I am not a Hillary fangirl but

As a little girl growing up I briefly hated Helen Clark because I realised she would likely be NZ's first female prime minister and beat me to it.  I disliked Jenny Shipley for a lot longer, before, during and after her stint as PM, for her policies and limited view of society, not least the odious Code of Social Responsibility (which by the way is largely in place these days from what I can see).

When Hillary Clinton became the first female presidential nominee of a major political party in the USA I was a bit excited, although Bernie was closer to my politics and had Larry David as his SNL impersonator.  Could this actually happen?  A woman in the White House not as First Lady or a staffer or a visitor, but as the President?  In the flood of anti-Hillary outpourings that washed over us all, even here on the other side of the world and dateline, over the next few months that excitement was quickly extinguished.

And then for a long time now we have been watching Trump.  This election is all about Trump, much like a real reality TV show (and what an absurd phrase).  I can't believe it has come to this, that what seemed like a joke or a play for attention is now coming to an endgame that could put someone in control of the USA with no political experience or understanding, a seemingly compulsive liar who is racist and sexist (and anti-abortion) and no doubt lots of other awful things I have missed because to pay close attention to this is to take a wound to the heart every five minutes.  I could pepper this paragraph with links to The Awfulness but surely it's accepted by now, despite his  often nonsensical denials, that he has done and said and downright IS these terrible things.

So he's not fit to be President, not fit to be a politician from my point of view.  Like Paul Henry times ten.*

Thus it's quite possible to support Hillary on the basis she is the lesser of two evils, and I take on board the views of the many many people who tell me that's so.  She's quite a long way less surely most people outside the USA can objectively see that, but putting that to one side, she is, as we all are, a flawed human being.  Will she be as good as Obama (himself not perfect, eg the extra judicial execution of Osama Bin Laden)?  Time will tell.  Her championing of Black Lives Matter, an unapologetic pro-choice position, supporting marriage equality all point to a capability to lead on tough national issues that her country seems very divided over from all this distance away, filtered through CNN, Last Week Tonight, and Fox.  The capacity for an inclusive, optimistic, hopeful leader is there.

As a feminist I don't support Hillary because she is a woman.  I support her because she is a feminist woman, a woman with the skills and life experience, a woman who has handled a truly bizarre and hurtful campaign with grace including being stalked around the debate stage by a large man who has encouraged people to shoot her supporters and wants to put her in jail.  I support her because the idea that a woman can be a political leader is still anathema to some, as I see myself in my own political life sadly.

Part of me looks forward to the awkwardness that will ensue.  Bill can't be First Lady.  How often will Hillary accidentally be called "Mister President"?   How much outcry can we look forward to if she refers to founding mothers?  It will be hard for her, and it will be hard for women, to see that everyday sexism happen, but it will also hopefully be a catalyst for change, for realisation by some of those who haven't understood to date.

Clinton is not the perfect feminist left wing presidential candidate.  She's also not Thatcher.  The US Democrats aren't even a particularly left wing party by NZ or European standards, just in comparison to the small minded small government zealots of the Republicans.

Hillary will be the first female president of the USA, and as I did when Obama became the first African American to hold that role, I suspect I may shed a few tears Wednesday afternoon NZ time.



* I originally wrote million, then scaled it down to a thousand, but really seems like they possibly aren't that different.  You get the idea.

The Role of the Rule of Law and Access to Justice in Development

Last night I was excited to go and see Helen Clark speak at the University of Auckland on the Role of the Rule of Law and Access to Justice in Development. I made copious notes, and tried my hardest to keep up and live-tweet key points for people who would have loved to have been there but couldn’t make it.
For a full transcript of her talk, please go to the UNDP website link here.
But in the interests of those who wish to just get the gist of things, I have summarised main points
The tone of the talk was very relaxed, and it may have been me projecting what I wanted onto the evening, but it seemed as though Helen was enjoying being at home, talking to a group of people interested and positive about the future. The talk was definitely targeted at raising the interest and profile of what the UNDP does to those who work in and around human rights law in NZ. She pointed out that UNDP is a development agency, and doesn’t have a monitoring role in human rights and international law. (Something I wasn’t aware of). UNDP work on poverty eradication and human development, defined as a process of “enlarging people’s choices, freedoms, and capabilities to lead lives they value.”

A key part of people’s vulnerability is that they live without the protections of the law, and this limits their choices and freedoms and opens them up to a range of abuses.   “The rule of law and a well-functioning justice sector support such growth and development, by, for example defining property and tenure rights, enabling contracts to be enforced and disputes settled, and tackling corruption.”
Helen Clark pointed out that the previous UNDP goals were of broader strokes and despite significant progress on achieving the Millennium development goals, poor and marginalized people continue to “face significant obstacles to empowerment and human development”.  A pivotal lesson learned has been that “weak governance, ineffective or unfair justice systems, security institutions which do not serve their people, and lack of stability are all barriers to development progress.”
She referenced that the Commission on the Legal Empowerment of the Poor noted in its 2008 report that marginalized groups often depend on informal employment for their livelihoods and informal housing for their habitat. They often lack legal identity and access to justice. The Commission's final report argued that: "a process of systemic change through which the poor and excluded become able to use the law, the legal system, and legal services to protect and advance their rights and interests as citizens" is essential for social justice and equity.
"An honest and responsive government" is ranked as fourth of the sixteen priorities, with more than half of all participants ranking it in their top six priorities.
She gave examples for how the rule of law and access to justice can be advanced through practical development work and they were fascinating – again, I would highly recommend reading her speech, I am just giving the answers without any of the interesting scenarios and examples.
·          Supporting countries to remove specific barriers to access to justice and to reach underserved communities.
·          Building responsive and inclusive justice and security systems
·          Support for National Human Rights Machinery
·          Supporting Transitional Justice arrangements in countries emerging from conflict or otherwise in transition
·          Expanding citizen security
·          Meeting the specific needs of women and girls
·          The Role of the Rule of Law and Access to Justice in Sustainable Natural Resource Management - justice systems have a key role to play in ensuring environmental sustainability

The examples given in how these above ideas can be practically applied were fascinating; setting up remote mobile legal centres, getting more women into police and justice roles, setting up legitimate work places for young people to give them an alternative to working for corrupt/dangerous employers. The list goes on…
The question section was interesting, when Helen could speak off the cuff about what the UNDP staff do and how she sees her role. Some key points from these were:
Entry level qualification to work for the UN is a master’s degree, and be prepared to go to the less popular places!
Be prepared to take the tough assignments – they are a ladder to rewarding experiences and a career with the UNDP
There is not a week goes by without UNDP staff somewhere struggling with harrowing experiences. They are frequently under attack in some areas.
If someone is prepared to take their own life in order to kill you, your prospects really aren’t good.
Lots of developing countries slip under the radar; they aren’t as “marketable” for donations.
When she leaves, she would like to see the UNDP established as the partner of choice because they are good at what they do.
In conclusion to my write up on the evening, a lovely thing she said which really seemed to resonate with the room was “You do this job to make a difference, and to make a difference you need to inspire people working around the world.”
I hope this helps summarise the evening for those of you who would have liked to have been there.

on mitt romney not getting it

as i wrote on my own blog yesterday, i spent the late afternoon/evening watching the US election results come in with a group of friends, along with the concession speech by mr romney and the victory speech by mr obama.

plenty has been said across media & the web about mr obama winning the vote amongst women, black, latino & young voters.  the democrat campaign team mostly did this with their on-the-ground campaigning, with mr obama making some pretty strong statements designed to appeal particularly to these groups both at the democratic convention & the televised debates.  it helped that he had enough sense not to make gaffes like the "binders full of women" statement, and i think it's so much easier to avoid those kinds of gaffes when you actually have views and values that are respectful of women (for example), rather than when you're trying desperately to hide the views you do hold in order to appeal to the electorate.

in the wider vote, it was a good night for women, with several more elected to the senate.  and it was particularly satisfying to see women defeat some of the more, how can i put it politely, idiotic republican candidates who had some rather unpleasant opinions on pregnancy resulting from rape.


but what really brought it home to me - this fact that the GOP is so out-of-touch with women voters - was mr romney's concession speech.  there is no doubt that he was generally gracious in defeat, and looked a much better loser than he ever had as a candidate.  but the point in his speech where he started thanking his family really hit a nerve with me, this bit in particular:

Also wanna thank Ann, the love of my life. She would have been a wonderful first lady. She's… She has been that and more to me and to our family and to the many people she has touched with her compassion and her care. I thank my sons for their tireless work on behalf of the campaign and thank their wives and children for taking up the slack as their husbands and dads have spent so many weeks away from home.

and i was yelling out at that moment "this.  this is the reason why he lost the women's vote".  to me it was just like tony abbott's housewives doing the ironing bit.  it's the limiting of women's roles, or more the absence of any kind of acknowledgement that women have many different roles in various different combinations, and each one of those combinations is as valuable as the other.

that little bit in mr romney's speech failed to acknowledge his own wife as a political campaigner, which she was, even if only on his behalf in a desperate move to appeal to women voters.  it failed to acknowledge that women are political and have a place in politics.  it may well be that his daughters-in-law stayed at home & managed the house & kids, and there's nothing wrong with that.  but there were plenty of women who were out campaigning hard, on the republican side as well, and it would have been nice to see any kind of acknowledgment of their efforts somewhere in the speech.  or even some acknowledgment that women's work in sphere's other than home & hearth is valuable and important.

sure, it was moments after a resounding loss, and mr romney certainly hadn't had time to absorb what the election results were so clearly telling him and the republican party.  and there's no point in wondering if he's ever going to get it, because he is now out of the picture.  but will the republican party get it?  as a lefty, in a way i hope they don't because it continues to make them unelectable.  but the fact is that they have won plenty of leadership positions, controlling the house and many, many state governments.  they will implement policies that severely impact the lives of women, and i actually think it's vital that they do get it.  it's time for them to understand the reality of women's lives, their aspirations and struggles.

it's pretty clear that mr obama does understand these things, in a much better way that mr romney does.  the disappointment is that he hasn't managed to translate that understanding into too many concrete policies.  it's not looking good for the next year or so either.  my main hope for his second term is some decent supreme court appointments, and some commitment to international treaties on climate change.  it would be nice if he could have really implement a foreign policy that didn't involve bombing other countries, but i'm really not holding my breath on that one.

in a supporting role

for those following the presidential elections in america, you will know that the big thing this year (well ok, the second biggest thing, the first would have to be this) is the speeches from the wives at both the republican and democratic national conventions.  they seem to be a bigger deal than usual particularly because the republicans have been waging the "war on women" and suddenly realised they need votes from women, so hyped up ann romney's speech to the nth degree.  then the democrats needed to respond in kind, and super-hype up michell obama's speech.

in case you haven't listened to them yet, and particular want to, here's michelle obama:



and here's ann romney:



i've listened to the first but not the second - don't think i could bear it.  but that's not the point.  the point is that i'm not comfortable with these women being put in this position of having to sell their husbands to the voters.  it's too much of women in a supporting role, which we already get constantly.  it's too much focusing on the man, rather than on the skills and achievements of the woman.

the need to play happy families in a presidential race falls so much on the wives, but also on the husbands.  and it's the standard, stereotypical portrayal of husband, wife & 2 kids - with the central focus on the husband.  and because this stereotypical portrayal is then closely linked to "family values", the message is clearly given that only a person in this type of family can possibly have strong family values.

hence why it's nearly impossible for a single woman (or man) to run for a leadership role.  even though she may have just as strong family values as anyone else.  but no, she is bound to be maggie-barry'd.  i saw this happen to helen clark, who only appeared with her husband on crucial occasions like election night, but rarely at other times.  he never campaigned directly for the labour party as the political wives above are doing, and i'm glad about that.  i remember a rally at the university of waikato, where someone asked (and i paraphrase) "why isn't your husband here with you? don't you believe in family values?".  given that she was probably asked this 10 times a week, she had the perfect response, something along the lines of "he lets me go out by myself, he doesn't need to be here holding my hand all the time".

i don't recall burton shipley doing a lot of rallying and campaigning for the national party either - but then i wasn't really interested so might not have been paying attention.  i certainly don't get the impression that julia gillard's partner nor mr merkel are out and about, and furiously campaigning in the way these 2 wives are.  in fact the only male politician i can think of who has done that is bill clinton, but given his history & the support he received from his wife, that's the least he could do.

another thing that annoys me is this: why do we need the wives to tell us how much their husbands love women voters.  surely the men themselves should be able to come out and clearly give that women.  if a male presidential candidate can't directly appeal to and relate to women voters, then he shouldn't be running.

i suppose there are a few positives.  even in a supporting role, these women are strong and positive, articulate (even if saying things i'm not particularly interested in listening to) and active.  and having them in the foreground rather than the background is not a bad thing.   i just wish michelle obama's speech was about michelle obama - some of it was, but all of it could have been.  her husband is clearly capable of speaking for himself.  not so sure about mitt romney, and not interested in finding out.

and i'm not saying there's anything wrong with wives being supportive of husbands.  i think it's more about the context and culture, and the way that support is being played out - the messages that it sends.  i don't like it, i just don't.

feminism & the war on terror

via the ever-wonderful ruth desouza, this is really worth listening to.  while i wouldn't agree with everything she says, i think she provides some really challenging perspectives:

This report card is incomplete - must do better

Minister of Women's Affairs Jo Goodhew has been giving a "report card" over the last few days to the United Nations on how well women in New Zealand are doing.  This is the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women - CEDAW - and we report very four years, a kinda road map to gender equality.

Unfortunately, our GPS system seems to be malfunctioning.  Women's Health Action found a number of concerns they wanted to raise related to contraceptive coercion for women on benefits, failures for comprehensive sexual and reproductive education in schools to reach all young people, an increasing tendency for the definition of "child" to be broadened to include the unborn in legislation and interpretation, and barriers for up to one sixth of women in seeking first trimester abortions.

And then there is violence against women.  As Gordon Campbell points out - and his form around sexual violence is not unblemished, so this is interesting - under this government, survivors of sexual violence have been restricted from accessing potentially life-saving therapy by deliberate policy changes within ACC.  Even when those policy changes were ripped up on review, ACC has continued to stop people getting the help they needs - just 3.6% of survivors who applied had their therapy funded by ACC in 2011.

Report backs from Women's Health Action confirm Minister Goodhew is getting a grilling over violence against women - partly because here in Aotearoa we're too scared to acknowledge that domestic and sexual violence are about as gendered as an experience gets.  Apparently the Minister for Women's Affairs is struggling to acknowledge, at CEDAW, that violence against women is a problem.

Incredibly, Minister Goodhew's list of government plans for reducing violence against women as reported to CEDAW do not mention sexual violence even once.
 
The CEDAW committee aren't loving us making Family Court processes more expensive and less safe for women in "relationship disputes" and they are not loving the fact that the 2009 Taskforce Report for Action on Sexual Violence is still largely unacted upon.  This of course, includes the fact that the Law Commission review of trial processes for sexual violence seems to be sitting in limbo.

I suggested last week that I believe it is time to email Justice Minister Judith Collins and ask what is happening to improve the justice sector response to crimes of sexual violence.  The ACC insensitive claims unit and the CEDAW experience has me even more strongly convinced - this government will forget about rape and sexual abuse unless we tell them this is unacceptable to us.

Email Judith Collins and ask her where the Law Commission is at.  And cc in Jo Goodhew, if you believe that reporting on women's lives should include how well our government is responding to and working to end sexual violence.

lives vs lippy

i know this is an old story now, but i just haven't managed to get around to writing about it til now.  there was a bit of a furore when secretary of state appeared at a press conference sans make-up.  the press conference wasn't about make-up.  it was sanctions against iran.  but guess what everyone was talking about.

the whole thing gives rise to several issues.  first the focus on appearance for women politicians, which is unrelenting.  the commentary on fashion, footwear, pants vs skirt, hairstyle, teeth, voice etc etc etc ad nauseum.  we saw it here with helen clark, in australia with julia gillard, and its something that almost every woman leader across the globe has to deal with.  women are required to be immaculate in appearance, all the time.

it's annoying when it takes up time that these leaders should be spending on matters of political, social and/or economic importance.  but it's more annoying when it distracts from the issue they are talking about, when it takes attention away from actions or debates that require our scrutiny.

at the time when ms clinton presented a face that was so outrageously bare, she had been visiting india.  we didn't get much attention on the huge hypocrisy of this visit: that one nuclear-armed state was putting pressure on another nuclear-armed state to impose sanctions on a third state that isn't nuclear-armed.  without the two nuclear-armed states having any intention of relinquishing their own arsenal.

we know the impact of economic sanctions.  we saw the results quite clearly in iraq through the 1990s.  one of the impacts was an estimated half a million children dying due to lack of medical supplies.  of course there were many others impacts that directly affected the lives of people who were in no way responsible for the things the sanctions were trying to prevent.

what ms clinton was asking for will have serious and detrimental affects on the lives of millions of people.  do we real care so much whether she is pushing for that with or without her lipstick on?  are the lives of those people less important than her foundation and mascara?  at least someone had the courage to ask madeleine allbright if the cost of the sanctions against iraq were worth it.  instead of asking similar questions of ms clinton, the focus of coverage was on her appearance.

it may be that you're a person who supports sanctions against iran.  fine.  debate that issue - and it should be very well debated before pressure is applied to any country to enforce them.  but please don't waste my time talking about ms clinton's make-up or shoes or the fact that she wears pant-suits, or any other triviality that truly just don't matter.

who hates who?

i've been meaning to write a post about mona eltahawy's article published in foreign policy, entitled "why do they hate us".  if you haven't heard about it yet, it's a piece that details misogyny in the middle east, and has caused quite a bit of controversy.

the controversy lies in something i've mentioned many times here: that it is very difficult to deal with issues of misogyny when they intersect with racism or bigotry.  in other words, the very act of raising issues of misogyny is likely to increase the level of discrimination faced by the very women who are the subject of misogyny.  in other words, the way you frame the debate very much determines whether or not that group of women will continue to be stereotyped as helpless victims in need of saving, as women who have little agency or ability.

as i read the first few paragraphs of the ms eltahawy's piece, my heart sank a little.  they were based on fiction, but are definitely part of the reality of many women's lives.  but not just arab women: there are women all over the world who are used for sex by men who have little concern about women's desire or pleasure, who are trapped in relationships for various reasons but very often related to poverty.  not only that, but islamic law actually requires husbands to ensure that their wives have sexual satisfaction within the relationship.  but ms eltahawy mentions none of this - you don't get that kind of context at all.

which is a pity, because the lives of these women, who are used or trapped, they need to be improved.  and cultural change is part of the process, as is structural and political change.  all of these are required, and her main point that there is a danger of women's rights being lost in the aftermath of the arab spring is a very important and valid one.

she accepts a lot of the criticism of her piece, and responds by saying that she had made it deliberately controversial just to kick-start the conversation. you can hear her saying this during a debate with leila ahmed:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

incidentally, i have a book on women in islam by leila ahmed on my bookshelf, but this is the first time i've seen her speak and i was much impressed.  i think she brought a lot of good points to the debate, and you can read her thoughts as part of a suite of responses at foreign policy here.  the links to the other 5 responses can be found here, and though it was separate from the main issue, i did like the critique of the photographs accompanying ms eltahawy's piece contained in the 5th piece.

as always, my facebook friends provide me with valuable insights, and here is a comment from one of them:

Eltahwy's piece - whether well intended, providing advice for women, pointing to problems that exist within the context of the revolution period- can only be sustained by a racist orientalist narrative that juxtaposes a Western emancipatory culture with Arab and Muslim society as regressive and misogynistic. Moreover, what is missing in the critiques of Eltahawy and broader feminist debates is under what notion of woman, freedom, equality, subjectivity and autonomy is Eltahawy's feminist critique of Arab and Muslim society operating under? People like her talk about oppression, freedom, etc. as if they're neutral categories and have universal meanings. This isn't a cultural relativist argument, rather, it is pointing to the fact that when Western observers like Elthawy judges and scrutinises other societies and their practice, they are participating in an arrogant assumption that they know best and their version of freedom, agency, and desire - as such should be applied uniformly. Lord Cromer and Laura Bush echoed similar sentiments. Further, they also rely on the assumption that FGM, rape, virginity tests, etc. should only be understood within a uni-dimensional narrative. How do you reconcile the reality that FGM is largely enforced by women themselves? Or are going to fall into the 'false consciousness' trap? Moreover, Eltahawy's entire career has been reliant upon pitting herself as liberal, free, enlightened against her abject and silent sisters of which she alone has a permission to narrate their experiences for they have the inability to speak for themselves. This is Said's Orientalism 101 and the fact that Eltahawy is Arab and Muslim doesn't change her incredibly racist views. The fact that she is unaware of the implications of everything she writes and even supports the banning of niqab in the context of a rise in Islamophobia in the West reaffirms her parochial and naive politics. Her voice SHOULD be silenced through discrediting her in whatever way possible; I'm not interested in the postmodernist argument that every voice has a validity, authenticity and value to be heard when these narratives are deployed to wage wars, structurally marginalise entire communities and perpetuate racist views that dehumanise others. They are products of colonial mimesis: mimicking the voice of empire. The greatest irony here is that Eltahawy participates in the ultimate violence against women and Islam: an epistemic violence that erases entire histories and cultural realities with a narcissistic cry of self-righteous indignation.

all of this does ignore the fact that ms eltahawy was herself the subject of extreme violence, which is also likely to inform her views.  and it also doesn't help us solve the conundrum: what is the right way to raise & discuss these issues?  what perspective would work and how do we achieve real change?  and when we talk of change, what is the change that is best for those women living in that environment, as opposed to the change that we, sitting so far away, would want for them?

i certainly haven't arrived at any satisfactory answers to those questions.  if anything, i'm involved in trying to provide practical support through the provision of social services (at a governance level rather than hands-on provision), but this doesn't foster cultural, societal or political change.  the only organisation that seems to be attempting the latter is shakti, but their approach is similar to ms eltahawy's, only more so, and i'm personally very uncomfortable with it.  somehow we have to find a way to improve women's lives while also ensuring we don't exacerbate views like this (yes, that would the same fred barret from tirau who i wrote about here, still going strong).


i'll just finish off linking to some more reading on this issue, if this post wasn't enough for you, a couple of which i got from here (a piece supporting ms eltahawy, and rightly pointing out that a great deal of the controversy surrounding Eltahawy’s essay, revolves around who she is and what her perceived intentions are, rather than what she stands for or the issues she raises).  there is this piece in the guardian which i really liked (avoid comments), and this piece in the atlantic which raised some good points but started to get a little too apologetic for my liking (the comments are relatively not so bad here, at least for the first half, and worth a quick look).  and finally there's this piece, which is sort of relevant in that it deals with islam & feminism.

some essential reading

a must-read piece, via blue milk, on the value of work:

When performed by married women in their own homes, domestic labor is work—difficult, sacred, noble work. Ann says Mitt called it more important work than his own, which does make you wonder why he didn’t stay home with the boys himself. When performed for pay, however, this supremely important, difficult job becomes low-wage labor that almost anyone can do—teenagers, elderly women, even despised illegal immigrants. But here’s the real magic: when performed by low-income single mothers in their own homes, those same exact tasks—changing diapers, going to the playground and the store, making dinner, washing the dishes, giving a bath—are not only not work; they are idleness itself.

[...]

So there it is: the difference between a stay-home mother and a welfare mother is money and a wedding ring. Unlike any other kind of labor I can think of, domestic labor is productive or not, depending on who performs it. For a college-educated married woman, it is the most valuable thing she could possibly do, totally off the scale of human endeavor. What is curing malaria compared with raising a couple of Ivy Leaguers? For these women, being supported by a man is good—the one exception to our American creed of self-reliance. Taking paid work, after all, poses all sorts of risks to the kids. (Watch out, though, ladies: if you expect the father of your children to underwrite your homemaking after divorce, you go straight from saint to gold-digger.) But for a low-income single woman, forgoing a job to raise children is an evasion of responsibility, which is to marry and/or support herself. For her children, staying home sets a bad example, breeding the next generation of criminals and layabouts.

brilliant.  please go across and read the whole thing.

also, i linked to this report on women's leadership in asia (pdf) on my own blog yesterday.  it's also worth a read.  a few key findings from the executive summary:

• The gender gap is closing on health and survival, educational attainment, economic opportunity, and political empowerment.  This implies that the women of Asia can leverage rising personal endowments as well as increasing structural opportunities for
  future leadership. Family and dynastic factors have also catapulted some women in Asia to the highest levels of political leadership.  Indeed, Asia has seen more women heads of state than any other region in the world. Asian women have also joined the ranks of the world’s most rich and powerful.
• the countries of South Asia, which perform worst in overall gender equality and women’s attainment, actually lead among the top five countries in political empowerment (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, India); number of women in parliament (Nepal, Pakistan); number of women ministers (Bangladesh); and women leaders in subnational government (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh). This contradictory picture is partly due to the region having the most number of women who have become heads of state because of family and dynastic connections (and not because of greater gender equality). Moreover, affirmative action has significantly increased women’s representation at different levels of government.
• the relationship between human development and women’s leadership is not directly proportional. Some economies in Asia with the highest human development rankings (e.g., Japan and South Korea) also perform most poorly in some measures of women’s leadership (e.g., women in senior management, women on boards, wage equality, remuneration and political empowerment). Others, such as Singapore and Hong Kong SAR, China, continue to have significant gender leadership gaps despite their high human development.
• To address cultural and social norms that impede women’s leadership, a broad campaign is needed to educate people and push for change in the valuation and perception of girls and women. Three shifts need to happen: 1) societies must perceive girls to be as valuable as boys; 2) societies must view women as having roughly similar abilities and potential to lead as men; and 3) societies must be more open to gender roles that involve women leading outside the home and men doing more in the home.

that last is something we're still struggling with here, and we definitely need improvements in the areas listed in the second bullet point.  comparative to other countries, nz scores well.  but comparative to men in our own country, there's a lot of work to be done.

All the coolest people's ancestors came here by boat

What are "boat people"?

A.  People who like boats (in the manner of "cat people" or "dog people")

B.  People who transform into boats (there has to be an Autobot or Decepticon who does that already, surely)

C.  People who are made from boats (could explain the contents of some people's heads...)

D.  A good name for a band.  (Already taken I'm certain)

E.  Or a fashion label. 

F.  People who constantly wear boat shoes (more or less fashionable than crocs?  Hmmm)

G.  None of the above.

If you answered G you may want to read further.  If you didn't, well there's the whole rest of the internet for you my friend.

Most of my ancestors came here by boat, how about yours?  Does it really matter how people who immigrate to Aotearoa New Zealand get here?

Oh it's not actually about the method of transportation, it's about why they want to come. 

You mean because of the persecution and possible death facing them and their family in their home country?

Because that's why someone takes the incredible risk, and often puts their children in that situation too, of getting into a small boat, often crudely constructed and/or poorly equipped, and sets off to shores almost entirely unknown.  They have to trust total strangers who seem to care more about money than they do about their passengers, leave behind anything they had, face the perils of the journey itself, and, if they are aimed in the rough direction of Australia, the likely outcome of mandatory detention in awful conditions potentially for years.  They may even get sent back again, to wherever they were so desperate to flee from.

There is also no one Correct Way to be an asylum seeker.  Just as there is no one Correct Way to be a rape victim or a sex worker or a female Prime Minister or a feminist blogger.    It is indeed possible to be multiple things simultaneously; like an asylum seeker who is also an arsehole or a bit dodgy.  That doesn't make their claim for asylum any less valid.  We shouldn't have to like someone to want them to be safe.

I was really proud when Helen Clark offered to take some of the refugees who were on the Tampa and so cruelly misused by the Australian political system at the time.  Some of those people have settled in my own community, which is great.  Did that decision create a great flood of illegitimate refugees clamouring at Customs to get in, sneaking up the beaches and into the bush?  No, and neither did the eventual decision to allow Ahmed Zaoui and his family to live here.  But what a difference for those individuals, many of them children. 

Aotearoa New Zealand usually takes up to 750 UNHCR quota refugees a year.  To put that in context, over 5000 people immigrate from Britain to live here every single year.  

What's so scary about one boatload of asylum seekers?  Don't worry, it's unlikely they are wearing boat shoes.

NZ Speculative Fiction Blogging Week: Women in Power

I'm super happy to be able to kill two birds with one stone and write a post that serves as not only a suffrage day post but also part of NZ Speculative Fiction Blogging Week. It's a snapshot of an honours research essay in progress and all my half formed ideas about the texts, so my apologies for this being so 'bitty' and the lack of conclusions - I'm not even going to make an attempt to have the paragraphs naturally flow into each other.

The topic is looking at two novels written the late nineteenth century which portray a future New Zealand in which women hold political office. I'm looking at how far these matched and related to the reality and the conceptions of gender they explore.

The two main texts (their titles link to free ebooks via the NZETC):

Julius Vogel's ‘Anno Domini 2000: Woman’s Destiny’ imagines the world in the year 2000, in which women, by common though not universal assent, are the primary holders of political office simply because they are believed to be better suited to the task. It primarily follows both the political career and romantic exploits of 23 year old Under Secretary for Home Affairs (later Imperial Prime Minister) Hilda Fitzherbert, but large sections of the novel are devoted to explorations of both political systems and technological developments. Vogel was a prime minister of New Zealand, responsible for introducing an earlier (unsuccessful) suffrage bill, and 'Anno Domini'  is widely - though inaccurately - considered to the the first NZ science fiction novel (though it was certainly one of the earliest). It received a lot of attention in the year 2000 for the accuracy of its prediction, not just in terms of women's place in society - in his introduction to the rereleased version Roger Robinson lists some of these (I would dispute some of his points, but they are still significant).

Less well known, and considerably more bizarre, is Edward Tregear's 'Hedged with Divinities' which follows the journey of a male protagonist who wakes us from a trance to find that all men (globally) have died of a plague which remains unexplained. In their absence, and in the face of the incompetence and shock of the remaining women – the socio-political institutions and the infrastructure of the country have collapsed, and Jack (the protagonist) sets about restoring the country to a functioning society. However the question of repopulation remains, and he reluctantly agrees to a mass marriage, despite his only interest being in his lover, Nelly, and at the end of the novel, as babies (both male and female) are born to his wives, he sets sail for a remote pacific island with her.

Things I am writing about, or that I've noticed, include:

commemoration

it's september the 11th again, and ten years on from the attack on the various targets in the unites states. every year we have the reminders of this anniversary, the coverage across the media, the images played again on our screen.

the annual reminders around this disaster keep the tragedy fresh in our memories and remind us of those who suffered, the pain and the grief that is obviously still a major factor in the lives of the people most directly affected by it.

yet there is no doubt that this annual commemoration is a political event, it has political and social implications. simply because no other international tragedy has a similar commemoration or media focus. perhaps the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki comes close - there tends to be a newsclip about commemorations in japan, but this is rarely the first or second item in the news report, nor does it get a full half hour's attention on, say, campbell live.

the anniversary of the massacre at sribrenica does also tend to get some coverage. but not so much the boxing tsunami that took so many lives, nor other massacres of the second world war. subsequent wars barely get a mention, and there isn't a commemoration day where we actually consider those who suffered and listen to their first hand accounts.

don't get me wrong - i'm not saying that we shouldn't remember what happened in america on 11 sept 2001. i'm saying we should also remember those other events, and hear from those others who have suffered and are continuing to suffer. because if we don't, then we treat one set of victims as more important than another, more worthy of our attention than others. and we then feel less inclinded to do something to alleviate their suffering or to even identify with it.

and when we remember 11 september 2001, we should also remember those who have suffered and continue to suffer because of wars that resulted from it. let's hear not just from those in new york but also from those in washington DC, the relatives of those who died in that other plane that went down, and the people of afghanistan and iraq. let's learn what it's like to have bombs and terrorist attacks every other day, because these people too are a casualty of the bombing in america. let's hear about their heroism and courage in the face of horror and tragedy on a massive scale, their sacrifices and humanity.

of course there are plenty of other people who are much better than saying what i want to say. so here are a few links: first from an american, steve almond, on "the decade of magical thinking":

Nobody stood up – in Congress, in the bright studios of our corporate media, in city hall – to make the obvious point that millions of people in other parts of the world live in a state of perpetual danger. And that the events of 9/11 might therefore require of us a greater empathy for those suffering elsewhere, might even nudge us toward a more serious consideration of our own imperial luxuries and abuses, and how these might relate to the deprivations suffered in less fortunate precincts.

That’s not what we talked about. No, we talked about our feelings. Americans were bloated with empathy in the weeks after 9/11. But something fatal was happening: as a nation, we were consenting to pursue vengeance over mercy.

please do go and read the whole piece. here's another by cas mudde on the security implications:

Every event has winners and losers and 9/11 is no exception. More broadly, the larger intelligence-security complex has been the major winner. Throughout the world budgets for intelligence agencies and related security firms (often private) have skyrocketed. In Australia the increase since 2001 has been almost tenfold! At the same time, the influence of these organisations has grown exponentially, as a consequence of the securitisation of politics and the hasty introduction of new and often vague and thus far-reaching laws....

The report emphasises that many non- and semi-democracies have also used post-9/11 anti-terrorism legislation to stifle democratic and non-violent internal opposition, though it fails to report that there are many examples of similar arrests and harassments in established democracies (such as the scandal involving the wiretapping of US peace activists).

there's this piece by glenn greenwald at salon:

This is why there is nothing more dangerous -- nothing -- than allowing this type of power to be exercised without accountability: no oversight, no transparency, no consequences for serious wrongdoing: exactly the state of affairs that prevails in the United States. It's also why there are few things more deeply irresponsible, vapid and destructive than demanding that citizens, activists, and journalists retreat into Permanent Election Mode: transform themselves into partisan cheerleaders who refrain from aggressively criticizing the party that is slightly less awful out of fear that the other party might win an election 14 months away, even when their own party is the one in power. Renouncing the duty of holding accountable political leaders who exercise vast power makes one directly responsible for the abuses they commit.

here's an account by chilean mario nain on the effects of 11 september 1973, or this piece from the guardian on the same topic:

The coup was supported by the US government of Richard Nixon. But after 1977, the Carter administration distanced itself from Pinochet because of his repeated violation of human rights. The regime remained in power for 16 years, becoming one of the longest lasting military dictatorships in Latin America, and it almost certainly introduced more changes than in any other country. Economic policy took a radical neoliberal turn under the influence of Milton Friedman. Allende's nationalisations were reversed and a programme of privatisations was introduced, together with the elimination of tariff barriers; this, alongside the banning of trade unions, produced a dramatic fall in real wages and an equally dramatic increase in business profits.

a commemoration of 11 september gives us the opportunity to contemplate many things. let's hope that we do take the time to widen our internal gaze and think about all those affected in a myriad of ways as a result of events on this particular day.

the indian anti-corruption movement

generally i tend not to write about indian politics, because i don't follow what's happening there and don't even really understand the political system beyond the fact that there are state & federal governments and it's a republic. i know some of the political parties and some of what they purportedly stand for, but really don't understand the details and nuances.

which means that i'm hardly qualified to discuss what i'm about to discuss, but that doesn't stop many people, so let me forge ahead anyway.

so there's this dude in india who went on a fast. not the ramadan kind of fast that muslims do, but the political protest kind of fast that was done by gandhi amongst others, and more commonly know to us as a hunger strike. the thing that our current protester, anna hazare, was fasting about was corruption and the need to end it. mr hazare is not the only one on hunger strike in india at the moment, but somehow his protest caught on and caused huge outpourings of support across the country.

there are several reasons for this. one is that he is supported by a highly organised and well-funded team, a team that is in fact known as "team anna". there have been allegations that some of this funding has come from america, through the ford foundation as well as a couple of other organisations. more of it has come from large indian corporations. while there were promises to provide transparency around funding, i can't find any evidence of this actually happening. they promised to put financial information on this website, but it has no search function and i don't have time to trawl through it.

team anna appears to have some pretty good media networks and connections. or perhaps it's that the media jumped on the bandwagon when it saw the protest gathering support. regardless of how it has happened, the protest has had a very high level of coverage in all media.

while the motives seem to be very noble and worthy of support, i've been having some issues with this protest movement. the first thing that bothered me was the nationalistic fervour that underpinned the protest. i'm not a supporter of nationalism at the best of times, and it seems to me that an anti-corruption movement should be able to seek support based on the principles of justice, without having to resort to any kind of national pride. however, this piece raises more serious issues about the way the issues are being framed:

Never in India’s history, not even during the freedom movement or war-time, has such aggressively patriotic fervour been unleashed. Mahatma Gandhi never used portraits of a tiger-riding Bharat Mata, and Bhagat Singh’s battle-cry was not Vande Mataram. In their own distinctive ways, the three major streams of our freedom movement, Gandhi, Netaji and Bhagat Singh, reflected the respective beliefs and ideologies, and competed in the philosophical space of nation-building....

So here is the quibble. Once you produce the national flag, and Bharat Mata, all arguments cease.... In effect, if you then disagree with me, you are unpatriotic, and your arguments are immoral, pro-corrupt. A democratic movement has to give space for disagreement, argue with those who have a different point of view, not wave the national flag and shut them up.

more than that, nationalism is frightening in any context because it is destructive to minorities, and to anyone who doesn't conform to the nationalists' definition of what constitutes the ideal patriot. the terms "unamerican" or "unaustralian" are predominantly used to stifle any kind of dissent, and to push for a conformity that is destructive to individual identity.

to add to this concern is the possibility that team anna has links to the RSS, a right-wing nationalist organisation that is linked to some violent stuff. mr hazare himself denies any personal political affiliations, which may be correct. but if members of his team are aligned to the RSS, then his own personal affiliation is of little importance.

on top of all this, the protest seems to be a very middle and upper class one - a movement for those who can actually afford to pay the bribes and who are personally affected by them. and while that certainly has some merit, it's not a movement that seems to deal with issues of poverty and social justice. it's not a movement that will really help those who are most in need of support in that country.

finally, i'll quote arundhati roy who has come out strongly against team anna for various reasons. the basic point is that the solution to corruption posed by team anna is a pretty dangerous one:

While his means may be Gandhian, Anna Hazare's demands are certainly not. Contrary to Gandhiji's ideas about the decentralisation of power, the Jan Lokpal Bill is a draconian, anti-corruption law, in which a panel of carefully chosen people will administer a giant bureaucracy, with thousands of employees, with the power to police everybody from the Prime Minister, the judiciary, members of Parliament, and all of the bureaucracy, down to the lowest government official. The Lokpal will have the powers of investigation, surveillance, and prosecution. Except for the fact that it won't have its own prisons, it will function as an independent administration, meant to counter the bloated, unaccountable, corrupt one that we already have. Two oligarchies, instead of just one.

Whether it works or not depends on how we view corruption. Is corruption just a matter of legality, of financial irregularity and bribery, or is it the currency of a social transaction in an egregiously unequal society, in which power continues to be concentrated in the hands of a smaller and smaller minority? Imagine, for example, a city of shopping malls, on whose streets hawking has been banned. A hawker pays the local beat cop and the man from the municipality a small bribe to break the law and sell her wares to those who cannot afford the prices in the malls. Is that such a terrible thing? In future will she have to pay the Lokpal representative too? Does the solution to the problems faced by ordinary people lie in addressing the structural inequality, or in creating yet another power structure that people will have to defer to?

the worst case scenario is that this nationalistic protest movement will lead to a nationalistic right-wing government lead by the BJP. not only will this be bad for communal tensions in the country, but it certainly won't help those who struggle with poverty. and i can't imagine they will do anything significant to reduce corruption.

GUEST POST: Gender based violence and the Pacific Island Forum

On the outskirts of Honiara, quite a drive off the main road, through abandoned cacao plantations and out by the ocean sits the Christian Care Centre; the Solomon Islands’ only refuge for women and children who have experienced violence.

It’s a small facility, run on the smell of an ocean-soaked rag by the formidable Sister Doreen, and staffed by volunteers. It offers women and children who are survivors of physical and sexual violence a place and space to be. The Christian Care Centre works closely with the Family Support Centre and the police to provide legal support; that is, when there is a law to support them. There are no specific domestic violence laws in the Solomons, and gaping holes in other laws which could be used to help protect against violence.

In a country where 64% of women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence,* the Christian Care Centre provides an essential service and is always full to capacity. Sister Doreen shared her concern about the inevitability of having to ‘move people on’, only to find them returning a few months later – often following worse injuries.

I spent a day at the Christian Care Centre during a recent visit to Honiara. Sister Doreen and Annie – the Chair of the Centre, and a regular volunteer – showed us around the complex, the main building of which was opened by Dame Silvia Cartwright in 2004.

The grounds were welcoming, the people generous, and I was surprised by the amount of time we spent laughing (though I get the feeling Sister Doreen, Annie and everyone else at the centre laugh a lot). They laughed at me not knowing that pineapples grew on bushes; we laughed as they reenacted Mr Bean sketches – the favourite DVD to play during the hour a day the generator is on; we laughed at the people with good intentions who had sent them the washing machine and dryer that were still in their packaging in a corner of the ‘classroom’ (clearly they’d not understood the limitations of generator power and a lack of running water).

There are a lot of children at the centre. Some of them are there with their mothers; others are there independently, as survivors of violence and sexual abuse. The majority of the time the classroom lacks a teacher. There’s currently a high school teacher who is at the Centre for the second time – she’s just had the stitches taken out of her forehead where her husband hit her so hard it split the skin – and she has been helping in the classroom occasionally.

As the grown-ups talk I’m laughing again, playing air guitar with a boy across the garden who’s rocking out on the casing for a puzzle which has lost its pieces. Soon we’re sitting on the floor and I’m reading a dull book about a worm that eventually figures out the scarf he’s carrying around belongs to him. Before long all the children, and some of the adults, are listening. They are gripped. Another book is brought for me to read, a tatty ‘Life of Winston Churchill’. Followed by ‘Tales of New Zealanders in WWII’, the Jurassic Park movie book, and finally a story about an English woman who went to Africa in the olden days and met cannibals. That’s the whole library.

Later, after the hilarity and the reading, once they’d sussed me out a bit, I hear story after story of violence, rape, and abuses of power.

The only woman at the Centre who hasn’t experienced violence is Sister Doreen. When asked whether any security arrangements are needed for the centre, or if she’s ever been threatened, she cackles ‘Ha! I’m a nun! Nobody would dare.’

I won’t recount the personal stories, or the complex system of compensation (one of the women at the centre was forced to pay compensation for the shame she brought upon her brother-in-law when she refused to have sex with him). Ahead of the 2011 Pacific Island Forum this week, I wanted to use this post to highlight, and possibly remind leaders of the promise they made at the 2009 Pacific Island Forum in Cairns.

In the Cairns Communiqué Pacific leaders acknowledged the high rates of gender-based violence in the region, and committed to eradicating sexual and gender based violence, ensuring that all individuals have equal protection and access to justice. It was the first time the Pacific Island Forum declared sexual and gender-based violence a risk to human security.

Let’s remind them of the commitment they have made. Let’s remind them of the legal reforms necessary to ensure all individuals have equal protection and access to justice. Let’s remind them to develop legislation that works and ensure it’s implemented.

I have also resolved to get some more books for the Christian Care Centre library. I’m thinking Hairy Maclary would be a good start; it’s hard to be worse than Winston Churchill and cannibals.

Branwen Millar works for Family Planning International

* SPC (2009) Solomon Islands Family Health and Safety Study, SPC, Noumea.

mine kondolanser, norway

as with everyone else, i'm absolutely gutted about the news in norway. it's appalling attack and a terrible tragedy for the people of that country. i started writing this post last night, but it's such a difficult one to write. so i'm going to apologise in advance if there's anything here that could possibly imply that the people of norway deserve anything less than our full sympathy and support.

there are some things that are bothering me about the way this issue is being reported. it's hardly an original thought for me to point out that the use of the term "madman" to describe the terrorist who carried out these attack is hugely ablist and damaging to those with a mental illness. the conflating of violence with mental illness is not backed by any research anywhere, and perpetuates harmful stereotypes.

more than that, to imply that the man responsible for these horrendous attacks was not fully sane is to absolve him of some of the responsibility for the attacks. it is to deny the deliberate and calculated nature of these attacks, that were well-planned and so sadly efficient. this is not the work of someone who has lost their mind, but of someone with the full use of their faculties and a full understanding of what he intended to achieve:

Mr. Breivik was also believed to have posted a video on Friday summarizing his arguments. In its closing moments, the video depicts Mr. Breivik in military uniform, holding assault weapons. Rarely has a mass murder suspect left so detailed an account of his activities. The manifesto describes in detail his purchase of chemicals, his sometimes ham-handed experiments making explosives and his first successful test detonation of a bomb in a remote location on June 13.

by failing to call these attacks exactly what they are ie a full-scale act of terrorims directed against people with a shared political ideology, we shift away the focus from where it needs to lie. it needs to lie with those groups that mr breivik was associated with and it needs to lie with the people who are creating an environment where a person can feel justified in carrying out such an action.

there is no doubt that the environment in europe has become increasingly anti-immigrant, with an extremely negative focus on muslims. as the new york times points out, this kind of thinking is not just in the private arena, but has become an increasing part of the political environment:

The success of populist parties appealing to a sense of lost national identity has brought criticism of minorities, immigrants and in particular Muslims out of the beer halls and Internet chat rooms and into mainstream politics. While the parties themselves generally do not condone violence, some experts say a climate of hatred in the political discourse has encouraged violent individuals.

... Groups are gaining traction from Hungary to Italy, but it is particularly apparent in northern European countries that long have had liberal immigration policies. The rapid arrival of refugees, asylum seekers and economic migrants, many of them Muslims, led to a significant backlash in places like Denmark, where the Danish People’s Party has 25 out of 179 seats in Parliament, and the Netherlands, where Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom won 15.5 percent of the vote in the 2010 general election.

... Both the Danish and Dutch right-wing parties are backing precarious minority governments while not directly participating by having ministers, and inching toward mainstream acceptance in the process.

the norwegians were totally undeserving of these attacks. it is a cruel crime against those directly or indirectly affected. what i'm seeing in several comments around the traps is that the norwegians are particularly undeserving victims. i think that's unfair on all those innocent civilians who have suffered from bombings and terrorist attacks around the world. each of those are equally undeserving of the violence that has descended on them. any attempt to mark out degrees of victimhood is repellent. can we not offer our support to the norwegians at this time, without the unnecessary comparisons? they're unhelpful and don't actually indicate any higher degree of concern.

it's hard not to look at this act, in conjunction with other acts of violence happening around the world, and feel a sense of despair at the polarisation of hate groups and their increasing power. how on earth do we counter something like this, and where do we even begin? any attempt to lower the hatred or to encourage a toning down of hate-filled rhetoric is quickly lost in "freedom of speech" arguments. the fact is that hate groups around the world - regardless of religion (or lack thereof), ethnicity, nationality - have always managed to gain a high degree of political success by targetting minorities or some conveniently framed other. despite the incredible violence such a tactic causes, human beings fail to learn from history and we fail to adequately counter this particular tactic.

unfortunately, i don't have any answers in my own mind. if a cure for this kind of political and social illness was possible, then i'm sure it would have been applied by now. all i can do is express my sadness, and ask that people name this act correctly. it's not madness, it is terrorism.

New Delhi Slutwalk

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

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

From here.

See you Saturday!

a women's revolution

got this via email about developments in saudi arabia:
As election centers across Saudi Arabia opened on April 23 for voters to register for forthcoming municipal elections, groups of women turned up asking to take part.

As expected, they were turned away -- women will not be able to stand or vote in September's municipal elections -- but just by showing up they had made their point.

This was one of the first public acts of the newly-formed "Saudi Women Revolution," a movement set up to campaign for the end of Saudi Arabia's discriminatory laws.

Their chief aim is ending male guardianship, which means Saudi women often need permission from their husband, father, brother or even son to work, travel, study, marry, or access health care, according to Human Rights Watch.

They also want to be allowed to drive, which is forbidden for women in the Kingdom.

The Saudi Women Revolution was started as a Facebook page and a discussion topic, or hash tag, on Twitter in February, by Nuha Al Sulaiman.

as you would expect from a piece by CNN, the whole article has a very western framing. but the one thing that i really do appreciate is that the narrative is not the usual "oppressed eastern women need saving", but rather "strong eastern women are taking up the fight".

then there is the whole social media thing, again showing itself as a powerful tool for connecting and organising. not only that, but providing access to information & ideas from outside of the country. now i know that saudi has very strong controls on the internet, but they obviously haven't yet taken the step of blocking social networking sites. that may indeed be a possibility.

and finally, i would also have to say that the arab spring has inspired people around the world, and i suspect this group have also been motivated by what they have seen happening in other countries. i wish them all the best in their endeavours, and hope to hear some good news coming out of saudi in the near future.

GUEST POST: NZ Aid Programme Risks Harming Women

Sarah nursed her daughter’s child on an empty breast as we sat together in a grubby hospital consulting room. Her daughter looked on with expressionless eyes, unable to comprehend quite what we were talking about. Sarah talks about her life. She struggles to provide for a family of seven: her blind husband and five children. Now she has an extra mouth to feed. Her daughter watching us had been raped repeatedly by a village man and became pregnant with a child she cannot care for: she is fourteen years old with an intellectual disability.

Across the Pacific, women like Sarah and her daughter endure the same sort of discrimination and poverty as women across the globe. In recognition of this fact, earlier this year the United Nations launched a new agency, UN Women, which embodies global commitment to give greater attention to the needs of women and girls.

Our NZ government aid programme is heading in the opposite direction. When asked about how he ensures women’s rights are paid due attention in our aid programme, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully replied that women’s rights are “not the preoccupation I bring to the projects that come to me”. Meanwhile John Hayes, the Associate spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Select Committee, responded to a question late last year about the importance of addressing violence against women in the Pacific by implying it isn’t worth investing in because “it is in their culture".

Indifferent and ignorant, these statements tell us that the men tasked with oversight and leadership of NZ’s aid to developing countries do not concern themselves with the reality that women have different needs and priorities to men. Presumably the Minister and his Associate believe their emphasis on economic development in the aid programme doesn’t require attention to women’s rights. Right?

Wrong. For argument’s sake, let’s put aside the unquestionable moral and human rights reasons for our aid programme to invest in women’s well-being and security. Let’s focus on how wrong Minister McCully and his Associate are to dismiss women’s rights in their efforts for economic development.

Under Minister McCully and the National Government, the NZ aid programme is now moving to invest heavily in areas such as agriculture, fisheries and infrastructure. All these areas involve and impact upon women in different ways to that of men. Ignoring the specific needs and skills of women will undermine the effectiveness and efficiency of our aid programme. It may also harm women, particularly women like Sarah, who are the very people an aid programme does not want to hurt.

Let’s return to Sarah. Like many women across the Pacific she juggles a myriad of activities everyday, trying to run a household, care for her children and husband, gain a cash income and produce food for her family. She will garden and fish for her family’s subsistence needs. Some days, in the small hours of the morning, she will leave her family with her sister-in-law and travel several hours to market, to sell homemade food and surplus from her garden. Once at market, she will sit, all day long, with the other women, until all her produce has been sold. Then she will make the long trip home again.

In efforts to expand incomes from agriculture or fishing, or to build infrastructure to support economic activities, the people who must be considered first by the NZ aid programme are women like Sarah. Sarah has significant skills in agricultural production yet she also needs specific assistance to increase her gain from the time and resources she invests in her garden. Investments by NZ in agriculture need to take into account Sarah’s knowledge and needs. In relation to fisheries, the NZ aid programme must ensure that any investments it makes do not undermine the ability of women like Sarah to feed their families. Women working in the informal sector, such as local markets, need infrastructure that supports their particular transportation needs and working conditions.

These are all issues that will be neglected in the NZ government aid programme because the Minister and his Associate do not believe that women’s concerns are important enough for them to think about in efforts to expand Pacific economic growth. In response to this criticism, they will argue otherwise. Don’t be fooled by their spin. None of these arguments are relevant when we have a Minister who puts his “own ruler over the projects that are coming before” him yet does not preoccupy himself with women’s rights.

This leaves the NZ government aid programme out of step globally and at risk of doing harm to women like Sarah and her daughter – the very people whose lives our aid programme should be working hard to improve.

Jo Spratt of NZ Aid and Development Dialogues (NZADDs)

on Q & A

here is a link to the video of my spot on Q & A. i don't know how to embed it so you'll have to watch on the tvnz site. here's a link to the transcript if you don't have access to broadband or are living outside nz.

these things always go so fast, and i had a whole heap of things i wanted to say but never got a chance to cover. still, it was much, much less hostile than i was expecting even though the questions were challenging. it was helped by the opportunity to chat with graham redding, the prinicipal of the knox centre in otago. he is indeed a lovely man, and we found that we had much more in common than we had differences.

a couple of things i wanted to note. first of all, i wondered if you noticed that i was the only woman on the show. thank goodness for matt mccarten, otherwise they would all have been white males. there's a point to made about how much time is given to women's voices, especially in when it comes to discussing serious issues & political news. i'm not a regular watcher of Q & A, so don't know how much of a balance they usually have, but i'm really hoping it isn't like this all the time.

what is there to say about the wayne mapp interview? the SAS should never have been sent to afghanistan. combat troops were pulled out in 2005, and there was absolutely no reason to send them back. the war in afghanistan is going nowhere and achieving nothing. there is no plan in sight, there's no sense of when it might be over or what needs to happen so that foreign troops can say they've "won".

a couple of important links: the scoop report here is longish but well worth reading. the rolling stone article i referred to in my segment can be found here, but i'll put in a strong trigger warning on the material & especially the photographs (which i haven't looked at). it documents the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians, and the taking & circulating of trophy photographs.

i wanted to respond to a point made by glyn carpenter, director of the nz christian network. he commented that while christian leaders condemned the qur'an-burning, muslim leaders hadn't condemned the killing of UN workers in afghanistan. well, he's just plain wrong about that. the OIC is the most power international group of muslim nations, and here is their press release. here is a video and a transcript of an interview on CNN with a representative of CAIR, and a press release from another american muslim organisation. i've condemned it on the programme & do so again - it's a tragic and horrific reaction to events in america.

finally, i'd have preferred not to be in the room with dr brash for some time, though we did manage to have a robust debate on a couple of issues. i'm not going to say what it was about, but let's just say that i could not resist the opportunity to take him on. i've actually met him before, though i very much doubt he remembers me, but i have to say that i certainly don't look forward to the possibility of him re-entering parliament.

cameron on immigration

as per a request from deborah, i'm cross-posting this piece from my own blog. i feel a little nervous about putting up certain issues here, especially around areas where i feel vulnerable. but here it is. on another note, i'll be appearing on Q & A this sunday morning, talking about religious issues which will be linked to the afghanistan situaion and religious violence in general, as well as a couple of other topics.


david cameron has been making a lot of noise about immigration of late. in that it's all bad, of course, and the narrative is the usual stuff we hear from the right: that immigrants are parasites who are a drain on the nation and suck all the nation's resources or steal all "our" jobs while giving nothing back in return.

of course he doesn't attack all immigrants, just the non-integrating kind who won't learn english. nice coded language, with the dog-whistling very thinly disguised. it seems mr cameron is following the john howard policy of out-pauline-hansening pauline hansen. in mr cameron's case, it's the BNP he's emulating, knowing that attacking a particular class of people will guarantee votes and increase popularity.

but it's more than that. mr cameron is using underlying racism and hatred as a cover for massive cuts in welfare. he's trying to soften the electorate for cuts by linking it to hatred of certain types of immigrants. UK wouldn't need these immigrants, he says, if only the welfare system wasn't so generous. by changing this, locals would be forced to do the work currently done by immigrants. more than that, people are apparently immigrating to UK because the welfare system is so good, therefore it should be made less good in order to remove that incentive.

as always, missing from the right-wing narrative are the real benefits that migrants bring to the country. given the way immigrations laws are in most countries, immigrants will be highly educated, but more than that, highly motivated to succeed. i doubt they migrate to end up on welfare. listening to the stories of migrants, and i've heard many, they have dreams of success for themselves and their children and a drive to achieve that success.

also missing is the realisation that these cuts to welfare translate into misery and hunger for a large number of people. people who have often landed up on welfare because of failed economic policies, because of the fraud and gambling of the finance sector, and because of the global recession which resulted. those on welfare are being asked to pay the price for the failure of others, and immigrants are to take the blame.