Guestie: Another Fine Myth

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.

The politics of wearing white: being conscious of the patriarchy

Trigger warning - Discussion about rape 

My first post for The Handmirror was going to introduce my pseudonym and give readers a bit of an insight into why I'd chosen to name myself after the feminist thinker and activist that has touched me the most, bell hooks (look forward to that post in the coming weeks). 

Instead I've chosen to reflect on the events suceeding the gang rape and murder of Jyoti Singh Pandey in Delhi and the assault of her friend last month. 

Coverage of largely women led protests in India and abroad has been extensive in the mainstream media and blogs. Two pieces of writing have impacted on me and are worth a look at. 

The New Yorker - After rape and murder fury in Delhi by Basharat Peer

The New York Times - After being rapes I was wounded not my honour by Sohaila Abdulali

The New Yorker article stood out in particular because of the inclusion of a video of Kavita Krishnan, the secretary of the All India Progressive Women's Association (if on the off chance you understand Hindi it's well worth a watch) that dealt with the issue of sexual violence, the failure of governments to protect women and the broader issue of the regulation of women by their families and communities. 

My own personal reflection takes a very different route to these articles. Given my geographic distance from the events and that my understanding comes primarily from English medium sources I can't add much at this point to the debate about rape culture in India. Instead I'm going to focus on a small reflection that I had while attending the silent protest held in solidarity with protests in India organised by the Young Asian Feminist Association (YAFA) with support from Shakti. 

The last time I went to India I was nine years old and my experience of Indian society and culture is deeply rooted in the diaspora. My Indian education has largely been through the sporadic and adapted teachings of my parents and grandparents and a good dose of Indian pop culture though Bollywood movies and music. What I felt is probably a reflection of where I'm situated in relation to this particular tragedy. I acknowledge that it's quite a meta reflection and may seen trivial to some. However it reflects the pervasiveness but often unique manifestatiosn of patriarchy.

The leaders of the Auckland based protest, quite appropriately requested that people attending wore white as this is the colour associated with mourning in India. White symbolises the absence of colour with colour being an important part of celebrations and festivities for most communities in the subcontinent. Like in the Western tradition white also symbolises purity. 

Sitting in the heat last Saturday wearing a white dress and dupatta (scarf) that belonged to my great grandmother I contemplated the significance of us wearing white and about how this symbolic gesture fitted in with our broader attempts to fight the patriarchy.

An ever present challenge for feminists is the pervasiveness of patriarchal culture within many of our communities and that while we fight the patriarchy on on front (sorry for the masculine language) it rears it's head in other ways.

This means as feminists we must be continually conscience of the patriarchy and its manifestations particularly in our forms of resistance. Sometimes that means our behaviour or methods will need to change  and other times it simply means being mindful and taking that mindfulness forward into our lives. 

For many Indian communities particularly those still residing in the sub-continent the standard dress for funerals is white. Wearing a particular shade or type of dress is something that many cultures have with colours and forms of clothing having particular symbolic meanings relevant to those cultural and spiritual contexts. In some cultures both historically and in contemporary society widows are particularly marked in how they should dress after the death of their husbands symbolising their continual mourning and status a widow. The wearing of black, associated with Queen Victoria, in the Western tradition and in Eastern and Southern European traditions is noteworthy as is the wearing of white and pale colours in Indian contexts. As with everything family traditions, caste, class and religion has an important role to play in this community and self regulation resulting in considerable diversity in expressions of mourning. 

While I took comfort in the communal wearing of white at the protest I was reminded of the partriachial role the wearing of white has played in the lives of widows in many Indian communities. While the tradition is less prevelent the colour associated with mourning reminds me of the often young woman who find themselves without husbands but still regulated by their status as a wife. In Hindi movies such as the iconic Sholay and the more recent Baabul and the festival film Water, this highly regulated role of a widow is portrayed with sadness and frustration with little ability to make life choices (something fundamental to feminism).

It may be that in both the subcontinent and the diaspora these patriarchal structures have largely broken down (it's hard for me to know) and that white no longer has this association with the heavy regulation of women widows in the communities it once did. However I'm sure that in many places and communities it still does.

I support the decision by the protest organisers to ask people to wear white. I think it was culturally appropriate and really emphasised that this was a protest that was organised by women of colour predominately from an Asian background. But what it made me realise, something that is pointed out by Kavita Krishnan, is that when we rise up against rape culture we have to also consider the broader regulation of women within society. In this way we can really honour the memory of Jyoti Singh Pandey and other women such as her something the silent protest last Sunday did really well. 

Guestie: An eloquent explanation of benevolent sexism

A thought-provoking guest post by Sophie B.


Today someone on the internet asked me about 'benevolent sexism', and I was pleased by the opportunity to explain this concept with web links and studies to hand. I once tried to define it to a chivalrous acquaintance on a train, and by the time we reached our destination a guy near us had joined in and the rest of the men in our train car were quite openly eavesdropping. They all wanted to find out why I seemed so bizarrely against men being nice to me.

Benevolent sexism is a chivalrous attitude towards women which puts them on a pedestal and praises their performance of traditionally feminine roles. It seems to contrast with hostile sexism ("fuck bitches!"), but the two go hand-in-hand as a sort of punishment/reward system to keep women in their place.

Benevolent sexism reinforces gender roles just as much as hostile sexism, just more insidiously. It can seem to both the men who practice it and women like a sweet attitude, especially if we're used to the "fuck bitches" approach, but if you look at what is behind it, you find an ideology that supports gender inequality. Saying "Women are so good at childcare, men could never do that so well!" is easier to swallow than "Women should just focus on childcare while the men work", but they're both in the end saying the same thing in different ways. 

Most guys come at benevolent sexism with the best of intentions, because their point of reference is hostile sexism. Whenever I've talked to 'chivalrous' men about it, they ALWAYS ask me if I'd rather they stomped all over/disrespected women instead; I find it interesting that they see their only two options as benevolent and hostile sexism, and can't conceive of a non-sexist option.

Benevolent sexism is quite accepted by society, and seen as harmless, but it has documented detrimental effects on women. In the workplace it undermines women's confidence and performance, and informs their evaluation and treatment by men. It is one of the main contributors to the 'glass ceiling' effect. As one of the more subtle and socially acceptable forms of gender discrimination, it is definitely something to look out for.

Further reading
The studies referenced in this Wikipedia article are a good place to start

Patriarchy vs feminism

UPDATE:  The awesome quote below turns out to be by the super awesome Chally, at Zero At The Bone, who wrote these wise words in a post from November 2011.  Sincere apologies to Chally for not acknowledging this when posted.

I've seen this circulating on Facebook and thought I would share it here :-)

Raise your daughters well

50s style black & white photo of a mother and daughter in aprons with various cooking-related implements.  Mother:  Dreams and goals are Satan's way of distracting you from making dinner.

A ramble about unacceptable behaviour in activisty groups

Trigger warnings for rape, sexual abuse, violence, exploitation of power:

The other day Stef and I were having a chat about the Omar Hamed stuff that has come up here and elsewhere lately.  Neither of us know Omar at all, but sadly the theme was familiar; sexist injustice and exploitation, hidden within activist groups supposedly overwhelming in their right-on expressions of gender equality and general comradely behaviour of The Highest Order.

We both knew of examples the other was unaware of, even in groups we had both been active in around the same time. I don't know about Stef, but I kept at least one story back, one I just still cannot share with people who know the rapist even vaguely.  So often these stories feel like they are not our own to share because they happened to someone else, and we want to protect them, not the abuser.  It's difficult to know what to do; the worry that by telling what the areshole did you will open the victim up to shame and recrimination.

Which is where leadership comes in.  One of the responsibilities of leadership is dealing with the internal Hard Stuff too.

I've noticed it too many times now.  When concerns are raised about a prominent member, a "Good Guy", who is behaving in a predatory sexist manner towards others in the group, the shutters come down on the faces of the political leaders and the problem becomes not the unacceptable behaviour, but the fact that people are labelling that behaviour as unacceptable and challenging it.

The person with the problem, the person who acts unacceptably, might not be an out-front leader, they might be someone who delivers lots of leaflets, or has a great hoarding spot, or is one of the few in paid employment for the group.  Whatever role they fill there seems to be some protection afforded, some reason to not rock the boat in case they decide to jump out and take their contribution with them. 

But what about all the contributions withdrawn by others because of that person and the fact that their behaviour is tacitly accepted by the leadership?  What about the women who don't go to SlutWalk in case the man who raped them is there?  What about the men who just never come back to another planning meeting?  What about the discussions had over a few beers at the pub that a whole heap of the activists just never seem to participate in?

It terrifies me that when I start talking to people about this stuff more and more comes out.  Stories with statements like:

• "Oh yeah, someone told me to watch out for him because I'm an attractive young blonde and apparently he has a bit of history."
• "I always make sure I don't put any young women in a car alone with that guy, just in case."
• "He said if I gave him a blow-job he'd back my friend in the election, but I figured he was just joking and I laughed it off.  But he never did write anything nice about my mate."
• "The only reason he stopped following me around campus was because someone threatened to break his legs."
• "Well he's a bit of a groper, but some young gay men like that, so I guess it's ok."
• "Best to billet men with them."
• "So then I said 'it's probably best I walk home with you both,' and it was alright."
• "Everyone thinks he's so sweet and adorable but I shake whenever I see him and apparently I'm overreacting."
• "There was this time in the carpark where I had to lock my car doors and drive away."

At heart I believe that rejection of the actual problem, the bad behaviour, is sexist.  It is unjust.  It is making a judgement call that the accused is entitled to protection from the consequences of their actions.  It enables them to continue as they were, maybe get worse, and not have to think critically about what they are doing and why.  Saying nothing, doing nothing, changes nothing.

Yes someone accused has rights; in the criminal justice system these include a presumption of innocence.  I support that.  In a legal system we do need to come from a position, most of the time, of proving guilt.  Being found guilty in the courts has massive repurcussions for the individual in the dock; not least often a serious loss of liberty.  Our society needs to be really really certain before enforcing that.*

But in activist groups we don't need to have mock trials and legal representation at the table.  The first thing we need to do is believe and trust women.  The second thing we need to do is put in place structures to address these types of concerns when they are raised.  With mechanisms already in place when something comes up there is already a clear path to follow in that immediate period when as a leader you are flailing around going "oh shit, I really wish that I hadn't heard that."  It changes the instant response from Make It Go Away *puts heads in hands* into This Needs To Go To There First *starts doing something*.

We basically rely on gossip to keep people safe in our activist groups.  That's not good enough.   When someone's behaviour is unacceptable it needs to be raised with them.  The earlier it is done the more likely it is that change will happen and harm will be lessened.  No one should have to confront an abuser alone.  Anyone should be able to approach others for support, and receive it, particularly amongst a group's leaders.

My experience to date has been male political leaders (not exclusively, but mostly) putting concerns raised by women (not exclusively, but mostly) to one side.   A sexist mathematical calculation which continues to see women's concerns about a man < the man's contribution to the cause.

This is the personal mainfestation of a broader political equation: Women's issues < so-called "mainstream" issues.  Abortion law reform, low rates of prosecutions and conviction for rape, pay equity, women's political representation.  They're all so-called "side issues."  We're told to roll our dainty sleeves up, put on the kettle, and help the fellas fix the Big Problems first, then we'll all pitch in on that other stuff.  The Cause is more important than the issues of any members within The Cause, or something.

It's bullshit. 

The very fact that we've been having a public conversation about these matters shows a commitment to change.  The bravery of those raising these issues (as they multitask and work on heaps of other great stuff too) gives me heart.  This is change we can make, we must make, and we are starting to make.  Let's keep going.


*  Actually I'm pretty dubious about how our criminal justice system approaches sentencing, but that's a bit off topic.

A little bit of luck

Cross posted

Chris Trotter's most recent column is a dispiriting analysis of why cost-cutting, beneficiary-bashing, privilege-defending prime minister John Key somehow remains so popular: it's because he's so ordinary, just another Kiwi bloke who is happy to drink his beer from the bottle and weild the tongs at a barbie Even his extraordinary wealth doesn't upset New Zealanders: being rich is fine provided it's not inherited wealth, and it's not flaunted, not displayed in a way that implies that other people are lesser beings. There's no Remmers snootiness about John Key. He's pragmatic rather than being a thinker, and it's a damned fine thing that he doesn't seem to read great literature, or enjoy Beethoven's string quartets, or heaven forbid, try to engage in any sort of intellectual life. We don't want any smart people around here, thank you very much.

I think Trotter is on the money when he says that New Zealanders prefer modest heroes: one of the reasons New Zealanders admired Sir Edmund Hillary so much was his modesty about his achievements. John Key does seem like the chap next door, just an ordinary bloke getting on with the job. Personally, I'd rather that we had some intellectual heft on the 9th floor of the Beehive, and in ministerial offices, along with the nice chap demeanour, and frankly, I'd prefer a country where being smart and well-educated and prepared to talk about policy and ideas isn't regarded as a social solecism, but evidently, I'm in a minority on that one. (The evidence would be John Key's continuing popularity.)

Where Trotter nails it is with this sentence about the way New Zealanders regard John Key.

Strangely, we don't seem to mind if our leaders are richer than we are. Money, after all, is a wonderfully democratic thing. With sufficient hard work (and just a little bit of luck) just about anybody can become rich.

Just a little bit of luck...

It takes more than just a little bit of luck to become very wealthy. It takes a whole damn truck and semi-trailer of luck to become wealthy. Let's count the little bits of luck that John Key has had.

First of all, there's the luck of being born with a white skin. John Key has never had to experience walking into a shop and being regarded with suspicion just because his skin is the wrong colour. Then there's the luck of being born male - he doesn't have to justify his pursuit of career at the expense of having children, or carefully plan childcare if he wants to do a full-time job. Nor has he constantly had to calculate whether he is phsyically safe when he walks down a street, or has a few too many drinks. He was born able-bodied: no having to negotiate all the barriers that society places in the way of people with physical disabilities, from cars parked over kerbs and pavements, to lack of toilet facilities, to public places that are accessible only through a back door right round the back of the building, to work patterns that demand 10 hours phsyical effort a day, to... the list is endless. He was born with sufficient neural connections across his corpus callosum, so that he is a quick and able thinker, able to grasp difficult concepts quickly and easily. When his family was impoverished during his childhood, because his father died, there was a good quality state house available for him to grow up in, providing him with security. He had the extraordinary good luck to be born to a mother who made it easy for him to get through school and university, who assumed that her children would pursue higher education. He had the good luck to go through university at a time when only a small proportion of New Zealand's population did so, which meant that the government funded virtually all the tuition and living costs for students - no student loans for him. And so it goes. John Key is an extraordinarily lucky man.

Let me be quite clear: it is not John Key's "fault" that he was born lucky, any more than for example, it was Kiri Te Kanawa's "fault" for being born with an extraordinarily beautiful singing voice. It is just a piece of extraordinarily good luck. I do not doubt that John Key has also worked very, very hard. But one person can work hard all his life, putting in extra hours, doing his best to earn a good income and support himself, and still end up at retirement age with not much more than the old age pension to live on. Another will work hard all his life, but because he has been born lucky, because he is in the right place at the right time, he will become incredibly wealthy.

What Trotter points to in this paragraph is the collective delusion that New Zealanders buy into, that being wealthy is a reward for hard work, and that if only the rest of us worked that hard, we too could be wealthy. Far from being a column in praise of John Key (pace the standard cheerleaders on the right), Trotter has given us an exposé of the way we delude ourselves about our prime minister, about the nature of achievement, and about how we regard success in this country. I recommend it.

Leopards... spots... Chris Trotter redux

Cross posted

In July 2010, NZ "left wing" political commentator Chris(opher) Trotter wrote this in respect of Labour MP Steve Chadwick's proposed abortion law reform bill.

The first question I'd like to ask Labour list MP Steve Chadwick is: "Why now?" What's convinced her that the time is right to reopen the abortion debate? What ill-omened denizen of the current political environment has told her that this is the moment to introduce a members bill permitting abortion-on-demand up to the 24th week of pregnancy?

I would really, really like to know who it was. Because, try as I may, I'm finding it really difficult to make the cost/benefit analysis come out in Ms Chadwick's, her party's, or even her gender's favour.

Dominion Post, 9 July 2010

In other words.... "No no no! Even though I agree with a woman's right to choose, now is just not the right time for it, because it's BAAAAAADDD for the Left."

In November 2010, Chris Trotter wrote this in respect of Matt McCarten's candidacy in the Mana by-election.

When Matt McCarten told me he was thinking of putting his name forward for the Mana by-election, I shuddered inwardly. ... The political analyst in me pursed his lips and shook his head.

"With the Labour Party moving steadily to the Left," he intoned disapprovingly, "this is precisely the wrong time to challenge Goff's hand-picked candidate in an important by-election in one of the party's safest seats."

Then I caught the gleam in Matt's eye, and I told my inner political analyst to go stick his objections where the sun don't shine.

Because if being on the Left means waiting for the "right time" to fight for your principles, then, as the hero of Howard Spring's wonderful political novel, Fame Is The Spur, discovered, when the fight comes to you, the bright sword of principle can no longer be drawn. Through all those years, while you were waiting for the "right time", the sword's blade was rusting fast to the scabbard.

Dominion Post, 12 November 2010.

So on the one hand, even though The Left holds principles dear, it must be pragmatic, but on the other, to hell with pragmatism: The Left should hold fast to its principles.

Guess what the difference is between the two cases....

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

NB: this post is about the slipperiness of principles. If you wish to discuss the morality of abortion, please go to our page on the morality of abortion. Comments on this post which attempt to discuss the morality of abortion will be deleted. I invite my blogging sisters to go right ahead and delete any comments that they think don't belong in this thread.

Why I reckon we have a pay equity problem - a response to Psycho Milt

Psycho Milt is a leftie who blogs at right-wing blog No Minister, and he's been playing devil's advocate around the issue of pay equity here and elsewhere, culminating in a post that puts his thoughts together. The below is my response.

I'm going to start by summarising what I think are Milt's points:

1. Right-wingers simply don't see pay equity as an issue at all, partly because of the way it is framed, eg the Herald report claiming CYF pays it's female staff significantly less than the men, deleting that important phrase "on average", making it easily dismissed as it's obviously wrong.
2. Many of the occupational groups compared in pay equity investigations are stupid match-ups, eg nurses and police officers, shop assistants and electricians.
3. Pay equity does seem to be a real problem though, as it definitely does exist and right-wingers are unable to explain it without recourse to sexist explanations.
4. The main reasons for pay inequity are:
   "[4.]1. Women taking years out of the workforce to look after children or sick/aged relatives.
   [4.]2. Women avoiding additional responsibility/overtime because their family comes first.
   [4.]3. Women not seeking promotion because their husband's career comes first."
5. Thus the real question should not be "why do [women] average less pay, but why are they the ones most likely to be making these pay-reducing sacrifices?"
6. And as for female-dominated occupations tending to be lower paid than male-dominated ones, Milt reckons the answers are:
   6.1 Male-dominated professions are more likely to make lots of money for a business owner than female-dominated work.
   6.2. Higher pay does not reflect a higher value placed on your labour, but is related to either supply and demand and/or level of union organisation.
7. Milt asks why women continue to go into lower paid areas these days, and concludes that "there's a hell of a nature-vs-nurture argument to be had out of that question."
8. There is a pay equity issue, but it's not something government can resolve; it will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

If I've mis-represented anything there PM please be assured it's not deliberate and if you point out my errors in comments that would be super.

So, to turn to each of these in turn.

1. Framing the issue of pay equity inaccurately
This seems to me to be a bit of a side issue. Yes it's irritating. So is the concerted National-led campaign to misrepresent the situation with ACC (witness the now many many editorial cartoons bad-mouthing the scheme). What can those of us interested in furthering the pay equity issue do about? Continue to put out there information that isn't framed in such an easily dismissed fashion. But can we control the media reporting? Nope. (To be honest I thought that most intelligent people would read that 9.5% thing and work out that it meant on average, but perhaps I was being too optimistic?)

2. Incomparable occupational groups are compared in pay equity investigations
That's somewhat subjective really. I don't think the comparison of nurses and police officers is particularly far fetched, which has been argued about over at Kiwipolitico already. I'm not sure it's all that easy, or indeed possible, to unhitch our views of various occupational groups from our views of traditional women's work as being less worthy. People are often rather sneering about hairdressers, but in my experience a good one is rather highly skilled indeed, and it's definitely not something you can walk off the street and do immediately with a high level of competence. As we've discussed here in the recent past, there is a real problem with our common definitions of skilled and unskilled work. Collecting rubbish may not be mentally taxing (maybe it is, I've never done it), but the physical skills involved are significant. Again, not a job most people could walk off the street and instantly do well. I'm quite happy to leave the really quite hard work of doing these comparisons to the experts. Sadly for many the mere fact that information comes out of the Ministry of Women's Affairs makes it automatically wrong, regardless of content or level of analysis.

3. Right-wingers are unable to explain pay equity without falling back on sexist arguments
No disagreement there!

4. The main reasons for pay inequity are
4.1 "Women taking years out of the workforce to look after children or sick/aged relatives. "
Definitely a contributing factor. In the school teaching profession those who take time out to care for young children can actually get service credits to recognise it, but this is not a widespread practice outside the big education collective agreements (I think).

4.2 "Women avoiding additional responsibility/overtime because their family comes first."
Again, clearly this does have some impact.

4.3 "Women not seeking promotion because their husband's career comes first."
My perception is that this is less of a factor for my generation and younger women. Time will tell.

5. "Why do [women] average less pay, but why are they the ones most likely to be making these pay-reducing sacrifices?"
This is where I think Milt is absolutely bang on. He doesn't offer any possibilities as to the answer though. This point alone is worthy of a whole post, or series of posts. In short I believe it's because we still live in a society that does not see women, and women's work, as equal to men. Here's one such real life example, and here's another. No doubt there are many more that readers could share.

I should also note that I think there are other factors which contribute in a similar way to Milt's threesome above, e.g. levels of education. More on that another time perhaps.

6. Female-dominated work is likely to be lower paid than male-dominated work because:
6.1 Male-dominated professions are more likely to make lots of money for a business owner than female-dominated work.
Milt gives the example of designing microelectrical circuitry delivering lots of possible profit for the boss, whereas care-giving work looking after the elderly is just not a money-spinner. But this ignores the massive government funding that has gone into the Aged Care sector in recent years, and similar in early childhood education and care, which has made these areas that corporates have wanted to get into. Part of the reason they can make a big profit is because of how low the wages are. And the wages are low, I believe, because it's traditional women's work which used to be done within the family unpaid.

Anita's comment on the nurses and police officers comparison goes to the epicentre of this, imho:
"Can I hypothesize that we value manly danger more highly than womanly danger?"

6.2. Higher pay does not reflect a higher value placed on your labour, but is related to either supply and demand and/or level of union organisation.
The supply and demand argument depends on a model which has been shown again and again to rarely work as precisely as my fourth form economics teacher laid it out. In fact it's probably more about the perception of supply and demand, and the power an individual worker (or group of workers) feel they have to determine the worth of their labour. Clearly this is intrinsically linked to the second part of Milt's point, around union organisation.

It's more complex than that though. To generalise wildly, many women are informed from birth that their ideas, their work, their needs, are worth less than the men around them. In the reception example I linked earlier, all three of the workers approached had indicated we were going out that afternoon at some point, yet the receptionist determined that the two men were busy and I was not. I'd worked there the same length of time as one of the men, longer than the other. One is quite a bit older than me, the other is about a week younger than me. We're all white. What could have possibly motivated my workmate to assume that I was more available to pick up her (traditionally female) work than my male colleagues?

In the union movement we sometimes talk about Nice Lady Syndrome. It's the difficulty unionists face with encouraging women workers to stand up for their rights. I think there's a class dimension to it too, and an ethnic factor in many cases; to me though gender is at the heart of the trouble.

7. Why do women continue to go into lower paid jobs?
See 6.2 above, in part. How many women reading this have had the experience of saying as a child "I'd like to be a doctor (or other male-dominated profession)" and having an adult tell them "What about being a nurse (or other related female-dominated profession)"? It was pretty crystal to me as a child what the acceptable occupations were for a girl and I took great pleasure in being contrary about it. I still recall the realisation I couldn't be an All Black.*

And it goes back to 4 and 5 as well. If family is your priority then the message is often that you must put career on the back burner. Many young girls grow up in an environment where it is assumed they will stay at home with the children and make that their career. It's worthwhile, however it's pretty much the supreme example of underpaid important work.

Is there something biological in women that compels us to seek out the cheaper options? I think not.

8. Government can't have much impact on the pay equity issue; it needs to be dealt with case-by-case
As a major employer in Aotearoa the state can have a significant impact by addressing the gender pay gaps within its own workforce. This progress would in turn have an impact on the private sector, as there is competition for workers between private and state. That wouldn't be enough, but it would be a good start.

Saying that pay disparities should be dealt with case-by-case seems to me to be denying that there is any systematic issue. It sounds like arguing that when a woman is paid less than a man doing the same or comparable work it is because of the overt sexism of the person setting those wages. Yes, that will be the case sometimes. But it's simply not enough to explain the significantly gendered differences in pay across single occupational groups. Anita gives the example of law graduates - women are on average paid $5000 less a year than their male counterparts, and this is at the start of their careers, before any time off for children or whatever.



Phew, I don't know about you, but I feel like I need a break. Your turn, dear readers (and of course Psycho Milt).


* Although as I grew older I did determine that even if I had possessed the requisite penis I would still have fallen down in the crucial areas of kicking, catching, running, and throwing.

One woman's crusade against impractical footwear

I'm not one of your trendy types with glamorous shoes. I almost never wear heels as a matter of principle - they're bad for the body. I like to walk a lot, since it's pretty much the only physical exercise I get; and since I'm late for the train almost every morning, I also need to be able to run from time to time. So I'm forced to wear untrendy shoes - the sort that your nana might wear, only a step up the fashion ladder from orthopedic ones. I can stride to work with great swiftness and purpose, but I look kind of gammy.

I'm not the only woman whose life is somewhat blighted by shoe-related issues. When I'm commuting each morning, I notice that many women wear running shoes, which they presumably change when they arrive at work. A friend of mine recommends this approach strongly. Late for the train one morning, she broke into a run, only to trip over her own trendy shoes and end up face first on the platform. There she lay, hoping that a) no one would notice, or b) she would quietly and inconspicuously die. It was not to be. Another punter grabbed my friend's shoe, which had flown off and landed some two metres distant, and brandished it helpfully at my friend, while berating the train conductor shrilly for no obvious reason. The other commuters looked on in amusement at the dishevelled Cindrella sprawled across the asphalt. In a far less amusing story, another friend of mine sustained an awful compound fracture, running to catch up with the parade to her own graduation. Ouch.

To me, wearing comfortable shoes to work - only to exchange them for impractical shoes - is as annoying as wearing uncomfortable footwear all day long. The idea of hauling a stinky pair of shoes about with me during the day is downright unappealing. What if I wanted to go to the pub after work? I'm hardly going to want to take my Plan B shoes with me. Clearly, I'm a bit of a throwback to second wave feminism, because I can't help but ask, why wear uncomfortable shoes in the first place? Heels still look to me like tools of the patriarchy - false consciousness for the feet - and no amount of third wave reclaiming makes them easier to run in.

I don't expect to gain enough sympathy to start a mass movement around sensible shoes, even from those many other women who have sustained needless and embarassing shoe-related injuries. So it looks like I'm going to be wearing dowdy shoes by myself. I'll look kind of funny, but I'll pace confidently past you on Lambton Quay as you tap along in your aesthetically pleasing heels. Just as well I'm not the Prime Minister's wife, or the media would be mocking my fashion sense even as I type...

Feminism: just socialism for girls? Part two.

Please note: there was an error in the formatting of this post originally - if you read it on the main page of the blog (thehandmirror.blogspot.com), rather than on the page for this post (i.e. the one with the comments down the bottom) then you missed a few paragraphs! I've fixed it now (7.30pm Thurs 11th Sept) - Julie

In my previous rant, I awarded Marx top marx for his analysis of capitalism, but pointed out its limitations for women who stay at home and care for kids - women who don't have a class status in the Marxist sense because they rely on their husbands, not the economy, for their livelihood. This, I argued, is one reason we need feminism. We can't just assume (as some lefties are wont to do) that socialism will fix women's oppression and that feminism is unnecessary, because socialism is more interested in the paid work which takes place in the formal economy outside the home than the unpaid work that goes on inside.

In short, I argued that women's oppression is partly a class problem, because it may involve men (of various classes) exploiting women's unpaid work. But there are plenty of non-economic issues which feminists are concerned with, and I feel that traditional socialist thinking doesn't deal with these too well. Until it does, I plan to keep my subscription to the women's movement.

There are a bunch of systemic disadvantages affecting women which can't be explained too well with a class analysis: domestic violence, sexual violence, homophobia and lack of control over our reproductive lives are just a few. My guess is that some of these things may be correlated with class - it might be possible to show with stats that domestic violence happens more often amongst poor people, perhaps - but class or poverty don't cause these problems. Probably, we all know women from middle class backgrounds who have experienced sexual violence or been in an abusive relationship. If class isn't the cause, something else must be going on.

Take domestic violence, for example. How should socialists try to understand and respond to it? I'm not for a second suggesting that men on the left don't take domestic violence seriously, or don't want to stop it. But for those who think of economic exploitation as the most important and serious kind of oppression, non-economic oppression is a challenge. Traditional lefties either have to think up feeble arguments to recast women's issues as economic/class ones, bump them down the priority list behind the 'real' issues, or - worse still - dismiss them as identity politics.

I sometimes wonder how socialism came to focus first and foremost on economic oppression, with other kinds becoming secondary. I think this might have to do with the way Marx and most other Western thinkers have viewed women as wives or daughters - appendages of men. As I argued in part one of this lengthy rant, men's economic concerns were thought to be important, and women were assumed to be taken care of by husbands and fathers. So long as men were provided for, women were too - and if you think like that, you're bound to see the big picture stuff outside the home as most important. Private things - reproduction, sexuality and so on - were associated with women and regarded as less important and not political.

One of feminism's most important principles is that the personal is political - what goes on in the home is important. Ponder the long time it's taken for the Police and judiciary to take domestic violence seriously, or the fact that marital rape wasn't illegal in many places until the 1980s. It was feminism, not socialism, which drew attention to these forms of oppression. I suspect that if we'd hung around until blokes prioritised these problems, we would have been waiting for a bloody long time.

No one's suggesting throwing Marx out with the bathwater. (Actually, the idea of giving Marx a bath makes me feel very, very uncomfortable.) I'm arguing that socialist insights should be added to those of feminists, gay rights advocates and anti-racism campaigners - all those people fighting different forms of injustice. Doing this can be scary to those (usually men) who insist that class analysis is the most important thing, and feminism/identity politics aren't needed. It forces us look in the (hand)mirror and wonder if we've done stuff that oppresses other people because of their race, sexuality or gender, even though we've thought of ourselves as being on the side of right.

Feminism: just socialism for girls? Part one.

The idea that feminism is simply the ladies' branch of socialism makes me chuckle. (When I hear it, I imagine myself behind the barricades, serving tea and scones to the menfolk as they fight the revolution. I suspect I'd be as shit at armed combat as I am at baking, though, so it's a fantasy that will likely never come true.) People who adhere to this view tend to assume that women's oppression is class-based and that socialism will fix it, meaning feminism is redundant at best, or a form of misguided identity politics at worst.

I've given this stuff a lot of thought. Feminism may indeed be a broad church, but I don't have much problem excluding right wingers from my definition. If your politics ultimately seeks to exclude, oppress or impoverish others, male or female, I'll work with you on specific projects that advance the cause, but you won't make it onto my Christmas card list. This doesn't shed much light on how feminism fits with exclusively class-based politics, though. Here's what I reckon:

1# Women's oppression is in large part a class issue
2# Class analysis doesn't solve all problems anyway

Allow me to rabbit on at length about my opinions on the first point. I'll bore you with the second some other time.

Most of us on the left take some or most key concepts of our class analysis from Marx, but - not to put too fine a point on it - Marx didn't give a rat's arse about women. (Of his three daughters, only one, Eleanor, was allowed to get a job; and that was within the typically female occupation of governess.)

Marx (like most great Western thinkers, to be fair) didn't think of women as individuals as such, but as appendages of men: wives or daughters. The workers Marx theorised about were men. Insofar as Marx worried about women, he assumed they got looked after by wage-earning fathers and husbands. Men had the productive economy to rely on for their subsistence, and women had marriage.

Now, Marx is my homeboy and I don't want to diss him. He produced an extraordinary analysis of capitalism in his day. He's left us with a quandary, though. A woman who stays at home to look after the kids and house doesn't have a relationship to the means of production, and she therefore doesn't have a class. All she has is a marriage to a guy with a wage, who may or may not choose to share that wage equitably with her.

Marx believed that exploitation happens when a capitalist takes the surplus value generated by his worker. The capitalist takes the thing made by the worker, sells it for more than he paid the worker to make it, then keeps the difference. So far, so good. But what this means is that work that is not paid - work done in the home, usually by women - can't be exploited, by definition. Work that isn't paid, and that you don't sell the results of, doesn't create surplus value.

Lefties who don't see the point of feminism tend to assume that the interests of a wage-earning man are the same as those of his at-home wife, and that a man automatically and unfailingly looks after his family. Why assume this? The husband might rise up with his comrades, overthrow capitalism and appropriate the means of production. That's all very nice, but Mrs Working-class has no relationship to the means of production. Her livelihood comes through marriage, and she's just as reliant as before on whatever her husband chooses to share with her. Whether a man gets his income from a capitalist or socialist economy, he might still spend it all at the pub on the way home from work, or withhold it from his wife to control her.

To make Mrs Working-class's plight worse, marriage (her livelihood) gives no guarantee whatsoever that Mr Working-class will help her with the unpaid work needed to run their home (and which may prevent her from going out and making a wage of her own). Many lefties tend to be a lot more interested in democracy and fairness in the important outside world of the economy, but less interested in overthrowing injustice, economic or otherwise, in the home. This has a great deal to do with the fact that women's work isn't paid, and therefore produces no surplus value to be exploited. Women's work isn't paid because it's not important, and it's not important because it isn't paid. Therefore, it doesn't matter that much from a Marxist perspective if a man works eight hours a day outside the home while his wife does 12 hours inside it. Is it just me, or is that a logical gap you can drive a bus through?

All this is why feminists insist that 'the personal is political'. Men of various classes can and do exploit the labour of women. Time use studies show that women, whether they're in paid work or not, tend to do more unpaid work in the home than men, and work longer days (aggregating paid and unpaid work). And unpaid work does have an economic value, by gum. The man who has his tea cooked by his wife doesn't have to buy it. When she darns his socks, he doesn't have to purchase new ones. Her work, including looking after their kids, allows him to go out and earn a wage.

So to recap: being married to someone of a particular class status doesn't automatically give you a class of your own, because it doesn't give you a relationship to the means of production. Marriage doesn't guarantee a woman's material wellbeing, and it doesn't necessarily give a woman the same class interests as her husband. A man of any class can exploit his wife by getting from her free goods and services which he might otherwise have to pay for. Nor does it follow that a change in the sort of economy that man earns his wage from will affect his wife.

Socialism has had a long time to prove that feminism is redundant by addressing these issues. And yet, I've never heard a socialist suggest mounting an overthrow of economic exploitation within the home - only the kind which happens in the economy beyond. This isn't to say that capitalism is a girl's best friend. Rather, I'm saying that socialism - or certain versions of it- hasn't got much of a game plan for solving all the problems on the feminist agenda, and I don't feel quite ready to pack up my feminist tent and go home until it does.

Tune in next time when I rant about all the non-economic forms of oppression that socialism can't fix either.

Part Two now up here! - Julie

Steve Crow: freedom fighter

Be honest, Steve. That's all I ask of you.

I don't approve of Boobs on Bikes. I think it makes a mockery of the women who participate, and makes the spectators, with their digital cameras and adolescent ogling, look like an undignified pack of clowns. I want to ask them, would you like to see your mother or sister treated by men in this way?

Still, none of this is what bothers me most. What irks me beyond all tolerance is your use of psuedo-feminist language to justify your grubby, exploitative greed.

I understand you organised Boobs on Bikes to defend women's right to bare our breasts in public. Feminism is redundant: we have Steve fighting for social justice. To be honest, I would have preferred the right to pay equity or the right to walk safely at night. But the right to show my tits to jeering dickheads is good too. Thanks, Steve.

I'm never going to have a huge amount of respect for you Steve, but I'd have more if you'd come out and say what Boobs on Bikes really is: a business venture whereby you make a buck out of other people's indignity. Don't add insult to injury by trying to sell the belittlement of women back to us as empowerment, as if we're fools.

Maybe, Steve, you should think on this quote from Michael Kimmel:

You think women's liberation and feminism entitles you to be sexual? Sure! Fine! But you still have to get us and make us the center of your universe. I ask you one question. Which gender do you think invented the thong?

Let's hear it for the boys

When the news broke that Winston Peters had accepted a donation from Bob Jones via the dubious Spencer Trust, I wondered aloud at work, 'Why would Bob Jones give money to Winston?'. Jones is a hard core idealogue of the right. Winston, by comparison, flits cheerfully about the political spectrum, advocating when it suits him interventionist policies of a sort that Bob Jones must despise.

My workmate answered my question, 'They're both blokey'.

Jones' subsequent media statements have shown just how right my workmate was. Jones described the circumstances of his donation on Campbell Live last night. Both Jones and Peters were a bit pissed, so Jones couldn't quite remember the amount he'd given Peters, but he knew it was over $100,000. They'd disagreed over the issue of Asian immigration: the donation was a 'no hard feelings' sort of thing. They clapped one another on the back.

The glibness of this - two drunken arses exchanging a sum of money well in excess of my annual household income - really offends me. And I'm stunned that for both men, serious differences of political principle seem less important than their allegiance to the boys' club. My principles, political and otherwise, are actually important to me. Given the idealogical song and dance Bob Jones has make over the last three decades or so, I would have thought that he, at least, would feel the same way.

It doesn't reflect too well on NZ politics, does it?

prayers

i read deborah's latest post and this one from chandni*, and was reminded of an incident that happened to me in saudi arabia a couple of years ago. i went there for the hajj, and it was a deeply spiritual and moving experience. but as with all things, there are the good moments and the not-so-good moments.

the hajj involves many rituals, but mostly a lot of contemplation and prayer. people will pray for for forgiveness of sins, for health and happiness. they pray for their parents, their children and other family members. they pray for food for the hungry, health for the sick, shelter for the homeless, peace and prosperity for those at war. i prayed for all of those things. but i also spent a lot of time praying for all the women of the world. here's the reason why.

during our trip, we spent about 10 days in the city of medinah. one of the must-do things to do their is to visit the famous date market, where you will find many varieties of dates. there is one particular variety of date which is about triple the price of the others, and is highly sought after.

i went to visit the market with my father and brother. the stalls are usually owned by locals but run by migrants. one particular shop we stopped at was being run by a pakistani fellow. he was really helpful and friendly, and my dad got into a conversation with him about the various types of dates. he asked the shopworker what justified the high price for that variety of dates i mentioned above. my dad said the costs for planting, maintaining and harvesting that variety would be the same as for any other variety, so why charge more?

the pakistani fellow, bless his soul, replied that the difference between raising this variety of dates and any other variety was the same as the difference between raising a boy and a girl. just as you put extra care and attention towards raising boys, so did the farmers take extra care in raising this variety of dates.

i just remember standing there listening to this in a kind of shock. i felt sick, not just because it was contrary to all the principles of my religion, but because of the practical implications. it brought to the front of my mind the truths that i already knew: that in so many families girls get lower quality of food than boys, they get medical attention much later than boys, they get much less access to education than boys. they even get much less love from their parents than boys. and in millions of cases, they don't even get to be born.

imagine living your life knowing always that you are a burden and not a joy. that is the reality that so many girls face. from the age that they are old enough to understand anything, they understand this. it's a truth that is constant for so many across the world, irrespective of religion, race, nationality.

those words of his stayed with me throughout the trip. and so i prayed for all those little girls, and the women that they would become. it was as if i could feel their pain. maybe i could, because in a way it was my own.

*hat tip: 6oth carnival of feminists

when is three not a crowd?

i was so hoping to avoid this issue; hoping that the fierce debate raging* in australia would somehow bypass nz, so that i wouldn't have to talk about it at all. but i wasn't quite so lucky - radio nz decided to have a discussion about it on the panel and called me in (right at the end of the clip).

basically, an australian sheikh is calling for polygamy (well technically polyandry, ie one husband with two or more wives) to be recognised by the australian government, in the same way that it is recognised in britain. the reason for his call is to protect the rights of women who enter into these marriages. as you can imagine, all hell broke loose.

there is no doubt that there is an issue here. islamic law allows a maximum of four wives at a time. however, this is not a requirement, nor even a recommendation. in fact the only verse of the Qur'an that mentions the subject finishes with the phrase "but one is better for you, if only you knew". from which one would conclude that the norm should be one wife unless there are some exceptional circumstances.

such exceptional circumstances might be a wife who is not able to bear children but who doesn't want to leave the marriage. yes, adoption is an answer, if her husband agrees to that. but if he doesn't, she may prefer a second wife to a divorce. however, polygamy was particularly relevant in times of war, where there were a higher proportion of unmarried women to unmarried men. in a social structure that doesn't permit sex outside of marriage and where sex is not to be part of a casual physical relationship but rather part of a more permanent and emotionally-involved relationship, multiple marriages were seen to be an answer.

it was considered cruel to require women to abstain from sex simply because there weren't enough men around; nor should they be taken advantage of by men using them casually for sex. so it was a social structure that was seen as the best solution for those particular circumstances.

is it still relevant today? well, the fact is that it is happening, and my sense is that the number of polygamous marriages is on the rise. when they happen in a western country, the problem is that the legal protections for women are not available. so, for example, the right to claim maintenance, to ensure a fair share of the husband's time, to receive a fair divorce settlement are not available to these women. in fact, if things go sour, there is really nowhere to turn.

there are some questions which arise. if polygamy is illegal in australia and nz, how come it's happening? that's simply because there will be a marriage ceremony held in a mosque but never legally registered. in terms of the law, it is a de facto relationship, and there is no law in this country that prohibits people from being in more than one de facto relationship. which means that if the first marriage is legally recognised, and the second marriage is a de facto one, then the second wife will have no rights in law. that is not a good state of affairs, no matter how you look at it.

the second question is why women would enter into such relationships. i can understand the first wife agreeing to a second marriage. if the alternative means divorce and abandonment, and the prospect of poverty and having to raise children on her own, staying in the marriage might be an option she prefers. the husband would then be required (under islamic law) to provide full maintenance for her ie food, house, clothes and medical expenses. he would also be required to spend half his time with her and her children. for many women, half a husband is better than no husband at all, and if he is earning well, is a much better option than the DPB and a lonely life with no sex.

what i really don't understand is the "other woman", or the second wife. what kind of woman would want to intrude into an existing relationship? why would you even think about taking another woman's husband away from her? is romantic love so powerful and blind that it totally ignores the suffering of another woman and her children? i just don't get it, but i know it happens and not just in the muslim world. i know of a few of non-muslim women whose husbands have come home, packed their bags and announced that they are going to live with the woman they have secretly been conducting an affair with for some months now. i heard of one charming fellow who did this when his wife was pregnant with their first child. ouch. aside from his being such an a*&*hole, i really wondered what his new girlfriend was thinking and why she would want to be with a guy who could walk out in a situation like that.

unfortunately there are no laws against this kind of behaviour. and there are no laws you could enact that would in any way be helpful - unless you go for the catholic option of not allowing divorce at all. other than that, there are basically two options. either you bring the full force of the law down on the man who has two wives, and send him to jail. in which case the women both lose a partner and are unlikely to thank you for ruining their lives which were going very well until now. or you legally recognise both marriages, and ensure that both women get the full protection of the law.

except that the second option seems to provoke quite a high degree of moral outrage. which takes me to the point i was trying to make on the radio. it just seems to be a little hypocritical to get all steamed up about polygamy, yet allow pornography to be legal. i'd say most of the latter is much more degrading to women than polygamy, in terms of the objectification of women, the ignoring of their sexual needs and desires, the regular brutality and the sheer misogyny of most porn. plenty of porn shows apparently happy threesomes which we are supposed to accept as being perfectly legal, because it's between consulting adults. yet polygamy (and the islamic version categorically does not allow threesomes; it's strictly one woman at any one time) which may involve committed and loving relationships is viewed as immoral. is seems to me that finding the one acceptable and the other not would involve just a wee bit of cognitive dissonance. you'd either want both to be illegal (because it's immoral and degrading), or both to be legal (because it's an activity entered into by consenting adults).

which is not to say that i advocate polygamy. i don't think it's an ideal situation. i hate how it is used in many countries in a way that is harmful and degrading to women. ie first wife gets old so just go out and get a younger version. happy days. for the husband at least.

and the one thing i totally oppose is one or both of the wives living on social welfare. according to islamic law, it's completely wrong. the man is responsible for providing and if he can't provide for one wife, then he is required not get married until his circumstances improve. if he can't provide for more than one wife, then he has to stick to one. there are no two ways about it, and i couldn't stand a situation where the state welfare system was enabling polygamy. wrong, wrong, wrong.

so to conclude: i'm really confused. well conflicted would be the better word. i know of women in a polygamous marriage in this country who are extremely happy. i don't see how i can judge them or tell them that what they are doing is wrong. they don't feel any sexual jealousy so who am i to feel it on their behalf? isn't it a learned behaviour anyway? on the other hand, i recognise how polygamy leads to gross inequality and quite a lot of suffering for many women in such marriages. someone, please give me an easy answer.

* hat tip for links to irfan yusuf

Dunedin poised to build giant willy*

Was there ever a venture so obviously phallic as Dunedin's proposed stadium? If you're not up to date with this unfolding provincial debacle, let me fill you in. Our city fathers – and, make no mistake, it is affluent 'old money' blokes who are pushing the stadium – have decided that Dunedin is lacklustre. We need to impregnate the place with some excitement, and of course the measure of a city is its capacity to host rugby matches. Thus, only a stadium will do. Estimates of the cost of the stadium range from $188 (supporters' estimate) to $400 million (competent estimate), and a great chunk of the cost is to be worn by Dunedin and Otago regional ratepayers.

It is very clear who the stadium will benefit. Rupert Murdoch will have another venue from which night games can be broadcast on Sky to a lucrative northern hemisphere audience. The New Zealand Rugby Football Union will have a spangly new facility purchased for it by the public. The city fathers will feel righteous, having built a monument to themselves.

But evidence that the stadium venture will not bring money into Dunedin is overwhelming. Stadium supporters have blatantly misled the public to make their case that the phallus will create economic benefits for the city, and will be good for us all. For example, they calculated the revenue they believe the stadium will produce by assuming that almost all existing Dunedin events will relocate to the stadium, thus robbing revenue from other venues. They believe that the new stadium will attract international events to the city (although, as opponents gently point out, the Pope would have to visit four times a year, with U2 as his opening act, in order for the phallus to break even). Faced with the great likelihood that their willy will bankrupt the city, supporters are taking a bizarre field of wet dreams approach: if they build it we will come, so to speak.

With a startling immaturity, stadium supporters refuse even to look at the longer term financial consequences of their current indiscretions. They are utterly focused on the consummation of their beloved project: they'll flaunt their willy, and leave someone else to deal with the inevitable problems. An Otago University academic recently wrote a report scrutinising the economic arguments for the stadium, and Malcolm Farry, a chief willy supporter, stated publicly that he refused to read it. Critics of the stadium have been treated by the Old Boys' Network with absolute parochial disdain. It's even been suggested that those of us disloyal enough to question the giant phallus leave the city.

And it's not as if Dunedin is awash with money, or doesn't require the investment of public funds in other areas. Our public transport system is in desperate need of substantial investment: currently, it takes people only to places they don't want to go at times they don't want to go there. Going to the swimming pool is costly – prohibitively so for families headed by solo mums. An alarming proportion of the city's population lives in substandard housing so cold and damp that it induces health problems. The new stadium will not even be suitable for hosting cricket matches, events which are often attended by families. Nonetheless, it is the folks who can't afford recreation activities for their children, let alone a trip to an opulent stadium, who will fund the phallus through their rates.

Sadly, it seems likely that the stadium will be built, and that it will go the way of many a willy before it. For a while, it'll be fun to play with. But eventually, we'll be forced to get our hands off it and start acting like grown ups.

*Genital inspiration shamelessly drawn from The Bewildering Case of Ms Enid Tak-Entity

Looking and Seeing Revisited

Ages ago I put up a link to a clever advertisement about our inability to notice something really obvious, when we are focused on something else. It was made to point out the difficulty of spotting cyclists when you are driving your car and looking for larger moving objects, and it has since been circulated widely through the internets.

While the ad was created to make us think about traffic it also made me think about politics. Specifically the (many) times that I have noticed absences that haven’t always been apparent to others; a forum panel that lacks women, or coloured faces, or anyone under fifty; a television discussion about immigration that bats the subject back and forth between only those whose families immigrated a few generations ago, not recently; advertisements for nappies that never show a man with a child; a lecture where the MC is a woman, the speaker is a woman, but all the questions are asked by men; political blogs where white right-wing* men (mostly heterosexual) dominate and some come over all troll when faced with someone from outside their demographic.

Lyn has written recently about the impact of exemplars on encouraging those absent to become present. When you see someone like you doing something it becomes more feasible to see yourself in that role too. I read a Joanne Black column in the Listener a month or two back in which she bemoaned the announcement that NZ had its first female motorcycle cop. She felt that now that we were all equal this kind of thing was ridiculous and unnecessary – we should only mark firsts when it is the first person, regardless of gender. Yet this denies that actually there are many areas of life where women, and Maori, and the young, and Asians, and indeed men, are rare or non-existent.

If we want to have more women plumbers, or more male kindergarten teachers, or more Maori surgeons, or more young politicians, if we want to have a society that isn’t about putting people in a little box based on the Lotto of birth, then we need to notice when there are people missing. To see the absences we need to start looking for diversity. And then hopefully we will start seeing the barriers to participation too.



* There seems to be a particular type of right-wing in the NZ political blogosphere that is not actually all that representative of the vast majority of those who vote right-of-centre. It’s as if the right wingers who have hearts and souls (and some would add brains) haven’t discovered this part of Internet City, but their climate-change-denying, taxation-equals-theft-touting brethren have moved into the locality in droves. For evidence of this skewing of the Right you need only look at the results from some of Kiwiblog’s online polls.

By any other name...

Over at Public Address, David Slack has written about the quandry of naming people, particularly for children, prompting this interesting discussion in comments. I started writing a response there, but it got quite long, so I figured I would turn it into a post here instead.

When I got hitched I kept my own name. There was never any discussion, it was just a given. At one point a member of my then-future-husband's family asked if I would change it, I said no, and that was the end of that. I introduce myself as Julie, or Julie Fairey, and when I fill out forms I put Ms for title. So far, so straight forward.

But people keep phoning for Mrs Fairey. Or addressing mail to Mrs Wood. Occasionally they even write on the envelope Mr & Mrs M Wood. The first I find annoying, the second makes me vaguely angry, and the third seems like a denial that I exist as anything other than an apendage of my partner. Perhaps a second appendix, or maybe a sixth toe.

I have now had a number of frustrating conversations, particularly with telemarketers, about the Mrs Fairey issue. Along the lines of:

Telemarketer: "Is this Mrs Fairey?"
Me: "No, there is no Mrs Fairey at this number, it's Ms Fairey."
Telemarketer: "Oh, ok, will Mrs Fairey be back later."
Me: "No, there is no Mrs Fairey at this number, it's Ms Fairey."
Telemarketer: "Ok Mrs Fairey---"
Me: "It's MS Fairey."
Telemarketer: "Ok. I'm ringing tonight about X. Have you considered getting some X, Mrs Fairey?"
Me: "Look, it's MS Fairey, and I'm really not interested. Better luck with your other calls."

On the weekend I got my hair cut, by a recent English immigrant who was really impressing me until he exhibited some unsightly racism.* As I paid he asked for my name to put in the system, and assumed, as I had mentioned my husband in our discussions while he saw to my locks, that I was Mrs Fairey. I explained, again, that I was Ms and that I hadn't changed my name. I didn't get shirty about it at all, but he thought this Ms thing was hilarious and said keeping your name was mainly a rich woman's thing in the UK. Humph.

As for those who change my surname entirely, to Mrs Wood, I do tend to swallow my irritation. I growl to myself about it, sometimes to the Mr involved, but generally I know that people don't do it to hurt me. Although I do tend to get angrier when it is someone who knows I haven't changed my name. And I have noticed that since Wriggly's arrival in the world a lot** more people are making me a Mrs and a Wood.

The observant reader will have noticed that hyphenation was not an option for myself and Mr Wood, and therefore also for our child. Hubby and I discussed which moniker any progeny could get, even before there was a bump to talk about, and decided that we would alternate last names. The deal was, and remains, that the first child's surname would be determined by its gender*** - a girl would take my last name, a boy his - and any second child would then get the other surname. As Wriggly is of the XY variety he is a Wood, but the next one, if there is one, will be a Fairey. Before we had picked a first name for Wriggly I had three days of the hospital referring to him as "Baby Fairey" which was nice. I hadn't realised they would automatically give the child the same last name as the mother and it was refreshing.

When Wriggly has friends who can talk**** I'm unsure what I would like them to call me. Probably just Julie, or maybe Auntie Julie. I do like the acknowledgement that someone is in the generation of a child's parents, and we are doing this with many of our own friends, in relation to Wriggly. Perhaps one of the reasons I like the Auntie/Uncle approach is because I don't have many relatives in that category myself, and so I grew up with a lot of Aunties and Uncles who were no blood relation at all, but close friends of my parents.

In the end really I just want us all to respect how we wish our names to be used. If Wriggly's Year Two teacher wants to be Ralph rather than Mr Hotere, that's cool. And if Auntie Megan prefers her friends' son to call her Ms Hall, so be it. When it's your name you get to determine how it's used, surely?

Update: First phone call after writing this post? Telemarketer for Slingshot, a very nice lady calling from India, asked for Mrs Fairey. Said there was no Mrs Fairey, but I was Ms Fairey. She graciously accepted this and proceeded to refer to me as Ms Fairey throughout. Finally! Also, at least I don't live in California, where it seems to be virtually impossible for a man to change his surname to match his wife's.

* He talked about the difficulty he and his family (all English) had had with getting into NZ to live. He told me, in hushed tones, that some of the other customers complained about too many Chinese and Polynesian immigrants, but that NZ should let "us" in. By which I am 99% sure he meant fellow white folk. Oh dear.
** Tak, I need you to remind me whether "a lot" is one word or two please. Thanks :-)
*** As this is the genetic equivalent of flipping a coin, i.e. a 50-50 chance either way.
**** Last I checked Kinsey the Rabbit is unable to clearly enunciate vowel sounds.

A wonderful new word - kyriarchy

Cross-posted on In a Strange Land

After all the struggling and difficult arguing and talking and trying to understand each other, and sometimes trying not to understand each other, that has been going on in the feminist blogosphere of late, it's hard not to feel dispirited, to wonder where to go next.

But here's a post from Sudy, in which she talks about a word that was coined a few years ago by feminist theologian, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, "kyriarchy".

a neologism coined by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and derived from the Greek words for "lord" or "master" (kyrios) and "to rule or dominate" (archein) which seeks to redefine the analytic category of patriarchy in terms of multiplicative intersecting structures of domination...Kyriarchy is best theorized as a complex pyramidal system of intersecting multiplicative social structures of superordination and subordination, of ruling and oppression.

Sudy has an excellent analysis of the word, and why it might be a much more useful concept to use than "patriarchy".