law with the police officer, but all in all, while not the loveliest way to wind down the year, far better than letting the guy get away with taking over my neighbourhood.

Let's hope 2012 has more lying in spa pools with strawberries, and less wankers in my street.

dealing with abuse

2012-01-10T14:51:00.003+13:00

a post on emotional abuse from an unexpected source. i agree with most of it, and many of the bits i don't agree with have been covered well in comments. i would hesitate to say that one form of abuse is actually worse than another (physical abuse can be pretty awful), but i'd really recommend going over to cactus kate's blog to have a read.

and funnily enough, as i was in the middle of reading this post, i was rung by a person who wants help to write a report to support a woman who is applying for residence under the victims of domestic violence category. some of the most vulnerable women in the country are those who are here without residency status of their own - their partner has a work permit or they have married/ entered into a relationship with a nz citizen or resident.

in the latter case the partner will threaten loss of support for her residency application if the woman tries to leave or tries to tell anyone about the abuse. he may also hold her passport to prevent her leaving the country. in other cases, because divorce is stigmatised in some cultures or because she has entered the relationship without the consent of her family, going back to her country of origin will be as abusive or dangerous to her as staying in this country. she feels completely trapped.

hence the domestic violence category for immigration, which was won through significant lobbying by some strong ethnic minority women in this country. it at least gives these women an option to leave and try to build a better life in nz for themselves and any children they might have. but even if they take that option, they have to survive with little support - they are often isolated from their communities by their abuser and possibly by a sense of shame. it's hard to survive when you don't have a circle of friends and family to call on, and when you are feeling a lack of self-confidence due the type of emotional abuse that cactus kate describes.

this is why i find that my involvement with shama (hamilton ethnic women's centre) is so important and valuable to me. at least there is a place to go where these women will find active support in dealing with agencies and the legal system, as well as programmes they can join to help them build up a social network.

i'm really hoping that this particular case goes well and leads to a happy outcome for this particular woman. none of the options are wonderful, but i think this is the best one for her. it does, ultimately, depend on the community around her to welcome her in and make her feel a part of it, regardless of her ethnicity or theirs.

i have given you my soul; leave me my name!

2012-01-08T15:08:00.003+13:00

[crossposted]

i've been inspired by annanonymous' post on naming to reflect on my own choices of names as a parent. she makes the point that:

The names which top the 2011 lists are indeed fairly middle class, and the trends in their popularity suggest that 'generic' is what parents are after: they're choosing names that don't stand out too much. There's actually a lot of comfort in conformity.

while this may be true of the western world, the opposite seems to be the case in the indian subcontinent (and particularly india & pakistan). of course i don't have research to back this up, only my own personal experience. but that experience strongly suggests that having a unique name is the over-riding factor for this group of parents. they will try to find a name that no-one has heard of.

i wonder if this is because families are generally so much larger there, so the likelihood of a name being used by cousins, nephews, neices, uncles, aunties, brothers and sisters for their own children are pretty high. since they don't want to have double-ups with relatively close relations, they try to find something unusual.

since there's such a variety of names anyway, based on the many languages and historical influences, no-one actually cares if a name is easy to spell. also, many naming traditions in the region don't include a "family" name - there isn't a common name that everyone in the same family has. so there isn't that sense of conformity that you might find in a western tradition.

which is not to say that there aren't rules. giving names is a very serious matter for muslims. there are quite a body of writing and thought around giving names to children. the name should be one that has historical significance - ie one that was held by a person of good quality who led an exemplary life. hence why the most popular boys name in the world is mohammad (in many spelling variations), though very few of them are actually called by that name. it just forms a part of their full name. as a side note, i've often wondered why christians in the english-speaking world don't use "jesus" as a name much more often. it seems to be used in the latino culture a lot more.

names should also have a good meaning and not be an embarassment to the child. in fact, it's seen as the right of a child that the parents should choose a decent and sensible name. so, even if names are chosen because they are unique or unusual, parents in the indian subcontinent do make an effort to ensure that it won't be a cause of ridicule. not that i believe anyone should be ridiculed because of their name, but i guess it's a protection of the diginity of the child.

a name is the most important part of a person's identity, but one that they initially don't get to choose. and while many do choose to change it in later life, most commonly married women in the west, that initial name does seem to form a part of who you are or how you are defined. there isn't really any other way to do it - children aren't able to make a decision about it until they are at least a few years old, and at that age are likely to make a decision they'll regret later in life. so one of the most important things about you is beyond your control, at least for quite a few years. and even then, changing a given name is likely to cause some hurt to the parents who took the time to choose it for you.

names are such a contentious issue - any post about changing names on marriage will often be attract the most comments on feminist websites. it's something that many of us intrinsically place a lot of value on. it's something about us that we want other people to get right. i think my name is pretty simple, being only 5 letters, but i keep a list of all the ways people manage to get my name wrong when i say it to them over the phone. it includes angie, angela, eugene, as well as some not so nice ones. and i make an effort to say it very slowly and carefully, because i know that as soon as people hear the first syllable, they stop listening and assume the rest. the fact that i have a very kiwi accent and they can't see i'm a woman of colour helps in their assumption that i have a traditional european name.

the pronunciation of such a simple name is also an issue. the average nz'er wants to say the first syllable with the same pronunciation as the word "an" as in "an apple", though the correct pronunciation is "un" as in "unforgettable". the second syllable comes out as "jim" even though it's quite clearly spelt "jum" and i take the trouble to say it that way. i certainly don't mind people who make a first attempt without having heard me say it getting it wrong. but it does bother me when i've said it for them, slowly and clearly, and they insist on saying it wrong. grrr.

as for my own children, i bucked the trend of unusual names to go for very traditional and common ones for my own children. in fact, i decided on the name for my first child when i was 15 years old, having read about the most famous historical figure to hold the name, and admiring her greatly.

it is apparently traditional in some cultures for the paternal grandparents to choose the name, or for the father to do it. i find this really difficult - my own position was that i was the one who had gone through all the pain and hardship of bearing and giving birth to this child, which should surely result in my having the right to choose the name. pretty one-sided i guess, but at the time, i felt really strongly about it and couldn't have borne the thought of someone else choosing a name for my babies.

Comment moderation on

2012-01-04T01:04:00.003+13:00

Just to let people know that we've got an attack of the trolls so comment moderation will go on over night. We'll take comments off moderation when people are around to keep an eye on things.

yet another blow to public service broadcasting

2012-01-03T22:30:00.002+13:00

if you have freeview or sky, you may have been a fan of the stratos channel. i started watching it when it was finally available on freeview. it's a channel that is for television what community access radio is for radio broadcasting. in other words, it's a way for minority communities to have access to media, and to put out views, information or other programming that is of interest to those communities, and often in a language other than english.

stratos is now off air:

We simply have not had the support we were seeking – despite a growing audience of more than one million and reaching the stage where AC Nielsen were able to include us in the TARPS audience ratings,” he says.

“It is hugely disappointing because New Zealand is a country where 25% of the population are new New Zealanders and providing a window to the world helps develop understanding in our communities.

“Stratos was founded on the principles of recognised public broadcasting. We could have also filled the gap the proposed closure of TVNZ7 will create, but after four years of proving ourselves, we are no closer to being given the opportunity...”

this marks the loss of a second public broadcasting channel, and yet another reduction of choice for free-to-air tv. but more than that, when mainstream channels have very little programming that reflects ethnic minorities, stratos was an opportunity to see people like us telling the stories we wanted to tell. asia downunder was one of the few programmes that presented such stories on a mainstream channel, and that too has also been shut down.

as a subsequent release from stratos points out:

If you want to do something more for us, please lobby your MPs and Ministers to get the Government to reconsider its current broadcasting policy of allowing (viewer-paid-for) monopolies to take hold of the New Zealand television landscape. All email addresses of current MPs are here.

[...]

This broadcast spectrum (such as the Freeview channels) is managed and controlled by a state-owned enterprise called Kordia, which is tasked with getting as much return on their assets as possible. The downside of this system is that there are no frequencies reserved for the type of public service or community or non-commercial television Stratos (and Triangle) want to provide. Under the old analogue system, Triangle has been able to provide its public service remit because its frequency was reserved for non-commercial regional TV. The switchover to digital does not have provision for that type of TV (unless one is able to purchase the frequency - a commercially improbability in Auckland for non-commercial stations), so the long term future of Triangle is also in doubt when analogue switch off happens in December 2013.

and that's what it's coming down to: the reduction of public broadcasting, step by step, until television is for and about those who have disposable income and can afford pay TV. yet another step to move away from community and into commercialism, because according to current government thinking, economic value is the only value that counts.

libra doesn't get it

2012-01-02T19:20:00.006+13:00

i'm sure you've seen the new libra ad? if not, try here where the comments are pointing out just exactly how bad it is. the first time i saw it, i wasn't really paying attention, so didn't see the end & didn't even know what it was advertising. but the second time, when i did pay attention, my initial reaction was along the lines of "stupid, gross, just so totally wrong wrong wrong".

i guess most of that reaction was informed by some of the eye-opening that has happened for me here over the last year. as is often the case, others have already made the salient points so i will point you to this piece at voxy which sums it up:

This ad in a grand feat of mulit-tasking manages to insult cisgender women by portraying them as competitive, bitchy and non-inclusive, as well as transgender women both by depicting a highly stereotypical drag queen and because, as my Twitter friend pointed out “I guess if you don’t bleed, you’re not a girl.”

By insinuating that if you use tampons you are somehow more of a female Libra is a perpetuating an outdated image of women. In mainstream media (or any media) this is not okay, especially as this ad seems deliberately designed to get a few cheap “laughs.”

and there is also this one, with some useful contact info at the bottom (though some of that is aussie-based). and this post from scar who shares how she feels about the matter (and i appreciate the point at the bottom, so am trying to be not all bleeding heart about this). if you're a twitter user, the hashtag is #transphobictampons, their facebook page is here and there's a petition here.

all inequality matters, mr hazeldine

2011-12-31T22:50:00.003+13:00

so, it's new years eve and i'm having a quiet night at home, totally not bothering to reflect on the year past or make any kind of resolutions i'll never keep, or even looking forward to the year ahead. just not even interested really. i have been following up the links on maia's awesome post just below and finding the discussions very interesting.

i have also been looking at various stuff people have been linking to, one of which is this piece in the herald by tim hazeldine about growing inequality. as a lefty, i'd say it's a much needed piece and i'm glad to see it's being run in a major newspaper. very happy that we are talking about this stuff, and heartened by the initial comments (i haven't read all of them though).

but then there is this bit:

So who should care about this? You'd think those on the political left would care, and they do complain, but it was their preoccupation with identity politics and the beneficiary society that left the gates open and undefended when the warriors of privilege roared in and purloined the booty.

what the F**K? i am so incredibly tired of this narrative, and we are seeing it thrown into so many pieces of writing lately. these little snide comments about identity politics and more snide comments about beneficiaries. and guess who are the types of people making these comments? it's not hard. it's the people who tend to be the most privileged in society, the people for whom identity has never been an issue, who haven't had to face marginalisation which often leads to poverty, simply because of their identity.

i don't even know what this "preoccupation with ... the beneficiary society" is supposed to mean. that we're trying to keep people on benefits? because, you know, the actions of every government over the last 2 decades has been to make it harder to get on a benefit, to make it harder to survive on a benefit, and to push people back into work as hard as they can. some did it in a softer way by creating employment programmes and investing in training and education. others have done by creating a culture whereby people have been denied information about their legal entitlements. yet others cut the basic benefit amount. there have been moves to prevent beneficiaries from moving to small towns. if there has been any "preoccupation" with the beneficiary society, it has been a constant attempt to punish beneficiaries for being on a benefit.

if that's what the writer means by this statement ie that we have wasted time trying to punish beneficiaries instead of putting more energy into dealing with inequality, then yes, that's a point i can agree with. but it's not clear from the way he has worded this sentence as to what exactly it does mean.

and the reason i'm suspicious about his meaning is the whole "preoccupation with identity politics". again, we are presented with a zero-sum argument: that you can either do identity politics or you can do class/inequality politics, but you can't do both. and that the latter has been ignored because of the former. which is such complete and utter bullsh*t. where is his evidence for the this statement?

because the evidence i've seen is quite the opposite. at the same time as we had paid parental leave, we also got working for families. the latter being an attempt to deal with income inequality. maybe not a sterling attempt, maybe a flawed attempt, but it was done and has had a huge impact. some of WFF applied to beneficiaries with children, though not all. i'm really glad that one of the labour party policies in the last election dealt specifically with the inequality there, by phasing in the full entitlement to all families regardless of employment status.

could more have been done by the 5th labour government regarding inequality? of course. i would have liked to see a lot more structural change, strengthening of labour laws and so on. but there was plenty done.

and what this writer fails to even acknowledge is that some the so-called identity politics is actually a means to reducing income inequality. i remember being present at some of the policy discussions in 2004 & 2005, particularly around women's issues. one of the major barriers faced by working women in lower socio-economic groups was access to childcare. the high costs of childcare were a barrier for women to get into employment and thereby improve the financial well-being of themselves and their families.

the ECE subsidies and greater investment into childcare was a way to reduce inequality - both for women as part of their identity as carers of children (and the majority of carers still tend to be women, though that is starting to change), but also as part of a class/inequality issue whereby poor women were kept from improving their situation because of a significant barrier.

similarly, the investment in settlement support for migrants and refugees is as much an issue about class/inequality as it is about identity. for this group, a lack of nz work experience and, for some, problems with language were (and continue to be) a barrier to employment. by investing in ESOL programmes, by having induction programmes and other courses that help settlement, the government was solving both an identity issue and a poverty/inequality issue.

it is not an effing either/or situation. and i'm frankly quite sick of privileged men (and a few women) telling those of us who have issues related to identity that our issues don't matter, or that they get in the way of some greater progress. it. is. cr*p. progress for us means progress for everyone. the whole country benefits when identity issues are resolved, and particularly resolved in a way that deals with income inequality as well.

so mr hazeldine, you have grossly missed the point here, and made an invalid assertion without any kind of proof. and i expect better. moreover, i think it's really important that everyone challenges this kind of increasingly prevalent narrative, which i sincerely hope doesn't infiltrate the labour party. it's the kind of narrative that pits groups of people against each other in a divisive, that is extremely productive for those who currently hold the majority of wealth and power in this country.

On Change and Accountability: A response to Clarisse Thorn

2011-12-28T23:41:00.002+13:00

Note for those who don't read Feministe. Clarisse Thorn posted an interview with Hugo Schwyzer. People objected to Hugo Schwyzer being given this space on a feminist blog as he had, among other things, tried to kill his girlfriend a decade ago. Clarisse Thorn responded by closing comments on the interview thread and writing a post called On Change and Accountability. This post is primarily in response to that last post of Clarisse's, which attempted to transfer the debate to a theoretical one about change and accountability. (Feministe has since offered this apology). This post will focus on the general not the particular - so you don't have to have followed all the links to understand it. If you want to follow the wider discussion La Lubu's post is my favourite (I also think there's been some good stuff on Tumblr, but I can never find stuff there).

*******

Dear Clarisse

Towards the end of your post On Change and Accountability you asked:

Have you thought about these questions in your own life? I don’t mean abstractly, as an intellectual exercise. Concretely, and with intention. What would you do if, tomorrow, you found out that your best friend was a rapist? Your lover? What would you do if your sibling came to you to confess a terrible crime? To request absolution? To request accountability?

Did you expect your readers to answer no? Sometime this year, it'll be a decade since a man tried to rape a woman in my house. They knew each other, and me, through left-wing political circles. Since then I've known more than ten left-wing men who used intimate violence against women. I've never been central to any collective response, all of which were ad hoc and some of which may have done more good than harm, or been particularly close to the men. I still have no idea on how to respond to intimate violence on the left in a positive way, but I do have quite a good idea of some of the ways individual and collective responses can do harm.

So yes, I have thought about your questions - my answers and my response to you is deeply intertwined in the experiences I've had, the conversations I've had about those experiences, and the reading I've done.* However, I am being a little bit more focused in my response than you were in your post. I am very suspicious of attempts to broaden discussions of intimate abuse and abuse of power, to a wider idea of bad things people have done. Men who use the power that our sexist and misogynist society gives them to hurt women generally find it easy to do so, and get a lot of support when they're challenged. I believe that that social context is important. I am going to focus this post on responses to men who abuse women, because that was the situation that triggered your post and it's what I have most experience with.

I will provide direct answers to your questions the end of the post. First, I want to outline the ways I disagree with the premise of your post, and why some parts of it I disagreed with so strongly that I felt driven to spend the last few days planning and writing this reply. You ask:

How can we create processes for accountability? Feminists often discuss crimes like partner violence and sexual assault. Our focus is on helping survivors of these crimes, just as it should be. I personally have been trained as a rape crisis counselor, and I have volunteered in that capacity (if you’re interested in feminist activism, then I really encourage you to look into doing the same). And the history of feminism includes convincing people to actually care about and recognize the trauma of rape: Rape Trauma Syndrome was first defined and discussed in the 1970s.

But perhaps because of our focus on helping and protecting survivors, I rarely see feminist discussions of how to deal with people who have committed crimes. In fact, I rarely see any discussions of how to deal with that, aside from sending people to jail. Let me just say that problems with the prison-industrial complex are their own thing—but even aside from those, the vast majority of rapes and assaults and other forms of gender-based violence go unprosecuted.

I think other people have already pointed out whose work you rendered invisible in this section, but I want to take it in a slightly different direction. Here you seem to suggest that responding to perpetrators and responding to survivors are two separate things and that feminists' focus on survivors has left little space for dealing with perpetrators. My experience has been that the best response to perpetrators have been more survivor centred, and the worst have been entirely perpetrator-centred. Why? Because abuse is about power and control - and centring perpetrators is giving them power and control.

A basic assumption of your in the post is that good responses to perpetrators need to be centred around perpetrators. You barely mention survivors in your post, let alone other people who may have been hurt by similar behaviour and have boundaries and triggers and want to keep themselves safe. Men who use the power society gave them to hurt women can do so because their experiences are centred in society. I think centring perpetrators makes it harder for them to change, not easier.

“Accountability teams” are one way I’ve heard of for dealing with this: whether support groups of perpetrators who share their experiences with making amends and changing their ways, or groups of friends who assist a perpetrator with those processes. I would like to see more and larger discussions about those teams, and more acknowledgement that change is possible.

'Accountability teams' sound great - but I'm pretty sceptical of them. When I've known support groups set up formally around perpetrators, they have become advocacy groups for those perpetrators. One man I know, who was part of 'support group' for a perpetrator rang up individual members of a collective who had decided that the perpetrator was not welcome in their space; he attempted to pressure each individual member, and ignored a woman who repeatedly stated "I'm not comfortable with this" and kept trying to pressure her. Likewise, I'm reasonably familiar with government funded programmes which act broadly like the perpetrator groups you describe above. From what I know of the research, they're not particularly effective, and there is some suggestion that they actually make people better abusers.

We live in a world with a profound level of ignorance about intimate abuse, and an awful lot of myths that many people believe. In my experience, perpetrators who don't want to change have found it easy to surround themselves with friends who support their worldview in some way. This makes sense - if you're someone who doesn't want to be abusive, you are likely to have among your friends people who will support you in meaningful ways, but if you don't want to change, then it's very easy to find people who will act as your apologists. Those who surround themselves with apologists will generally be happy with presenting themselves as trying to change - and use any support group to bolster that claim.

This doesn't mean that I don't believe in support for perpetrators who are genuinely trying to change. I just have known far more perpetrators who were trying to persuade people that they were genuinely trying to change, than those who have genuinely tried to change. And those who are not trying to change have tended to use systems that have been set up to punish women they have abused.

I can imagine a time, or a circumstance, when I would have been excited about 'accountability teams'. I think our disagreement there is just a sign about how many layers of abuse apologist bullshit I have found around every abusive man I have known. However, my disagreement to what you said next is more fundamental:

If we can’t create this kind of process, then how can we expect to create real change around these crimes? How can we expect perpetrators of violence to work on themselves if we can’t give them the space to work? Why should someone work for forgiveness if they know forgiveness can never come?

I want to untangle this, because there are a lot of different ideas here. First of all, when it comes to feminist blogs, there is no 'we', in fact when it comes to communities (which after all are informal sets of relationships with non-formalised power and decision making) there is no 'we'. There can be no 'we' without a collective decision making process - just a false 'we' people talking on behalf of others.

I agree that perpetrators need space and resources to change, but the biggest barrier to that is generally that they are surrounded by apologists and cultural narratives that justify their behaviour. Outsiders can't intentionally clear that away, they can only offer alternatives.

But what I really disagree with is the idea that abusive men should be working for forgiveness, let alone your conclusion that that means people need to forgive.

As others have pointed out forgiveness has a lot of religious overtones and baggage, it's a narrow way to frame responses to abusive men, that will only speak to particular people. However, even if I translate it to language that resonates more with me, rather than forgiveness I would talk about 'being OK with someone', I still think you are talking about deeply personal decisions and boundaries that people can only draw for themselves. For example, seven years ago I stayed silent, when a woman with black eyes told me it was an accident, even though I knew that wasn't true. I have realised, over the years, that I am never going to be OK with what I did. I also realised that that meant I was never going to be OK with this woman's boyfriend, because I'm not going to hold myself responsible for my inaction around abuse, longer than I'm going to hold the man who did it (who has changed more than most men I know who have committed intimate violence - although he has behaved in deeply problematic ways much more recently than seven years ago).

Perpetrators should not be working for forgiveness, because forgiveness is deeply personal. But more than that I'm incredibly wary of the idea that abusers should be working on stopping hurting people, for any kind of reward, including changing the way people think of them.

One group response I saw from a distance used their silence over a rapist (and were generally very good at silencing other people) to try and get him to attend an anti-sexual-violence programme. They held out that they would keep his abuse from going too public and got him to take certain steps. It was, obviously, a disaster - change is fucking difficult and people have to really want to do it. If you try and use leverage you have over someone to make them change (particularly someone manipulative, as most successful abusers are) then you are going to be unsuccessful.

An easy path back to everything being OK, is often what abusive men who don't take their abuse seriously (but don't necessarily deny it) - want. I've known an abusive man demand this, and punish the survivor because he didn't get it. He used all ll those subtle talking to friend of friends ways that it's so easy for abusers to punish survirors particularly if other people let them. One group I know set the simple requirement "you tell us when you think you are ready to come back" and never heard from two different men again. I think it's important not to offer short-cuts or a path to people being OK - learning to live with what you've done and other people's reaction to what you've done is a perpetrator's own messy work.

*********

However, none of that was why your post troubled me so much. You wrote it in response to people who were part of a feminist space and were outraged at the way you had centred in that space a man who had tried to murder his girlfriend. You were explicit both at feministe, and your place, that criticisms of that man bothered you, and shut that criticism down.

Then you wrote a post that is incredibly dismissive of people who disagree with you:

But I hope I can dim the flamewar into a lantern to illuminate issues that actually matter.

I believe that the politics of this situation are mostly a cheap distraction from truth and honor.

You go further, you go into some detail about why you think Hugo has changed and explicitly argue that your view of Hugo should be other's view of Hugo:

Other feminists have been angrily emailing me, Tweeting at me, etc with things like “FUCK YOU FOR PROTECTING THIS WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING.” But I have seen no evidence that Hugo hasn’t made an honest and sustained effort at recovery and accountability.

Your entire post reads, to me, like an argument that people who who don't agree with you about Hugo's transformation, or the relevance of Hugo's transformation about the way he has treated should not hold or express those views (partly because you don't spend much time trying to persuade people on either of these points). You are demanding a 'we' without a collective decision making process.

To explain why I think this is the most anti-feminist position that I have ever read on Feministe I have to tell a story.

In 2006, a man named Ira hit his girlfriend when they were breaking up (he did this in a supposedly radical social centre - he was not the first man to assault his girlfriend in that social centre). After they broke up the girlfriend (who I will call Anne for the purposes of the post, although that's not her name) named the abuse within the relationship. Ira had been emotionally, physically and sexually abusive.

Ira had many defenders, and responses to the abuse focused on him (in fact a lot of my caution about ideas like accountability teams, and my firmness that all responses have to be survivor centred come from this experience). He was exceptionally good at using mutual acquaintances (and there were many) to punish Anne. He never made amends with Anne, or anyone else. He did what most abusers who I've known who were seriously challenged do - he left town.

Apparently in this new place, he talked a good game. He admitted to some of what he'd done, and presented himself as a reformed man. He didn't need to make meaningful change, he just needed to present himself as someone who had done so.

In 2009, about three years after they broke up he was part of organising climate camp. This was supposed to bring people from all around the country to Wellington, where Anne was living. Anne wanted to go to the camp, but she did not want to be around him. She wrote to various people, including the safer spaces team, outlining the situation and asking if he could not come. She got nothing back but vagueness and an argument that they could not do anything because the camp did not exist yet.

One of the arguments of the safer spaces team, which included people who claimed that they were feminists, was that they had talked to Ira and were convinced that he had changed. They believed, or at least acted as if it was true, that it was their belief about him was important. They ignored the view of one of the people he had abused, and many other women who felt unsafe around him.

It got messy from there. Ira left, but only after a protest. A woman who had been part of protesting Ira's actions was kicked out of climate camp by the safer spaces committee for being 'abusive' because she yelled at a man for hugging her when she didn't want to be hugged. Ira got someone connected with Climate Camp to harass Anne - like I said he was good at getting mutual acquaintances to punish her.

The safer spaces committee had made it clear where they stood when they decided that it was their view on whether or not Ira had changed that mattered.

*********

Your post read to me as taking exactly the same position as the climate camp safer spaces committee. You appeared to be arguing that your view that Hugo Schwyzer was reformed, and that his reforming mattered was important. Why?

Everything about your post oozes pressure. When you argue: "Why should someone work for forgiveness if they know forgiveness can never come?" You are arguing that people should forgive abusive men, because it's necessary for them to change.

There is no space in your post for survivors. Either direct survivors of Hugo's actions, or survivors of similar violence. There is no space for people to draw their own boundaries around an abusive man. Indeed nothing appears to matter in your post except the perpetrator, and his path to forgiveness. There is no way of getting a unified response - of promising survivors' forgiveness - which doesn't involve asking or demanding that some people ignore their own boundaries.

There is nothing new or transformative in arguing that survivors and those who care about their abuse, should not have boundaries because other people believe that the man has changed. Just a month ago I was in a meeting where someone argued that as far as we knew Omar Hamed hadn't tried to rape anyone all year, and therefore it was divisive to argue that he should not be welcome at our political event.

I believe that part of being OK with an abusive man, has to be accepting that other people may not be OK and respecting their boundaries.

To pressure women to be OK, act OK, or pretend to be or act OK around a man who has been abusive towards woman, is a profoundly anti-feminist act. That pressure cannot be part of anything that is truly justice, or truly transformative.

*********

I don't have a generic answer about how I'd act if someone I cared about had raped someone. There are too many variables. Obviously if anyone came to me seeking absolution, I would tell them that is not something I can give. But, if I decided that I was OK continuing the relationship then I would tell him that he needed to respect people's boundaries around him, that some people would never be OK with him, and that he needed to find a way of being that wouldn't pressure other people and their boundaries (and he would have to be on board with that for me to continue the relationship). I would respect other people's boundaries around him, and try to ensure that I didn't put direct or indirect pressure on them.

I feel incredibly lucky, ten years down the track, that I have never had to respond to intimate violence from a man I cared about. But I have seen the harm that women do to survivors of violence in defence of men they care about. I've seen manipulative men get women to do their dirty work. I've seen the way 'he's changed' has been used by other women to pressure both direct survivors, and women who are uncomfortable with abusive men more generally. I hope I have learned enough to recognise those roles and refuse them.

Do we actually believe that people can change? If so, how do we want them to show us they’ve changed? Is absolution possible? Who decides the answers to these questions?

In reverse order, groups that have genuine collective decision making processes can make group answers to these questions. Otherwise the decisions can only be individual.

Absolution is a religious idea that is not compatible with liberation. Whatever we have done, we have done. Nothing and no-one can stop us from being the person who has done the worst actions we have taken.

Abusive men show me that they've changed when they stop hurting women and don't use intimediaries to do their dirty work. If an abusive man was OK with people talking about their abuse, was OK with people not being OK with it, and understood that responses to their abuse cannot be all about them, but about the people they hurt, then I'd probably be willing to believe that he'd changed.

And yes - I do think people can change. I think feminists have to believe in the possibility of abusive men changing otherwise there's no hope but a separatist commune.

But I won't stake anything on that belief, not anyone's safety, or comfort, or boundaries. I don't like the odds. Nobody knows how to stop someone from abusing their power, and most attempts to do so are failures (that's from friends who have worked in the field and reviewed the research).

I know this post sounds despairing. Believe me when I say none of the ways that abusive men I've known have responded to being challenged has given me any reason to hope.

But still I hope. And it is that hope that lead me to write this post. That hope that makes me believe that it is worth writing about my experiences and more and less harmful ways of dealing with abusive men.

In recognition that we are part of the same struggle,

Maia

* I haven't read the book The Revolution Starts at Home yet, but I have read the zine (warning that link is a pdf) and recommend it, even though as this post probably shows I am deeply unsure about any way forward. I should point out that one of the problems with the post I am responding to that other people have discussed is the way it renders invisible the work of WoC dealing with issues that you say feminists don't deal with.

best wishes

2011-12-24T16:28:00.003+13:00

well, it's the day before christmas and i'll definitely be taking a short break from blogging. it's not a religious celebration for us, but a welcome holiday time. the waikato times did a nice piece on the various ways people will be celebrating the day, which features yours truly as well. i thought it was great that they

this may well be a difficult time for many people. there are those who have to work through, and will be hopefully take time off another time of the year. there are those who are struggling to deal with a celebration without loved ones. there are those who have suffered from natural disasters, and some of them may be struggling to cope - particularly thinking of those in christchurch and nelson. there are those who aren't able to get to be with family and friends, and others who are but who will not find this an uplifting experience. there are those struggling with poverty and not able to put enough food on the table, let alone think about presents. and then there are those of you who will find the day turns out exactly as you wanted.

whatever shape the celebrations take for you, i wish you all the best. i want to thank those who take the time to read, and to comment. apologies if you've felt that moderation has been harsh or that the space has felt unwelcoming at times for you. we hope that overall the site has given you something of value.

to my fellow bloggers, thank you for sharing being part of the group and for sharing your thoughts. the depth of experience and the perspectives you bring have been really important to me. hope to get back into it in the new year.

but it's not even about us

2011-12-20T21:24:00.005+13:00

following on from a facebook discussion, i'm going to explain further why i really don't like this post from john pagani.

first a little context, if you don't want to click over. it's generally about the billboard by st matthew-in-the-city of the virgin mary holding a pregnancy test and looking, well, not overjoyed (mr edwards has an image if you want to see it). it's apparently what they do - put up something controversial to get people talking in a hells pizza kind of way, but not for economic gain and not quite in the same league of offensiveness.

at least not to me, but then i'm not christian so i accept that i might have a different perspective on it. some people did find it extremely offensive for their own reasons, which is fair enough. but they went a step too far and defaced the billboard, instead of using their right to freedom of expression to explain why they were unhappy about it via press release or to put up a billboard of another kind or to have a vocal protest outside the thing to which they could invite the media.

so what does any of this have to do with muslims? nothing, right? no muslim organisation or individual has publicly commented, nothing islamic is involved. it's two christian groups having a disagreement, which they are perfectly entitled to do. so you would think muslims could keep a low profile and stay well away from this one.

but no. mr richard boock decides, in his need to berate the catholic church (or at least the "fanatics among" them) for these acts, to bring muslims into the picture. it seems that the group doing the vandalising hasn't been condemned enough, and if they had been muslims they would have been condemned from all quarters. hence this group should be treated the same as muslim fanatics and be condemned from all quarters. or something. i think he's making that point more in relation to what they were saying (some apparently vitriolic stuff) than what they were doing (ie vandalising).

while it's a minor point in mr boock's piece, mr pagani picks up that little paragraph in his post and highlights it with the title. and i object. i object to the gratuitous use of muslims in this argument at all. it's not like we're starving for media attention. it's not like we need focus directed towards us on a matter that is completely and totally unrelated. it's not about us, so why do the authors need to make it about us?

and yes, i do get the point that they are, in their own way, trying to be nice about muslims by pointing out some unfair treatment. but really, this whole issue isn't about unfair treatment of muslims. it's about some people committing vandalism, then saying some things you disagree with. so stick to that topic - tell us why you disagree with what they did and what they said, but please don't use us muslims as a tool to drive your point home.

furthermore i really, sincerely don't think that muslims have been brought into these two pieces because the authors have a deep well of caring and concern about us. at least it doesn't come across that way. so i don't see that they should be getting some kind of brownie points for being all progressive and inclusive, when i don't think that's what they were trying to be. especially when mr pagani hasn't yet figured out (as was nicely pointed out on facebook) that people can't be islamic, they are muslim.

and yes, of course they are free to say what they want. but then i'm free to say i don't like it. that's how freedom of expression works. people have the right to take offence and to express why a certain thing offends them. (they don't have the right to go vandalising stuff, but that's a different issue.) it's up to others whether they want to take on board those issues or not.

Strange adventures in Christmas icing

2011-12-20T14:00:00.000+13:00

IMAGE: A group of chocolate cupcakes with white icing on top, then reindeer heads, with pretzels to each side of the head to represent antlers.

I'm not sure about mixing pretzels with the sweet sweet goodness of cupcakes... Has anyone tried it, or a similar arrangement?

christmas with Dolly and Kenny

2011-12-19T22:57:00.007+13:00

I bought my mother a Christmas present in February this year. Closing down of Real Groovy records, Dolly Parton and Kenny Roger's Christmas collection, on CD. Mum wore out her vinyl copy years ago, hellish hours of the grinning twosome singing saccharine drivel. Hours I'll never get back.

Anyway, my mother loves this album, so I buy it, and tell the salesperson why because I'm that pretentious, and I keep it for her, sitting on my dresser.

Until she's dying in hospital. I tell Mum what her christmas present is one afternoon when we're alone, because I want to give her the pleasure of receiving, even though we both know she won't get to unwrap it under the tree. She coughs and says "I'm not surprised that album is still being made, it's so good." I hope this is ironic, but I fear it was earnest.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We're doing christmas differently this year. Today's my last day at work, before being picked up by my father and brother to go across on the ferry and drive to Nelson - obviously we booked a while back - for a week.

We've never gone away as a family at christmas.

We're eating our christmas lunch out, at some posh place near Mapua, which has promised to cook me special vegetarian food since their menu is pure animal.

We've never not spent the day at home, cooking and eating and drinking and hanging out with friends and each other.

We've never not been with Mum.

Yet so much will be the same. I've made two of Mum's fudges and her strawberry ice cream. Dad's made Mum's christmas cake. My sister's made her biscuits and truffles. We will play board games and listen to Christmas carols. I'll give Dolly and Kenny to the whole family, and we'll have a laugh and, for some of us, probably a cry too. My brother and I will be the ones who cry.

So we'll have presents, and every one of us will cook something delicious for the others, and we'll play backyard cricket and compete over sudoku and Dad will pick at least one fight about politics per day, mostly with me, and my brother will obsess about the weather and my sister will read ten books and I will need to go off for a walk or do some yoga to stay sane (ish), even though I love my family.

In a way, this year is about our family now, and how we re-form together, since we're no longer the family we were this time last year, with my mother. I will miss her horribly, but I'm excited about the new stuff too, and looking forward to the familiar. I'm even kinda keen to hear Dolly and Kenny.

Just the once mind.

I hope everyone gets the chance to spend some time with people they love this christmas, and celebrate the time or enjoy some peace. Ciao for now.

Christmas conversations with Wriggly

2011-12-19T09:41:00.002+13:00

Saturday morning
Wriggly: Why aren't there any presents under our Christmas tree?
Me: What would you do if I put presents under the tree?
Wriggly: Unwrap them!
Me: That's why there aren't any presents under the tree.
Wriggly: *big grin*

Monday morning
Wriggly: Mummy look! *points at presents under the tree*
Me: What are those?
Wriggly: Presents!
Me: Who are they for?
Wriggly: Me!
Me: Not all of them.
Wriggly: Oh?
Me: Who is this one for?
Wriggly: Me!
Me: No.
Wriggly: Snuffly!
Me: No.
Wriggly: Daddy!
Me: No.
Wriggly: Mummy!
Me: No.
Wriggly: Um...
Me: Who else lives here?
Wriggly: Cat!
Me: That's right, it's for Cat.
Wriggly: Can I open it?
Me: Is it Christmas yet?
Wriggly: No.
Me: You can help her open it on Christmas Day though.
Wriggly: Ok.
*pause*
Wriggly: How come there are presents under the tree?
Me: Because we decided that you could help by being our Christmas Present Guard. It's your job to make sure that no one opens any of these presents until Christmas Day. Not you, not Snuffly, not Daddy, not Mummy, not Cat.
Wriggly: And not Neighbour!
Me: That's right.
Wriggly: And not Neighbour's Son!
Me: Errr, yes.
Wriggly: OK!!!!
Me: So you understand there will be no opening presents until Christmas Day?
Wriggly: YES!!!!!!
*pause*
Wriggly: Is that present for me?
Me: No, but this one is. *points to long cylinder-shaped present*
Wriggly: It's a green clock!!!
Me: Probably not.

I am curious to see how many presents remain intact when I return home this evening.

Auckland Sexual Abuse Help gets interim Govt funding

2011-12-16T15:22:00.000+13:00

Therefore tonight's rally is cancelled. Just in time! More info over the coming days, thanks to all for your excellent support.

Guest Post: Abortion as Society's Mirror

2011-12-16T04:00:00.000+13:00

Many thanks to Alison McCulloch for permission to cross-post her recent guest post at the ALRANZ blog, and my apologies for tardiness.

The discussion sparked by Richard Boock’s blog posts (“A Woman’s Right to Choose” and “Defending Your Right to An Opinion”) got me thinking about the how so many moral debates wind up with abortion as their end point. It’s not breaking news that societies tend to act out so many of their moral fears and panics by restricting sexual expression and reproductive rights. That they use contraception and abortion as tools to try to control what they fear or disapprove of. New Zealand has its own long history of doing this, be it trying to get white women to have children in order to avoid “race suicide” to keeping contraceptive information away from teenagers for fear of runaway teen sex – or something.

In a society that devalues certain groups, like those with Down syndrome or others who don’t fit a particular mold, as ours does, again we find the sharp end of the debate being focused on abortion. As if this, and so many other problems, could be solved if only women would stop having abortions for the “wrong” reasons.

The view of the 1977 Royal Commission report on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion, on which our current abortion laws are based, is stuffed full of moral fears and prejudices that quite neatly reflected 1970s society (and, I’d argue, 2011 society, too.) Here, I’ll just offer an excerpt that’s closely related to the issue at hand, from page 200 of the report.

(5) It is not immoral to terminate a pregnancy where the fetus is likely to be born with a severe physical or mental handicap, because the burden of the handicapped person to himself and to his parents may be greater than the sum total of their happiness.

(6) The termination of unborn life for reasons of social convenience is morally wrong.

One could make a good case that (6) and (5) are at odds, that the utilitarian rule used in (5) is completely bizarre and that the use of “fetus” in one case and “unborn life” in the other displays a clear agenda. But aside from all that, look at what this says about societal attitudes.

Then, as now, there’s a desire to condemn abortions that take place for “social convenience” (a nicely loaded phrase the Commission used frequently to conjure up images of women rushing off to the clinic because that pregnancy was going to interfere with their party plans). At the same time, the Commission gave a hearty thumbs up to aborting fetuses that were likely to be a “burden” because society did, and largely still does, both devalue the disabled and approve of such abortions

So the cry goes up: let’s clamp down on the abortions. Let’s ban abortions for X or Y reason to fix X or Y problem. Let’s ban abortions for reasons that we find offensive or trivial or discriminatory or “socially convenient”. That will resolve the difficulty and absolve us. Of course it won’t. Women’s choices cannot but be influenced by the society they live in, the pressures they face, the judgments made by those around them. In a society that devalues women and girls, there’s pressure to abort females, just as in this society, there’s pressure to abort fetuses with certain conditions.

The next step is to make abortion-seeking women (and those who support and facilitate their choice) the culprits for wider society’s perceived failings. It is she who is the root cause of a particular moral problem or a particular group’s being devalued if she has an abortion for the “wrong” reason. It is she who is the cause of promiscuity or moral decline or the breakdown of the family (which hasn’t actually broken down yet). It is she who is the cause of child abuse or our inability to fund superannuation. (A shout-out to Garth George on these last two.)

While we still live under laws that try to pick and choose who should and who should not be able to access abortion care, campaigns to ban abortion for X and Y reason, reflecting X and Y societal failing, will continue. Which is why abortion should be, as of right, up to the individual, its availability not contingent on your having a “worthy” reason, where that reason is dictated and enforced by the state. No, it won’t be a choice made in a vacuum, so campaigns to eliminate, or at least reduce, the kind of pressure to abort that some women say they’ve felt on receiving certain fetal diagnoses, are crucial. Just as important are efforts to stop dumping society’s short-comings at the door of pregnant women and calling them names for choosing to have an abortion.

Abortion restrictions should not be used as a tool to try to deal with wider problems – be they real or imaginary. The social goal might be just, but enforced pregnancy cannot be an answer.

Alison McCulloch is on the National Executive of ALRANZ. The opinions in this post are her own.

this won't fix it

2011-12-15T22:47:00.003+13:00

i'm sure plenty of people will have watched the campbell live story on the boy with buck teeth*. i didn't watch myself, but saw the ads both yesterday and today.

i know they're patting themselves on the back for a successful story and a very positive outcome for this child - the positive outcome being something along the lines of some kind of dental treatment to fix the problem. and sure, that's great for the child and it gives us all such a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling when we think about how generous we are as a nation in coming to the rescue of the this child.

the reason given for the surgery - at least the only reason i saw on the promos - was that the boy was being bullied and teased at school, and this surgery would stop that. i'd be interested to hear from anyone who's watched the show (i don't really feel that i can bear to watch at this point) whether they actually addressed the aspect of bullying and teasing? in other words, did the show make the point that bullying and teasing someone for their physical appearance is wrong, and needs to be addressed by the school and by the adults responsible for the children who interact with this boy?

because i'm feeling really uncomfortable with the notion that the answer to bullying and teasing is spending money to change your appearance. [as an aside, i make no judgement of people who choose to so spend their money, particularly in a culture such as the one we currently live in]. because that isn't the answer. the answer is to edcuate people in our society to be more accepting of physical difference - or emotional difference, or racial difference, or religious difference.

campbell live can't spend every episode highlighting a person suffering from bullying and asking for money so that they can change their appearance. there are so many, many kids and adults out there without the funds or the ability to change the way they are. if anything needs to change, it's the culture they live in, that we live in, where casual cruelty is seen by some people to be acceptable.

so while this sounds, on the face of it, to be a fairy tale - like the waving of a magic wand, this young boy's troubles will suddenly disappear - it doesn't deal with the actual problem. the actual problem is not the boy and his teeth. and there is absolutely no guarantee, once his teeth are "fixed"** that the bullying won't continue. once you're a marked person in the eyes of bullies, you often stay that way regardless of the changes you make. because the problem is not with you, it's with the bullies.

in any case, i wish this child well and hope his life gets better. i hope it wasn't too embarassing to have his "problem" publicised on national television, but i suspect he doesn't mind given that he can now have it fixed. and i really wish that this feeling of goodwill expressed by the nation would extend to all of those who live in poverty or with any other difficulty in their lives.

______________________________________________________

* is there a better way to say this? i really hate that phrase but it was the one the programme used and i can't think of an alternative at this time of night.

** i use the quote marks because i personally don't believe there is anything really wrong with them, unless they are causing some kind of health problem.

Call to Action: supporting Auckland Sexual Abuse Help

2011-12-15T21:18:00.000+13:00

Luddite Journo has written several excellent posts on the urgent funding plight of Auckland's 24/7 phoneline for those affected by sexual violence, run by Auckland Sexual Abuse Help. You can still sign the petition, currently over 5000 sigs in less than a week.

Tomorrow (Friday 16th December) those in Auckland have two chances to show your support for this absolutely vital service, and pressure the Government to come through with the vital money, as follows:

Crisis Cake Stall
WHEN: 11am, Friday 16th December
WHERE: Outside Nikki Kaye's electorate office, 82 College Hill, Freemans Bay.
WHO: Anyone really who wants to show support for the service, and the organisation in general. I'll be there, with Snuffly and cupcakes.
I'll add a link to the media release on this once it is up.

Public Rally
WHEN: 6.30pm, Friday 16th December
WHERE: QE2 Square, opposite the Britomart Train Station
WHO: All welcome, bring your ranty voices!
Facebook event with more info is here.

If you can only make one and are trying to pick then I recommend the evening event, as that's where numbers will be most important. Although, if the funding from Government is pledged before 6.30pm then it may be cancelled (in which case I'll try my best to put an update on the blog).

Funding cuts no HELP

2011-12-14T15:57:00.007+13:00

The potential loss of the 24 hour crisis line for sexual violence survivors run by Auckland Sexual Abuse Help has been all over the media this week, and the petition asking government to step in and save the service is steadily climbing - and you can still sign it.

I want to look at context here, specifically the context of the last few years and specialist funding for counselling for survivors of sexual violence from ACC.

In October 2009, ACC changed the way it funded counselling for survivors of sexual violence, introducing a number of constraints and barriers they called the "Clinical Pathway." This Pathway was essentially ripped up after a six month review by an independent review team, because it was causing harm without any "legislative or clinical reason." The review came back in September 2010.

This bolt-from-nowhere was introduced without consultation to a sector which we know from the "comprehensive road-map" was already struggling to meet community need. It led to survivors deciding not to even try to go through what ASAH called at the time an "outrageously inhumane" process to access help. It also meant the sexual violence intervention sector, including ASAH, had to mobilise to prove what we already knew - that appropriate, skilled, specialist support and counselling is critical to recovery after sexual violence for many survivors.

Recent information released from ACC under the Official Information Act demonstrates just how disastrous the Clinical Pathway has been - for both survivors and the dangerously underfunded specialist sector which tries to supports them on their way past surviving to thriving.

Numbers of clients dropping from the moment the new Pathway was introduced, continuing after ACC recognised the Pathway was inappropriate and were instructed to make changes to address the problems.

Maybe more relevant to what is happening now for ASAH - and for every agency working in the specialist sexual violence intervention sector - let's look at ACC funding for specialist counselling over the last few years:

Does this bear repeating? In 2009, the Report for the Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence said the sexual violence intervention sector needed "urgent and immediate" funding. In 2009, one of the most major funders of this specialist work began slashing funding to that very same sector, and the slashing hasn't stopped even after an independent review order.

So what will our new government do about it? Time to step up and use your mandate for good, Mr Key.

Phillip Cottrell and the stories we tell

2011-12-13T19:26:00.003+13:00

New Zealand, like anywhere else, has its grand narratives, the stories we tell ourselves about who we are and what coming from this place means.

These stories do not belong to everyone equally, because like all stories they are written from particular points of view, but they have power to both create and obscure social relationships in Aotearoa.

So there's lots of historical evidence colonisers coming to New Zealand post 1840 wanted to create a "better Britain" in which the rigid and vicious class hierarchy of England was absent, Pakeha and Maori would have the "best race relations in the world" and in the words of politician William Pember Reeves, women were able to vote for the first time in the world because “they simply asked for the vote, and we simply gave it to them.”

All of these stories are contested. Because simply believing you are more egalitarian, less racist and more valuing of equality for women does make these things true. In fact, it can make it even harder, for those of us living within the story of an equal society, to recognise discrimination.

This troubles me in the case of Phillip Cottrell, a man viciously attacked in the street in Wellington, who died in hospital this week. The Police don't know why he was attacked, who he was attacked by, or which weapon was used to kill him. In fact, the Police did not even realise he was gay until asked in a press conference if sexuality could be a factor.

Yet Detective Senior Sergeant Scott Miller can say, in a press statement doing the rounds of the queer community:

"We do not believe Mr Cottrell's sexual orientation was a factor in his death. Any member of the glbti community who has serious safety concerns or has any relevant information in relation to this investigation, should contact Wellington Police on (04) 381 2000 or phone Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111."

Was Phillip Cottrell attacked on a Wellington street because he was queer? I don't know, but it wouldn't be the first time in the city I love that a beautiful queer man was hurt, simply for looking like he loved men. When I talk with young people about sexual violence, queer men in Wellington report repeated experiences of being attacked in the street because they break masculinity rules.

The Police should not be ruling out hate crime yet. They should not be ruling out hate crime until they catch who killed Phillip Cottrell, and find out why. Telling us sexual orientation was not a motivator does not "allay the fears" of the queer community - it tells us the Police have decided to ignore sexuality before they know what happened - and, as importantly, it does nothing to honour the memory of Phillip Cottrell.

"beautification of mosques for women"

2011-12-13T10:30:00.000+13:00

baby steps, but steps nonetheless. it was nice to read this piece (via facebook) about turkey making mosques more women-friendly:

"This is about mosques being a space for women," declared Kadriye Avci Erdemli, Istanbul's deputy mufti, the city's second most powerful administrator of the Islamic faith. "When a woman enters a mosque, she is entering the house of God and she should experience the same sacred treatment. In front of God, men and women are equal; they have the same rights to practice their religion."

As part of the "Beautification of Mosques for Women" project, Erdemli sent 30 teams to visit all of Istanbul's mosques and report back on the facilities for women. What the teams found was shocking, she claimed. "Many of the mosques have no toilets for women, no place for women to wash before praying," Erdemli recounted. "Most of the places allocated for women were used as storage places, and those that weren't were usually filthy and freezing cold in winter."

Istanbul's mosques are now under strict instructions to clean up and provide equal facilities for both men and women by February 2012. But it's not only a push for cleanliness and improved sanitation that is underway. The way mosques are arranged is also being changed, according to Erdemli. "In most mosques, the women's area was divided by a curtain or a wall, and this is not fair," she elaborated. "They are sacred places and women have the right to take advantage of their spiritual feeling as well.

the thing is that originally, mosques were open to men and women alike, and there were no physical barriers at all. this idea of having curtains or walls separating the women is a more recent phenomenon - i don't know where it started or how it caught on, but it's against the spirit of the mosque.

mosques were social centres as much as they were places of worship. they were places where foreign delegations would visit and would stay, sometimes for months. they were places where physical contests such as wrestling or foot races were held. they were places of education, where lectures were given. the mosque was the hub of the community, and open to all people at all times.

it would actually be good to have a review of mosques in nz as well. they vary in the quality of space, but all bar one mosque does have space for women, and they have separate toilet and washing facilities for women as well. some have plenty of space as well as other rooms available for use, others have spaces that are just too cramped.

internationally, women's space in mosques tends to depend on geographic location. so in the indian subcontinent, women going to the mosque has traditionally been frowned on, and very few mosques will accommodate women. from what i hear, this is starting to change, particularly in the cities. malaysian and indonesian mosques, on the other hand, tend to all have women's spaces that are roomy and comfortable. and women from this part of the world are very used to being in the mosque.

the other thing about the very early mosques is that they were simple. the first one had a dirt floor and palm leaves for a roof. no fancy calligraphy, no expensive floor coverings or elaborate decorations. of course this reflected the state of the community, which was quite impoverished at the time, so couldn't afford more. but even so, i don't believe in pouring money into elaborate buildings, be they places of worship or something else. i think it's much more important to spend money on people - on ensuring that they are fed, clothed, housed and have opportunies for education and work.

i totally understand the desire for people to create beautiful places to aid in spiritual contemplation. i just disagree with it. the opportunity cost is too high, and in a world where people are dying of starvation and preventable diseases in such high numbers, i know i'd much rather have that money spent elsewhere, and let the spiritual reward of saving lives uplift us more than the aesthetic beauty of a building.

however, the turkish project is more than just beautification. it's about claiming women's spaces, and through that, their places in society. equality in the mosque will slowly lead to equality outside the mosque, so it's a good place to start.

The road-map to nowhere

2011-12-12T16:14:00.003+13:00

Once upon a time, the New Zealand government received from ministries and experts in the sexual violence intervention sector what then Justice Minister Simon Power called:

"the most comprehensive roadmap on sexual violence prevention and services that any New Zealand government has ever received. There are no quick-fix solutions when it comes to sexual violence and the Government is grateful for the guidance this report provides."

The Report for the Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence started life under the last Labour Government and revealed decades of under-funding of services for survivors, family/whanau, and those with sexually harmful behaviour.

The 2009 comprehensive roadmap called for "urgent and immediate" funding to ensure services in the community could continue, let alone develop. Did you know most crisis line services in Aotearoa are run by volunteers? And that many services have wait lists to see clients, just because there are not enough paid staff?

Most survivors cannot contain their needs to nine to five. Firstly because that's not when most rapes happen. And secondly because it's not when many survivors need to talk about flashbacks and terror, receive help to cope - that's at night, or on the weekend, or when something reminds them of what happened to them, or when they feel unsafe.

At the moment one of the many marvellous helplines open 24 hours a day, seven days a week for survivors to call is Auckland Sexual Abuse Help. They run the only helpline in Auckland (there are others in South Auckland) which can respond if someone is raped and needs help going to the Police or medical services.

While Refuge services in Auckland are cutting back their hours because they are too poorly funded, it's even worse at ASAH, which has been working with survivors for
29 years. In January 2012, unless some "urgent and immediate" funding materialises, ASAH will no longer be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

You can sign a petition asking the government to sort this out before Auckland survivors lose their only 24 hour resource. Or you could email the new Minister for Women's Affairs, Jo Goodhew, and the new Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, or how about the seasoned Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett.

Perhaps remind them of the comprehensive road-map, and the distance we still have to travel before our services responding to sexual violence are available to all who need them, whenever they need them. This will not be the only service closing, unless we start following that road-map pretty damn soon.

Open thread on new Cabinet announced today

2011-12-12T11:32:00.001+13:00

No time to write an actual post, but please do feel free to discuss it here. This is currently the only linkable thing that comes close to a list that I can find. If you come across a proper list please do share! UPDATE: Here it is in PDF on the National party website. I did look there earlier with no luck, shouldn't this kind of thing, as a Government announcement, go up at DPMC first/simultaneously??

Haven't done any numbers yet but looks to me like there is possibly a slight increase in the number of women - lost Georgina Te Heu Heu (retired), but gained Jo Goodhew and Amy Adams.

Also massive promotion for Hekia Parata, who now has Education and is ranked higher than Paula Bennett, but loses Women's Affairs, now gone to Cabinet newbie Jo Goodhew. Anne Tolley has been shifted from Education to Corrections and Police, while, in a problem for pro-choice peeps, Judith Collins gets Justice and ACC.

Further comment in comments (funny that) please!

Scarlet Road

2011-12-10T15:23:00.000+13:00

I have seen this trailer posted on tumblr and blogs a few times:

Scarlet Road Video from Paradigm Pictures on Vimeo.

Something about the way it was posted as an awesome exciting and sex positive feminist trailer bothered me, but I hadn't figured out just what it was. The post on Jezebel reminded me of the sort of comment that I've seen in a few places (and I expect nothing from Jezebel, but they're not the only people who have written about it like this).

A post on the The F-Word responded to Jezebel directly:

I then read in Jezebel about a sex worker who is awesome because she works with disabled clients, which apparently makes her intriguing.

And I started to wonder, what do you think of us? Of me? In these three stages, the mainstream, and the left-wing, tell me that I am inferior, and I am other. So very, very other.

I share Philippa's concern with the way people who celebrate this trailer present disabled people and their sexuality, and I want to unpack why I was so troubled by the many people who posed this with the idea that it was awesome, exciting and amazing.

********

At this movie's centre is a paradox. It's argument is that men with disability need to express their sexuality just like everyone else. However, the existence of the movie posits sex with people with disabilities as different. This trailer, and the people posting it, appear to believe that sex work with men with disabilities is in some important way different from other sex work. The Jezebel post described her as 'awesome' based on nothing but the trailer. None of this makes sense if you genuinely believe what the trailer is presenting as the central premise of the documentary.

Of course the reality is that disabled people are de-sexualised by society, there sexuality is denied, and the very limited idea of sex, sexuality and desire that is promoted in our society has no room for them. That's the social model of disability - disabled people's sexuality is not different because of their bodies, but because of how society responds to their bodies.

The paradox could be undone with media that centres the experiences of people with disabilities. A story which starts from them could show that there is nothing intrinsically different between disabled people's sexuality and non-disabled people's sexuality - but there is a profound difference in how their bodies and sexuality is treated.

However, by centring this documentary around an able-bodied women, all that happens is the paradox is reinforced, she is awesome because of what she does.

********

The trailer talks about 'people with disabilities' - but it portrays and focuses on men with disabilities. Obviously as a feminist I have a problem anytime that happens, but rendering women with disabilities invisible in this context reinforces damaging and pervasive ideas about women's sexuality and about disability.

This is not the first piece of media, which has discussed men with disabilities' sexuality and sex work in a way that makes women with disabilities invisible. I've been keeping an eye on these stories for at least ten years, and there is a pattern. Every so often some media outlet puts out a story about men with disabilities and sex work, often crass and offensive, sometimes in a faux 'it makes you think' kind of way about the welfare state's interaction with legal sex work. This trailer is less awful on those grounds - but it should also be seen as part of an existing tradition.

Why is the media always the same? Why is it unthinkable and unprintable that women with disabilities have sexual desire. To understand that we have to look at the intersection between dominant ideas about disability and dominant ideas about women's sexuality.

One of the most fundamental (and damaging) ideas in our existing understanding of sexuality is that men desire and women are desired. This is reflected in a lot of our language about sexuality (think about how the phrase 'sexy' is used by and about women) and the way sexuality is understood in public discourses.

An identical video where the genders which switched, would not have the same feel good response. Because viewers would assume that the women with disabilities portrayed wanted to be desired as well as have their desires met. In reality of course, most people want both to desire and to be desired. That people with disabilities might desire requires a much smaller change to our understanding of sexuality than that people of disabilities might be desirable.

Therefore the invisibility of women with disabilities in discussions about disability and sexuality, is about the sexual double standard and is based on accepting that women don't desire. But it is also about bounding and limiting the discussion of disability and sexuality to desire, not desirability, and cutting off the possibility that we might challenge our idea of desirability.

Ultimately it's a failure of imagination. When I say I believe another world is possible, I mean one where women desire and men are desired, and where disability is not constructed as antithetical to either.

how is that my fault exactly?

2011-12-09T11:30:00.003+13:00

one of the most common things i hear, which is the flipside to "this is MY country, so you have to do everything MY way", is the old "but in THEIR countries we're not allowed to do XYZ, so why should THEY get to do ABC here".

the most offensive thing about the second statement: is the pretty strong implication that nz can never be the country of someone who has chosen to live here. if someone talking to me starts a sentence with "but in your country (countries)", i'm very likely to interrupt them with "listen f**ckface, your next sentence better be about nz, because that's the ONLY country i belong to". well no, i won't say exactly that, it'll probably be a politer variant.

but there's a deeper injustice going on here. just because some random country has some horrific sh*t happening to some of its citizens is not a reason to deny me rights in this country. it's likely i've never been in that country, i certainly don't have voting rights in that country and it might be a country that doesn't even have democracy. it's also likely that i totally disagree with what's happening in that country in the same way that you do. in fact, it's also very likely that a good number of the population of said country also object to the stuff happening there, hence arab spring for example.

so given all of that, why should i be denied any of the rights available to any other citizen in nz, when i have absolutely no connection to nor responsibility for stuff that's happening somewhere else in the world? and yet you hear it on talkback radio, in letters to the editor, on facebook and most other forums you could name.

there's yet another layer of nastiness involved in this kind statement. lets say i do come from one of those countries where some particular human rights abuse is happening. aside from the fact that this may be exactly why i've chosen to leave that country, there's a strong element of revenge involved here. in other words, what the speaker is effectively saying is "some people i identify with are being treated badly in your country of origin. therefore, i seek revenge by at least denying you some basic rights in this country". it's a tit-for-tat type sentiment that is not only unjust, but is plain ugly.

it's without any kind of sense or logic, and yet adult people are using this argument all the time. i don't get how they can't immediately see the sheer stupidity of it.

Abortion, Eugenics, and Big Things like that

2011-12-09T11:11:00.001+13:00

I feel a bit icky criticising a pro-choice article in the local media; it's not like there's a lot of them and Richard Boock's written some good stuff lately. I have time for much of 'A Woman's Right to Choose'; not least the unashamed, no apologies, pro-choice stand. But this, this I struggle with:

But to compare pre-natal Down syndrome testing (and associated terminations) with eugenics only reminds us how bat-shit crazy so many of them are.

I doubt the motives of the anti-abortion groups at least as much as Boock does. But issues around pre-natal testing are things we should be discussing. I wouldn't compare them to eugenics (and if it's not clear, I support the right of a woman to have an abortion for any reason) but I also don't see any way we can have a clear discussion about this without referring to eugenics.

Abortion and disability is a really complicated subject. I'm far - oh so far - from having all the answers. But if we characterise such concerns - concerns which have very real importance - as the territory of "bat-shit crazy" (which probably wasn't the best wording under the circumstances) anti-choice advocates we're not only alienating people within or potentially supportive of, pro-choice networks, we're also avoiding an important discussion.

Getting serious about sexual violence

2011-12-08T22:05:00.003+13:00

The convicted rapist who moved next door to the woman he was imprisoned for raping seven years ago has been all over the news today.

He served a four year jail term for this offence. Last year, he served another year jail term for stealing another woman's underwear, ripping it, and returning it to her house. The judge who sentenced him for the second sexual offence called him a "high-risk recidivist offender". What this means is that it's unlikely he has accessed a full sexual offending programme while in prison, as these programmes have low - 5% in the last NZ study - recidivism rates.

What this also means, of course, is that a woman is now living next to a man who raped her. Apparently he can see into rooms of her house. She reported the rape, went to court, answered all the questions put to her, and took out a protection order to protect herself from him.

Most of the media coverage has focused on how awful it is that the law can do nothing.

Southern District police area commander Inspector Lane Todd confirmed that police had no legislative power to prevent Crofts from living next door to his victim unless he committed another offence.

This is absolute nonsense, and it infuriates me that the media has swallowed it. Let's look at the legislation, specifically the standard conditions for a protection order which state that the respondent (person the order is against) cannot:

watch, loiter near, or prevent or hinder access to or from, the protected person’s place of residence, business, employment, educational institution, or any other place that the protected person visits often;

And then there are the special conditions - which, if I was supporting this woman and this was what she wanted, I'd be going back to Family Court with her to access:

Where the court makes a protection order, it may impose any conditions that are reasonably necessary, in the opinion of the court, to protect the protected person from further domestic violence by the respondent, or the associated respondent, or both.

Living next door to the man who raped you, who knew you lived there when he chose his new home, is not a reasonable expectation in a country which takes sexual and domestic violence seriously. The Police have the tools to deal with this situation, and they are choosing not to use them. Yet again, the state is failing to protect survivors of sexual or domestic violence.

That's the real story here. Our legislation, in this instance, is fine. It's the failure of the state to implement our legislation which is the problem.

On Big Decisions and Hysterical Ladybrains

2011-12-06T21:53:00.001+13:00

Good friends of mine - I'll call them Hazel* and Catherine - are buying a house together. They're both women in their twenties; this is their first owned home and whilst they're not exactly poor, as the whole house buying thing would indicate, their incomes are sufficiently limited that they don't have a lot of choice.

Anyway, they have more or less completed a purchase; it's a doer upper, that will need significant work both inside and outside, and it's a commute out of the city, but it's both closer and more convenient to transport than most others in their price range, and it has the right number and configuration of rooms for their needs and whilst compromises have been made they're pretty happy about it. It's happened in a rush, and there is So Much To Do, but both of them seem excited, in amongst the terror.

But through the process, there have been Concerns. Doubts raised by people I shall amalgamate into the character of 'Concerned of Titahi Bay'**. Concerned of Titahi Bay thinks that the project they are taking on is too much work. Concerned of Titahi Bay thinks they should have bought in Kelburn or Petone or Mount Victoria or something (for those of you not familiar with Wellington, these are not remotely realistic places for them to buy a house on their budget). Concerned of Titahi Bay is very, very concerned that they are letting their hearts get in the way of their heads, that they are making emotional rather than rational decisions.

Hazel and Catherine are close friends, who have lived together a number of years. They are not in a sexual or romantic relationship, but this is not simply a matter of pooling resources for a few years in order to get on the property ladder before going their separate ways; they are a family and a household and intend to be so indefinitely.

Yup, you've guessed it. Concerned of Titahi Bay is very concerned. Have you thought, Concerned of Titahi Bay wants to know, of what's going to happen if you fall out! If one of you goes overseas! If one of you gets married! If you have different views on decisions about the property!

Yes, yes they have thought about that a lot. They've thought about what would happen if their lives took them in various directions. Or if they fell out. They're intelligent people, one of them has substantial legal knowledge. They've talked about this extensively, drawn up an agreement and each engaged a (separate) lawyer. These are sensible things to think about before making any major life decision, particularly one where your property is intertwined with that of someone else. It's sad - and infuriating - though, that had they been an engaged couple buying their first home, these issues may have come up but they likely wouldn't be at the forefront of people's minds.

They've also thought about the building work required. They've made provisional budgets and weighed the stress and time and money involved against the compromises - chiefly location - they would have to make if they bought another property within their budget. They've set a price range they can afford - not just in terms of the bank signing off, but someone that will reasonably fit into their day to day budget.

My partner and I bought a house about eighteen months ago. It's out of the city - significantly further out than Hazel and Catherine's new house. We don't have a car - aside from not being able to afford that and a house deposit at that time, I can't drive, primarily for disability reasons, and my partner chooses not to. I was shocked by the number of people who decide to tell me I was making a Very Bad Decision living where I do without a car. Leaving aside the limited amount of choice without making significant sacrifices in other areas, they were acting like I had never thought about this before. Like I didn't know that my life would be easier if I could drive. Like looking at transport options hadn't been top of our priority list. Like we hadn't been managing with public transport all our adult lives.

And then there's the whole emotional decision problem. Emotions are absolutely a valid part of any big life decision. They're not on the level of 'will attempting to meet the repayments be a recipe for bankruptcy', but if you're buying a house to live in, and you haven't thought about how you'll feel living in it, you're probably not going to end up that happy. It's not that advice isn't helpful. I've benefited a lot, when making Big Decisions (and I'm sure my friends have too) from people sharing stories, giving local or technical knowledge, or simply being a sounding board to talk things through with. But I wish people would do that with the assumption that the people they are talking to - even if they are women in their twenties! - are both intelligent people who are capable of thinking about the major issues and have priorities which may not be your own, but are no less legitimate for that.

I'll leave the last (edited) word to Hazel:

We've got the "you need to not make emotional decisions" thing from almost every guy we've talked to. Most of the women I've spoken to about house buying have (a) accepted that an emotional reaction to the place is totally okay and (b) assumed that we've, like, thought about that shit. I just really feel that if we were two dudes buying a fixer-upper in [suburb], the things we're getting told would be different and we wouldn't be being accused of having been MAKING STUPID DECISIONS BECAUSE OF OUR HYSTERICAL LADYBRAINS.

* I asked Hazel tonight what I should blog about and she ranted for a bit, and I said "so basically about you and your lifedrama". "Yes," she said. So here it is.

Adventures in icing yet again

2011-12-06T10:00:00.000+13:00

Van Gogh's Starry Starry Night recreated in icing across a rectangle of 24 cupcakes.

This absolutely astonished me.

The upsides of Minister John Banks

2011-12-05T19:17:00.001+13:00

This post contains sarcasm.

Now now lefties and assorted progressive types, John Banks becoming Minister of Regulatory Reform, for S mall Business, and Associate Minister for Education and Commerce isn't all bad.

You just need to stretch your thinking muscles a bit and I'm sure you can see the upsides of this dandy new arrangement that involves ACT and National agreeing to implement policy that wasn't in either of their election manifestos. Really, everyone is totally overreacting.

Sure Banks has a long history of homophobia, misogyny, racism and general all purpose bigotry, not to mention being of the Drowning Government in the Bathtub frame of mind, but he's just a man, man. Chillax.

Here's a list of the upsides to help you be as relaxed as our fabled Prime Minister:

Key will have another multimillionaire called John to drink tea with.
Adolf won't be the only person regularly using the third person to talk about themselves.
Everyone will be able to spell transmogrification.
John may be able to afford to buy another pair of glasses so we don't have to always look at those hipster ones that constantly remind me of Paul Goldsmith.
Banks will be too busy to put any serious time into re-building ACT, even if he wants to
He may have to duel with the Ministers for Medium and Large Business for Budget funding.
Banks will probably be in Auckland less, and when he is he'll be in meetings, lots and lots of meetings. So a significantly reduced chance of bumping into him in Newmarket.
At least he's not Minister of Corrections.
Or Minister of Pacific Island Affairs, Maori Affairs, Women's Affairs, or Local Government.
We'll now get lots of use for our Outrage Faces.

This was all I could think of. And I thought really really hard.

Feel free to add your contributions in comments.

Lazy

2011-12-04T22:36:00.000+13:00

There have been a few things that have inspired this post. I've really appreciated the voices emerging from the fat positive/size acceptance movement challenging the idea that anyone has any obligation to be healthy. Amongst others, there are some excellent posts on this is at The Fat Nutritionist and Raising My Boy Chick. But there is little equivalent of these when it comes to that other stereotype attached to fatness: laziness.

Then there's this image which has been going round on Facebook, which reads as follows:

IT’S PRETTY AMAZING THAT
OUR SOCIETY HAS REACHED A POINT
WHERE THE EFFORT NECESSARY TO

EXTRACT OIL FROM THE GROUND
SHIP IT TO A REFINERY
TURN IT INTO PLASTIC
SHAPE IT APPROPRIATELY
TRUCK IT TO A STORE
BUY IT AND BRING IT HOME

IS CONSIDERED TO BE LESS EFFORT THAN WHAT IT TAKES
TO JUST WASH THE SPOON WHEN YOU’RE DONE WITH IT.

(This image annoys me a lot).

There's personal experience also. I have a disability which makes certain tasks either extremely difficult or very slow. Particularly as a child, but sometimes still, I've been called lazy as a result of that. And on the flip side of that, I found some activities so incredibly easy that I could do them in half the time others did and spend half of that time staring in to space - and worried that I must be being incredibly lazy as a result. I have something of a terror of being seen as lazy, and at times have pushed myself to injury by taking on unsustainable amounts of work to avoid that.

And then there's the speculation on why the turnout at the election was so low. There have been a number of comments along the lines of "I don't mind people who make a conscious decision not to vote but I do when they're just too lazy."

When I started to think about laziness, I struggled to understand what exactly it was. It's something we talk about all the time, but none of the definitions I could find really made sense. Dictionary.com is probably as good a starting place as any:

lazy [ley-zee] Originla·zy [ley-zee] Show IPA adjective, -zi·er, -zi·est, verb, -zied, -zy·ing.adjective
1. averse or disinclined to work, activity, or exertion; indolent.
2. causing idleness or indolence: a hot, lazy afternoon.
3. slow-moving; sluggish: a lazy stream.
4. (of a livestock brand) placed on its side instead of upright.

I think we can safely ignore 4 for the purposes of this discussion. 2 and 3 (and I know these are not specifically applied to people, but the associations are still there) have real value judgements implicit in them. 3 is related to speed. There are a lot of values we attach to speed (remember that 'I want to punch slow moving people in the back of the head' facebook group). Speed of movement, speed of thought, speed of learning. Huge issues there when thinking about disability.

When it comes to 1, here's the definition of idleness (and I promise I won't spend all this post quoting dictionary.com:

idleness[ahyd-l] Origini·dle [ahyd-l] Show IPA adjective, i·dler, i·dlest, verb i·dled, i·dling, nounadjective
1. not working or active; unemployed; doing nothing: idle workers.
2. not spent or filled with activity: idle hours.
3. not in use or operation; not kept busy: idle machinery.
4. habitually doing nothing or avoiding work; lazy.
5. of no real worth, importance, or significance: idle talk.

Everything there screams judgements on the value of work or activity. And we've all heard those before. Women's work vs men's work. Paid work vs unpaid work. Paid work vs unpaid work vs non work activities. Etc.

I think the first definition of lazy is the most interesting. It refers to not wanting to work, the favourite trope of beneficiary bashers everywhere. But if the definition of work is relatively complicated, that of activity is even more so. Not to be facetious, but what is not an activity? Watching television is as much an activity as running a marathon but only one of those activities would led the participant to accusations of laziness. So the way I'm looking at this is in terms of allocation of resources (and yes, I do find it deeply ironic that the image I posted referred to spoons). Laziness is a value judgement on how we, usually as individuals, allocate our personal resources.

The image I posted earlier, the one that berates people for not washing the spoons? Think for a minute about what types of work are involved in washing a metal spoons versus manufacturing a plastic spoon. One is individual, the other is part of a process involving many people, which theoretically allows for types of work to be allocated according to people's abilities, for predictable shifts, sick leave. It may not in practice, but the idea is not alien. Washing a spoon isn't a big deal - unless turning on taps is painful or impossible. If you take lunch to eat outside the home and there are no washing facilities, it should be easy to take it home and wash it. If you don't have memory impairments that mean chances are the remaining yoghurt on it will end up going mouldy in your bag. If you have a car to put it in rather than cart it round with you all day, that makes things easier. If you can afford a dishwasher, that makes things easier. If you are responsible for a number of people, you're going to have more spoons to wash. And it's not going to be just spoons - the same extends to plates and forks and cups.

So there are two things going on here. One is presenting washing a spoon as an activity which takes a universally equal and minimal amount of effort, rather than a task that can be difficult or impossible or cause a whole series of problems, depending on the individual and their resources. The other is to compare two ideas of work: one linked with individual unpaid labour in the home; the other paid employment in often traditionally male occupations. The former is a trivial activity; the latter hard and excessive work.

Voting is an allocation of resources also. I think in this country voting, for most people, uses less resources than it does in most others, and I'm happy about that. But it still requires resources, mental and physical. To complain about someone not voting, you're claiming the right to a say in how they allocate their personal resources. And that may well be in ignorance about factors which either cause them to have less personal resources, or to have more demands on those resources. I know people are frustrated about the result of the election, and see - rightly or wrongly - a low turnout as partly responsible. But if increasing the turnout is a primary goal for you, berating individuals is not the way to do it.

Of course, as I indicated at the beginning of this post, laziness is implicitly linked to fat. 'Fat and lazy' is such an automatic phrase I had to stop and think about why they are associated. Of course, there's the obvious belief that lack of physical activity causes fatness - or fatness causes lack of activity - or... oh dear god people, please make up your minds. In any case, it comes back to the privileging of one activity (physical exercise) over others. But there's more to it than that. By being fat, there's an implied judgement that you have allocated resources incorrectly - you have consumed too much and you have worked too little. Accusations of laziness are simply the next strand of that. Your allocation of resources is a moral failing on your part.

We all have things we should do. But that is not the same as giving some activities inherent moral worth (as opposed to moral value attached to what happens as a result of these, which is a different question entirely) over others nor is it demanding a certain level of exertion, physical or intellectual, for a person to be considered worthy or 'not lazy'. I think judgements such as these are very common in activist groups - I'm sure I've made them myself and I've certainly had them made against me. But laziness is, when it comes down to it, full of implied fatphobia and makes - often heavily gendered - statements about what work is and isn't valued, something I've had more than enough of.

Carnival time!

2011-12-04T21:42:00.001+13:00

Every month I am astonished by the continuing awesomeness of the Down Under Feminist Carnival - now in it's 43rd edition.

Many thanks to Deborah for collating this time around.

Make with the clicky!

why not?

2011-12-03T22:48:00.003+13:00

"shouldn't be pandering to minorities"

i can't count the number of times i've heard that phrase, and it still makes me sick. let's deconstruct it. what it actually means is that a party shouldn't devise policy and have messages that appeal to minority groups. because minority groups aren't important. they don't count. if you're going to try to appeal to them at all, do it very quietly. so quietly that everyone else can pretend they don't exist and know that they don't matter. their concerns don't matter. their lived experiences and needs don't matter.

if they have needs, nobody should have to hear about them and no-one should be advocating for them. no policies should be implemented that benefit minority groups, because that is clearly "pandering".

more than that, the phrase is used every single time someone from a minority group is selected for a significant position. they can't possibly be selected for their talents and abilities. they can't have been chosen by a process that is genuinely able to look past minority characteristics at actual ability.

and what if it's true that a person has been selected specifically to appeal to a minority group? i really can't see what's wrong with that. minority groups deserved to be courted and appealed as much as majority group. why don't they? and why should the majority be offended by that? it's not a zero-sum game. it's not like addressing the needs of minority groups is going to lead to less for the majority. it is almost certain that policies benefitting minority groups will benefit the whole, particularly in the long term.

seriously, who is going to suffer if maori life expectancy begins to equal that of pakeha? who is going to miss out if women get paid the same as men? no-one at all. but any moves to iron out inequality is "pandering", even though that inequality is causing unneccessary and unfair distress to a significant number of people.

frankly, i'm sick of it. sick of the phrase and the ideas that underpin it.

If you like it, then you should put a thing on it

2011-12-03T09:12:00.002+13:00

This is just brilliant, starts my weekend off with a big grin:

Could just about be Family Planning’s new contraceptive slogan I reckon.

Support locked-out CMP workers

2011-12-02T15:25:00.001+13:00

111 Meat workers are still locked-out from the jobs at in Rangitikei. They've been more than six weeks without wages and they need support.

This Saturday is a national day of fund-raising and action in support of the locked-out workers. McDonalds are being targetted, as they are one of the primary customers of the company. There are events organised all over the country Saturday 2 December:

Whangarei
---------------------------------------
10:00: McDonalds Whangarei, Bank Street – Mehau, mehow@riseup.net, 0226894509

West Auckland
---------------------------------------
10:00: McDonalds Lincoln Rd, CNR Lincoln Rd & Moselle Ave, Carol Gilmour, CarolG@nzno.org.nz, 0274 827 030

Central Auckland
---------------------------------------
11:00: McDonalds Grey Lynn, 102-112 Great North Road - Louisa Jones, louisa.jones@epmu.org.nz, 027 590 0071

Hamilton
---------------------------------------
12:00: McDonalds Five cross roads, 231 Peach Grove Road - Jared Philips, jared@unite.org.nz, 029-494-9863

Tauranga
---------------------------------------
12:00: McDonalds Tauranga at CNR 11th Ave & Cameron Road - Jill Kerr, 021 626 094

New Plymouth
---------------------------------------
11:00: McDonalds New Plymouth on Cnr Eliott and Leach Sts – Sam Jones, sam.jones@sfwu.org.nz, 0275448563 (pls txt)

Manawatu
---------------------------------------
11:00: McDonalds Palmerston North, Cnr Rangitikei & Featherston Sts - Simon Oosterman, cmplockout@nzctu.org.nz, 021 885 410

1:00: McDonalds Bulls, 95 Bridge St, Bulls – Wayne Ruscoe, wayne.ruscoe@epmu.org.nz, 0275910056

1:00: McDonalds Feilding, 78 Kimbolton Rd – Joceyln Pratt, jocelynp@nzdwu.org.nz, 021 551 991

1:00: McDonalds Levin, Cnr Stanley & Oxford Sts – Simon Oosterman, cmplockout@nzctu.org.nz, 021 885 410

1:00: McDonalds Wanganui, 314 Victoria Street – Terangi Wroe - 0220165199

Hutt Valley
---------------------------------------
11:00: McDonalds Petone, 29 Victoria Street - Toby Boraman, ffyddless@yahoo.co.nz

Wellington
---------------------------------------
12:00: McDonalds Manners Mall, 55 Manners Street, Tali Williams, tali.williams@gmail.com, 021 204 4087

Greymouth
---------------------------------------
11:00 - McDonalds Greymouth, 57 Tainui Street – Garth Elliot, garth.elliot@epmu.org.nz - 0275900084

Christchurch
---------------------------------------
10:00 – Banner making at Occupy Corner.
11:00: McDonalds Riccarton, CNR Riccarton Rd & Matipo St, Riccarton - Matt Jones, matthew@unite.org.nz, 029 201 3837

Dunedin
---------------------------------------
10:00: McDonalds George St Dunedin, 232 George Street - Malcolm Deans, mdeans@gardener.com, 0210566593

Invercargill
---------------------------------------
Dylan would like to attend a protest if someone can help him organise it: dylan_dogg@hotmail.com.

If you can't attend then donate some money (info on donating here) If employers discover they can starve workers into accepting wages 25% wage cuts then who is next?

in support of nanaia

2011-12-01T22:38:00.005+13:00

so the big thing for labour party members over the next couple of weeks is the caucus leadership vote. it's certainly been getting a lot of media coverage, and that can only be a good thing. i've just watched the closeup thing online, with the three davids & i thought they all did really well.

being a labour party member, i can say that i "know" at least two of these davids reasonably well, having interacted with them regarding policy as well as at various labour party events. that would be davids parker and cunliffe. i've met shearer once i think, and can't say i know anything much about him at all, other than what's in the public sphere. i did some door-knocking to support his campaign and to get out the vote when the mt albert by-election was on, but was too busy on the days i was in auckland to be able to have a chat.

it now turns out that david parker has pulled out and again i see that as a good thing. i think mr parker is hugely talented and extremely intelligent. he's certainly an extremely valuable member of the labour caucus, and a great debater. in fact, the last interaction i had with him involved a rip-roaring debate on the burqa at the event to launch nz book month. the fact that i don't see him as being the leader of the party is more based on gut-feeling than anything else.

david cunliffe is also hugely intelligent, hugely talented and also very sharp. i think he'd make an excellent leader. arrogant? i haven't personally found him to be so. in fact i've found him to be very easy-going and friendly, reasonably open and good at getting things done. he's also an excellent debater and performs really well in the house. i think he'd make a really good leader.

about mr shearer, i couldn't say one way or the other, at least not based on personal experience. when i look at the kinds of people who are currently supporting him, including lew & danyl, i have to say i'm not particularly impressed. the thing is that the people who are supporting him now will be the first people to rip into him as soon as he actually is leader (if he wins), which is why i'm not really prepared to place much value on what they're saying. still, i'm not likely to be influenced against him because of that lot, any more than i would be influenced towards. he might well make a good leader - i just don't know him well enough to make that call.

grant robertson is another MP who i have a lot of time for. he's so thoroughly decent, capable & also highly intelligent. i've worked with him on a pretty thorny issue as well as co-chaired with him on a committee, and found him really easy to work with. i've also found him to be extremely principled. he hasn't put himself forward this time around - at least not yet.

but it needs to be said - these are all white men. very capable white me to be sure, but it's still a pity that there aren't any women in the race for the leadership. that's a problem that the party needs to be concerned about - the development and promotion of it's very capable women MPs.

the only woman we've seen mentioned at all is nanaia mahuta, who will be deputy leader if mr cunliffe is successful. now i do know nanaia reasonably well, seeing as hauraki-waikato is in our region and i come across her pretty often. i think she's an excellent choice. she has experience and she's extremely capable. she's been a minister and performed well in that role (i dealt with her both as minister of customs and minister of youth affairs, and found her to be helpful and willing to listen). she was on labour's front bench. she's also great in the house. i saw her in action in her local community at the funeral of te arikinui dame te atairangikaahu. she was seemed to be managing affairs and working extremely hard.

nanaia has had a low profile in the last couple of years and that's by choice. she had suffered the loss of a baby in 2008, but carried on to fight the 2008 election and retain her seat. she had taken the risk of not being on the party list in 2008, so that she could have a clear mandate from her electorate. that she got, even though the maori party had taken all but one of the other maori seats, that of parkura horomia. since then, she has given birth to a lovely baby boy, and it's not surprising that she didn't want the pressure of the front bench just after giving birth.

she's retained her seat again in 2011 with a bigger majority. she's now ready to take up the role of deputy leader, and when it comes to merit, she has plenty of it. she's another person who is full of integrity, she's not afraid to speak out, and she has won some real gains for her constituents. aside from the fact that i would naturally be really happy to see a woman of colour in such a position, i can also say that i'd be really happy to see this particular person in the position. she fully deserves it and i'm sure will do really well if she were to get the job.

so at the moment, the one thing swinging me towards supporting mr cunliffe is that he has chosen nanaia to be his deputy. it's both a brave and a smart choice. brave particularly given the way that minorities are open to attack just for being part of a minority group. smart because he's chosen someone who really is capable of doing the job well. it's also good in terms of appealing to both women and maori voters. and if there's one thing no-one has been talking about, it's the importance of labour winning back the women's vote. simply picking nanaia won't do it, but once nanaia gets into her stride, backed by a strong labour women's caucus, i think it can be done.

But they do such good work...

2011-12-01T16:12:00.001+13:00

Today I'll just be the grumpy feminist, sitting over here in the corner complaining about charity at Christmastime. How many times have you heard this:

"Oh, I obviously don't like a lot of the things [Charity] stands for, but, you know, they do such good work..."

The idea of good work and of charity generally, is fraught with issues as well, but there's something more specific happening here. There's a division presented between the practical, on the ground, real charity stuff - soup kitchens, emergency accommodation, addiction treatment or whatever. That's concrete and real. The other stuff - homophobia, transphobia, ableism, misogyny etc - that's not nice, but it's purely theoretical and we really should be focused on the important things here. It's not like it makes any difference in practice...

...except it does. Even when charity provisions don't actively discriminate - and sometimes they do, with horrendous consequences - you can be sure that there will be a lot of people who don't feel safe using their services. The people who are discriminated against are both more likely to be in the groups that need services provided by charities, and likely to be in a more difficult situation than many others needing those services.

It's also not the case - as some people assume - that the choice is between having, say, a homeless shelter which isn't accessible to everyone, or no shelter at all. Such services are often partially government funded - the need for them is already recognised; it's simply a case of who the contract goes to. And I like to think that as a society we do see the need for solutions - or at least ambulances at bottoms of cliffs - to these issues, even if not as much or as soon as I'd like.

This isn't a division between real physically tangible things or some fluffy abstract principle. This is about whether kids who can no longer live safely at home get to sleep in appropriate accommodation or on the streets. It's about whether people are able to eat in an environment in which they feel safe, or have to weigh that up versus going hungry. It's about whether people abused by carers have a way out or whether the abuse of them is reinforced. It's about whether can access free counseling that is appropriate to them, or whether they get increasingly and more dangerously desperate. The identities of the people who need them don't make that food or that roof any less concrete, any less needed.

You may or may not have the ability or inclination to donate money. You may feel that it is better going to places that aren't charities in the usual sense of the word (a reminder that CMP meatworkers are still locked out). But if you do chose to make a charitable donation, please make sure that it is to a group that is genuinely in line with your beliefs, and not pushing us two steps backward for every one they take forwards.

Thinking of the children (and the rest of us)

2011-11-30T22:24:00.001+13:00

An acquaintance, someone I once knew well but have largely drifted apart from, posts about her son's screaming in response to various stimuli. She doesn't know why it happens, she says, but it's wearing her down and she doesn't know how to manage it. She's a parent in need of more support than she's getting, like many are. You'd have to be a parent to understand, she says.

My fingers hover over the comment box. I'm pretty sure I know exactly why her son is reacting why he does. I have some educated guesses on things that would make life easier for him - but they start from a different philosophical viewpoint to that she appears to hold. You'd have to be a parent to understand. I click away.

Another time - and really this isn't one time, it's hundreds - I look for advice online on how to do things in a way that accommodates my needs. How to learn to drive. How to arrange meals in a way that works for me. How to survive the commute when people insist on playing music audible over their headphones. I mostly get strategies for helping one's child through primary school. Once I try looking to see if tiredness is a probably cause for an increase in impairment I noticed at a particular time; instead I find posts from parents complaining how tired they are of their child's disability.

I get frustrated by it. The various frustrations subside into one. There's an unspoken assumption that it is the needs of our parents only that matter, and when we cease to be their problem those needs disappear also, or that our needs disappear at age 18* because people fail to acknowledge that just like anyone else we change and grow up and find better ways of interacting with the world, and thus see any changes as a cure. Where less autonomy was a horrible thing - and it was for me - being thought of as a child instills fear. And then there's a feeling of looking at children who are very like you were, and watching the same mistakes being made over again, and you know that it generally has little to do with individuals and far more to do with a society but you're really not sure how to express that to an already stressed out parent.

Then I start thinking elsewhere. And I think of what we do in the queer community. Queerness isn't generally equated to childhood - the opposite in fact, with may queer kids being told they are far too young to understand their identity. And whilst some people do feel the need to be wary of interacting with young people, there are more of us who can't see a kid in school uniform smiling in a queer friendly space without feeling teary.

So when we see marginalised kids in our community but aren't afraid of being considered children ourselves, what do we do? We send books to them or to their schools. We offer them sofas to sleep on. We lend them money or help them navigate hellish systems to claim entitlements. We educate them about safe sex because mostly their schools utterly fail at doing so. We engage in activism and let them yell through the megaphone and oh god they're too young to understand why we yell no blood for oil at every single demo how did this happen? We offer advice on talking to families or schools if needed. We do our level best, in whatever way we think we can - and we know only too well that it's not always enough - to make them feel welcome and accepted and safe.

And what works in one situation doesn't work in others. Queer kids tend to have supportive parents or are pushing away from their parents, sometimes living independently by necessity. Many neuroatypical kids are more dependent than average - whether by reason of their impairment or because there are no facilities set up to enable them to become more independent. It isn't a perfect parallel for many reasons. But as much as I wish that people would stop treating adults like children, or recognising the needs of neurotypical parents only, I also hope we can find a better solution than abandoning and ignoring kids who are like we were.

*well actually a bunch of them did. It's amazing what happens when you learn exercising =/= catching a ball and writing =/= to holding a pen, but that is neither universal, nor does it mean they weren't partially replaced by others.

Not quite a year of it

2011-11-29T21:02:00.001+13:00

2011 Calendar cover: a llama in the High Country

"Well on November 26th we will know whether we know or we don't know" I'd said to everyone who kept asking whether or not my partner* would become an MP on the weekend. As it turned out what we now know is that he's not an MP and he's unlikely to be one before 2014, given Labour's result on the party vote.

It's been an odd year for my family, politically. To start with I was still in an electoral hangover from being unexpectedly elected to the Puketapapa Local Board in late 2010; an amazing experience which I now feel I am starting to understand better and enjoy thoroughly. Balancing this significant commitment of time and mental energy with everything else has been a challenge, and sometimes I've had to go back to just operating on Essentials Only mode. Whenever I feel bogged down I find contact with constituents truly rejuvenating, even when we are disagreeing about something. People really appreciate getting a response, making an effort to find something out or give them the right contact person; it's an amazing testament actually to how low expectations of politicians are, which is something I hope to play a part in changing.

In late January I became a candidate's wife (again) several months before I'd thought I might, due to the Botany by-election. That was an eye-opener. I have seen my partner work very hard, but that campaign was another level again from previous campaigns, even the ones where we had both been candidates. Not only did we have two kids under 4, one of whom was still breast-feeding, we also had not a lot of spare cash and suddenly one of the adults was away from 6am to 11pm, and then doing a couple of hours of campaign admin when he did get home too. The phones would ring at most hours (midnight to 5am appears to still be sacrocanct), I was constantly washing (but not ironing) white shirts for him and red clothes for me, and then the dishwasher broke. The Botany result was a predictable loss for the Labour candidate, but a gratifying one in that the margin wasn't embarassing and both the candidate and the party organisation around him did well.

Two weeks later I went back to regular paid employment, after taking maternity leave since the previous August. I moved back into a different role at the same union - less responsibility, less pay, shorter hours and a whole new sector to learn about. That too has been incredibly challenging. New acronyms and lingo, new people to meet, new structures to understand, and a sense of disconcerting disconnection from my previous work area which I had cared passionately about. I care about the new stuff too, and am now slowly building my understanding of the issues and people, nurturing my passion for this part of the education sector too. Most people have assumed I am part time because of my childcare responsibilities, so I have to explain regularly that actually I have two paid part time jobs and share the childcare with my partner. It's a bit tedious.

Another fortnight or so on in time and the Labour list was announced. We were on edge, waiting for the phone to ring, wondering who would call and whether it would be good news or bad. We'd estimated a top 40 ranking would be sufficient to be within consideration (how wrong we were!) but when the call came and it was 32 we were both a bit stunned. That seemed certain, something we could plan around. We didn't really start planning, other than to not make any Big Plans beyond November. Who knew what could happen after all.

Fast forward slightly to June. Kept living the hectic life of 2 kids, 2 jobs, plus everything else, and then Labour's slide in the polls began. All plans on hold, even the Not Making Any Plans plan. Money was tight, still paying back the credit card that helped us get through Botany.** Board work peaked as we worked on multiple consultations with our community and the Governing Body simultaneously, along with a really enormous amount of reading. This just went on and on and on.

The rugby weirdly intervened a little. Still frantic, still getting sick a lot, but now, for a few weeks, able to fall asleep in front of Maori TV, instead of spending the evening on a computer or the phone. As the final got closer the behind the scenes work of a campaign started to increase. Coreflutes and wood showed up on the lawn and boxes of leafelts were stacked in the hall. Teleconferences began very early two mornings a week, lots of evening meetings, and then the dreaded point where you know you just have to stick it out to the end and it isn't going to get any better until then; in my life characterised by the Two Phones Phenomenon - having to answer my partner's cellphone because he's on another call on the other phone. Once that starts you need to keep moving so fast your legs blur. Oh, and the dishwasher, the new one that replaced the second-hand one that broke back during Botany, stopped working. Hurrah!

November 26th became this beckon of hope for me - either way we would have some time; the time that comes from the shift back to everyday background campaign mode, or the time that the money of an MP's salary can help you to buy.

By Saturday night I had a worst case scenario for us as a family.*** If Labour got enough party vote that my husband was last in, and thus first out, and New Zealand First was sitting on 4.999%. We'd have a nervous two weeks sitting on the specials, wondering, wondering, wondering. I have friends sitting in that limbo now, and I don't envy them one bit. I thought it was far more likely that we wouldn't have an MP in the family on election night, but I couldn't help gnawing away at the worst option in a corner of my mind.

As it turned out what Saturday night delivered for us was certainty. In an odd way it's the most stable result for me personally. There's no need to remodel our lives again with any sense of urgency. We can sit back and think things through, look at options, run figures, and consider it all in a longer time frame than days or weeks or months. I don't have to worry about giving up blogging, which I was considering, or how hard it would be for the kids to have their father, their main caregiver, suddenly not around so much.**** I don't have to think about whether or not I want to continue my union work in some shape or form, or how to keep my own political identity. Lots of arrangements simply don't have to be made, or re-made. There are some things we can do now that we couldn't have if one of us had gone into Parliament this year or next.

But these losses are hard. I tend to focus on the positives because that keeps me going. I have been studiously avoiding cogitating on the policy implications of the election's outcome, and try not to think about the personal implications for many of my friends, who may lose their jobs either directly or indirectly. The loss of strong women's advocates like Carol Beaumont and Carmel Sepuloni, not to mention Steve Chadwick and the possibility of Kate Sutton, I have to turn my mind away from or I cry which really is no use to me or them. The fact that my partner, who will one day be an excellent MP, has to wait another three years seems unjust, but then politics so often is, and if there's one thing I've learnt in the last fifteen years it's that you don't win an argument just because your case is the best. You have to organise and organise and organise again, and then you need luck and timing too.

I'll write more on some observations on the election results in the next few days I hope. This is more of a personal reflection on what has been an astonishing year for our household. There's plenty of stuff I've left out too, that has helped or hindered. I would advise people not to start a major renovation project even if the builder says it'll be finished three months before E Day, for example. Even today, three days after, there is still plenty of wash-up from the campaign and now there's the Labour leadership contest. Local body politics keep on keeping on too, as we work on Auckland Council's Long Term Plan, along with some significant local issues, and, I must admit, playing some catch-up as a result of the divided attentions of recent times.

Hopefully this post doesn't read as the long whinge of a tired person. Although I am tired.

I enjoy this stuff. It is hard, and draining, and sometimes I'd rather be doing something else than whatever political life calls for at that moment. But that connection you get with people in politics is incredibly rewarding. That ability to make change, or at least help people voice their wish for change, that's amazing. Leaving people stronger than they were before they met you, that is just unbeatable, in my book.

I feel very privileged to be in a position to do this work, both paid and unpaid, and also to have a family who understands that.

* For those not In The Know, that would be Michael Wood
** Not hoardings and all that, but the itty bitty personal expenses that mount up, another post on this in the near future.
*** Note: NOT for the left, or the Labour party, or NZ or anything like that. I wanted a Labour-led Government with a strong Green presence for all of those, and possibly a decent result for Mana on the cross-benches.
**** Although a campaign is good practice for that.

An Ironic Juxtaposition

2011-11-28T22:57:00.004+13:00

Cross posted from my usual spot...

jux•ta•po•si•tion / [juhk-stuh-puh-zish-uh n]
noun
an act or instance of placing close together or side by side, especially for comparison or contrast.

An Ironic Juxtaposition: Twilight Vs. White ribbon day.

Some people will say “ahhh I have heard this rant before”. Some people may be on the “huh?” side of things.

When I read the first twilight book I had shudders. I read the entire series because A) they were easy to read, and B) I wanted to see exactly how dysfunctional things got.
If twi-hards read my blog, at this point I’m sure you are thinking “What the HELL!! This is TRUE LOVE, look what they GO THROUGH TO BE TOGETHER!!!” (More than three exclamation marks to a fan is as glitter to the vamps)

Actually, true love means doing the best for your partner. In the example of the twilight characters it would be him never talking to her and walking the hell away, since at their age difference it is essentially paedophilia.

Having been in an abusive relationship I know exactly how romantic it is.
The massive ups and downs. Having them tell you that they are sorry, it is just that they love you SO MUCH. After I broke up with him it advanced to more fully fledged stalking, and abuse. Even then there were 17 year olds cooing about how romantic he was. WTF is romantic about someone following you, or sitting outside your house and just watching?

Seeing as 12 years hasnt improved anyone's comprehension of romance vs dysfunction, I am going to lay out the stark facts. These thanks to the Sophie Elliot Foundation (I found her case terrifyingly close to home).

Early signs of abuse in relationships

Power and control
Is obsessive. Tells you who you can see, what clothes to wear, how to have your hair or makeup. Often says, “If you love me you will …”

Possessiveness
Wants to know where you going, who you are with, when you will be home, and so on. Displays stalking behaviours such as following you, accusing you of being unfaithful, flirting, and so on.

Isolates you
Stops you or makes it difficult for you to see your family or friends. Sulks or is moody when your family or friends are around, and makes you feel uncomfortable until they are gone.

Threats
Is abusive to you, or about your family, friends or pets. Indulges in name calling, and physical and emotional threats. Says things like, “I will leave you if …”, “I will hurt you if ….”. Nasty behaviour towards pets is a frequent early warning sign.

Suicide threats
Says things like:
“I need you.”
“You’re the only one who understands me.”
“I don’t know what I would do without you.”
“If you leave me I will hurt myself.”
“I need help; please help me.”

Changeable/volatile behaviour
Is erratic – nice one minute or day, and abusive and nasty the next. Blames you for his behaviour. “You make me react that way”, “if you did this, or didn’t do that I wouldn’t get so angry.” You feel like you are walking on egg shells and constantly “trying to make him happy.”

Sexual
Is coercive, pressuring you to do things you don’t want to. Takes no responsibility for contraception, seeing it as “your problem”.

Physical abuse
Says he loves you but then physically abuses you, by hitting, punching, choking, or pushing. Often has a history of previous abuse.

Communication
Is haphazard and unreliable. Leaves you to do the contacting and keeps you dangling. You are left confused and don’t know what he wants. Doesn’t appear to be telling you the truth about what he is doing and says “it’s none of your business”. Makes you feel crazy, or jealous, or insecure when that is not how you usually feel.

So with the above in mind, have a go at the quiz below… and let me know if you still think Edward should be held up as the ultimate boyfriend.

Some Facts about Abusive Relationships thanks to Living without violence NZ, and other references.

One woman is killed by her partner or ex-partner in New Zealand every four weeks. Approximately half of all homicides in New Zealand are family violence related.

66% of women seeking Women’s Refuge help are 17-35 years old. In 2009, 26.1% of refuge clients were aged 16 – 25 years old. (New Zealand Women’s Refuge 2006, 2010)

One in three New Zealand women experience physical and/or sexual abuse at the hands of a partner during their lifetime.

25 per cent of those convicted of ‘male assaults female’ in 2006 were 15 – 24 years old, with 44% of all those convicted being under 29 years old. (Ministry of Justice, 2008)

In any one year, one woman in five will experience physical and/or sexual abuse at the hands of a partner.

15-24 year olds are the age group most at risk of physical, psychological and sexual victimisation from current and ex-partners. (New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims, 2006)

One in five New Zealand men are subjected to violence by their partners.

One woman dies approximately every 26 days at the hand of her partner or former partner. We estimate that over 20 women have been murdered since Sophie in 2008. (Roundtable for Violence Against Women)

93 out of every 100 domestic violence cases in New Zealand are male assault female.

In 2009, nearly 75% of the 29 female murder victims were killed by offenders identified as a family member or partner. (Police Statistics on Culpable deaths in New Zealand, April 2010)

About 10 children are killed every year in New Zealand by a member or members of their own family.

Women’s Refuge receive a crisis call every 9 minutes. New Zealand police receive a domestic violence crisis call every 7 minutes. (Its Not Ok, 2010)

The annual cost of family violence in New Zealand is at least $1.2 billion.

37% of protection order applications and 25% of respondents are under 29 years old. (Family Court Statistics, 2007)

Family violence is a major problem in New Zealand but by reaching out for help all of us can begin to change the cycle of abuse and violence.

48 per cent of couples at age 21 years old reported having been involved in physical partner violence. (Dunedin Longitudinal Study, Moffitt and Caspi, 1999)

NB: Please note that the above stats and info relating to “Male” to “female” violence is due to the current white ribbon campaign. Abuse can occur in the reverse and cisgender women and men are not the only identitie included within this data.

yes, i am the right person

2011-11-28T22:32:00.004+13:00

in a post on my blog, i wrote some tales from my experiences as a sign-waver. i had another go on friday, waving labour signs in the morning and MMP signs in the afternoon. the morning session was great, but the afternoon one not so much.

we were at the corner of morrinsville rd & cambridge rd in hamilton, known by the burger king right on the corner and the big new world store behind that. i got quite a bit of positive support and of course, a few negative ones. mostly the negative stuff doesn't bother me. people have a right to express their dissension to a political statement after all. and if their expression of dissent involves a raised finger or a "f**k MMP", then so be it.

but i really did mind the middle-aged white male who yelled at me "are you the right person to be holding that?". the tone was offensive, but the implication much more so. he questioned my right to be holding an MMP sign on the basis of what? he doesn't know me from a bar of soap, so he was making that judgement solely on my physical appearance.

so basically, he's saying that because i'm a brown muslim woman, i don't have the right to express a political view on the electoral system of this country. that right is apparently to be restricted to people who look and sound like him. i didn't give him the response he deserved, but instead yelled out "absolutely! and we're going to win. have a nice weekend!"

i had a few other negative reactions but not too many. not surprising given the majority of people support MMP. but this is what i noticed. when i started the sign waving, there was an older white woman on the other side of the road, also waving an MMP sign. she left about 20 minutes before i did, and there was a noticeable increase in negative comments/reactions after she left.

this is something i'm having real difficulty in dealing with. and it manifests itself in so many small ways, a lot of which i can't speak about publicly. (well, i could but i'm not prepared to deal with the consequences or in some cases to breach confidentiality.) but they add up to a feeling of being unwanted, of not belonging. and i just can't pretend that it doesn't hurt. it does hurt, terribly.

even though i know that the majority don't feel this way. even though i know that the positive responses far outweighed the negative ones. knowing the logic of a situation doesn't always help.

here's something else. by far, the majority of negative responses were by white males, and they were generally in nice vehicles. this is no doubt because of the types of issues i've been advocating. MMP is something that benefits minority communities so they are less likely to respond negatively to it. labour policy is more likely to appeal to the less affluent. so it's probably no surprise that the pierced, the tatooed, the drivers of older & poorer looking cars, & even young brown males were giving me some pretty positive responses or no response at all.

so it wouldn't be fair to say that the more affluent people are, the less manners they tend to show. but it certainly did feel that way. maybe i should have tried waving paul goldsmith signs in the epsom electorate to see if i got a different reaction. or nz first signs in tauranga - actually, that sounds like a hilarious experiment which i could try in a year when they really look certain to lose.

i do want to reiterate what i said on my own blog: this stuff isn't going to stop me from participating in visible political activities. if anything, it shows that i need to be doing more of it, not less. the only problem is that it somehow is a huge drain on my energy. even though i try to not let it affect me, it does. there's only so much mental fortitude i can draw on.

Transgender Day of Rememberence - events

2011-11-28T13:44:00.001+13:00

Tomorrow events are being held around the country to mark the Transgender Day of Rememberence.

In Wellington: Queer Avengers have organised a public gathering on Tuesday 29 November at 6pm in Civic Square. We all want an end to violence against people because their gender identity or expression. We welcome anyone to this gathering who shares this aim. Theevent will include lighting sparklers or candles and reflecting on the people who have been subjected to transphobic violence in the last year, including those people who have died as a result.

In Auckland: GenderBridge has a community event at St Matthew-in-the-City at 7pm on Tuesday 29 November. The church is on the corner of Wellesley and Hobson Streets. BYO a plate of food to share.

In Christchurch: the recently reopened Te Whare Puakitanga / Transition House will be holding a community meeting from 7-9pm on 29 November. Nau mai, haere mai koutou – everyone is welcome. Contact Cherise Witehira on (03) 372-9298 or agenderchch@clear.net.nz for the address.

In Hamilton: Agender Waikato, in conjunction with Hamilton Pride, held a Transgender Day of Remembrance at the Riff Raff statue Hamilton at 7pm, 20th November.

[The text is mostly stolen from the Queer Avengers facebook event]

If I had a million dollars, could I still have socialism of the heart?

2011-11-27T23:37:00.002+13:00

Post-election, my bus driver last night waxed lyrical about John Key "not having a mandate to sell state assets, 75% of New Zealanders are against, they just won't do it". Yet first thing this morning I saw this. Before I even sat down to think about gender equity.

Losing Carmel Sepuloni is terrible news. Not only because there's now no Pacifica women in parliament, but because Ms Sepuloni, with Labour's already departed Lynne Pillay, flew the flag determinedly for survivors of sexual violence:

Gone. Who, out of the current crop of women MPs, is going to take over the role of speaking out for women who survive violence?

Tariana Turia, with her innovative approach to ending family violence, "the look"? Judith Collins, with her rape culture supporting comments on male-on-male sexual assault? (Note: when we dismantle rape culture, it will not be acceptable for ANYONE to be coerced, forced or pressured into doing anything sexual).

The departure of Simon Power, with his personal committment to building better responses to sexual and family violence influenced by the murder of Sophie Elliott, is also a huge loss for parliament. Without him the National Party are harder right, less able to work across difference to produce good policy, like the improvements for survivors of sexual violence going through court process, or the extension of the national advocacy role for Louise Nicholas.

Well-known feminist Sue Kedgley, also gone. Just one feminist act among many, Ms Kedgley voted to decriminalise prostitution alongside all the other Green women, most of the Labour women, and one fifth of the National women.

Carol Beaumont's championing of pay equity, gone from parliament. Departing Steve Chadwick, another committed to women's rights in terms of maternal health, rights-based sexual and reproductive health and abortion reform despite Daddy Left not liking it. These Labour MPs flew the flag for women.

Who is going to pick this up and carry it?

Judith Collins wants to restrict access to abortion. Hekia Parata, an improvement on Georgina Te Heuheu in that she doesn't describe the Ministry of Women's Affairs as a "sexist relic", is yet to impress as a strong advocate for women's rights. Nikki Kaye and Jacinda Ardern are not scared to call themselves feminists - both may be important in putting gender on the agenda in their parties. Annette King and Lianne Dalziel have the experience in the house to continue arguing for where a women's place should be.

Women in New Zealand desperately need some of our parliamentarians to step up to the mark to challenge our violence stats, our pay equity stats, the cultural supports for violence against women, sexism in the media, the positions of immigrant women in our communities, the hypersexualisation of girls (tricky but possible this, without turning into sex-hating abstinence cheerleaders), the work-life balance available to all whether we are parents or not, the different experiences women have of the benefit system because we are often the ones with primary responsibility for parenting and care-giving etc etc etc. The best bet, on current form, looks to be Catherine Delahunty and the band of new Green women.

And queer rights post election? The voting records of National's top ten listed MPs are consistently homophobic. Gerry Brownlee says queer people are "not the same as other people"; Nick Smith says legislation protecting transpeople would be a "step backwards for our country"; and Judith Collins said of civil unions:

Is this a human rights issue? The census figures stated that 0. 3 per cent of adults in New Zealand say they live in a same-sex relationship – not a very large portion of the population – as opposed to the more than 45 per cent of adult New Zealanders who are married.

The queer caucuses will have to work across parties if they want to address queer issues like bullying in schools, adoption and partnership rights, heterosexist media and queer bashing. Will they? Will National's Chris Finlayson realise not all queer people want to be celibate? And will some of the straight parliamentarians support queer rights? History shows if they do, they will probably be women, with 76% of women MPs voting for the Civil Union Act cf just 50% of male MPs.

I realise some on the left will think my interest in rights for women and queer people post this election is playing identity politics when the *real* issues of class and dosh should be being attended to. I disagree. I think we should be aiming higher. It's time for our parliamentarians who believe in equity and fairness and compassion - because those are the values which these issues have in common - to stand up for having a socialism of the heart:

My message to ~~the 1%~~ the National and Act parties - remember this last line. Please.

The Day After The Night Before

2011-11-27T07:30:00.000+13:00

Whatever happened last night no doubt some here will be feeling a bit urgh today.

Consider this an open thread for a bit of a social chit chat, debrief, speculation about what next, which of course will be subject to normal moderation rules. Be kind to each other please :-)

Reasons to be cheerful

2011-11-27T00:20:00.001+13:00

I'm not feeling particularly cheerful tonight.

This parliament will be the first parliament for 12 years that does not have a majority for abortion law reform. There was never a majority to talk about abortion, or to have the debate, but there has been a majority that would support abortion law if they had to vote. That majority almost certainly no longer exists, thanks to the mob Winston Peters brought in, and the high vote for National. Important abortion rights advocates in the Labour party are gone: Steve Chadwick, Carol Beaumont and Carmel Sepoluni (although there is a small chance of either, but not both, of the last two getting in on the specials). While we can expect some turn-over and some of them to get back in this term, it won't change the fundamental maths and ability to add up to 61.

While high National polling was inevitable, and under 48% is actually much less worse than it could be, the results themselves are pretty dire. My main hope for the evening was that both John Banks and Peter Dunne would lose their seat, that they didn't bring any cronies with them is not a particularly big silver lining. I did idly think "well it'd be funny if NZFirst got back in" in the last few days - I didn't mean it! That's all bad news. I'm not sad about Labour's collapse or glad about the Greens rise - apart from how it effects abortion politics. I would have liked to see Annette Sykes in there - although I'm sure she'll just as useful work from where she is now.

I find the rise of the Conservative party pretty depressing - a sign that money can buy your votes. But also everything felt reactionary last night - and the news that almost 3% of people want National to be more reactionary than they are - is pretty depressing.

The coverage was also pretty reactionary. TVOne's election coverage was so bad that I considered advocating a shift to TV3 - where Paul Henry, John Tamihere, Chris Trotter and Rodney Hide waited for us. It was wall to wall bloke, bloke, bloke bloke, matey, bloke. Which was only emphasised when they brought on Jacinda Arden and Nikkie Kaye and talked about their looks, or had Petra Bagust circulating round a party. On top of that with Willie Jackson on TVOne, John Tamihere on TV3 and Derek Fox on Maori TV each channel had its own Clint Rickards apologist. I'm not surprised by the male centred nature of this coverage, but the programmers should be ashamed.

Having said that there are always some reasons to be cheerful.

MMP is looking pretty safe.
Turn-out was low. I find knowing that 35% of eligible voters voted National much more reassuring than the near 50% you hear in the news.
National actually lost 100,000 votes over the last three years (Labour lost 200,000)
Don Brash is resigning his farcical time as ACT leader.
Paul "the most important thing to me that people in prison can't vote" Quinn is out of parliament, at least for now.
Paula Bennett may yet lose Waitakere - that would be a thing of beauty.
There are some strong advocates for abortion rights within the Green caucus.
Mojo Mathers should get in on the Specials. Having a deaf MP should have some pretty awesome flow-on effects when it comes to accessibility and entrenching NZ Sign as an official language.
Kelly Buchanan got 36 votes - so my friend should have had a pretty good night.

There's a more fundamental reason to be cheerful - and I'll expand on this tomorrow - we don't have to accept the world the politicians want to make. If voting is the most important political act you do, then election night is always going to be depressing. But if you dream of a world that is better, then there are going to plenty of opportunities to help make it over the next three years. After all the biggest steps towards women's liberation in this country were made under right-wing Male Chauvanist Piggy Muldoon.

Green Party HQ

2011-11-26T21:30:00.027+13:00

So 9.30pm and I'm finally here.
Combination of gorgeous weather in Wellington and drinking cider in the garden. San Francisco Bath House is absolutely full to the brim, apparently the party sold out in an hour.

So the Greens at this point on 10% which means they'd have 13 MPs, a whole bunch of new bods in parliament. No Mojo Mathers though, and I have to admit I'd like to see that diversity issue addressed - imagine parliament using all three of our national languages.

9.36pm
Really only just checking seats and stuff out now, so excuse me if I'm a little behind. And I'm going to focus on seats I'm interested in so here goes.

Wow Auckland Central too close to call, ditto Waitakere. Bad news for Jacinda Ardern I'd have thought if she can't win this one back in terms of cred.

Hone and Kelvin are still pretty close in Te Tai Tokerau, while Rahui Katene looks like she's on her way out of Te Tai Tonga. Pita Sharples is being run pretty close by Shane Jones in Tamaki Makaurau too. Other Maori seats as expected, with incumbents looking strong.

This is a funky crowd who are very loud and full of beans at the moment. Live music playing - not the funky Newtown Rocksteady yet sadly. I'm not always a fan of this bar, too dark and grotty, but it's pretty positive atmosphere tonight.

James Shaw giving a speech about the Greens owing this town. Apparently they are equal with Labour in the party vote for Wellington Central. He's gracious in acknowledging all the people who get out there to support the candidates. Plus congratulating Holly Walker on being a new MP.

Now Holly is on stage. Cue wild cheering while she also gives credit to her team.

9.52pm
Some electorates which were awfully close last time are complete knock-outs at the moment, probably a credit to well-performing first term MPs. So Grant Robertson is home and hosed in Wellington Central, and the charismatic Simon Bridges is streets ahead. I have to say that, I interviewed him for a magazine when I was trying to be a journo :-)

9.55pm
It's hard to believe it but I reckon Winston's done it again (thanks to the two Johns, not the two Ronnies - though you'd be forgiven for getting them confused frankly). Horrifying but also hilarious - quite how someone with such a tenuous grip on the truth can continually reinvent himself - but also could there be a bigger f**k you to New Zealand politics?

9.57pm
So I'd been avoiding looking.....and that was wise as it turns out.....the National voters in Epsom are doing the very smart thing and making sure ACT is in parliament so National can position themselves as centrists. John Banks, the man who Don Brash got for free when he bought the ACT Party, is coming on home, thanks to tea tip-offs.

The music here is getting seriously funky, Motown covers by a woman who can sing, I am womanfully just moving around in my seat rather than throwing over my blogging duties, you'll all be thrilled to hear.

10.05pm
Now Ohariu, where it also appears John Key's instructions have been heeded. Good grief, Peter Dunne may never never never leave parliament.

Russell Norman via videolink in the house. Getting rousing cheers as he, quite rightly, points to a third party getting 10% of the party vote as a significant victory.

10.09pm
15 seats counted all to Nats, including the thumbs down to Andrew Little in New Plymouth. Not a good look for a potential leader.

Looks like the only Maori seat changing hands is Te Tai Tonga. Which will leave Tariana Turia the only woman in parliament from either Mana or the Maori Party. Mana wahine?

10.15pm
Steve Chadwick safe for Labour at this point, I'm sure I understood Maia's post about voting and abortion choices but I'm pretty sure that's good :-)

Thirteen Green MPs still on target to get in - seven women - but distracted by the best dance song of all time, Stevie Wonder's Superstition - this band is fabulous.

Ok, so the 13 women - all of whom except Metiria Turei and Catharine Delahunty newbies. What can we expect? I thought Denise Roche was very good in the Backbenches Auckland Central debate, plus at least Holly Walker and Jan Logie are out and proud feminists. Not sure about the others. Interesting.

10.20pm
Brendon Burns, Christchurch Central. Just holding on at this point by 4 votes.

Pacific MPs standing in electorate seats are doing well. Sua William Sio is in Manakau, Kris Faafoi is ahead of Hekia Parata (she'll be disappointed I think) and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga is ahead in Maungakiekie.

Far more muted applause for live feed of Russel Norman and Metiria Turei talking about going into talks post election with different parties.

Back to funky music.

10.30pm MMP is safe. Which is a welcome relief - despite all the people who like unbridled power doing their damnedest, New Zealanders vote for the most representative kind of democracy on offer. No doubt Winston will become the stick to beat MMP with now - I wonder if he will be able to stop himself giving them good cause?

One of the provincial city seats National said they were targeting, Palmerston North, is staying red. Don't know enough about this seat to say why.

10.35pm
Not likely to have the Conservative Party in parliament. Which will disappoint those who like to hit their children without it being frowned upon no end, no doubt. Colin Craig nowhere near Rodney and miles off the magic 5%.

Waitakere's voters are not be be tempted by Mana's Sue Bradford so far - she's got just over 200 votes - and Sepuloni is more than 700 behind queen of the Westies Paula Bennett.

Don Brash is resigning. Crikey. That's the shortest leadership period in history, unless you count those where someone is killed, isn't it?

Stuff is calling this the worst result for Labour in nearly a century.

James Shaw back on stage here, to a crowd chanting his name, because Wellington Central has 26% party vote Green. Apparently it's the highest percentage in any electorate?

10.47pm
James Shaw says he thinks the Greens will pick up another seat on special votes. If so, that makes Mojo Mathers another new Green MP, and, he says, just the fourth deaf MP in the world. Enough already with not knowing anymore I can share about Mojo Mathers - but this is a diverse Green list in terms of gender, sexuality and disability.

Phil Goff looking sombre on TV, not loud enough over the party going on here to hear properly. Wonder how Julie's getting on? Do wonder too, if the policies Labour floated this election are going to be a whole heap easier to talk about now they are "out there" - capital gains tax in particular.

10.56pm
I'm nearly done here. Bit of a dud night for me - I'd hoped against hope that Epsom and Ohariu voters would refuse to vote in line with the Prime Ministerial instructions, and actually vote for the candidate they wanted. Very pleased to see MMP still with us though, and good result for the Greens, holding their polling rather than dropping off as they have done the last couple of elections.

Labour will not be surprised, but it must still be devastating. And who knows where NZ First leached their votes from?

11.03pm
Nikki Kaye holds Auckland Central and Brendon Burns Christchurch Central - the second certainly close enough to change hands after the special votes.

And my electorate, Rongotai, with the three MPs actually in parliament - Annette King, Chris Finlayson and Russel Norman - stays firmly red.

Wellington Central also has three MPs in parliament - James Shaw, Paul Foster-Bell and the returning Grant Robertson.

That's all from me folks - have a good night celebrating or commiserating - and to all the people who've put hours and hours of voluntary time in to supporting people they want to see speaking for them, enjoy having your lives back.

I'm going to drink cider and dance. Ciao for now.

In the Red Corner - Election Night Live Blog 2011

2011-11-26T19:01:00.000+13:00

Tonight I'll be live-blogging from Labour's Mt Roskill headquarters, which is at the Mt Roskill War Memorial Hall on May Rd.

Sorry I disappeared after 10pm - I wasn't in a corner crying, but did end up lending my laptop to another and doing stuff that wasn't commensurate with live blogging (largely running numbers and the projection of the results onto a screen). No tears for me on the night, although a few shed the next day for Carol and Carmel in particular, as well as the policy implications.

10.02pm The figures being run here now are not so much about which new MPs Labour will get as how many current MPs will be back in. Still surprisingly upbeat mood here given the political reality of this situation.

10pm Carmel 468 ahead in Waitakere, huge cheer here, Jackie singing "ding dong the witch is dead".

9.57pm Jackie has noted lots of vote splitting in Te Atatu, largely benefiting NZF at the expense of Labour it appears.

9.54pm Labour is slowly slowly edging up. but so so slowly.

9.48pm On current numbers we are looking at a big loss of Labour MPs - with only 10 in off the List but Cosgrove looking shakey in Waimakariri that would mean probably last one in for Labour at this stage would be Moana Mackey or Rajen Prasad. Losing Carol Beaumont (who is 12 on the effective list) would be a huge blow for the women's caucus and the union affiliates.

9.47pm Big cheer here as Phil Goff's majority with 60% counted is announced to the crowd. Goff hasn't arrived yet and will be waiting until the result is clearer apparently.

9.44pm With nearly 80% counted it's looking like National won't make 50% (currently falling from 49%) but Labour is struggling to rise above 26%.

9.42pm Winston on two screens simultaneously, with screens within screens behind that. Somehow fitting for his return.

9.41pm Scube is confused about why ALCP isn't doing better in the party vote in Waitakere.

9.38pm The man whose chair I stole never came back to claim it.

9.34pm As Cosgrove is 8th on the Labour list, if he loses Waimakariri he will still be there. Hipkins is looking safe in Rimutaka now.

9.31pm Bennett ahead now in Waitakere, and Wilkinson in Waimakariri. Labour currently looking like 32 seats - 10 list - and National 61 - 19 list.

9.27pm The room here is packed, with many people using their phones to check various things. Banks ahead in Epsom but the count there seems to be incredibly slow.

9.24pm Informals on the second part of the MMP referendum show the lack of understanding of the fact people were allowed to do the second vote even if they voted to keep MMP. Looking like MMP is a reasonable margin ahead with 95% of the advance votes counted - it hasn't moved from 95% for a while so I'm going to stop looking at that - we won't know for real until Dec 10th anyway, but yay MMP!

9.22pm Lots of people taking photographs of those us pouring over the laptops and running the projectors and the numbers - Scube is doing the laptop with the projector, stef is trying to get her laptop to work, Jackie is providing moral support and trying to work out how to take photos.

9.16pm Big cheer here for Carmel Sepuloni as she is just ahead in Waitakere. Just been looking at Auckland Central in a bit more depth - very close, with almost no votes going to other candidates than Kaye and Ardern - Denise Roche (Greens) has under 1000 with over 2365 for their party vote.

9.13pm Alright I am back up, and so is the live projection of the results here at Labour HQ. There was an insufficiently large cheer imho.

8.41pm Quite close in Ohariu and Maungakiekie. OK, I have to go again, hopefully back in another half hour.

8.38pm Now, on the radio before I heard Pete Hodgson doing some extrapolating from Advance votes, based on how they worked out last time, and he said iirc something like 46% for National, 30% for Labour, 11% for the Greens and 6% for NZF. Someone who was actually listening properly may wish to comment with more precision.

8.34pm Ok, that took longer than expected, sorry. Currently O'Connor ahead in WCT, Sepuloni ahead in Waitakere, Kaye ahead in Auckland Central. Young well ahead in New Plymouth. Mood here is quite god, lots of people here and they're all quietly watching the various screens - we've got TV3 and TVNZ with a massive flat screen each showing their channel and now, just now, we have up a projector screen showing results from electionresults.org.nz and basically responding to requests from the crowd to look at various electorate results. Lots of tense waiting, it's incredibly warm with all these ridiculous media lights.

7.24pm In terms of results to date, looking like MMP may be safe, if the 150,000 advance votes are extrapolated - 54% to keep, 42% to change last I checked. We won't know for sure until 10th December.

7.21pm Well I'm live now, for a brief period, then I'm going to run away to pick up something forgotten and be back by 8pm I hope. The Labour HQ is probably going to lack space and be very hot by the end of the night - the media are taking up an enormous amount of the available space, setting up their live cross thingies, and insisting on media tables that must NOT be moved as apparently everyone is about to go live, or something. I feel positively low impact as a lowly blogger sitting here at a table tapping away. Anyway, the feeling here is tense, as you'd expect, surprisingly upbeat, as you might not, and I really love the dress the TV3 reporter is wearing. Certainly a very diverse crowd so far - Pakeha in a minority

What follows is a little bit I've prepared in advance, to go up at 7.01pm.

Mt Roskill is a safe Labour seat, and the electorate of the Labour leader, Phil Goff. In the interests of disclaimer and context, I am on the Puketapapa Local Board, along with my partner, which covers most of the electorate of Mt Roskill. I was elected to this role on a Labour/Greens/Alliance affiliated ! ticket which also features independent lefties such as myself. My aforementioned partner is a Labour list candidate, at no. 32, and part of the nail biting this evening will be in regard to whether or not he gets in.

What I'm hoping to cover tonight is the key events and feel here at Labour HQ, as well as some of the progress of the voting results through-out the night. I'll be keeping my eye on a number of electorates - ones of particular interest to me are Auckland Central, Epsom, West Coast-Tasman, Ohariu, Maungakiekie, Te Tai Tonga, Hunua, Waikato, Waitakere. Some because they have broader political implications (e.g. Epsom), others because I have friends standing in them. Jordan Carter was my little light of happiness in the gloom of 2008, beating Roger Douglas to a strong second in Hunua, and this election I'll no doubt grasp something else as a similar touchstone.

I'm going to have some mates around me, whose witticisms and observations may make it onto the web, and I'll try to give them nicknames so that there is some form of credit going their way. Hopefully one or two of them might be familiar to you from past endeavours...

Okay, back to actual live blogging now, as interesting things happen, here in the Red Corner.

Maia's Election Live-blogging

2011-11-26T19:00:00.001+13:00

1.31am Just an update on who is in and who is out. I was right about the barrier for the Nats - Paul Quinn is out and Aaron Gilmore is in (although National may lose out on the specials).

However, Raymond Huo at number 21 on the list is in, but Carol Beaumont (number 22) is out. This could change about depending on Christchurch Central and Waitakere though.

12.17am I think I might wind up this post and write some final thoughts in a new post. I will find reasons to be cheerful.

12.14am OK I'm back - there was some very obnoxious dickheads driving past my house tooting really loudly at almost midnight. It's a super obnoxious thing to do - and then on top of that a National party victory is a problematic thing to celebrate.

11.43pm I am talking a short break to drop some of Rabbit's friends and relations home.

11.35 By my count at the moment Aaron Gilmore is the last person in on National #53 on their list. The last person in on Labour is Carol Beaumont at #34 - but that does depend on both Christchurch Central and Waitakere. Everyone else you can just count down.

Does anyone have different ideas about the people?

11.31 I am finding the streams and cheering for John Key pretty repulsive.

11.25 Final votes in in Waitakere Paula Benett is leading by 349 votes. That isn't looking solid and it'd be amazing if it was overturned in the specials. I'll now try and do some final calculations around who exactly is in.

11.24pm Violence may break out at this election party because Tigger just said "Buffy is stupid." I think we may conclude that we're not expecting any more news - good or bad.

11.23pm Now we've put it on mute, as John Key may be speaking soon.

11.14pm The sign is for very low turn-out. I think this is important, because this is a sign of disappointment with parliamentary politics. National's vote is only actually around 35% of eligible voters. It doesn't help the make-up of parliament, but I find it less depressing.

11.09pm Ugh - according to the comments Chris Trotter is saying that the reason Labour did badly because they weren't manly about. As if the wall to wall blokes on the TV coverage wasn't bad enough.

11.01 CHRISTCHURCH CENTRAL IS A TIE! 10,493 votes each for Brendon Burns and Nicky Wagner - this is on 100% vote counted. Now it's up to specials.

10.59pm There's conflicting advice about where the Labour line is and whether Carol Beaumont is in or not. I think she is, but it does depend on Brendon Burns and Carmel Sepoluni.

10.58pm Phil Goff's family wanted him to stand down a decade or more ago - so would I.

10.57pm As Tigger pointed out, ACT is currently the 1%.

Mana is on .98% just two decimal points off the 99%.

10.51pm Don Brash resigned. Tigger says "Apparently we should have listened to Don Brash - first time I've ever said that."

Him not being in parliament is one of the few non-awful things tonight.

10.45pm TVOne cut away with the Mark Sainsbury Walrus saying "Look it's John Key" and then "Oh no it's an empty car". We looked at the empty car and then we came back.

10.42pm Now we are discussing Christchurch Central where Brendon Burns is up by 12 votes. Owl says "I'm not saying I want Brendon Burns to win, but I definitely want Nicky Wagner to lose."

10.39pm Owl is claiming that we should be happy because National is looking to get under 48% - and that this is a miracle compared to the previous three years of polls.

I am sceptical. NZ First being in is hardly a font of joy.

10.34pm Don Brash has quite amazing lighting with the powerpoint on his face.

One of Roo's friends voted for Labour, because they voted National last time and they like to alternate.

10.32pm Don Brash is on screen, but won't be in parliament. Another small mercies.

Things aren't looking as good as Waitakere - which I think means Carol Beaumont will be in.

10.26pm OK abortion update. The 8 NZ First MPs are pretty bad news for abortion (presumably). Currently depending on whether Carmel Sepuloni wins Waitakere either her or Carol Beaumont will be in. It'd be good to have an extra seat for Labour when it comes to abortion politics. There's no chance of Steve Chadwick or Kate Sutton getting in.

National are currrently not bringing in Paul Foster Bell, but Jacqui Blue is in.

10.22pm We have some insightful political analysis from an 8 or 9 year old friend of Eyeore's who said that National's policies were "the rich deserve more when the rich already have heaps of money and they should just give it to charities or poor people and labour aren't really any better either".

10.12pm New Plymouth has a final count. Jonathan Fletcher is 4,130 above Andrew Little. This doesn't really affect parliament, but it is sad for another friend of mine. She has been campaigning for Andrew Little because Jonathan Fletcher is a pray the gay away level homophobe.

10.08pm As Anita points out Paul Quinn might be out - which is good news for democracy since he disenfranchised people in prison.. National party and swinging between 60 and 61 MPs - as long as they settle on 61 Quinn is out. That means Paul Foster-Bell also won't get in.

I should have credited Eeyore for the observation about James and Mojo. Roo said something wise and pertinent.

10.06pm John Banks is praising Paul Holmes as the Great Optimist of the Fourth Estate - because Holmes called Banks's win. Optimism and right-wing are not synonymous.

10.03pm I hate Russel Norman.

10.00pm So far turn-out is kind of low 68.25% based on the polling booths counted so far. This lessens the mandate of the almost 50% of people voting National.

9.52pm The Greens are on 10.5% and 13 seats. This is actually perfect. They'll go up a seat in the specials and Mojo Mathers will come in - but there's no danger of James Shaw coming in.

9.50pm Carmel Sepoluni is back ahead in Waitakere. That may be a meaningless good news, but I'll take it.

Kelly Buchanan now has 23 votes - so that's something.

9.49pm We are currently directing our rage towards the Green party and Gareth Hughes for bringing in Peter Dunne. And if Left-wing people voted tactically in Epsom John Banks wouldn't be in.

9.43pm It seems like ACT and UnitedFuture are in in Epsom and Ohariu - that's depressing.

The new person wants to be called Roo - she brings our number of Green voters to 2.

9.39pm I can't believe NZ First is back. At 6.8 surely they're in? This is terrible for abortion politics.

National is now under 49%. Small mercies.

9.33pm Bloke-bloke-bloke-bloke-bloke-bloke-bloke - the television coverage is awful.

9.32pm Google says he does vote and it will.

9.31pm We're arguing about whether or not the speaker votes and whether 61/121 will be a working majority.

9.27pm We're collecting good news - MMP is looking good and Kelly Buchanan now has 10 votes - which is some nice drinking for my friend.

9.25pm Paula Bennett is now ahead by 291. Clearly the election Gods don't want me to have any joy.

9.20pm We are now discussing Roger Sowry - who is on TV1. Tigger doesn't understand why we're not being mean to him the way we're being mean to most commentators. Then Eeyroe claimed that he used to be leader of the National Party but no-one knows who he is. I corrected him, because I have protested outside Sowry's electorate office.

9.18pm NZ First is not going down! Neither ACT nor Mana are looking like getting another seat. There are few joys tonight.

9.16pm National is almost down under 49% - hopefully the drop has begun.

We've had a new person join our watching party. She said "Oh God Labour are doing really badly I need alcohol."

9.13pm Gerry Brownlee is on TVOne and now I'm officially wondering if we could change to TV3. We are now holding out hope for 10pm where things start to get less depressing.

Eeyore is giving us really bad maths on Ohariu and whether Peter Dunne's lead is really Gareth Hughes's fault.

9.09pm Carmel Sepuloni is now 87 votes ahead of Paula Bennett. I may just focus on that - because everything else is badness.

9.05pm More from the "apparently we have nothing to think about but John Key's food" John Key is collecting Pizza.

8.59pm Hone did a pretty awesome speech about class and fighting for working-class issues.

8.57pm Anita has an interesting point in the comments - it's possible that there are quite a few people enrolled in Christchurch who are voting somewhere else, which would swim back to Labour. The thing about Christchurch is that no-one really knows.

8.50pm As Owl said - it looks like the Horizon poll was a little out. We both answered the Horizon Poll regularly, as university students we are always looking for things to procrastinate on.

Also National is back below 50% - small mercies.

8.47pm We are now discussing how we voted. 1 Maori party, 1 Green party, 4 Mana, and one wrote "Boo! Hiss! on the paper.

TVOne now has David Farrer as well as John Pagani. Why don't we get MaoriTV?

8.43pm TVOne is now outside Phil Goff's house. This is almost as bad as John Key's breakfast.

8.36pm Kris Faafoi is only 24 votes ahead in Mana - should I take credit?

Now John Pagani is on TVOne! Are they trying to drive us to the arms of Paul Henry?

Tigger is complaining that this is the most hateful group of television watching people ever. Piglet says that maybe given the level of hatred Winnie The Pooh wasn't necessarily the most appropriate naming pool.

8.22pm Christchurch appears to be going right. Both Waimakariri and Christchurch Central have National party candidates ahead at this point.

I wonder if this is about people in Christchurch changing their views or (more likely in my opinion) working-class people no longer being able to live in those areas.

8.16pm So it seems money can buy you votes. The Conservative Vote is 2.4%, while Colin Craig is second in Rodney only 218 behind Mark Mitchell.

However, Eeyore has discovered that google have a special tool that allows you to block all search results from Stuff. This sounds like the daily mail ap which substitutes all website on dailymail.co.uk with pictures of kittens.

8.05pm NZFirst is still over 5% and Damien O'Connor is now ahead in West Coast Tasman. Will there be no good news tonight?

I have taken bets on all the worst outcomes. I get chocolate if Damien O'Connor wins and gummi bears if Peter Dunne and John Banks win.

7.59pm As I mentioned my friend is the partner of Kelly Buchanan who is running for the Alliance in Wellington Central. She is taking a shot for every vote her partner gets - so far she has only had a safe 6 votes. I will keep you updated on the alcohol abuse throughout the night.

7.53pm TVOne is giving us a blow by blow account of John Key's day - which we could have done without. As Owl said (everyone is named after Winnie the Pooh) - is it a really a revelation that he started the day with breakfast?

And in special news Willie Jackson TV1 so every channel has their Clint Rickards apologist.

7.46pm Carmel Sepoluni is ahead of Paula Bennet in Waitakere! Only by 39 votes - but that'd be OKper cent 7.7% of the vote counted. Harawira is now ahead in Te Tai Tokerau.

TV one is showing that horrible late night add about chafing - with animated body parts supposed to be free from chafing.

7.31pm Bad news for electorate results: John Banks is now ahead in Epsom by 2,157 to 1,756.

Ohariu: Charles Chauvel 1,399 - Peter Dunne 1,591. Gareth Hughes has 216 votes - and so I'm blaming him.

Also Rino Tirikatene is ahead of Rahui Katene in Te Tai Tonga - I don't know what I want to happen in that seat.

Chipkins is still looking OK in Rimutaka.

My flatmate who is in the room is reading my liveblogging - which is quite sad. We are arguing about tactical voting.

7.28pm Now National are under 50% on the party vote - given how depressing things are looking - that is about as good as we can hope. And if their vote continues to go down over the night that's not a total disaster

We'd had enough with endless male talking heads with Petra Bagust doing hte fluffy stories. But we don't get Maori TV - so TV1 it'll have to me. Unless at least 50% of TV3 commentators spontaneously combust we're sticking with TV1 tonight.

MMP is 10% up. I think I'm going to be looking on the bright side.

7.21pm This isn't going as well for National as it could - they do well with those who come in early. So they may not be able to govern alone. However, it's also obviously not doing particularly well for Labour. Minor parties are pretty depressing.

I'll just repeat

7.20pm Electorate updates - here's the first news from electorates that I'm interested

Epsom - John Banks is behind but they've only counted 407 votes so while fun it means nothing
West Coast Tasman - Damien O'Connor is almost 100 votes behind Chris Auchinvole (only 636 votes counted) - I want some good news tonight so we may pay a lot of attention to this.
Ohariu - Charles Chavel on 130 and Peter Dunne on 134.
Rimutaka - 2,151 to Chris Hipkins and 1,613 to Jonathan Fletcher - which is good news for abortion rights.

7.08pm I'm not impressed with TVOne so far. Way too many people and most of them are boring. Although MMP is streaking ahead.

7.06pm First lot of votes on the referendum MMP is 3% ahead - good news - but I'd like it to be more.

7.00pm Welcome to Maia's home of grumpy election watching. Unlike the other live-bloggers I'm just at my house with some friends and relations. Collectively they'll be called "Rabbit's friends and relations."

The first decision for the evening is which channel we're going to watch. This has been made easier because TV3's commentators include Paul Henry, Rodney Hide, John Tamihere and Chris Trotter. Obviously their goal is to repel all women and men who have heard of feminism.

So I think we'll be flicking between Maori TV (who do have Ron Mark, Mike King and Derek Fox so we may not stay for long) and TV1.

We also have chocolate and gummi bears - for the sole purpose of taking bets. I'm going to try and take bets only on the most depressing outcomes - so if the worst comes to the worst I will have snacks.

Election night live-blogging 2011 - Index

2011-11-26T19:00:00.000+13:00

Live-blogging from different bloggers here:

If you click on the links above you'll go straight to that person's live-blogging post, which they will update through-out the night. (The links will be going as soon as people have started putting their post up).

Comments will be off moderation, for all posts, from 7pm-ish, unless we find we need to turn them back on cos people aren't playing nice.

On moderation until 7pm Sat 26th Nov

2011-11-25T21:43:00.001+13:00

Line drawing of a woman with a cool scarf. "Wear your nicest t-shirt tomorrow" (But please don't if it's a political one!)

To avoid the mess and inconvenience of some idiot getting us in trouble with the Electoral Commission, I'm about to put all comments on moderation.

There's been various advice swirling around the interwebs which basically seems to me to come down to the following:

No new posts, and no new comments, about election stuff (even whether the weather is good for voting or not!) between 12 midnight Friday and 7pm Saturday.

We may be putting up new posts, but they won't be about the election. We will allow new comments that aren't about the election through during the day (as time allows), but won't publish any that are about the election, even loosely, until after 7pm.

Normal moderation rules as to content and anonymous comments will apply.

Thanks for participating in our pre-election blogging here - there was quite a lot more I had personally hoped to get to (like finishing my party list gender analyses and doing a bit of a wrap up post on that), but hey, there's always next time.

And don't forget - at least three of us will be live-blogging here from 7pm Saturday night. Which could be fun or horribly depressing or a bit of both.

See you on the other side.

How I'm voting

2011-11-25T13:43:00.002+13:00

So in my last election related post before the polls I thought I'd describe my plans for tomorrow.

Electorate Vote

As I live in Wellington Central I can't use the ridiculously complex analysis I did of electorate seats. On top of that familiarity has certainly bred contempt when it comes to the parliamentary parties' candidates.

As it happens I can more easily make a case for voting for Paul Foster-Bell the National candidate than either Grant Robertson or James Shaw. If the polls were swinging differently Paul Foster-Bell could be a tactical abortion vote, but they're not so he's not. James Shaw appears to have been grown in a lab to personify everything those on the left criticise the Greens for.

Then there's Grant Robertson - who gets a lot of support round Wellington. I don't like him - not just because other people do - I think I sometimes come across as more contrarian than I am. But for actual good policy based reasons on an issue that is important to me. Grant Robertson was involved in designing the PBRF (performance based research fund) system that is currently doing such damage to tertiary education (and was always going to do damage in exactly the way that it did). And I am a little bit contrary so any time people on facebook are nice about him I mutter PBRF and get a little more entrenched. Plus my second rule of voting is "1984: Never forget, Never forgive." - and I take that very seriously.

So who am I going to vote for? I have two choices: Kelly Buchanan - the Alliance candidate I know and broadly agree with (she posted her responses to the Right to Life on The Hand Mirror). Or the Pirate Party candidate - because I believe new episodes of Joss Whedon TV shows are a fundamental human right.

I will probably vote for Kelly - mostly because I'm very good friends with her partner - and they're going to drink a shot every vote Kelly gets. It's been a hard year and it's time for my friend to have fun. Also I don't know the Pirate Party Candidate's position on abortion - and a girl has to have standards.

Party Vote

A few days ago my facebook status was "I think I'm a reasonably unprincipled voter; all I want is to vote for a left-wing party, where no-one in an achievable position on the list is anti-abortion or a rape apologist." So obviously I've been having trouble figuring out if I can vote at all.

Rule 2 obviously rules out Labour (and I'm looking for a left-wing party).

I've written at some length with my problems with the Greens in general and Russel Norman in particular. But my not voting for the Greens this time is more fundamental, because my first rule of voting is "Tories are evil":

I don't care it's a 1 in a 100 chance that the Greens will abstain on confidence and supply for a National party government after the election (and I think it may be higher than that) - it's still astronomically too high.

So if I'm voting with my party vote I'm voting for Mana. I was doing a pretty good job of convincing myself to vote for the lizards so the wrong lizards don't get in. But then I read their policies. Now some Mana policies are great - the disability policy is radical, and clearly addresses many of the problems with the current system in a way that takes disabled people's lives and liberty really seriously. And (as you'd expect) their Te Reo and Te Tiriti policy are awesome. They released their Industrial Relations Policy today and it's very impressive (I am a little worried that a 25% loading which made casualised labour a legal category would entrench casualisation - but since it's not going to happen that's of rather minor concern).

However, their education policy is just weird. In some places it is strangely specific, but it ignores or is unclear many of the really important education. So it's very clear that every school needs a community garden, but doesn't mention the level of the operation grant. It appears to be promoting a work for the student allowance system (but that isn't really clear).

Then there's their National Standards policy:

Abolish National Standards and replace with information that lets parents know how well their children are doing compared to other children, nationally, without the bad effects of the current direction.

On one level the statement is so incoherent to be laughable: abolish National Standards, but standardise where children are nationally in a way that would magically get rid of unspecified 'bad effects'. This is such a damaging attitude to what education is for. The point of education should not be measuring children against other children - but about learning. Children differ so much in what they find hard and what they find easy, what they love and what they struggle with. I want an education system the values in every child what they are good at, and but also values learning and improving from where a child is. Measuring children with other children is the antithesis of that.

Their policy to make NZ tobacco free is so ridiculous that it's hard to know how to respond. The failure of prohibition is pretty well documented when it comes to alcohol and drugs. Criminalising marijuana has hardly been liberatory for anyone.

On one level it doesn't matter because it's never going to happen. But I think it shows a fundamentally problematic attitude towards working-class people's lives. Working-class people are making complex choices about their survival strategies and the path towards liberation involves fighting for more resources and more choices. Taking away the chance to find a break, breath deeply, and get a hit of nicotine so they can keep going from those who feel like they need it is not liberatory.* They're ignoring all that and instead asking how can we use the power of the state to get people to behave how we want them to behave?

With National Standards and Tobacco in particular - my problem is not just that the policy is bad, but that it shows a way of thinking about society and state roles that I fundamentally disagree with and makes me distrust the way they are thinking about politics.

See writing this I have almost persuaded myself not to vote for them. But I really do want to vote for the least worst option, and they are it. Unless something dramatic happens in the next 24 hours I'll party-vote Mana.

Referendum Part 1

MMP.

(I can on occasion be brief)

Referendum Part 2

I think I've decided to vote for STV.

STV is the least bad of the four options. It also has the added advantage that it'll struggle against MMP, because then it'll be seen as just as (if not more complicated). In general I don't like it, because I think it kind of formalises protest votes and encourages (or forces in Australia) people to vote for candidates who will win, and it has a high threshold for minor parties. Although it would make voting on abortion easy.

If SM was in the picture at all, I would consider voting FPP - but as the choice is between STV and FPP - it's pretty simple.

I'll be live-blogging the election at The Hand Mirror. Expect mostly mockery, bile, depression, and obsessive attention to who is in parliament and where they stand on abortion.

* I guess I should be clear here that I addiction isn't liberatory either. I totally support any moves that makes it harder for people to get addicted to ciagerettes and assistance towards quitting.

skin deep

2011-11-24T21:10:00.003+13:00

and just as i was commending national in my previous post on changing their stance on issues around race after the resignation of dr brash, i received the letter below which i am posting with permission from the author. i'm sorry, but it's not enough to have your party leader make public platitudes about the importance and value of diversity. if the rest of your MPs don't have the courage to call out discrimination and to challenge racism, then those platitudes are just a sick joke.

priyanca tells me she was the only brown face in the room at this event. i'm so sorry that she had to sit through this kind of thing at a public meeting.

Dear Editor,

Never before was structural discrimination more blatant than at Monday night’s public meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and Wairarapa MP John Hayes at the Royal Hotel. I attended this meeting along with about eleven other members of the public and left the meeting feeling physically ill.

The conversation began with a discussion around economic issues, primarily related to the forestry industry in the Wairarapa and Hayes, in a bid to assert that high youth unemployment in the region is the result of individual choice as opposed to the lack of employment opportunity, referred to a group of 25 youths who were keen to be employed in the forestry industry of which 22 failed a mandatory drug test. This comment was met with much sighing and shoulder shrugging by a number of members of the audience and by Hayes himself. The discussion quickly deteriorated into a session of benefit-bashing, migrant and refugee-bashing and culminated (for me, as I was unable to take much more and left the meeting shortly before it drew to a close) in Hayes vociferously denouncing MMP as an electoral system that does not work as it “forces” the government to address issues that they had not even mentioned before they came into power – like the foreshore and seabed issue.

A member of the public who was fed up with the social welfare system was resentful that hardworking taxpayers had to support tax bludgers and made a reference to the “900 turbanheads [referring to Sikh men who wear turbans] who are driving our taxis in Wellington” who were misusing the welfare system (I could not quite make the connection between driving taxis and benefit fraud) and his remark was acknowledged with a number of nodding heads and although the Deputy PM attempted to joke that he liked the “turbanheads” the seeds of discrimination were already sown.

The seeds were carefully nurtured during an ensuing discussion on state housing, the “poor job that Housing New Zealand was doing” in ensuring that tenants did not sublet their state homes and fertilised by the Deputy PM’s comment about refugees who “often did not speak any English” and only too easily got straight onto the Emergency Benefit, moved on to the Unemployment Benefit and did not work “even for a day.” Mr English commiserated with audience members who felt that state housing was a waste of time and promised that his government, if re-elected, would ensure that they took a hard line towards state housing. I find this especially interesting considering funding to state housing was slashed by fifty per cent in the 2011 budget from $18.1 million to $9 million despite research that indicated an increased demand for state housing possibly exacerbated by a global economic recession[1].

Department of Labour research[2] on the economic impacts of immigration 2005 - 2010 points to “investment-induced productivity growth when the number of immigrants increased.” According to the same report, the 2006 census indicated a migrant population of approximately 927,000. It then quotes a research study that estimated that this migrant population had a positive net fiscal impact of $3,288 million in the year 2005/06. The study then compares this with the New Zealand-born population of 3.1 million which had a lower net fiscal impact of $2,838 million.

What I am trying to say here is that migrants make a positive economic contribution to New Zealand despite documented evidence of structural discrimination. Inward migration has also contributed to diversity in terms of food, music, festivals and if we want to go back to economics, contributed to the growth of the tourism industry. Refugees are people who have undergone severe trauma, terror and experienced the loss of homes and loved ones prior to coming to New Zealand. They are accepted into the country under the government’s Refugee Quota Programme on humanitarian grounds.

Given that New Zealand as the host country stands to benefit from inward migration, there are myriad government initiatives to address ethnic inequalities and target structural discrimination. As a result of this, I would expect the current government to set certain standards towards fostering race relations and was appalled at the blatant prejudice and lack of information displayed by the Deputy Prime Minister and this region’s incumbent MP. As a migrant myself, and one who has never accessed social welfare benefits, I was disgusted by the tone of the meeting and the perpetuation of a stereotype that migrants and refugees are bludgers of society.

Instead of tearing the social fabric of this nation apart, I would like to see the National Party work towards educating themselves first before professing to be inclusive and addressing underlying structural causes instead of playing the blame game. It would be great if, along the way, they would also develop some compassion for fellow human beings.

Regards,
Priyanca Radhakrishnan

[1] Otago Daily Times. (2011, May 20). State housing funding cut in half. Retrieved November 23, 2011, from Otago Daily Times: http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/161442/state-housing-funding-cut-half

[2] Department of Labour. (2010). New Zealand Research on the Economic Impacts of Immgiration 2005 - 2010: Synthesis and Research Agenda. Wellington: Department of Labour.

MMP and diversity

2011-11-24T10:59:00.001+13:00

People who support MMP say it has increased the diversity of our parliament like that's a good thing.

Now there are arguments here, about what "representative" means, and whether you believe diverse views are valuable and important. And there are also arguments about whether you believe parliament looking more like Aotearoa's demographics means parliament is more likely to approach political issues in ways which are mindful of all Aotearoa's people, or if that requires policy and engagement with community as well as MPs in parliament. Then there's the oft squaring off from the right of "diversity" and "competence", like they are two different things, really just code for "white, middle-class, heterosexual men know what's best for everyone."

I'm not debating those points this post, but I am going to explore diversity by looking at parliamentary make-up pre and post the first MMP election in 1996. I've struggled to get good data on this, so it's a bit of a patchwork of different sources, not all of which compare well. Feel free to follow the links and let me know if I'm wrong.

Pre 1996 we'd had:

44 women MPs over 25 elections (women could only be elected to parliament after 1919. The first women MP, Elizabeth McComb, was elected in 1933). Collectively those 44 women served 125 terms or 2.84 terms each on average. Just four of these women were Maori (Parekura Horomia's speech names three Maori women, but he has missed Jill Pettis, who won election before 1996)
79 Maori MPs over 43 elections (before 1967 Maori could not stand in general electorates, with the odd exception of Sir James Carroll, on account of his Pakeha whakapapa). After 1967 there were just a handful of Maori elected in general seats.
1 Pacifica MP - Taito Phillip Field
1 out queer MP - Chris Carter - who came out after being elected. (Marilyn Waring did not come out as lesbian until after she left parliament).

After 1996:

79 women over 5 elections. Collectively those 79 women have served 196 terms, or 2.48 terms each on average. Fifteen of these women have been Maori (Parekura's 12 plus Paula Bennett, Hekia Parata and Rahui Katene)
Maori political representation has almost exactly matched population percentages, with a total of 92 seats held by Maori MPs over 5 elections (some MPs have served multiple terms, so this doesn't equate to numbers of MPs)
Pacifica MPs have held steady at 3 MPs per election, or 2.5% of MPs (cf 5.8% - 6% of our population describing themselves as Pacifica). This includes NZ's first Pacifica woman MP, Samoan Luamanuvao Winnie Laban and first MP of Tongan descent, Carmel Sepuloni
Georgina Beyer became the world's first openly trans MP in 1999, so far the only one
Maryan Street became the first out lesbian MP in 2005, joining Tim Barnet, Chris Finlayson and Chris Carter, all of whom, post MMP, were elected as out queer people. Since then Louisa Wall (first Maori out queer person), Grant Robertson, Charles Chauvel and Kevin Hague have joined them, and this election there are 14 out queer candidates standing, of which Jan Logie (lesbian) is a near certain newbie. "Lesbian end of bi" Kelly Buchanan and "bisexual" Rachael Goldsmith may be the first candidates daring to use the B word, though they are probably not headed for parliament.
In terms of ethnicities wholly unrepresented when we had First Past the Post, MMP has seen the first Chinese MP (Pansy Wong), later joined by Kenneth Wang and Raymond Huo; first Tahitian MP (Charles Chauvel); first Korean MP (Melissa Lee); the first Indian MPs (Fijian Indian Rajen Prasad and Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi); the first Pakistani MP (Ashraf Choudhary) and the first MP of African descent (Nandor Tanczos)
In terms of religion, MMP has given us the first Sikh MP and the first and second Muslim MPs

Let's look at some pictures. Numbers of women in parliament pre and post MMP:

Or Maori political representation and population demographic, compared with pre MMP in 1993:

I'm going to collate MPs with Asian, Pacifica and African ancestry (so ethnic minorities of colour, based on this, with the addition of Arthur Anae, Kenneth Wang, Ashraf Choudhary, Rajen Prasad, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi and Nandor Tanczos):

Despite the steep curve after MMP, in 2008, with 9% of seats in parliament being won by people from these ethnic minority communities, it is still woefully short of the population demographic of 16.6% last census. Diversity has some way to go it seems, if you're Pacifica, Asian or African.

How about absolute numbers of queer MPs:

It's only in the last two elections that the percentage of out queer MPs gets close to 5%, the figure of secondary school students reporting same and both sex desire. This is about the only general population survey asking about sexuality, so it's probably the best estimate we have. Just where are those gaggle of gays, anyway?

Joking aside, it's clear that MMP has driven real diversity and movement away from a parliament which is completely unrepresentative of anyone but white, middle class, heterosexual men. Of course those guys are still doing alright - leading the National, Labour, United Future and ACT Parties and co-leading the Greens - so no need to worry about them.

There's a simple choice to make on Saturday if you value diversity.

Political Parties and Family Violence

2011-11-24T10:03:00.001+13:00

Jared at Left Wing rants has written an excellent overview of political parties and their attitudes to/policies on reducing family violence:

The most worrying thing for me is the lack of discussion around education. Something that has struck me in my research is that many people aren’t aware of what is actually health in a relationship. This is something that people should be educated about in school (similar to with sex education) to prevent them being trapped in an unhealthy relationship without knowing. This would make it easier for people to talk about it and seek help when they need it, as well as making it more likely that perpetrators would seek help. But overall, Labour, the Greens and Mana have good policies focusing on support for victims as well as prevention. National, on the other hand, have more punishment, while ACT don’t seem to care. The Māori Party seem to fit somewhere in the middle.

Check out the whole post.

Get Stuff to talk about abortion politics

2011-11-23T12:05:00.001+13:00

So I've spent the last few days googling candidates names and 'abortion' and coming up with little. I've written about the information vaccuum and the strongest principle on abortion seems to be: DON'T MAKE ME TALK ABOUT IT.

And now abortoin is an options in Stuff's poll on what topic they should cover next. I encourage people who share my interest in abortion politics to go vote.