Big thanks to Deb for sending this in - very topical!
It had all the ingredients of a classic myth.
The young, astonishingly beautiful blonde hero pitted against the Forces of Evil: AKA King Larry the
Ruthless and his henchmen Ozzie the Spit and Cunning Ainslie.
The little New Zealand battlers versus Wealthy America. And we all loved it. Against all odds it
seemed that our young hero would win.
But of course, as the saying goes; old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill – and so it
unfolded true to form.
The reality is we’ve been sold another male myth with the Americas Cup.
Both teams are middle class white men. Both support crews are comprised mainly of NZers and both
boats were built by NZers in Aotearoa New Zealand.
And our dashing young hero is in fact a very rich man, who will continue to get richer no matter if he
wins or loses, playing with other rich white men’s boats.
While our nation has been feasting on this bloke-fest, a true group of little battlers have succeeded
against all odds on the world stage.
A women’s team, The Football Ferns, claimed a memorable 1-0 victory over Brazil in the Valais Cup
at Chatel-St-Denis a few days ago; making history as the first NZ team to beat world champions
Brazil ever. That’s EVER. It hardly made the news.
So whilst New Zealand prepares the mourning rituals for the guys, let us not forget that we are a
nation of strong women. WE win. We win every time a woman succeeds.
Go you good woman thing! We rock.
Showing posts with label Invisibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Invisibility. Show all posts
Thursday, 26 September 2013
Thursday, 25 July 2013
Off with their benefits
I have to admit to falling prey to despair in the face of the latest example of incredible idiocy from those in charge of what is ironically known as "welfare". This month a blanket regime for "jobless" beneficiaries (including the ones already working extremely hard looking after people who have to be looked after) came into force.
Now we're seeing exactly how stupid this regime is. Grandparents - especially grandmothers - who have stepped in to take care of children bereft of their parents' care through death, illness or dereliction are being hounded to enrol in jobseeker courses, work out their "long-term career goals" and hunt for non-existent jobs. NO job could be more important or useful not just to their grandkids but to the rest of us as well, or save taxpayers more money, than the job they're currently doing - and for which they have in many cases already sacrificed their own earnings and any prospect of retirement.
But none of that seems to mean anything to those running the new regime. Today's Dominion Post reported.on the case of Denise Herman of Dannevirke, who has "single-handedly raised three of her grandchildren, and another foster daughter, for more than a decade."
Now we're seeing exactly how stupid this regime is. Grandparents - especially grandmothers - who have stepped in to take care of children bereft of their parents' care through death, illness or dereliction are being hounded to enrol in jobseeker courses, work out their "long-term career goals" and hunt for non-existent jobs. NO job could be more important or useful not just to their grandkids but to the rest of us as well, or save taxpayers more money, than the job they're currently doing - and for which they have in many cases already sacrificed their own earnings and any prospect of retirement.
But none of that seems to mean anything to those running the new regime. Today's Dominion Post reported.on the case of Denise Herman of Dannevirke, who has "single-handedly raised three of her grandchildren, and another foster daughter, for more than a decade."
"Along the way, she has sacrificed her business, relationship and house to keep them out of foster care. She rescued her grandchildren from their parents after a Child, Youth and Family intervention. She said the parents struggled with drug addiction and spent time in prison. 'Without me, the kids would have been in foster care.'She has been able to care for them with the help of the domestic purposes and unsupported child benefits. She describes it as a fulltime occupation. On Monday, she will turn 64, and in a year she will be eligible for superannuation.But that has not stopped Work and Income telling her last month that she needed to look for a job or face having her support cut. She was enrolled in a six-month job-training course and asked to describe her skills, the last school she attended and her long-term career goals.'My long-term goal is to finally have some peace and rest,' she said. 'What a waste of money paying some training provider.'The Ministry of Social Development would not comment without a privacy waiver, which could not be obtained before publication."
This is pure lunacy, the work of a one-eyed concentration on just one thing: forcing down benefit numbers, regardless of the consequences. And because women are so much more likely than men to be on a benefit not because they are not working, but because they are doing vital unpaid work, it's likely to be women who get caught in this crazy catch-22 merry-go-round masquerading as social policy.
Grandparents are not the only victims, they're just the most obvious example of a never generous but once more-or-less effective system of support that has been deliberately broken, and then broken again. I wonder if they're already hounding widowed Pike River mothers out to work too.
Friday, 15 February 2013
her name was reeva steenkamp
late last night (nz time) news broke that oscar pistorius had been charged with murdering his girlfriend. the tv news item was pretty sketchy, so i immediately went on to twitter to find out what was going on. like countless millions around the world, i'd found him inspiring at the olympics (though i only managed to put in 1 line about him in this post). hence, again like countless others, i wanted to find out what was going on.
my own reaction was mixed - yes, i thought about yet another fallen sports hero, immediately connected him in my mind to lance armstrong, but mostly i thought about the young woman who had just had her life cut short, who had died an awful death. and given that an act of violence like that doesn't happen in isolation, i wondered what she might have been through prior that.
the one thought that didn't cross my mind was "poor oscar". of course he may be found innocent, and regardless of whether he is or not, there is no doubt he is suffering because of this incident. but really, his suffering is totally secondary to the fact that an innocent woman lost her life, (allegedly) at the hands of a person she was close to.
yet on twitter, there was a constant stream of "poor oscar" tweets. it's not that i have a problem with people feeling sorry for mr pistorius per se - particularly when some people were believing that he shot her by mistake thinking she was an intruder. but it was more that was a serious shortage of tweets of "poor girlfriend who just died". it was almost she didn't exist, or if she did, it's only in relation to the great tragedy that mr pistorius' life had just become.
i read a couple of article by sports writers, and yup, the main focus was on fallen heroes and "how much can we really know our sportpeople" and "but what he achieved as a sportsperson is still inspiring". all of which is true, but what about her who died? what about her right to be safe, to be alive? you're writing a piece within hours of her death, and yet you have nothing to say about her other than to passingly mention her name? and yes, i get that you're sportswriters, but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to mention domestic violence in piece about someone who just been involved in a fatal incident of domestic violence.
some of the news reports today have been better. we are at least getting to hear about reeva steenkamp and from her family. but the majority are still like this one. because he's the more famous one, he gets to be the one reported about, the main focus. it's taken a "gratuitous" picture by a british newspaper for the hashtag #HerNameWasReevaSteenkamp for her to become, at least for one aspect, the centre of coverage.
until she becomes the focus of coverage across the board, we won't be talking about the issues that are most important here. not the loss of a sporting hero, but the need to deal with domestic violence, to focus on the causes and to work a lot harder to prevent the loss of life. given that we so recently had the 1 billion rising initiative designed to raise awareness about domestic violence, you would think that would influence some of the coverage. but clearly not.
this tweet says it all:
ETA: i had to include this one as well:
my own reaction was mixed - yes, i thought about yet another fallen sports hero, immediately connected him in my mind to lance armstrong, but mostly i thought about the young woman who had just had her life cut short, who had died an awful death. and given that an act of violence like that doesn't happen in isolation, i wondered what she might have been through prior that.
the one thought that didn't cross my mind was "poor oscar". of course he may be found innocent, and regardless of whether he is or not, there is no doubt he is suffering because of this incident. but really, his suffering is totally secondary to the fact that an innocent woman lost her life, (allegedly) at the hands of a person she was close to.
yet on twitter, there was a constant stream of "poor oscar" tweets. it's not that i have a problem with people feeling sorry for mr pistorius per se - particularly when some people were believing that he shot her by mistake thinking she was an intruder. but it was more that was a serious shortage of tweets of "poor girlfriend who just died". it was almost she didn't exist, or if she did, it's only in relation to the great tragedy that mr pistorius' life had just become.
i read a couple of article by sports writers, and yup, the main focus was on fallen heroes and "how much can we really know our sportpeople" and "but what he achieved as a sportsperson is still inspiring". all of which is true, but what about her who died? what about her right to be safe, to be alive? you're writing a piece within hours of her death, and yet you have nothing to say about her other than to passingly mention her name? and yes, i get that you're sportswriters, but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to mention domestic violence in piece about someone who just been involved in a fatal incident of domestic violence.
some of the news reports today have been better. we are at least getting to hear about reeva steenkamp and from her family. but the majority are still like this one. because he's the more famous one, he gets to be the one reported about, the main focus. it's taken a "gratuitous" picture by a british newspaper for the hashtag #HerNameWasReevaSteenkamp for her to become, at least for one aspect, the centre of coverage.
until she becomes the focus of coverage across the board, we won't be talking about the issues that are most important here. not the loss of a sporting hero, but the need to deal with domestic violence, to focus on the causes and to work a lot harder to prevent the loss of life. given that we so recently had the 1 billion rising initiative designed to raise awareness about domestic violence, you would think that would influence some of the coverage. but clearly not.
this tweet says it all:
@piersmorgan tragic for #hernamewasReevaSteenkamp. Just because he was a sportsman doesn't mean he wasn't a domestic violence perpetrator
— Claire (@Claireyj99) February 15, 2013
ETA: i had to include this one as well:
@jentuds @theipaper #hernamewasReevaSteenkamp He took her life; don't take away her name. She wasn't an adjunct of the man that killed her.
— Aliki misses the sea (@amaenad) February 15, 2013
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
waitangi day
waitangi day, again.
i started the day with a powhiri at civic square in hamilton, in front of the city council building. following the powhiri, there were a few speeches, some songs, a prayer and then refreshements.
it was an hour-long event, which is time enough to hear quite a few words. unfortunately i don't understand maori enough to follow what the speakers in te reo were expressing, though i did catch a few words here and there.
but there were plenty of words in english that i did understand. speeches about partnership and founding history, and the importance of the treaty. there were words about multi-culturalism and being one people. there was talk of celebrating the positive and the nz spirit & identity. people talked about finding the common and focusing on that.
and for those who did talk about the historical context of the treaty, they talked about the period between 1815 & 1840, they talked about what happened at waitangi, and the next historical point of mention was 1960, when waitangi day was legally established and then 1975 when the treaty of waitangi act was passed.
everyone mentioned the signing, the partnership, but not one single person mentioned the breaches. it's as if the period between the signing of the treaty and the setting up of the waitangi didn't exist, as if we can't dare to acknowledge the problematic parts of our history. as if, as part of our national day, we should pretend that injustice and dispossession never happened. to mention it would somehow put a dampener on the day.
and yet part of celebrating nz and nz'ers, part of celebrating our history and our present is to own all of that history, to acknowledge the bad as well as the good. because that is all part of what this country is, that is part of our history, and to erase it by refusing to mention that it happened only shows the speakers' shame and embarrassment. it's certainly not ignorance, because i know all the people who spoke, and i know that they have a good grounding of our history - good enough to speak about it with honesty, had they so chosen.
it's not negative to speak about the bad parts of our history. it's worse to totally ignore it and pretend it never happened. it's more respectful of all of us to tell the truth of what happened, and that can easily done in ways that aren't in-your-face or confrontational (though it doesn't have to be), even if it does make some people uncomfortable. but just skipping over it as if it doesn't happened doesn't change the fact that it did.
it's positive to acknowledge our history and to talk about how we can make things better. and to talk about all the people and institutions who have been working hard to make things better. and to talk about all the things that still need to happen, all the work that still needs to be done.
the one thing that truly p*sses me off is to write off any mention of that history as "holding grievances" or being divisive. there is absolutely nothing wrong to be upset about past injustices, and to talk about the impact they have even today. there is nothing wrong with feeling anger and frustration, and nobody has to get over it just because other people are unable to deal with the expressions of justified emotion on a day when we acknowledge what it is to be a nz'er.
it is more divisive and more negative to stifle those expressions and to enforce a silence on things that we should never be silent about. so, i expected more from the ceremony this morning. especially since it was the only formal commemoration of waitangi day in the city. hamilton used to have a full day celebration by the lake, at innes common, with stalls and food and rides for the children, along with music and performances from a wide range of cultural groups. but the funding for that got cancelled, and this is all we have left.
i think we can do better.
i started the day with a powhiri at civic square in hamilton, in front of the city council building. following the powhiri, there were a few speeches, some songs, a prayer and then refreshements.
it was an hour-long event, which is time enough to hear quite a few words. unfortunately i don't understand maori enough to follow what the speakers in te reo were expressing, though i did catch a few words here and there.
but there were plenty of words in english that i did understand. speeches about partnership and founding history, and the importance of the treaty. there were words about multi-culturalism and being one people. there was talk of celebrating the positive and the nz spirit & identity. people talked about finding the common and focusing on that.
and for those who did talk about the historical context of the treaty, they talked about the period between 1815 & 1840, they talked about what happened at waitangi, and the next historical point of mention was 1960, when waitangi day was legally established and then 1975 when the treaty of waitangi act was passed.
everyone mentioned the signing, the partnership, but not one single person mentioned the breaches. it's as if the period between the signing of the treaty and the setting up of the waitangi didn't exist, as if we can't dare to acknowledge the problematic parts of our history. as if, as part of our national day, we should pretend that injustice and dispossession never happened. to mention it would somehow put a dampener on the day.
and yet part of celebrating nz and nz'ers, part of celebrating our history and our present is to own all of that history, to acknowledge the bad as well as the good. because that is all part of what this country is, that is part of our history, and to erase it by refusing to mention that it happened only shows the speakers' shame and embarrassment. it's certainly not ignorance, because i know all the people who spoke, and i know that they have a good grounding of our history - good enough to speak about it with honesty, had they so chosen.
it's not negative to speak about the bad parts of our history. it's worse to totally ignore it and pretend it never happened. it's more respectful of all of us to tell the truth of what happened, and that can easily done in ways that aren't in-your-face or confrontational (though it doesn't have to be), even if it does make some people uncomfortable. but just skipping over it as if it doesn't happened doesn't change the fact that it did.
it's positive to acknowledge our history and to talk about how we can make things better. and to talk about all the people and institutions who have been working hard to make things better. and to talk about all the things that still need to happen, all the work that still needs to be done.
the one thing that truly p*sses me off is to write off any mention of that history as "holding grievances" or being divisive. there is absolutely nothing wrong to be upset about past injustices, and to talk about the impact they have even today. there is nothing wrong with feeling anger and frustration, and nobody has to get over it just because other people are unable to deal with the expressions of justified emotion on a day when we acknowledge what it is to be a nz'er.
it is more divisive and more negative to stifle those expressions and to enforce a silence on things that we should never be silent about. so, i expected more from the ceremony this morning. especially since it was the only formal commemoration of waitangi day in the city. hamilton used to have a full day celebration by the lake, at innes common, with stalls and food and rides for the children, along with music and performances from a wide range of cultural groups. but the funding for that got cancelled, and this is all we have left.
i think we can do better.
Monday, 1 August 2011
default human
i've read plenty of posts around the feminist blogosphere about how the default human is male. there's plenty of evidence this is true, but i had another reminder in this weekend's paper.
gwynne dyer is a well-known columnist who is published in the fairfax papers, and i think the herald also published his pieces at some point. he certainly comes across as progressive, and i generally enjoy reading his columns. until this week's one, which includes the following:
And it's Muslims (British Muslims this time), who keep their women indoors or make them cover up when they go out, who are the main victims of this disease.
so, the default "muslim" is male. the women belong to the males, apparently, and have no individual identity or agency. according to mr dyer, it's not even a possibility that the women might choose to cover themselves, having thought about the issue and come to a decision. the possiblity that some of these women are covering themselves when the men who apparently own them would rather they didn't.
the whole construction of this sentence sickens me. that it comes from a writer that is clued up on so many issues rather than jihad watch or pamela gellar just makes it worse. it's so much harder when you have to try to convince people who, on the face of it, appear to be on your own side, that you come under the definition of human being (or muslim human being in this case). and i don't believe he's using "muslim" to mean muslim men in opposition to the arabic "muslimah" for muslim women, because he doesn't bother to use "muslimah" anywhere in the article to describe muslim women. he just sees them as appendages to the actual humans, being the men.
it all brings to mind the whole richard dawkins thing, and his use of muslim women to put down the very valid concerns of another women. this atheist wants to speak for us or about us in other forums, as if we couldn't possibly speak for themselves, as if we need this white knight to come to our rescue, as if we're just tools to be used in argument.
this all goes back to the point i was trying to make in my last post: that there is so much cr*p out there about muslim women, and it takes so much effort to get just one article giving us a voice and allowing us to talk for ourselves. sometimes it feels like an impossible task.
gwynne dyer is a well-known columnist who is published in the fairfax papers, and i think the herald also published his pieces at some point. he certainly comes across as progressive, and i generally enjoy reading his columns. until this week's one, which includes the following:
And it's Muslims (British Muslims this time), who keep their women indoors or make them cover up when they go out, who are the main victims of this disease.
so, the default "muslim" is male. the women belong to the males, apparently, and have no individual identity or agency. according to mr dyer, it's not even a possibility that the women might choose to cover themselves, having thought about the issue and come to a decision. the possiblity that some of these women are covering themselves when the men who apparently own them would rather they didn't.
the whole construction of this sentence sickens me. that it comes from a writer that is clued up on so many issues rather than jihad watch or pamela gellar just makes it worse. it's so much harder when you have to try to convince people who, on the face of it, appear to be on your own side, that you come under the definition of human being (or muslim human being in this case). and i don't believe he's using "muslim" to mean muslim men in opposition to the arabic "muslimah" for muslim women, because he doesn't bother to use "muslimah" anywhere in the article to describe muslim women. he just sees them as appendages to the actual humans, being the men.
it all brings to mind the whole richard dawkins thing, and his use of muslim women to put down the very valid concerns of another women. this atheist wants to speak for us or about us in other forums, as if we couldn't possibly speak for themselves, as if we need this white knight to come to our rescue, as if we're just tools to be used in argument.
this all goes back to the point i was trying to make in my last post: that there is so much cr*p out there about muslim women, and it takes so much effort to get just one article giving us a voice and allowing us to talk for ourselves. sometimes it feels like an impossible task.
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
refugee city
i wanted to share this link (hat tip to maia) about the three cities that christchurch has now become:
REFUGEE CITY is the rest of Christchurch -- mainly the eastern suburbs, though there are pockets elsewhere. It includes perhaps 50,000 to 100,000 people, though a more-mobile chunk of them may have self-evacuated by now.
these are the stories we need to be hearing more of. as i said in an earlier post, whoever is covered by the media is who we identify with and who we want to help. at least there is some coverage starting to happen, but not nearly enough.
ETA: i was talking to the chairperson of the waikato refugee forum today, and he had spent the morning at housing nz, trying to get accommodation for around 20 refugee families moving up from christchurch. they told him that they would only assist those refugees who were already housing nz tenants. this isn't good enough. i know that auckland is really starting to get stretched, with quite a number moving up there. there needs to be better co-ordination and support of nationwide services, particularly for those in the lowest socio-economic group.
REFUGEE CITY is the rest of Christchurch -- mainly the eastern suburbs, though there are pockets elsewhere. It includes perhaps 50,000 to 100,000 people, though a more-mobile chunk of them may have self-evacuated by now.
Only half of those who remain in Refugee City have power, and almost NONE have running water. Many have been living on their own resources, and their neighbours', for over a week now.
That means that batteries have run down, gas (if they had any to start with) has run out, other supplies are low or gone. Roads are often very bad - and a lot of those from the poorer suburbs have no transport anyway.
Their houses may or may not be intact. Their streets may be clear, broken, or full of silt. Or sewage. There are no showers. Or ways to wash clothes. Or to wash dishes. Or to heat the "must boil" water that is available -- assuming they can make it to the nearest water truck, day after day. No refrigeration. No working toilets, and precious few portaloos. No face masks to defend against the blown silt.
They have no internet either, and usually no phones. And their radio batteries are dead or dying. The papers -- if you can get one -- are rapidly dated, and usually far too general in their coverage. It really doesn't help someone without a car in Aranui to know that Fisher and Paykel are providing free laundries in Kaiapoi!
All the above means the locals have few resources, little information, and no "voice" either. It's remarkably hard to call talkback radio - or your local politician -- or emergency services -- when your landline is out and your cellphone battery is dead. Or when it maybe has JUST enough charge to stay on hold for 5 minutes - but not 20! - when calling the sole government helpline.
The media flies over, drives past and dips into Refugee City, usually at the main welfare or water points. But they don't cover it that much. From my observations, the officials - those who are making decisions about the relief effort - seem to do likewise.
(We saw Opposition Leader Phil Goff the other day - he stopped for a photo op with the Army group who had paused briefly at the cordon. Not that he or they talked to any of the locals waiting amidst they dust they'd stirred up, hoping for a nugget of information.)
Judging from the media coverage to date, the official response in this part of the city sounds reassuring - "Relief Centres" (if you can get to them -- and if it hasn't been relocated to Rangiora), a field hospital (ditto), Army (two drive-bys in the past week), "Operation Suburbs" teams (ditto; and this whole area is not even listed with them), increased police presence thanks to 300 loaned Australians (some sign of them, but not enough). And some worthy and welcome images of food and other supplies being distributed at marae and other central points.
IN THESE POWERLESS SUBURBS, THE OFFICIAL RESPONSE IS FAR FROM ENOUGH. Especially in terms of the fundamentals.
these are the stories we need to be hearing more of. as i said in an earlier post, whoever is covered by the media is who we identify with and who we want to help. at least there is some coverage starting to happen, but not nearly enough.
ETA: i was talking to the chairperson of the waikato refugee forum today, and he had spent the morning at housing nz, trying to get accommodation for around 20 refugee families moving up from christchurch. they told him that they would only assist those refugees who were already housing nz tenants. this isn't good enough. i know that auckland is really starting to get stretched, with quite a number moving up there. there needs to be better co-ordination and support of nationwide services, particularly for those in the lowest socio-economic group.
Monday, 28 February 2011
we're all in this together
i think most of us have been glued to the television and/or radio, as well as following print media over the last week, as we are desperate for news on the christchurch earthquake. we want to know what's happened, how we can help, what help is already being provided, and how people are coping. the media stories shape our understanding of the event, in the way they present the information to us. what is left in, what is missed out; what is highlighted and what is forgotten; these impact the way we see the event and the players involved.
the horror and sadness affected us all. media stories covered the devastation and loss, but also the tales of heroism, the stories of those waiting to hear about loved ones who were missing, and stories about those who pulled up their sleeves and worked in a variety of ways.
by the fourth day of coverage, i noticed a distinct bias in the coverage - or rather, in the type of people being covered. aside from the politicians and public servants (by which i include civil defence staff, police, army, DHB chief exec etc), there were the stories of individuals. and those individuals, with one major exception which i'll mention later, were white and mostly middle class.
whether it was those who were pulled out of collapsed buildings, people who were interviewed about their experiences, those who were struggling to survive, those who were offering help, almost all the people selected to share their stories were white and middle class. it's hard to say whether the bias was in-built and un-noticed, or whether it was a deliberate strategy because stories of these types of people are received better by audiences.
but it's not like there weren't other stories to be told. it's not like there weren't other groups who had suffered, who had been heroic and who had pulled their sleeves up to help out their neighbours. i can't say that i watched every bit of coverage all the time, but i did watch and listen to a reasonable amount. and in that time, i did not see coverage of maraes and the effort being put in by the maori community to support the homeless. i didn't see what happened to the mosque, to temples or other places of worship. perhaps none were damaged, but it would have been nice to have some basic coverage of that. i didn't see what was happening with the refugee community.
i heard about price-gouging by some dairies (and let's not forget our cultural expectation that dairy owners will be asian) but would have loved to see some in-depth stories told about the heaps of other dairy owners who weren't, many of whom were doing their best to ensure their communties had adequate supplies of basic necessities.
as i mentioned above, there was one major exception, being the international students studying in the CTV building, and the search and rescue teams from taiwan and japan. of the latter, there was nowhere near as much coverage as we got of the aussies and the americans. language might have been a problem, but i'm sure there were a significant number in the asian teams who spoke good english. while there were some brief interviews with the asian crews, they didn't have reporters following them into buildings or building that audience rapport with them in the way that we got stories of western crews.
but more than that, because the coverage of non-white faces was mostly limited to foreigners, it embedded the notion that white faces are local and non-white faces are foreign. that selective lens that focused on white people for the stories of local residents served to embed the notion of what a nz'er looks and sounds like. it shapes our collective understanding, in a very subtle and subconscious way, when we grieve with and identify with one particular representation of nz'ers to the exclusion of others. aside from being unjust, it's really unhelpful in building that community spirit that is so necessary for long-term survival.
so that was last week. this week is looking better. the sunday star times had a story of a pacific islander who had saved someone's life by shifting some heavy rubble (sorry, can't find it online just now), as well as revisiting the story of young myro mckee, who they had featured as part of their coverage of the september earthquake. today the dominion post covered a refugee family and the effect of the earthquake on refugees. during the midday news, radio nz had some coverage of work being done by the maori community. we're seeing tv crews go into the poorer areas of the city, and cover families that are living in very overcrowded conditions (again, can't find the link).
this may seem a trivial point to raise in the midst of so much destruction and hurt. it's important to me, because who is covered is who we identify with and who we want to help. it's important because every community has suffered, and we all need to hear and see the various different types of nz'ers that make up this country. it's a matter of justice, and a matter of bonding and togetherness. if we really want to develop the feeling that we're all in this together, then we have to make sure that create an environment where everyone feels that they belong.
the horror and sadness affected us all. media stories covered the devastation and loss, but also the tales of heroism, the stories of those waiting to hear about loved ones who were missing, and stories about those who pulled up their sleeves and worked in a variety of ways.
by the fourth day of coverage, i noticed a distinct bias in the coverage - or rather, in the type of people being covered. aside from the politicians and public servants (by which i include civil defence staff, police, army, DHB chief exec etc), there were the stories of individuals. and those individuals, with one major exception which i'll mention later, were white and mostly middle class.
whether it was those who were pulled out of collapsed buildings, people who were interviewed about their experiences, those who were struggling to survive, those who were offering help, almost all the people selected to share their stories were white and middle class. it's hard to say whether the bias was in-built and un-noticed, or whether it was a deliberate strategy because stories of these types of people are received better by audiences.
but it's not like there weren't other stories to be told. it's not like there weren't other groups who had suffered, who had been heroic and who had pulled their sleeves up to help out their neighbours. i can't say that i watched every bit of coverage all the time, but i did watch and listen to a reasonable amount. and in that time, i did not see coverage of maraes and the effort being put in by the maori community to support the homeless. i didn't see what happened to the mosque, to temples or other places of worship. perhaps none were damaged, but it would have been nice to have some basic coverage of that. i didn't see what was happening with the refugee community.
i heard about price-gouging by some dairies (and let's not forget our cultural expectation that dairy owners will be asian) but would have loved to see some in-depth stories told about the heaps of other dairy owners who weren't, many of whom were doing their best to ensure their communties had adequate supplies of basic necessities.
as i mentioned above, there was one major exception, being the international students studying in the CTV building, and the search and rescue teams from taiwan and japan. of the latter, there was nowhere near as much coverage as we got of the aussies and the americans. language might have been a problem, but i'm sure there were a significant number in the asian teams who spoke good english. while there were some brief interviews with the asian crews, they didn't have reporters following them into buildings or building that audience rapport with them in the way that we got stories of western crews.
but more than that, because the coverage of non-white faces was mostly limited to foreigners, it embedded the notion that white faces are local and non-white faces are foreign. that selective lens that focused on white people for the stories of local residents served to embed the notion of what a nz'er looks and sounds like. it shapes our collective understanding, in a very subtle and subconscious way, when we grieve with and identify with one particular representation of nz'ers to the exclusion of others. aside from being unjust, it's really unhelpful in building that community spirit that is so necessary for long-term survival.
so that was last week. this week is looking better. the sunday star times had a story of a pacific islander who had saved someone's life by shifting some heavy rubble (sorry, can't find it online just now), as well as revisiting the story of young myro mckee, who they had featured as part of their coverage of the september earthquake. today the dominion post covered a refugee family and the effect of the earthquake on refugees. during the midday news, radio nz had some coverage of work being done by the maori community. we're seeing tv crews go into the poorer areas of the city, and cover families that are living in very overcrowded conditions (again, can't find the link).
this may seem a trivial point to raise in the midst of so much destruction and hurt. it's important to me, because who is covered is who we identify with and who we want to help. it's important because every community has suffered, and we all need to hear and see the various different types of nz'ers that make up this country. it's a matter of justice, and a matter of bonding and togetherness. if we really want to develop the feeling that we're all in this together, then we have to make sure that create an environment where everyone feels that they belong.
Monday, 26 April 2010
one step forward, two steps back
from a country where the state dictates how women can dress, we have progress of sorts in terms of women's access to education:
...King Abdullah yesterday laid the foundation for the Kingdom’s first women-only university, which is to be built at a cost of SR15 billion on the eastern suburbs of Riyadh.
The Princess Noura bint Abdulrahman University, with a capacity to enroll some 40,000 students, will offer courses in subjects that women find difficulty studying at universities where strict gender segregation is enforced....
[Minister of Higher Education Khaled Al-Anqari said] “This is a milestone in the Kingdom’s history, particularly in the history of women’s education. The campus would include an administration building, a central library, conference centers, buildings for 15 academic faculties, several laboratories and a 700-bed hospital equipped with state-of-the-art facilities.
“Some areas in the campus would be allocated for research in nanotechnology, bio-sciences and information technology in collaboration with the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology,” he said.
Princess Al-Jowhara bint Fahd, the university’s president, said the institution is designed to become the world’s largest center of higher learning for women. “It would double the admission capacity of women students,” she said in a statement. “The university would have 13 colleges, including those for medicine, dentistry, nursing, naturopathy, information technology, languages, instant translation and pharmacy.”
baby steps, and no doubt this is a puff piece, but access to education is the first step towards empowerment. access to employment is the next step, and it looks like the saudi government is encouraging businesses to do that, from the article quoted. but whether or not this is more than just words remains to be seen.
and now we have another two countries who want to join the ranks of those where the state dictates how women can dress. first up is belgium:
THE collapse of the Belgian coalition government has prevented the country's parliament from voting in Europe's first ban on wearing the Islamic burqa in public.
Prime Minister Yves Leterme offered to quit after the coalition broke down, throwing the country's political institutions into turmoil....
The controversial decision could be put on the agenda for the next parliamentary session in a week's time "unless the government falls and the house of representatives is dissolved," a parliamentary spokeswoman told AFP.
this would no doubt be viewed as a case of divine intervention by the sorts of sheikhs that predict earthquakes. i certainly don't wish any ill on the belgians, but here's hoping that the vote gets put off for more than a week.
and then there is the french version, which is quite a lot more of an overt & populist political move by a president suffering from very low popularity ratings, a president who has a history of this kind of thing:
A SAVIOUR of women, or rank Islamophobe and racist? By pushing for a total ban on the burka, or full Islamic veil, in all public places, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is provoking outrage in the political establishment while winning the backing of the electorate and the far-right....
Mr Sarkozy has galvanised the Right and split the Left over the burka, with solid support from voters. Anti-racism groups are pitted against secular Muslim feminist movements, while the Socialist Party is in disarray.
Prime Minister Francois Fillon has been charged with trying to hurry the law through the National Assembly, where Socialists and Communists are at odds over whether to ban the burka at all, partially or everywhere.
the funniest quote from that article would have to be this one:
"When we go to (another) country, we vigorously respects its laws . . . therefore everyone must respect the law in France. It's like that."
o rly? is that what you did? cos, you know, some people don't remember it like that. and in case you think belgium is any better in this regard, think again. it doesn't seem to me that rwanda and the republic of congo have benefitted from that particular colonisation.
but despite all of that history, and despite the fact that many muslims are in france as a direct result of colonisation, it seems the natives from the colonies are still not deserving of respect. the attack is (again) on women. because they are the softer target? less likely to riot in the streets? more likely to submit to oppression? who knows.
what i know is that if these bans go ahead, it is highly likely that these women will become even more secluded than they are now. if the women are covering themselves from their own choice, then the state is saying that they shouldn't have that choice, thus taking away their agency for no valid reason. if they are covering because they are forced to do it, then such laws will make the situation worse as those forcing them will further restrict their movements. i mean really, isn't it basic common sense that if you want to stop abuse, you target policies towards the behaviour of the abuser?
in either case, it's a stupid move that won't liberate or empower anyone. it will, however, cause increasing tensions and divisions. sarkozy definitely knows this but doesn't care. i don't know much about belgium, but given the coalition government is on the brink of collapse, it's not a stretch to assume that this is a populist move there as well.
so while there's all the fuss around what boobquake does or doesn't say about women's empowerment, let's spare a thought for these women who don't seem to have any kind of voice at all in the political manoeuverings apparently designed to "liberate" them.
please note that moderation will be very tight on this thread.
...King Abdullah yesterday laid the foundation for the Kingdom’s first women-only university, which is to be built at a cost of SR15 billion on the eastern suburbs of Riyadh.
The Princess Noura bint Abdulrahman University, with a capacity to enroll some 40,000 students, will offer courses in subjects that women find difficulty studying at universities where strict gender segregation is enforced....
[Minister of Higher Education Khaled Al-Anqari said] “This is a milestone in the Kingdom’s history, particularly in the history of women’s education. The campus would include an administration building, a central library, conference centers, buildings for 15 academic faculties, several laboratories and a 700-bed hospital equipped with state-of-the-art facilities.
“Some areas in the campus would be allocated for research in nanotechnology, bio-sciences and information technology in collaboration with the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology,” he said.
Princess Al-Jowhara bint Fahd, the university’s president, said the institution is designed to become the world’s largest center of higher learning for women. “It would double the admission capacity of women students,” she said in a statement. “The university would have 13 colleges, including those for medicine, dentistry, nursing, naturopathy, information technology, languages, instant translation and pharmacy.”
baby steps, and no doubt this is a puff piece, but access to education is the first step towards empowerment. access to employment is the next step, and it looks like the saudi government is encouraging businesses to do that, from the article quoted. but whether or not this is more than just words remains to be seen.
and now we have another two countries who want to join the ranks of those where the state dictates how women can dress. first up is belgium:
THE collapse of the Belgian coalition government has prevented the country's parliament from voting in Europe's first ban on wearing the Islamic burqa in public.
Prime Minister Yves Leterme offered to quit after the coalition broke down, throwing the country's political institutions into turmoil....
The controversial decision could be put on the agenda for the next parliamentary session in a week's time "unless the government falls and the house of representatives is dissolved," a parliamentary spokeswoman told AFP.
this would no doubt be viewed as a case of divine intervention by the sorts of sheikhs that predict earthquakes. i certainly don't wish any ill on the belgians, but here's hoping that the vote gets put off for more than a week.
and then there is the french version, which is quite a lot more of an overt & populist political move by a president suffering from very low popularity ratings, a president who has a history of this kind of thing:
A SAVIOUR of women, or rank Islamophobe and racist? By pushing for a total ban on the burka, or full Islamic veil, in all public places, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is provoking outrage in the political establishment while winning the backing of the electorate and the far-right....
Mr Sarkozy has galvanised the Right and split the Left over the burka, with solid support from voters. Anti-racism groups are pitted against secular Muslim feminist movements, while the Socialist Party is in disarray.
Prime Minister Francois Fillon has been charged with trying to hurry the law through the National Assembly, where Socialists and Communists are at odds over whether to ban the burka at all, partially or everywhere.
the funniest quote from that article would have to be this one:
"When we go to (another) country, we vigorously respects its laws . . . therefore everyone must respect the law in France. It's like that."
o rly? is that what you did? cos, you know, some people don't remember it like that. and in case you think belgium is any better in this regard, think again. it doesn't seem to me that rwanda and the republic of congo have benefitted from that particular colonisation.
but despite all of that history, and despite the fact that many muslims are in france as a direct result of colonisation, it seems the natives from the colonies are still not deserving of respect. the attack is (again) on women. because they are the softer target? less likely to riot in the streets? more likely to submit to oppression? who knows.
what i know is that if these bans go ahead, it is highly likely that these women will become even more secluded than they are now. if the women are covering themselves from their own choice, then the state is saying that they shouldn't have that choice, thus taking away their agency for no valid reason. if they are covering because they are forced to do it, then such laws will make the situation worse as those forcing them will further restrict their movements. i mean really, isn't it basic common sense that if you want to stop abuse, you target policies towards the behaviour of the abuser?
in either case, it's a stupid move that won't liberate or empower anyone. it will, however, cause increasing tensions and divisions. sarkozy definitely knows this but doesn't care. i don't know much about belgium, but given the coalition government is on the brink of collapse, it's not a stretch to assume that this is a populist move there as well.
so while there's all the fuss around what boobquake does or doesn't say about women's empowerment, let's spare a thought for these women who don't seem to have any kind of voice at all in the political manoeuverings apparently designed to "liberate" them.
please note that moderation will be very tight on this thread.
Friday, 19 February 2010
Wife as waste of space
Cactus Kate has highlighted a truly awful sexist motoring column by Eric Thompson, which you can read if you want to soil your eyes with an ill-judged rant about how women should be banned from driving 4WD vehicles.
Unsurprisingly, Kate agrees with Thompson, in her usual barbed style that involves kicking her sisters, hard, with her spiky stilettos at every opportunity. It's another chance for the Cactus to show that she really doesn't seem to like children, mothers, or indeed other women very much at all.
The comments that follow Cactus's post mostly expand on this theme, although with some notable disagreement, thank goodness. The view that is particularly bugging me tonight, from the post and the comments, is the idea that married women who aren't in paid work and are raising children are not contributing anything of value to their relationship or family.
We've seen this view from CK before, and no doubt will again. I don't expect my post to change her mind. Perhaps the only thing that will change her mind is being in that position herself; partnered up and not in paid employment for some reason, be it child-related or otherwise. And she's pretty clear that's not on her agenda, ever, so I guess that's that then.
But for other people who seem to not notice the very real value that someone not in paid work adds to a household, there are quite a lot of points I could raise, including:
It bothers me that Kate's language is all about married women who she reckons sponge off men. It's almost as if it's in the wedding vows: "I promise to take as much as possible and give as little as I can get away with, at least until I'm likely to get a significant divorce settlement, at which point I will stop giving anything at all."
I don't know if I've ever seen a marriage that has worked like that, even the ones that have ended before death do them part. Maybe it's because I also don't know anyone who sends their children to Kings. Or has a 4WD and never goes off-road.
Unsurprisingly, Kate agrees with Thompson, in her usual barbed style that involves kicking her sisters, hard, with her spiky stilettos at every opportunity. It's another chance for the Cactus to show that she really doesn't seem to like children, mothers, or indeed other women very much at all.
The comments that follow Cactus's post mostly expand on this theme, although with some notable disagreement, thank goodness. The view that is particularly bugging me tonight, from the post and the comments, is the idea that married women who aren't in paid work and are raising children are not contributing anything of value to their relationship or family.
We've seen this view from CK before, and no doubt will again. I don't expect my post to change her mind. Perhaps the only thing that will change her mind is being in that position herself; partnered up and not in paid employment for some reason, be it child-related or otherwise. And she's pretty clear that's not on her agenda, ever, so I guess that's that then.
But for other people who seem to not notice the very real value that someone not in paid work adds to a household, there are quite a lot of points I could raise, including:
- The caring, nurturing work - not necessarily just children either, it could be about parents who need extra attention, other family members, friends, and of course the paid partner. It's my observation that often this stuff, which is vital to maintaining friendships and family relationships, is more likely to be carried out by an at home partner, to the significant benefit of both. As small scale as sorting all the Xmas presents, as big as nursing someone who is terminally ill, this is unpaid work that can be arduous, dirty, annoying, rewarding, time-consuming, and is essential. Much of it can't easily (or cheaply) be contracted out of either, and even if you can arrange it getting someone else to do it can fracture relationships irreparably.
- Volunteer work - can even bring significant kudos to the paid partner, not to mention the community benefits. While I personally think it is enough that it often gives you a sense of achievement, a chance to contribute meaningfully to something you care about, skills, friendships and contacts, it is perhaps worth mentioning to the more Cactus-minded that volunteer work by the unpaid can also provide vital networking opportunities for the paid partner, not to mention they could even claim some involvement on their CV by association.
- Running a household - no longer as full-on as in Jane Austen's time, but nonetheless often significant. Particularly during renovations, just ask my least-favourite Listener columnist, Joanne Black. Making sure the bills are paid, there's enough food to eat, the toilet gets unblocked, the bed linen is clean, the holiday gets booked, there are clean work clothes, the neighbours don't hate you, the mail is cleared... you get the idea. Add children to the mix and this work expands exponentially. Even if you pay someone else to clean, cook, shop, nanny, there's still always unpaid work to be done in this area, not least coordinating, paying and instructing any paid workers helping out.
It bothers me that Kate's language is all about married women who she reckons sponge off men. It's almost as if it's in the wedding vows: "I promise to take as much as possible and give as little as I can get away with, at least until I'm likely to get a significant divorce settlement, at which point I will stop giving anything at all."
I don't know if I've ever seen a marriage that has worked like that, even the ones that have ended before death do them part. Maybe it's because I also don't know anyone who sends their children to Kings. Or has a 4WD and never goes off-road.
Diversity Deficit? Women in Govt-appointed Board spots
Yesterday Catherine Delahunty closely questioned Pansy Wong, Minister of Women's Affairs, about the issue of women's appointments to Government-selected Board spots. The exchange in the House included:
But I suspect that even if she is technically correct, then a proper examination is likely to show that women's appointments are largely clustered in the lower status, lower power, lower paid Boards. And further that there may be Boards that are dominated by women in areas that are seen as traditional female areas e.g health and education, and a lady drought in the old-fashioned men's spheres like finance, governance and trade.
Delahunty pointed out the paucity of female appointments to a number of very important boards which have been in the news recently; the Don Brash-led 2025 Closing the Gap With Australia force thing (5 men, 1 woman), the independent advisory panel on National Standards (4 men, 1 woman), and both the Tax Working Group (13 men, 0 women) and the National Infrastructure Advisory Board (8 men, 0 women) mentioned above. These are high-powered bodies, entwined with key National policy areas. Why isn't National backing more women to contribute to these important areas? In fact why don't those groups have more diversity full stop, and resemble our current community more than a bad caricature of a 19th century Parliament?
I've put in an OIA request about the Board appointments and will let you know how I get on in due course. It would be nice if Wong is actually right, not just technically right, but we shall see. Many thanks to Liz for sending me a transcript of the Question Time exchange today, which sparked my thinking on this and spurred me toaction send an email ;-)
5. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Women's Affairs: Does she stand by her statement: “it is important that women and men stand shoulder to shoulder in our boardrooms”?Now Wong may be correct. In an odd sort of way I hope that she is.
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women's Affairs): Yes.
Catherine Delahunty: How can women and men stand shoulder to shoulder on the Government-appointed National Infrastructure Advisory Board when it consists of eight men and no women?
Hon PANSY WONG: The member will be pleased to know that the Government looks at the overall result, and in the quarter from October to December 2009, 47 percent of the board members appointed to Government boards and committees were women. I acknowledge my National Cabinet colleagues for recognising and appointing competent women to their boards.
Catherine Delahunty: How can women and men stand shoulder to shoulder on the Government-funded Tax Working Group when it consists of 13 men and no women?
Hon PANSY WONG: On this side of the House, we look at the overall picture. We want to win the battle, not just little individual boardrooms, boardroom by boardroom. [my emphasis]
But I suspect that even if she is technically correct, then a proper examination is likely to show that women's appointments are largely clustered in the lower status, lower power, lower paid Boards. And further that there may be Boards that are dominated by women in areas that are seen as traditional female areas e.g health and education, and a lady drought in the old-fashioned men's spheres like finance, governance and trade.
Delahunty pointed out the paucity of female appointments to a number of very important boards which have been in the news recently; the Don Brash-led 2025 Closing the Gap With Australia force thing (5 men, 1 woman), the independent advisory panel on National Standards (4 men, 1 woman), and both the Tax Working Group (13 men, 0 women) and the National Infrastructure Advisory Board (8 men, 0 women) mentioned above. These are high-powered bodies, entwined with key National policy areas. Why isn't National backing more women to contribute to these important areas? In fact why don't those groups have more diversity full stop, and resemble our current community more than a bad caricature of a 19th century Parliament?
I've put in an OIA request about the Board appointments and will let you know how I get on in due course. It would be nice if Wong is actually right, not just technically right, but we shall see. Many thanks to Liz for sending me a transcript of the Question Time exchange today, which sparked my thinking on this and spurred me to
Sunday, 22 November 2009
asking permission to propose
i was surprised to hear, recently, of a man who went to visit his sweetheart's father to get permission to propose to her. this is a tradition i've never been comfortable with. to me, it smacks too much of ownership, of women as property. tying in with the notion of a father "giving away" his daughter in marriage. you can't, after all, give away what you can't own!
not only that, but if you're going to ask permission to seek a daughter's hand in marriage, why on earth would you exclude her mother? is the mother not important, or just that the father is presumed to speak on her behalf?
and finally, it decreases the agency of the woman to be proposed to. i don't know, it just seems that she becomes less than ie someone who is unable to fully speak for herself or to be trusted to make a reasonable decision. she isn't required to go to his parents to seek approval, so he is presumed to have full agency while she is not.
i found my reaction to this pretty interesting, given that i'm not at all opposed to arranged marriages. but in that case, both sets of parents (and initially their representatives) are talking to each other. and these days, the couple usually meet and approve of each other before the marriage can go ahead.*
in the western situation, i guess i'd feel much more comfortable if the proposal was made and accepted, and the couple went to both sets of parents to seek their blessings. it's good to have family on-side after all, and i do believe in strong family relationships. i just don't like the way that women are made invisible under customary practices.
*i know things haven't always been that way, and i don't in anyway approve of forced marriages.
not only that, but if you're going to ask permission to seek a daughter's hand in marriage, why on earth would you exclude her mother? is the mother not important, or just that the father is presumed to speak on her behalf?
and finally, it decreases the agency of the woman to be proposed to. i don't know, it just seems that she becomes less than ie someone who is unable to fully speak for herself or to be trusted to make a reasonable decision. she isn't required to go to his parents to seek approval, so he is presumed to have full agency while she is not.
i found my reaction to this pretty interesting, given that i'm not at all opposed to arranged marriages. but in that case, both sets of parents (and initially their representatives) are talking to each other. and these days, the couple usually meet and approve of each other before the marriage can go ahead.*
in the western situation, i guess i'd feel much more comfortable if the proposal was made and accepted, and the couple went to both sets of parents to seek their blessings. it's good to have family on-side after all, and i do believe in strong family relationships. i just don't like the way that women are made invisible under customary practices.
*i know things haven't always been that way, and i don't in anyway approve of forced marriages.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Quick hit: World gender gap survey out - Aotearoa fifth best
Here's some bits of the article in the Herald:
And Idiot/Savant has more lovely linkage, including the actual report itself and a pretty picture. Awww.
New Zealand has maintained its fifth placing on the Global Gender Gap Index, an annual list compiled by the World Economic Forum to assesses countries on how well they divide their resources and opportunities between their male and female populations.There's much more there if you make with the clicky. Although quite why the Herald has put it in the Life & Style section, as opposed to like you know News, I don't know.
Women remain far behind men in economic and political power globally, but the Nordic countries come closest to closing the gender gap, according to the survey of 134 nations released yesterday.
Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden have topped the index since it was first released in 2006.
They did so again this year, but Iceland replaced Norway at the top of the list with a score of 82.8 per cent, meaning it came closest to 100 per cent gender equality...
New Zealand, with a score of 78.8 per cent, was fifth in the rankings...
At the bottom of the list were Qatar, Egypt, Mali, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Benin, Pakistan, Chad and Yemen in last place with a score of 46.1 per cent.
...While many nations have made some progress toward gender equality, no country has closed the gap when it comes to economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, political empowerment, and health and survival.
"Girls and women make up one half of the world's population," the forum's founder and executive chairman, Klaus Schwab, said in a statement, "and without their engagement, empowerment and contribution, we cannot hope to achieve a rapid economic recovery nor effectively tackle global challenges such as climate change, food security and conflict."
Saadia Zahidi, head of the forum's Women Leaders and Gender Parity Program, told a news conference launching the survey that of the 115 countries in the original index four years ago, 99 have made progress in closing their gaps - but 16 haven't "and have actually deteriorated".
The survey shows that on health, "the world is doing fairly well," closing over 96 per cent of the gap in resources between women and men, Zahidi said.
On education, about 93 per cent of the gap has been closed but on economic participation and opportunity only 60 per cent has been closed and on political empowerment only 17 per cent.
And Idiot/Savant has more lovely linkage, including the actual report itself and a pretty picture. Awww.
Sunday, 19 July 2009
identity
i was at a (rather fancy) dinner last night, and was in the position of introducing someone (who i'll call XYZ) to someone else. it turned out that the spouse of XYZ (who i'll call ABC) happened to be better known in that particular context. so my introduction went like this:
"you know ABC who holds such and such positions? well ABC happens to be married to XYZ".
well, XYZ was very happy with this introduction and appreciated it so much more than being introduced as "ABC's spouse". he felt that it gave him much more of an identity in the way that i put it.
of course i'd not made any kind of conscious effort to word the introduction this way, it just happened to come out like that. but maybe it's something that came about from watching other people introduced in a similar manner, and knowing how much they hated it. at present, the people who suffer most from this are my parents, who are invariably introduced and recognised as "anjum's mum" or "anjum's dad" in a variety of settings. they take it good-naturedly, but i know that they have their own identities and very considerable achievements, which tend to be denied with that kind of an introduction.
so it was nice to have done the right thing, be it ever so inadvertantly. and it was nice of XYZ to be so vocal in his appreciation. in fact, it was lovely evening all round.
"you know ABC who holds such and such positions? well ABC happens to be married to XYZ".
well, XYZ was very happy with this introduction and appreciated it so much more than being introduced as "ABC's spouse". he felt that it gave him much more of an identity in the way that i put it.
of course i'd not made any kind of conscious effort to word the introduction this way, it just happened to come out like that. but maybe it's something that came about from watching other people introduced in a similar manner, and knowing how much they hated it. at present, the people who suffer most from this are my parents, who are invariably introduced and recognised as "anjum's mum" or "anjum's dad" in a variety of settings. they take it good-naturedly, but i know that they have their own identities and very considerable achievements, which tend to be denied with that kind of an introduction.
so it was nice to have done the right thing, be it ever so inadvertantly. and it was nice of XYZ to be so vocal in his appreciation. in fact, it was lovely evening all round.
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
an observation
just watched the second half of backbenchers on channel 7 tonight, which featured representatives from the youth wings of national, labour, greens, maori party and ACT. and the first thing i noticed was that, yup, all of them were male. not one single female rep put forward by any one of these parties.
which says what about the future of parliament and political decision-making in this country? nothing good, i'm afraid.
which says what about the future of parliament and political decision-making in this country? nothing good, i'm afraid.
Friday, 27 February 2009
Diversity deficit at the Job Summit redux
Further to this post from yesterday, I see the Greens picked up on this issue two days ago, with this release from new MP Catherine Delahunty:
"I’m sure John Key doesn’t intend to send the message to New Zealand that the National Party does not value women, but that is what he is doing. We urge the Prime Minister to check the numbers and think again about the needs of half the workforce at this critical time," said Green Women’s Issues spokesperson Catherine Delahunty."Only three women’s organisations have been invited to the Job Summit. This tiny number needs to be expanded to include more groups that have expertise in women’s employment issues.
"The Prime Minister should invite groups such as the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women, The New Horizons Trust for Women, The NZ Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Association, the NZ Centre for Women and Leadership, and Rural Women New Zealand who would contribute a lot to this Summit.
"Although the Government has described the Summit as not "representational" we want to see women leaders who work in job creation sitting at this table. Women are typically the first to lose their jobs in a recession; the PM should show he means business – for all New Zealanders – and use this opportunity to harness experienced women’s groups in the job creation process."
Labour's spokesperson Sue Moroney has also voiced concern, specifically picking up on Minister of Women's Affairs, Pansy Wong, justifying the lack of women:
"...Ms Wong is using her role as Minister of Women's Affairs to defend the lack of women invited to attend the Government's Jobs Summit this week.
"Even though she knows that large numbers of women will be affected, she still thinks it is an achievement for 35 women to be involved in putting ideas forward to the forum of almost 200 participants," said Sue Moroney.
“Her statement that she will represent the women's views because she is in the cabinet hold little weight after she failed to stop National from scrapping pay equity investigations for social workers and school support staff last week and are even less credible when you consider that of the Ministers invited to the planning meeting not one was a woman.
"Where was she when Summit organisers invited CEO Bill Gallagher, but refused to accept his Corporate Service Executive, Margaret Comer in his place?"
The organisers later reversed their decision but Mrs Comer has decided that she will not attend the Summit because of the "way it is being handled."
Here's Wong's original statement, and a couple of highlights:
Thirty-five influential women and representatives from small, medium and large businesses and unions met to debate a range of solutions, ideas and initiatives on how to deal with the challenging economic situation at the Women in Business Workshop on Tuesday.
“Women are a vulnerable group in times of recession and unemployment and the National-led government feels that it is important they participate and are heard in providing solutions to the recession. Large percentages of women in the workforce are employed in areas that are likely to be affected and it is inevitable that New Zealand women will be hugely affected by the recession,” Women’s Affairs Minister Pansy Wong says.
Mrs Wong adds that another impact redundancies and unemployment will have on women is a likely increase in domestic violence.
...The discussions from the workshop will be fed into Friday’s job summit.
“We had a number of key women who are involved in the Prime Minister’s job summit attending the workshop and they will be feeding the ideas through. Also, as a member of Cabinet I will ensure that women will have a voice in any decision made as a result of the job summit,” she says.
So let me get this straight:
- Around 200 delegates at the Job Summit
- Around 15% of these will be women
- There was a working group on women's issues before the Summit*, to feed into it, featuring 35 women.
- The Minister is aware that there will be significant detriments to many women from the recession, in particular job losses, cuts in pay or hours, and increased domestic violence
And the Minister thinks they're doing enough?
I'll be very very interested to see what comes out of this Summit. I hope it works, and I hope that some fantastic ideas come out of it and are adopted. But the way it's structured at the moment I don't know how they can find those ideas, and work through how to adopt them, when the Summit's participants are so far removed from what Aotearoa New Zealand really looks like.
* I heard on the radio this morning that many of the groupings involved in the Summit were doing workshops and conference calls beforehand to get the most out of the day, so I'm not sure whether this is something in addition, to overcome the exclusion of many relevant women's voices at the Summit itself, or whether it's largely the same group.
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Quick hit: Diversity deficit at the Jobs Summit
From yesterday's Herald:
Bowler hat tipped in the direction of Tumeke.
Community groups and some small business sectors are upset that they have been left off the invitation list for Prime Minister John Key's Jobs Summit in Manukau on Friday.The guest list, released on Monday night, includes only three people from the community sector: Auckland City Missioner Diane Robertson, Salvation Army social services director Campbell Roberts and a policy adviser for the disability group DPA, Wendi Wicks.
Instead, 118 of the 194 invited are from the business sector - mostly from big businesses (62) and finance (22), but including 30 from smaller businesses and sector groups and four from state-owned enterprises.
The rest are from central and local government, education and training organisations, unions, iwi groups and a handful of academics and researchers.
The list includes 165 men and just 30 women. At least 20 are Maori, but only two are known to be of part-Pacific Island heritage: Rick Fala of the tap maker Methven and NZ Super Fund chief executive Adrian Orr.
Fletcher Building chief executive Jonathan Ling will be the sole flagbearer for the Asian community.
Click through for the full article.
Bowler hat tipped in the direction of Tumeke.
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Diversity Deficit: UOA's "Leading the Way" campaign
My partner pointed this out to me; I think he is starting to be influenced by all the times I comment on the mostly white, mostly male, mostly older than 40, mostly hetero, alleged representations of our society.
Like its American counterparts, the University of Auckland is now sourcing more and more of its funding from philanthropic sources, and they've now launched a major campaign called "Leading the Way" to encourage contributions. And there's a committee coordinating this effort, of course. It's quite large. You can see a picture of them all on the staircase inside the Registry:
Notice anything? Anything at all?
Like its American counterparts, the University of Auckland is now sourcing more and more of its funding from philanthropic sources, and they've now launched a major campaign called "Leading the Way" to encourage contributions. And there's a committee coordinating this effort, of course. It's quite large. You can see a picture of them all on the staircase inside the Registry:
Notice anything? Anything at all?
Friday, 11 July 2008
Childcare blues
Since having kids, my partner and I have made use of a bunch of ad hoc childcare arrangements so I could go back to work. We've tried various home based carers, two creches and a kindergarten, as well as taking the kids to work - with various degrees of success. Home based carers' circumstances would change, and I'd find myself with nowhere to put my son on short notice. Creches were most reliable, but terribly expensive, and my daughter was unhappy in the cheap one, forcing us to move her to something more expensive. Kindy was great, but only went for half the day, so my partner had to pick up my daughter at the end of her morning at creche, drive around to kill time for half an hour, then drop her off at kindy. And taking the kids to work? Don't ask.
I've always had a sense that my childcare arrangements weren't quite under control, as I rushed from one less than adequate care situation to another. Often, I feel like both a crap mother and a crap worker. It seems that a great many women have similar problems. We call in our own mums to do pick-ups and drop-offs of our kids, and to fill in where we can't afford enough hours of care, or they simply aren't available to be bought. We have to work late from time to time, and hope our creches won't notice (and bill us extra) when we pick up the kids later than we should. We are forced to economise on care, or there's nothing left of our pay packets by the time we've paid the bills. It is, at times, a treadmill-like feeling.
And then, there are the woefully low-paid women who provide care for us. Quite rightly, they look disapprovingly at us when we drop kids with runny noses off at creches. Their disapproval adds to our guilt, and it's hard not to feel irritable with them. Of course, it's no fault of theirs (or ours) that we struggle to combine work commitments with childcare responsibilities. They, too, have kids and work-life balance problems, and dropping off our slightly sickly kids with them makes their workday a little harder.
In these lassaiz-faire times, the market is supposed to deliver we consumers what it is we want. The market has been found painfully wanting in the area of childcare provision. The answer is not to drive a harder bargain with the women who provide care, keeping their wages low and our costs down. Nor is the answer simply to lean more heavily on the unpaid work of family and friends, who we call on to compensate for the inadequacies of our childcare arrangements.
The problem, I believe, is that our society doesn't regard the care of children as a particularly important job (until, of course, something goes wrong, as in the Kahui case). We regard childcare as the responsibility of individual parents, often mothers, and turn a blind eye to the inadequate, stressful, ad hoc childcare arrangements that so many of us limp along with. The solution won't be found in the market, because the market doesn't value childcare work. Those who care for kids - whether paid or unpaid - need to create some solidarity amongst ourselves and insist that the work we do is important. Childcare is not simply a private responsibility which individuals ought to bear the whole burden of. Parents need the help of society - including financial help - to make our important task easier.
I've always had a sense that my childcare arrangements weren't quite under control, as I rushed from one less than adequate care situation to another. Often, I feel like both a crap mother and a crap worker. It seems that a great many women have similar problems. We call in our own mums to do pick-ups and drop-offs of our kids, and to fill in where we can't afford enough hours of care, or they simply aren't available to be bought. We have to work late from time to time, and hope our creches won't notice (and bill us extra) when we pick up the kids later than we should. We are forced to economise on care, or there's nothing left of our pay packets by the time we've paid the bills. It is, at times, a treadmill-like feeling.
And then, there are the woefully low-paid women who provide care for us. Quite rightly, they look disapprovingly at us when we drop kids with runny noses off at creches. Their disapproval adds to our guilt, and it's hard not to feel irritable with them. Of course, it's no fault of theirs (or ours) that we struggle to combine work commitments with childcare responsibilities. They, too, have kids and work-life balance problems, and dropping off our slightly sickly kids with them makes their workday a little harder.
In these lassaiz-faire times, the market is supposed to deliver we consumers what it is we want. The market has been found painfully wanting in the area of childcare provision. The answer is not to drive a harder bargain with the women who provide care, keeping their wages low and our costs down. Nor is the answer simply to lean more heavily on the unpaid work of family and friends, who we call on to compensate for the inadequacies of our childcare arrangements.
The problem, I believe, is that our society doesn't regard the care of children as a particularly important job (until, of course, something goes wrong, as in the Kahui case). We regard childcare as the responsibility of individual parents, often mothers, and turn a blind eye to the inadequate, stressful, ad hoc childcare arrangements that so many of us limp along with. The solution won't be found in the market, because the market doesn't value childcare work. Those who care for kids - whether paid or unpaid - need to create some solidarity amongst ourselves and insist that the work we do is important. Childcare is not simply a private responsibility which individuals ought to bear the whole burden of. Parents need the help of society - including financial help - to make our important task easier.
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
The Default Gender
“Oh what a cute baby!”
“Thank you, I-"
“He’s so smiley, oh it is a boy isn’t it?”
“Yes, yes, he’s a boy.”
“Oh I can see that, he looks like a real little boy!”
And thus starts another brief conversation with a perfect stranger who is captivated by the sight of Wriggly, aged however many weeks it is today. Right from the start people, known and unknown, have been correctly assuming his maleness, and telling me, in words now carved firmly into my neural pathways, “he’s a real little boy, isn’t he!”
However it seems to me that there is nothing exceptionally male about Wriggly’s appearance (beyond the genitalia of course, but those are rarely on display). Most of my friends and whanau have had daughters and my observation is that Wriggly doesn’t look all that different from them. He has his own personality, and I certainly wouldn’t mistake my baby for anyone else’s, but I wouldn’t expect a stranger to be able to pick Wriggly out in a line-up after a break-in at the Super Dummy Store, even if every other usual suspect would never be able to pee standing up.
I’m coming to the conclusion that the reason Wriggly looks like a boy isn’t because he looks male but because he looks like a baby. And therefore that the default gender setting for babies is XY.
In considering the stereotypical gender identifiers, as they apply to babies, I think hair is possibly the only marker of note. Babies don’t have curves, or bulges in particular places. And often we can’t really see much of them, all bundled up as they generally are in public. All we have to focus on is the face, and usually this isn’t giving much away as to gender. So we fall back on the hair.
In the Western tradition we expect that hair will be short for boys and long for girls. But all babies have short hair. Some of them have no hair for a long period of time. When we were still counting their ages in months rather than years, both of my nieces had very slow growing blonde hair, made shorter still by its curly nature, and they were frequently mistaken for male. My sister took to affixing a pink bow to the head of her firstborn, because she got so sick of correcting people. Even the usually very funny xkcd has to put a wig on the female figures so we get that they aren’t men.
So that leaves us with external cues such as clothes. Perhaps I have stumbled upon one reason why girl baby clothing is all pink princesses and purple ponies? Parents have to saturate their daughters in gendered clothing to ensure that their tiny Tina isn’t mistaken for a teeny Timiti.
Maybe I’ve got this all wrong. After all, I’m pretty new to this baby lark and to date my experiences are with a little baby boy who, it is widely agreed, looks just like a little baby boy. What say you, gentle readers?
“Thank you, I-"
“He’s so smiley, oh it is a boy isn’t it?”
“Yes, yes, he’s a boy.”
“Oh I can see that, he looks like a real little boy!”
And thus starts another brief conversation with a perfect stranger who is captivated by the sight of Wriggly, aged however many weeks it is today. Right from the start people, known and unknown, have been correctly assuming his maleness, and telling me, in words now carved firmly into my neural pathways, “he’s a real little boy, isn’t he!”
However it seems to me that there is nothing exceptionally male about Wriggly’s appearance (beyond the genitalia of course, but those are rarely on display). Most of my friends and whanau have had daughters and my observation is that Wriggly doesn’t look all that different from them. He has his own personality, and I certainly wouldn’t mistake my baby for anyone else’s, but I wouldn’t expect a stranger to be able to pick Wriggly out in a line-up after a break-in at the Super Dummy Store, even if every other usual suspect would never be able to pee standing up.
I’m coming to the conclusion that the reason Wriggly looks like a boy isn’t because he looks male but because he looks like a baby. And therefore that the default gender setting for babies is XY.
In considering the stereotypical gender identifiers, as they apply to babies, I think hair is possibly the only marker of note. Babies don’t have curves, or bulges in particular places. And often we can’t really see much of them, all bundled up as they generally are in public. All we have to focus on is the face, and usually this isn’t giving much away as to gender. So we fall back on the hair.
In the Western tradition we expect that hair will be short for boys and long for girls. But all babies have short hair. Some of them have no hair for a long period of time. When we were still counting their ages in months rather than years, both of my nieces had very slow growing blonde hair, made shorter still by its curly nature, and they were frequently mistaken for male. My sister took to affixing a pink bow to the head of her firstborn, because she got so sick of correcting people. Even the usually very funny xkcd has to put a wig on the female figures so we get that they aren’t men.
So that leaves us with external cues such as clothes. Perhaps I have stumbled upon one reason why girl baby clothing is all pink princesses and purple ponies? Parents have to saturate their daughters in gendered clothing to ensure that their tiny Tina isn’t mistaken for a teeny Timiti.
Maybe I’ve got this all wrong. After all, I’m pretty new to this baby lark and to date my experiences are with a little baby boy who, it is widely agreed, looks just like a little baby boy. What say you, gentle readers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)