Who Was That Woman, Anyway?

It’s trite to say that books take you places. But true nonetheless. With books, you can disappear into other times, cultures, imaginary worlds. “Foreign” fiction is better than any guide-book at introducing you to a place and its people, and sometimes even better than going there if you want to see beneath the surface.

But if you live here and read enough of the stuff (say novels from the two Anglophone powerhouses – the United States and the UK-plus-Ireland) then a different feeling starts to kick in. Like what you’re getting to know is really life inside the American novel, not life inside America. At about the same point, for me anyway, “local” fiction itself starts to feel a bit foreign. Not in the way “foreign” fiction is foreign, but in the way local fiction feels rare, like something you don’t see very often. Which, when it’s good local fiction, also makes it feel precious and exciting and new.

I felt this way reading Aorewa McLeod’s new book “Who Was That Woman, Anyway? Snapshots of a Lesbian Life.” It’s a novel, yes, but as McLeod explains in the book’s front matter, it’s inspired by real life events. “Some details happened in real life, some did not,” she writes. “The characters are fictionalised and given fictional names.” The book’s 10 chapters, ordered by date, span roughly 40 years in the life of Ngaio, McLeod’s protagonist who, like the author, is an English lecturer at a university in Auckland.

The subtitle is sweet in the way it undersells the book. These are not only snapshots of a lesbian life, but of life in New Zealand, and life in Aotearoa. Snapshots of what it can be like to grow up here, and live here.

Its starting point is the 1960s with Ngaio, a university student, heading to Nelson to spend her summer break as a nurse’s aide because “an ex-schoolmate’s father was someone high up in the mental health service and he had suggested that nurse-aiding in psychiatric hospitals was a lucrative way of earning money in the holidays”. Ngaio is put in a ward with bedridden, severely disabled children. “There were enormous hydrocephalic water heads, tiny pinheads, huge slobbering mouths, bent bodies, contorted hands waving in the air, grasping blindly, clutching as if there were something to reach for. They could grip me with such desperate strength that I had to pry their fingers off. Many were blind. I couldn’t tell how old they were.” McLeod’s writing, particularly in the first half of the novel, is like that: direct and piercing.

It’s while she’s working in Nelson that Ngaio meets Suzy, her first love. Suzy is a Māori woman from a Mormon family who works as a charge nurse at the children’s ward in town. “She only goes for white girls,” a friend tells Ngaio. “All her family’s married white. That’s what the Mormons encourage them to do, to make it in the white world.” Who cares! Ngaio is in heaven. “This was it; this was what it meant to make love. This was the transformational moment of my life.”

oh my!

as i mentioned on my own blog, a friend decided to gift me "fifty shades of grey" on my birthday.  of course once i had it, i had to read it.  wouldn't you?

i have to say that i found it to be the most hilarious p*sstake of another novel that i've read.  i don't see how anyone can get this book without having read the "twilight" novels, and having understood what's so wrong with those.  now clearly, the author of "50 shades" couldn't use exactly the same characters with exactly the same plotlines, because of copyright issues.  but it's close enough for anyone to get the parallels, and enjoy them.

i'm struggling to understand why anyone takes this book as anything other than satire, but then i guess that's because they haven't read the "twilight" series.  of course it's badly written, because the twilight books were badly written.  "50 shades" perfectly mirrors the misuse of words, the ghastly repetition, the badly constructed sentences.  i particularly laughed out loud at the use of the words "profligate" and "literally", although there were others that i can't remember now.  and the constant repetition of things like "oh my" and "don't bite your lip"? seriously funny.  (the latter is an especially funny parody of edward constantly policing bella's sexual responses).

the characters were all there - our clumsy heroine (bella/ana) who can't see why our possessive stalky but gorgeous & rich hero (edward parodied to the extreme in chris) could possibly be interested in her, because she thinks herself so plain.  but plenty of the minor characters came across, like the cullen family - the doctor and her husband, 4 adopted kids of whom mia was a perfect parody of alice.  and rose/elliot from "twilight" being very similar to ana's flatmate and her boyfriend's brother.  even mike turned up in the boss' brother, at the store where bella ana works.  as with "twilight", every male in the book is smitten with the heroine, even though the heroine sees herself as extremely plain.

i even loved how "50 shades" used twilight lines and situations - i saw jose being a parallel to jacob, who also kisses our heroine without her consent, and i thought the way ana says she can never be mad at jose really did highlight how stupidly "twilight" treated that incident.  in fact it was one of the things i hated most about twilight, followed closely by the fact that the most beautiful character in "twilight" wishes she weren't so beautiful because then she wouldn't have been raped (ok, even writing that sentence makes me feel ill).

and again, the way that christopher stalks ana and finds her in a bar in the city, and the way ana brushes off his stalking without being much worried about it: well i saw that as also highlighting in a funny way how badly "twilight" dealt with the issue.

i thought even the sex was a parody, and would actually be the type of sex edward should have been having given his overbearing and controlling personality.  if it was supposed to be porn, well it just reminded of all the novels we used to read back in the day by shirley conran, judith krantz, jackie collins etc.  badly written sex that made you laugh more than anything else.

i suppose if you read the books out of the context of a parody novel, and as a serious romance story, then of course it's terrible.  but as i've said, if you read it as satire then i think it's brilliantly done.  but even in the context of satire, there were a couple of things that did bother me.  i didn't like how, at the start, ana is pushed by her flatmate to shave her legs etc because this is what men expect.  ana is naturally comfortable being hairy, and it would have been really nice to have a heroine that had the guts to say "if you really like me, then you're going to have to accept that i don't shave, because that's how i like to be".

and the BDSM stuff, yeah, not comfortable with it.  i felt there was too much pressure put on the heroine, and a couple of the scenes were written all wrong.  i don't mean in terms of bad english or construction, but bad in terms of the motives of the people involved and the way they acted on those motives.  i'd be more specific, but that would mean having to go through the book to find those bits, then explain them, and i'm not particularly interested in doing that.

given that the novels are a parody, i think it's stupid for people to be writing articles questioning if women really just love to be submissive, based on the popularity of these books.  especially because our heroine doesn't ever really agree to be so. and because the fact that women are reading it doesn't mean they identify with the heroine or want to be treated as badly as she is by a man.  i think plenty of people read the twilight books, including young people, who found both edward and bella hugely problematic.

so there it is.  i've read the first one, and have no intention of rushing out to buy the others.

Help yourself

I went to see “The Help” tonight, after reluctantly reading the Kathryn Stockett’s book a couple of months ago. I just wasn’t sure I wanted to read central Black characters as imagined by a white woman. The ambitious, sprawling exploration of racism in the American South in the 1960s, told from the point of view of Black women working as domestic maids and a white woman struggling with her own complicity with racism, changed my mind. Signposted with reference to the murder of civil rights activist Medgar Evers, Jim Crow segregation laws are described, and the employment conditions of Black domestic workers exposed.

What works in the book is the interweaving of institutional oppression – laws, segregation, the state ignoring the murder of Evers – with families, and in particular, women, surviving. The extraordinary irony of white children being brought up and loved by Black women they are taught over time to treat as second-class citizens, in order to fully enjoy white privilege. Black women scarcely seeing their own children, or having to send them out early to paid work while they look after white children.

I can well believe the loyalties in these situations would have been fractured and complex. I can imagine loving a child I was looking after – because children are often very easy to love – at the same time as hating the racism and class privilege keeping me poor and unsafe. And I can imagine being a child who was loved by someone I was eventually taught to see as less than me, and struggling to imagine how to do that differently when everyone around me was stepping into the white privilege line.

Turns out though, “The Help” may have been written by a white woman stealing from a Black woman she knew. And astonishingly, the movie misses out on the subtlety and richness of the book by simplifying the storyline, picking only pretty people to appear, writing out some narratives completely and glossing over aspects of the 1960s social structures.

So both the movie and the book are controversial, which as ever with issues to do with power, is not necessarily a bad thing. I agree with African American media activist Jamia Wilson when she takes comfort in “The Help” promoting talk about race:

The Help comes at a time when white people are increasingly paranoid about “reverse racism.” From the classroom to the Supreme Court, more and more white people feel targeted by discrimination. Meanwhile, resentment of President Obama has manifested itself in bigotry toomanytimes. Racially motivated violence still happens in Jackson, Mississippi—automobile worker James C. Anderson was murdered in a hate crime just a couple of weeks ago.

But can we see this as a learning moment if what we’re learning is historically inaccurate? The Association of Black Women Historians have come out guns blazing:

Despite efforts to market the book and the film as a progressive story of triumph over racial injustice, The Help distorts, ignores, and trivializes the experiences of black domestic workers.

One of the problems here is that revisioning history always gives “victims” of history subjectivity – we are encouraged to examine choices that are made, agency that is exerted – even, to paraphrase Marx, when it’s not in the circumstances of our choosing. That’s real life – no matter how oppressed we are, we make choices – which is abundantly clear in “The Help”. The central Black characters choose to tell their stories, they choose to wrestle with faith in a time period characterised by brutality, they choose to stay with or leave violent men, they choose to take revenge on bullying employers or buckle down because they need the money. This is what I like about the book, that we see how oppression is unknitted by how we live, even as we also see how it is knitted. I don’t agree the racism of that time is trivialised by the book, feel more ambivalent about the movie, and positively love that it is Black women in the foreground.

Another issue for the Association of Black Women Historians is the portrayal of Black men:

The black family, in particular provided support and the validation of personhood necessary to stand against adversity. We do not recognize the black community described in The Help where most of the black male characters are depicted as drunkards, abusive, or absent. Such distorted images are misleading and do not represent the historical realities of black masculinity and manhood.

Yet civil rights activist and Black feminist philosopher Audre Lorde wrote in 1980:

Because of the continuous battle against racial erasure that Black women and Black men share, some Black women still refuse to recognise that we are also oppressed as women, and that sexual hostility against Black women is practiced not only by the white racist society, but implemented within our Black communities as well. Exacerbated by racism and the pressures of powerlessness, violence against Black women and children often becomes a standard within our communities, one by which manliness can be measured.

I guess revisionism happens in all kinds of directions.

An afternoon discussion with Dame Fiona Kidman - WGN

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

Message from the organisers:

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

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

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

 
Facebook event listing.

sophie's legacy

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

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

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

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

The slow reveal

Cross posted



If Tracey Crisp's novel, Black Dust Dancing, is characterised by the pauses and little actions of everyday life, then Kate De Goldi's novel, The 10pm Question, is all about the slow reveal. So much so, that to tell you about some of the key points of the novel is to spoil the process of revelation. So I shall be careful about what I say here: I will reveal some, but only the necessary, and leave some for you to read for yourself. Because you ought to read this novel.

The 10pm Question is seen through the eyes of Frankie, a 12 year old boy. His life seems normal, just the everyday activities of a boy and his family, even if overlaid by his anxiety. He has responsibilities, and he worries. Constantly. Mostly, he worries about his mother.

This is the point at which you should stop reading if you plan to read this book for yourself. At this point, I'm going to give a reveal. It doesn't ruin the plot, but I can't write about this book without revealing why Frankie worries about his mother.

Frankie's Mum has a mental illness. It constrains her life, and affects every member of the family, in different ways. Not in frightening ways. But in ways that push Frankie and his sister and his brother, and Uncle George.

This is where Kate De Goldi writes about mental illness so well. As I read the novel, it took me some time to realise that Frankie's mum, Francie, has a mental illness. Bit by bit I realised that something was not quite usual with Frankie's world. I realised that his mum was not a standard mum, and then I realised that she had a mental illness, and only after quite some time did I work out the exact nature of her illness. It was like real life, when we first assume that someone we have just met is a standard issue person, and then we realise that something is a bit unusual, and then that the person may have a mental health problem, and then, possibly, work out a little about the nature of a problem. In real life, a person's mental illness is often a slow reveal, to themselves, and to the people around them. Kate De Goldi has mirrored this slow reveal in the way she has written this novel.

De Goldi doesn't shy away from the difficulties of mental illness, for the person who has it, and for the people around her or him. When Frankie finally flies to his great aunts (three women of large size and large personality), the eldest aunt doesn't try to smooth over the problems, to pretend that they don't exist.

"Oh Frankie," she sighed. "Isn't it hard?"

That's one of the things I like about this book. It doesn't try to pretend that illness is easy, that everyone can just take the pills and be happy. Kate de Goldi's characters cope, but there are costs for each of them too. Above all, there are costs for Francie. She has found a way of living, a way of managing, a way of being... content, even if not happy per se. But there are costs. Fancie is no super-crip. She's just an ordinary woman, who copes as best she can with the way her life has turned out.

I also like Frankie's perspective. He seems to me to be a thorough-going twelve year old, full of plans and rituals and speculations. It was fun to see the world through a twelve-year-old's eyes, to see things that he didn't, and realise that he saw things that I simply could not perceive.

You should read this book. It's entertaining, but it's also thought-provoking. And it is instructive. Not in the sense of being didactic, or moralistic, at all. But in the sense of revealing aspects of the way that human beings can be, with sympathy, and without judgement.

My daughter, Ms Twelve, read this book too, and loved it. It's well within the reach of a perceptive twelve year old, 'though I suspect that she will find more in it if she reads it again when she is older.

Guestie: Grieving a child - a new resource for families experiencing loss

Many thanks to regular commenter, and relatively new blogger, Scuba Nurse for sharing this.  Cross-posted from her blog, Well behaved women rarely make history.

Note: the base details of this write up were taken from the details of an interview with the Bay of Plenty Times.

I want to thank Liz, primarily for writing this incredible book, and also for allowing me to write this, I hope this will help market the book and allow the community to know about this new resource.
Please pass the word around. As activists in various different women’s interest
groups we are ideally set to pass the word around.

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

It is not often that a book comes out, and I want to;
A) Get it NOW
B) Buy multiple copies for my friends.

Recently I got a wee note from a friend of mine who wanted to let people know that his sister has written a book.
*sigh*
The number of books I have read because I know the author, and then wished I had that couple of hours back...
This is different.

For a start it is a book written to help families cope with bereavement and the process of a stillbirth.
Liz Tamblyn has self-published 300 copies. She hopes the book will be a valuable tool for people working with children dealing with grief .

Secondly Liz is the author and it is written in first person perspective, but
not hers...
The book is called Baby Sam and is in the voice of Baby Sam’s big brother Jack, who was 4 when Sam was stillborn.
Liz wrote the story soon after Sam's death four years ago.
"A lot of it is Jack's words. I read it to him seven or eight times and he corrected the bits I got wrong."
There are not too many times in your life you remember minute to minute. The day you realise your child is gone is one of those moments.

Sam was six days overdue when a check-up discovered that he had died. Liz had felt him moving just the day before.
She knew about stillbirth through her cousin’s experience 14 years before her, and what she had seen in the media, but nothing can prepare you for this.
What Liz’s book does help with is the process after. Grief, the experience of mourning as a family unit and the ways of remembering a child lost.
“The book tells how the family celebrated Sam's life with a special dance at his funeral and by releasing red balloons. Jack and his younger sister Sally received presents from Sam and had a birthday cake with a train on it to mark his birthday.”

This really hit home for me; we celebrated my friend’s son’s 18th birthday a few years back though he died quite soon after his 4th. The first birthdays were filled with the weight of grief, raw and unhealed. In contrast his 18th Birthday was a picnic on the grass; we each laid flowers on his grave and had our own private moments with him before joining the group for what was definitely a celebration. A celebration of his life and his family’s since his loss.

No one grieves the same way, or uses the same coping mechanisms, and so any resource to help support a child through a healthy and natural process of loss is highly relevant.
The BOP times reported that this is the only book on baby loss from the sibling’s perspective, which Liz has kindly let me know is incorrect.
In her words...
“There is another book put out by Skylight NZ, SIDS Wellington and Sands Wellington called "What Happened to Baby" (Which I highly recommend!). It is generic and could be any baby, for any reason at any age or gestation. The text has been carefully designed to fit a wide range of bereavement situations, including miscarriage, stillbirth, cot death and accidental or natural deaths of an infant or toddler. Ours is the only TRUE and PERSONAL story I have found on the subject.”
Liz who is also mum to Harry and Sally, found writing the book was extremely healing and therapeutic.
"It's almost like his life has left a legacy of helping other people through their grief. It's like a new purpose in my life, which I would never have had. I'd rather have him if I had the choice but I have to find the good things."

Mrs Tamblyn is a committee member for Sands, a support group for “families grieving the loss of a baby no matter the gestation or age or reason for death. (Not just stillbirth and newborn death).”

The book was officially launched at a private function in Tauranga last week.  Visit www.skylight.org.nz for more info.

Is Marian Keyes pro-choice?

I finished the latest Marian Keyes book over the weekend. I quite enjoy her plots and her characters, and I like the way she writes about hidden parts of women's lives like domestic abuse, alcoholism, sex, and mental health. For those not familiar with Keyes, she is often classed as "chick lit", dismissively, which I tend to think is a bit unfair, and she's probably the most successful modern Irish author writing today.

Keyes has also been upfront about her own difficulties with depression and addiction, plus actively identifies as a feminist, campaigning with organisations like the Irish equivalent of Women's Refuge to list but one example. Her characters are often strong and independent, both women and men, and the manner in which she deals with issues like sex without love or marriage resonates with my own ideas of a feminist approach to life.

But her latest book has left me with one big niggle; is Marian Keyes pro-choice or not?

(Don't click through unless you want to read several huge spoilers)

HERE BE SPOILERS

Basically my problem is this. The mysterious narrator(s) of The Brightest Star in the Sky are supposed to be souls choosing who their parents will be. Which, if it were true, would rather give the anti-abortionists some pretty Big Material on which to base their restrictive approach to reproductive rights.

Of course the concept itself fails mightily. Why would no soul have chosen Fionn's foster parents, while choosing Katie's awful progenitors? Nevermind outside of the frame of the story, where children are born to abusive parents who have already beaten or even killed earlier children. Why would a supposedly highly intelligent and powerful soul make that choice? It seems to me a ludicrous idea full stop.

But to get back to Marian. The thing is that Keyes is supposedly publicly pro-choice. If you click on this link and scroll right down to the bottom you'll see this quote:

...Marian Keyes is an Irish (and somewhat of a) chick lit author who doesn't write strictly about reproductive rights issues, but she certainly addresses them. In her book Angels, the main character has an abortion, in which she discusses what it meant to have an abortion in a nation where the procedure was illegal. She is also publicly pro-choice and serves as a role model for other Irish women.

Many thanks to a good friend for finding this for me.

If you've read TBSitS I'd appreciate your thoughts - did you find this plot device niggled too? Does it undermine Keye's past commitment to a woman's right to choose?

why a man is not a financial plan

from monday's waikato times, this interview with the author of "why a man is not a financial plan", joan baker:

For those women banking on a marriage to see them through, financial adviser Joan Baker, author of Why a man is not a financial plan, and Smart Women delivers her killer question.

"Whatever your age or stage you should ask yourself: what would be mine or what would be my circumstance if he died, or left or whatever?"

However unsettling, she says, this mental exercise is critically important. The calculations, stripped of alimony fantasies and factoring in pay expectations and childcare costs, if relevant, can be revealing. By some estimates, a woman's standard of living drops an average of 73 per cent in the first year after divorce. The future doesn't get any brighter.

Of the elderly living in poverty, three out of four are said to be women and 80 per cent of them were not poor when they were partnered. Overall, nearly seven out of 10 women are projected to live in poverty some time in their lives.

Given the depressingly high divorce rate that forecasts a 50 per cent chance of marital success, there is reason to worry and even better reason to plan.

all of this basically ties into the point i was making in my last paragraph here. it's all very well to raise the issue, but the more important question is how to make that money and keep yourself financially secure. ms baker deals with unequal pay and discrimination in the workplace, issues which we have dealt with at length here. she also talks about self-employment and the difficulties with that. i also thought this bit was interesting:

"Obviously it isn't universally true but the bias is in that direction," says Baker. Those who would argue otherwise just need to look at the spending differences between men and women, she argues. "If you look generally at how women spend their wages or salary, a huge amount of that money goes into presenting well and looking good, whereas men's money will generally speaking be more likely go into what turns out to be good assets as opposed to handbags and shoes."

well yes, a little bit of a generalisation there, but the underlying point that women are under a lot of pressure to spend their money on their appearance is a valid one. it's a pressure that's constant and pretty hard to resist.

the piece (and possibly the book?) is aimed at professional women. but there are so many who are dealing with poverty and struggling at day-to-day living. they are just as much in need of financial planning and societal solutions around better pay and conditions. a pity that this wasn't covered as well.

supporting public libraries

it seems that nothing is seen as a public good anymore. public libraries are supposed to be the means for all people to get information, learn, research or simply to enjoy a good read, regardless of economic status. it's such a pity that these institutions are increasingly adopting a user-pays system in order to survive.

i received the notice below about a public talk in wellington on the subject:

As you may be aware Public Libraries within New Zealand are facing increasing pressure to introduce or increase charges – including charging for borrowing books. The Association of Public Library Managers Inc, whose membership is made up of public library managers though-out New Zealand, believes that charging for book loans will impact those on low incomes, including elderly people and beneficiaries and result in a decrease in the use of library facilities. The Association’s stand is against charging for books because this will contribute to a decline in literacy.

The Association of Public Library Managers and LIANZA (The Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa) invite you to a public presentation on “Why Public Libraries Must Be Free" with international guest speaker, Bob McKee, the Chief Executive of CILIP (Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals) from the UK.

Internationally, Bob is a member of the Governing Board and Executive Committee of IFLA (the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions), and is an advocate for Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression. Please join us for an interesting evening and the opportunity to hear an international speaker on this important topic.

When: Tues 25th of May, 5.30pm for a 6pm start, 7pm finish.

Where: Lecture Theatre 1, Ground Floor, Old Government Buildings, Victoria University Law School, entrance off Stout Street.

Cost: Free

via aotearoa ethnic network

"enlightened sexism"

and yet another cracker interview by kathryn ryan (nine to noon, 9.40am). this time she's talking to susan j douglas of the university of michigan about the latter's new book entitled "enlightened sexism". it's a good discussion of the portrayal of women on television and the media.

because i'm at work and busy, i'll just copy the blurb from the radio nz page:

Susan J Douglas, professor of Communications at the University of Michigan, columnist and author. She argues that the media is increasingly resurrecting sexist stereotypes of girls and women because of an assumption that feminism's work has been done. She calls this "enlightened sexism" - which she says is a new subtle form of bias, that brings back sexist and shallow images of women in the media, all with a wink and a laugh.

Susan J Douglas' latest book points out that women in general are still paid much less than men, and still battle that glass ceiling which still sees men in most of the top jobs: Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism's Work is Done (2010)

giving it a miss

i saw the trailer for the next movie instalment of the twilight series the other day. it's called eclipse, and i'm not going to link to it - you can go and search you-tube or one of the twilight fan sites.

i've read all the books, and i've seen the two movies that have come out so far. but the third book is the most disturbing for me (although the others aren't all that wonderful either). in eclipse, our heroine (of sorts - she doesn't do anything heroic until the end of the fourth and final book) is basically stalked by a young man (jacob) who loves her and thinks that he is better for her than her current boyfriend. and is sure that she loves him (ie jacob) but just doesn't know it yet.

and so you have dialogue in the film trailer that goes along the lines of "i'm going to fight for you til your last breath" coming from jacob, while bella (our "heroine") looks down in distress. i just found this sickening when i watched it. in the book it's worse - he forces her to kiss him in what is basically an assault (and her father laughs when he hears about this, because he prefers jacob to the boyfriend), and in a later scene threatens to commit suicide if she doesn't kiss him.

it's classic stalker behaviour, dressed and presented as romantic and supposedly sweet. and of course, in the book, somehow it's all bella's fault because she has apparently been leading jacob on and sending out the wrong signals. never once do we hear jacob talk about or think about what bella might want, or acknowledge the fact that she might know what she wants better than he does.

sick, sick, sick. needless to say, i won't be going to watch eclipse. i don't think i could stand it.

a different perspective

one of the things that's been keeping me busy over the summer is reading. i've been catching up on a few books, which i wrote about here. well, a few weeks ago, my younger daughter brought home a book by malorie blackman called "noughts and crosses". it's the first in a trilogy, and i've now read all three of them.

as i read the first one, it occurred to me that my reading list over summer was so totally white-washed, and i hadn't even realised it. even the book that was about slavery was written by a white woman. the only thing that could be called ethnic diversity in that list was the novel by a swedish writer.

now obviously this is my own mistake, and i'm the one who is responsible for having a more varied reading list. but then so much of what we read is determined by what is popular at the time, what catches our eye on the best seller lists, what is right in front of us. and the fact is that one has to make more of an effort to find books written by people of colour.

which is sad, because their stories can present such a different view of the world than the one we're used to seeing. and "noughts and crosses" certainly does that! i'm really disappointed that these books haven't turned into blockbuster films like the harry potter or twilight books, because they certainly deserve to be. but they challenge the status quo in a way that would make many people uncomfortable, so i guess hollywood executives just aren't interested.

Scathing blog post about Twilight

By Fiona Imlach Guneskara at Pundit:

Based on Stephenie Meyer's blockbuster book, New Moon contains elements that are deeply disturbing, although little critique of the underlying messages pervading the Twilight series has appeared in mainstream media. At least one theme that recurs strongly in New Moon should be of great concern to those who work with young people, at whom this movie is targeted, and those working in mental health services.

...The most dreadful aspect of Bella’s insipid character is that she is entirely dependent on the males in her life. All of her actions revolve around them – everything she does is in response to Edward or Jacob. She plays the consummate damsel in distress, without any desire to save herself – how is this possible in the 21st century?

...Why has this story had such appeal to women, despite the dark undercurrents of violence and self-repression? Perhaps it is due to the tremendous pressure society places on women to be superhuman – to simultaneously hold down a job, run a home, be mother, daughter, wife and friend. The appeal of the superhuman man, who is not only unbelievably gorgeous, the perfect gentleman, sensitive, intelligent and wonderfully rich, is overwhelming.

Click through for the whole thing, it's well worth a read.

I haven't read any of the Twilight books although I'd been starting to think maybe I should. I was repulsed by Harry Potter, until I gave in and got hooked. Likewise with the Tomorrow When the War Began series, and Cross Stitch (although this one I gave up on part way through the fifth volume). But Fiona's caused me to reconsider.

What say you? Especially if you have read the books/seen the movies!

Annoying white naval cap thingy which you have to clean with toothpaste tipped in the direction of my dear friend L, via Facebook.

j k rowling

we were a bit late in getting into the harry potter thing. i think the first 2 movies had already come out, but once i bought them for the kids, we were pretty much hooked. not that there weren't aspects of the stories that i didn't like, but on the whole they were a pretty good read. so much better than other popular children's books like the twilight series (puke) or the eragon novels (the third one particularly annoyed me).

about joanne rowling, i knew very little. i don't read gossip magazines or entertainment pages on the internet, so i was largely unaware of her personal life. however, it was a link to this speech she gave at harvard which made me admire her as a person, not just as an author.

last night on prime, there was a really good 1 hour programme following her life for a year, as she finished off the final novel of the harry potter series & the 5th movie was released. i thought it was really well done, and brought out her personality really well. the thing i most admire about her is her compassion and humility. the fact that she remembers the hard times in her life, and even though she is now phenomenally successful, she recognises that poverty is mostly circumstantial & is largely determined by the way society is structured.

also admirable is her sense of inclusiveness. that came out quite clearly in the books, but it's something that she articulates really well. given the popularity of her books, she is well aware of the ability she has of having a positive influence on many people. it seems to me that she is making the most of that ability.

succeeding at school

i was listening to this interview on radio nz this morning with only half an ear this morning (seeing as how i also have to work for a living). kathryn ryan was talking to massey university lecturer mike irwin, the author of a book called "educating boys - helping kiwi boys to succeed at school". a few of the bits i paid attention to did make sense, and i have no beef with improving educational outcomes for boys. if we need some different approaches to help them do well, then we should look into that.

the thing i do have a beef with, however, is this notion that we've done really well with the "girls can do anything" campaign, and girls are now succeeding wonderfully at school. i beg to differ. i don't doubt that girls are doing well, relatively speaking. but they are not doing well in every field.

in my older daughter's IT class, there are only 2 girls out of a total of 20 students. last year was pretty much the same. last week i spoke to the associate dean of engineering at auckland university. he told me that the mechanical engineering stream had about 10% girls, which went up to 25% for other streams. i know the modern apprenticeship scheme has a very low uptake of women (something like 7% when i last heard).

the point is that i don't think the message has been totally successful, and there still needs to be work done to determine why it is that girls aren't taking some of these subjects. it's certainly not time to sit back and say our work is done, when areas of inequality remain.

as an aside, an interesting point that mr irwin made was that the gender of the teacher wasn't an important factor in boys. more important was the rapport they had with their teacher, and how motivated they felt by that teacher. although that would apply equally to girls as much as boys.

Guest post: We’re all lesbians now: undermining powerful women

Here is a thought-provoking (not to mention well-researched!) guest post from frequent commenter Carol. We asked her to expand on some comments she made over at Kiwipolitico a while back, and she really went the miles kilometres for us, including reading some of an Ian Wishart book. Thanks so much Carol, it's great to have such an informed post on this topic!

I have grave concerns about the way the term "lesbian" was mobilized within overt and whispered right wing attacks on Helen Clark's leadership of the NZ government. This is indicative of ways in which senior women politicians continued to be undermined by drawing on historical gendered and sexualized stereotypes.

The issue of Helen Clark's sexuality is complex as indicated by Anita in her recent post. Anita highlights the dishonesty attached to the whispering campaign against Clark:

John Key never actually called Helen Clark a "heartless childless lesbian bitch", instead he arranged for enough other people to say it so that he only needed to nod slightly and the attack was made but his hands remained clean.

Anita also touched on the way it perpetuates negativity towards lesbians:

If being called a lesbian is a political attack what does that mean for women who actually are lesbians?

As an aging leftie, lesbian and feminist, I have, through several decades, had substantial first hand experience of debilitating homophobia and heterosexism in NZ and the UK. At times ignorance, prejudice, discrimination and/or outright bigotry has been incorporated within sexism and misogyny.

Consequently, while being critical of some of the policies and practices of the Clark government (such as those to do with Maori issues and its perpetuation of some neoliberal policies), I felt positively about the way Helen Clark's stint as PM marked a step forward for the left, for women, and for some of the policies significant for LGBT people. Increasingly, however, I have been disturbed by the widespread circulation of attacks on HC, in the media, in parliament, on talkback and in the blogosphere.

The most disquieting aspect is the negative coding of lesbian sexuality, which also incorporated an undercurrent of sexism, subsumed within a "communist, lesbian, feminazi, dictator" discourse. This seems to draw on and conflate long-held stereotypes which demonise powerful women, often characterizing them as dangerous lesbians. Such a mix has also been incorporated in gossip and rumour concerning at least one or two of the most powerful women in the contemporary western world. These are women who, like Clark fall outside what is considered by many as the accepted norm of wife and mother within a monogamous heterosexual marriage – try typing "lesbian" + "Condaleeza Rice" or "Hillary Clinton" into a google web search.

The connotations of the discourse, as related to Clark, have usefully been identified by Lewis Stoddart, in his analysis of talk on Banks and Perrigo's talkback radio show The First Edition.

Stoddard refers to this as the "communist lesbian dictator" discourse, that incorporated the concept of "feminazi" often conflated into the archetype of the violent, anti-human "nanny state". Clark is attacked as "an evil inhuman [man-hating] 'bitch' who must be 'beaten back', because she is characterized as being part of an 'unholy alliance of socialist lefties, militant feminists and Islamic radicals'". In this discourse, "Clark's notional sexuality was entirely geared toward the domination of men." This was linked to her alleged ruthless ambition for political power, which was "the root of Nanny State's sexuality: her 'source of orgasm was power-lust'". In contrast male political ambition is viewed positively, as seen in the myth-making around John key's state house up-bringing, and child-hood desire to be PM.

Stoddard states that "the fundamental basis of Clark's symbolic promotion from woman to feminazi was to be found in her status as a powerful woman." The term "communist" was used in the talk-back chat to imply "conspiracy" in opposition to free enterprise. This conspiracy was characterized as working in the interest of special interest groups, especially Islamofascists, feminazi man-haters and welfare no-hopers while ignoring the concerns of ordinary NZ battlers. This discourse was further supported by the characterisation of Clark and her government as irredeemably corrupt.

The "lesbian" element powerfully supported this discourse through associations with dishonesty and a secret agenda. This use of sexuality draws on negative stereotypes of a powerful autononomous sexuality, that rejects men and women's traditional feminine roles, and is "unnatural, abnormal and perilous", often associated with witches, and ball-breaking bitches (as in a "coven of left-wing witches").

Stoddard's paper deals with the discourse as articulated in talkback. Ian Wishart's Absolute Power re-constructs largely the same discourse to the one Stoddard identified. The chapters on Clark and her husband's sexuality are part of a sophisticated attempt to provide evidence for Clark presiding over the most corrupt government in New Zealand's history.

A substantial part of the book is devoted to linking the alleged extreme corruption to the evidence for Clark being lesbian, and her relationship with Peter Davis as a cynical, politically-motivated sham.

However, the evidence used to substantiate these claims is largely contingent and circumstantial. It often relies on guilt by association and underlying assumptions, which are incorporated into arguments that conflate feminist critiques with man-hating. It seems to aim to support the notion of Clark as a ruthless, ambitious, lesbian feminazi, relying on the sheer amount of sources drawn on, aided by very slanted use of language, and related underlying assumptions, rather than through a balanced analysis of the evidence or a clearly applied line of argument.

The attacks on Clark's sexuality seem to have begun within the Labour Party and/or its supporters. But it was then right-wingers who honed it into a more sophisticated discourse that linked the demonization of female power with the alleged corruption and abuse of power associated with communist regimes, and by extension the left in general.

Wishart is correct to claim that the lesbian slurs of Clark began with the left, though I disagree that it was first put into the public sphere by Edwards in his biography of Clark. According to David Leser, this slur originated with Mike Moore's supporters in the Clark-Moore struggle for Labour Party leadership in 1993 The Edwards book strategically tackles these semi-covert slurs head-on, rather than try to deal with it in the borderland space between public and private, occupied by back-room whispering and political campaign heckles.

Wishart ignores and/or does not accept that there are issues of power imbalance for women and LGBT politicians. This imbalance creates extra strategic problems for senior women and/or LGBT politicians, which can sometimes result in them being contradictory. Wishart also seems to promote a fairly rigid classification for sexuality, in which Clark is either lesbian and devious, or in a conventional heterosexual relationship.

Wishart's contingency is evident in the rather slippery ways he refers to the issue of Clark's sexuality. He first says he will present the evidence concerning her sexuality, but isn't going to state whether she is gay or not. Actually he will be on dicey ground if he did make such a statement as he doesn't present any conclusive evidence for it. He says that "if" Clark is gay, the issue is of importance because a politician who lies about their private life will lie in their political operations. It is a question of trust, corruption and the hidden agenda. Yet the evidence assumes that if Clark is not in a conventional heterosexual relationship she must be gay, and that the evidence strongly points to this. He provides evidence for this through Clark's close associations with lesbians like Heather Simpson.

The evidence that Wishart cites for the trust issue, is located within writings on legal ethics, is not supported any substantial evidence of human behavour, and is strongly contested by others. The key issue, as outlined by Wishhart is that a politican who lies about their sexuality or other aspects of their private life, will lie in the political sphere. However, many contest such an equation. For instance Daniel J. Solvove argues that we all present a different version of ourselves in private from the version we present in public.

Furthermore, such critics also argue that, for people who are marginalized, the pressure to lie, in order to survive in public contexts is very strong, because disclosure can lead to irrational responses. For me, homophobia could be such an irrational response.

Wishart characterises Clark's "social engineering" through her support of such bills as the Civil Union Bill, The Care of Children Act, “smacking outlawed”, etc, as evidence of her trying to promote her twisted, "almost pathological" values onto the public and thereby deprive them of choice. He uses (what he calls) a 'Freudian' analysis of Clark's rebellion against her right wing parents, as though there was no legitimacy to her left-wing views that drove this rebellion.

Yet her support of the Civil Union Bill, is not contradictory or “pathological”, but in keeping with her left-wing commitment to social justice. Furthermore, while in fact not depriving those committed to conventional marriage and nuclear families, the Civil Union law is aimed at removing the need for anyone to have to lie about the personal lives by making such relationships more acceptable. LGBT closeting is a result of the aggressive dominance of strongly gendered heterosexuality. This is a result of the way society has been constructed (or 'engineered') in the interests of the most dominant players over many centuries, ie heterosexual men. "Social engineering" merely gives the idea of social construction a negative slant.

Wishart's argument fails to acknowledge the fluidity of many people's sexuality, and the diversity of many of our relationships. This is evident in the way he uses quotes from Simone de Beauvoir (a favourite of Clark's) to support the unnaturalness of Clark's sexuality, and evidence of an anti-marriage, feminist agenda..

He quotes fairly extensively from de Beauvoir, but this is also associative and circumstantial. In the 1970s de Beauvoir was popular with feminists, hetersosexual, lesbian and bi, and what they took from it probably differed vastly amongst women. Furthermore, de Beauvoir was seen by many women as embodying the best kind of egalitarian sexual-emotional relationship with Sartre. Later disclosures about the lives of these two influential French philosophers have been received critically by many feminists, who, contrary to Wishart's interpretation, see de Beauvoir as having been in Sartre's shadow, and/or manipulated by him. Others focus more on de Beauvoir's bisexuality. Either way, she epitomizes either a non-normative heterosexuality, or a bisexuality that Wishart's analysis cannot accommodate.

Furthermore, Wishart compounds his use of the de Beauvoir quotes by reference to other 'evidence' for (unnatural, lesbian) Clark being a man-hater. For instance he quotes Clark's critical comments about Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble. She says she finds Douglas loathsome and sexist, while she also characterises Prebble, and a lot of male discourse within the Beehive, as sexist. There is no evidence in these statements of Clark hating men in general, only her criticism of sexism, and her strong dislike of a couple of individual males.

Wishart's book seems to be the most comprehensive attempt to provide evidence of HC's deviant sexuality, linked with the analysis of other issues that are part of the case for the Clark government being the most corrupt NZ has ever had (paintergate, Doone, Benson-Pope, Owen Glenn etc).

As evidence linking the sexuality issue with that of Clark as alleged dictator, Wishart quotes a visitor to NZ as having been told by many Kiwis that they believe Clark is a lesbian, but they say it with fear that apparently renders them, according to the Aussie visitor, “too terrified to discuss this charade rationally”. Perhaps the irrationality is that they don't have certain evidence and that in fact their claims are slanderous. However, it hasn't stopped many bloggers, talk back radio callers or many blog commenters from making such claims.

The Clark government had its faults, but it did make important gains for LGBT people, while taking nothing away from those who are, or wish to be, part of monogamous, heterosexual nuclear families and marriages. The use of the lesbian slur to undermine Clark, is part of a widespread pattern of demonizing powerful women. Why was it so necessary for right wingers to add this element of homophobia, and associated sexism, to their attacks on the policies and practices of the Clark government?

Event: Launch of Stephanie Johnson's new book

BOOKLAUNCH - STEPHANIE JOHNSON - SWIMMERS' ROPE

You are invited to join Random House & The Women's Bookshop to launch the latest novel from this brilliant Ponsonby author.

Friday 7 November 6pm

At The Women's Bookshop, Ponsonby Road, Auckland; Stephanie speaking at 6.30pm

I've not put "feminist event" for this as having read quite a few of Johnson's books I'm quite confused about her politics. She certainly writes some good female characters (I particularly liked her female PM in John Tomb's Head which I just finished reading recently), and she's also written a novel which features an event bearing striking similarity to the attack on Mervyn Thompson in the 1980s, which was blamed on feminists at UOA at the time. Feminist or not, I suspect she'd be interesting to hear nonetheless.

New men's anarchist zine - From The Kitchen

Now you might be wondering why I'm mentioning a men's mag on a feminist blog, but kindly read the following message from the organisers of the zine...

From The Kitchen: Issue one of Aotearoa anarchist men's zine now out!

In what is perhaps a first for Aotearoa Pakeha anarchists (please let us know if that isn't the case) 'From the Kitchen' is a zine devoted to the discussion of anarchist mens relationship/ response to the feminist movement(s) and our own sexist behaviour. The zine isn't about pointing fingers but instead is done in the style of critical self-reflection by the authors about sexism in their own lives.

Topics in the first issue include:

• Me(n) and Pornography
• Slugs in the Sandpit - The Gendered politics of the garden
• Meat Robots Unite
• Some thoughts on masculinity, authoritarianism and emotional intelligence
• What is to be done- some reflections on current sexism in the anarchist movement.

If you want to get you hands on a copy (I know you do!) then try the Freedom Shop in Te Whanganui-a- Tara/Wellington, Cherry Bomb Comics in Tamaki-makau- rau/Auckland, Black Star Books in Otepoti/Dunedin, or if you are outside of the main centres then through Katipo Books. It is hoped that the zine will be on going so if you want to contribute to the next one or help distribute this one then contact menshuizine@ katipo.net. nz

Feminist Events: Suffrage Day in Christchurch

"SUFFRAGE DAY CELEBRATIONS: WOMEN PAST & PRESENT

Just a reminder to phone Ruth Todd for tickets NOW for our celebration of Suffrage Day - Friday 19 September- White Camellia Day - the Day the Vote was Won! And this year, with the general elections coming up, very important that we use our vote, won for us by those amazing women in 1893. We always like to mark this day with a WOA event in the evening & this is it! See details below.

We will also have some wonderful BOOK RAFFLES too! You can win packages of 5-6 new books for $2

MEGAN HUTCHING has produced 6 books of oral histories of WW2, and in her new book, Over the Wide and Trackless Sea, she has chosen 11 pioneer women and girls of NZ, who came here from Dalmatia, Britain & Denmark. Some will be familiar - Lady Barker & Betty Guard - do you know about Amey Daldey, Juliette Daniell & Catherine Ralfe?? These are wonderful stories,full of humour, soul-searching & exasperation, about their trials & triumphs, told as much as possible in their own words. A wonderful gift for younger women too.

VIRGINIA PAWSEY from North Canterbury & JANICE MARRIOTT from Wellington, will have a conversation that brought about COMMON GROUND - the letters written to each other for a year - two very different women & their friendship - both with a passion for gardening & letter writing, who met up at a school reunion after many years.
A real delight - their gardens & daily lives couldn't be more different.

And one of our favourite Canterbury poets, BERNADETTE HALL, will end the evening reading some of her recent poems.

You will be able to hear interviews with Megan Hutching & Janice Marriott on WOA on Sat 13 Sept after 10am

If you are a Friend of WOA, the ticket price is $10 from Ruth or Morrin. If you would like to bring a student - $5 - with ID

Just send a cheque to WOA Trust, Plains FM, PO Box 22297, ChCh & enclose a stamped addressed envelope & we will post the tickets back to you.
Tell your book groups & bring your friends or just come yourself

Also CELEBRATE by coming to the Kate Sheppard Memorial at 12.30 on Suffrage Day - bring spring flowers or camellias & join with other women to remember the women who came before & talk about the present & the future."

Thanks to Heather for leaving the above comment about this on a previous post, and bringing it to my attention. If anyone has any feminist events, for Suffrage Day or otherwise, please feel free to email me (address is available through my profile).