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

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

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

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

Guestie: Why I'm voting for Grant Robertson

Thanks to Rebecca Matthews for this guest post putting the case for Grant Robertson.  Rebecca is the convenor of Unions Wellington and, amongst many other things, has recently been campaigning for pay equity, 26 For Babies (extending paid parental leave), and abortion law reform.

I remember well the NZUSA conference when I first met Grant Robertson. I was a fresh-faced, Doc Marten wearing Women's Rights Officer. He was president of the Otago students, with those weird 90s big glasses still sported by Deirdre off Coro. As I recall it, student presidents were meeting with then Minister of Education, Lockwood Smith. But Grant, as representative of those students who had were facing off against the police and been put in harm's way, just couldn't stomach the sit-down pleasantries with the architect of our user pays system.

The Grant I met then had principles that transcended the political expediency of the moment. And he still does, which is why he has my vote for Labour Party leader.

Fast forward many years, and the owly glasses have been updated, and those Docs have been dumped (but I don't know, should I get some more?). Grant has been in New York representing NZ on the world stage, and I have put in a few more years of service for the student movement as researcher for NZUSA.

I get an invite to a big education announcement from then Prime Minister Helen Clark. I don't expect too much, to be honest. I'd been working on a claim to the Human Rights Commission about the fact that through interest payments women paid much more for our qualifications, so thought, maybe some tinkering around with interest rates?

The announcement that Labour were scrapping all interest on student loans, period, came as a shock, in a good way obviously. The announcement went way beyond Labour's previous tinkering around the edges of user pays, and was in no small part Grant's achievement, behind the scenes. To knock out in one punch the worst aspect of the loans scheme to me was the greatest political achievement of anyone from my generation so far. It speaks to the vision, effectiveness, and politics of Grant as a person and the great leader Grant will be.

The campaign for Labour leader is being kept very clean so far, and this is A Good Thing. But comparing the candidates also needs to take place if we are to make an informed decision. Shane Jones to me represents a past, worst, age and his comments about geldings and the like don't even bear thinking about. Of course, its really Robertson v Cunliffe.

Why do I favour Grant over Cunliffe? Yes, I know him and trust him and have seen him engage in politics in a way I respect for over 20 years. But how do I compare him to Cunliffe to influence others?

I guess I don't believe in The One, when it comes to political leadership. I don't think that a  strong man, a demagogue, or any of those things is what Labour needs right now. Of course, the leader should be a fluent speaker, and effective in the media and in the house. Grant has all these qualities as much as David Cunliffe. Grant is very progressive and there seems to be no basis to claims that Cunliffe is the more leftwing candidate, despite a lot of internet rhetoric to the contrary. 

What Grant Robertson has that I have never seen in David Cunliffe  is an  inclusive approach to leadership. Grant takes people with him. He's about empowering communities and local decision making. He really does represent a new generation of leadership. I can easily see a Robertson/Ardern (and I want Jacinda there at the helm too, she deserves it and is a real talent) . team leading Labour for ten years. Not in a Helen Clark, take no prisoners style. But in a way that allows all the leaders in the party to grow and flourish, and be empowered. And as leaders in a Labour/Green government, that will provide modern, progressive leadership to deal to the growing crisis of inequality.

This feminist (and unionist) is voting for Grant Robertson for Labour leader, and is proud of it.

i'll be voting for david cunliffe

it's time to select a labour party leader once again.  a not entirely unpredictable happenstance, given that the person chosen by caucus had little experience as an MP and not much experience of party politics.

at the end of 2011, i wrote mildly in support of david cunliffe, & more in the context of my support for nanaia mahuta as deputy.  in that post, i predicted that the writers in the political blogosphere who were vociferously supporting mr shearer's leadership bid would soon turn against him, and it only took a few months for that to happen.

i still don't know mr shearer particularly well, in that i've had very little personal interaction with him.  his public utterances never did give me much of a clue as regards his underlying values and philosophies.  that he was clearly out of his depth was pretty obvious, and it was obvious at the time that he & mr cunliffe were touring the country in december 2011.  listening to the two speak & answer questions side by side, there was no doubt that mr shearer was nowhere near ready to take on the role.

i didn't speak out too strongly about that at the time.  mostly because i didn't think it mattered: the vote was to be taken by caucus after all.  this time around, the party membership has a say, whether they vote directly or through their union delegates.  and this time around, i feel much more strongly about the issue.

i'm still very disappointed that none of the women MPs have put their names forward.  perhaps they don't have a chance of winning, but then neither does shane jones & that hasn't stopped him.  it would not only give them valuable experience, but would also give them the opportunity to connect more closely with the membership.  it's part of the process of developing leadership skills, and the fact that there is no woman in the race is still a major issue for the party.

so we are left with the three who have put their names forward.  shane jones was prepared to turn on his own party membership, particularly those who care about the representation of women, so it would be pretty odd for him to be asking support from that membership for his leadership bid.  if he represents the "red-blooded male" sector of the party, it would be interesting to know why that positioning seems to involve a pretty confrontational approach towards many women party members.  does he see being that kind of male as being incompatible with being supportive of the aspirations of women?   i've yet to hear him say much about issues of equity & equality, particularly as it comes to gender.

in terms of capturing the maori vote, i'm not in a position to say too much about that.  ms mahuta has signed mr cunliffe's nomination form, so she is clearly not supporting mr jones.  there is this from morgan godfrey who is supporting mr cunliffe, and i'll be keeping an eye on what the writers at maui street have to say.  i'd love to see a maori person as leader of the labour party & prime minister of the country, but mr jones is a person that i can't support.

in a labour leader, i'm looking for someone who actually recognises that when labour has won the government benches, it's on the back of the women's vote.  i'd like to see a leader who has both the courage and the good sense to appeal directly to women.  mr obama clearly did that in his last campaign, both in his speech to the democrat convention and in his televised debates against the opponent whose name already escapes me.  mr obama deliberately used female pronouns and talked to issues that were of importance to women.  he also spoke directly to people of colour.  he wasn't side-tracked by the right-wing dismissal of "identity politics" (a way to deflect from the fact that the republicans weren't prepared to give due attention to marginalised groups).  and it showed in the demographic breakdown of voting results.

so is grant robertson the person who can do this: is he prepared to fight for the women's vote instead of focusing on "waitakere man"?  can he relate to and articulate a vision for people of colour?  as someone who belongs to a community that is also marginalised, he is capable of empathising.  but i'm not so sure that he is capable of listening.

he was prepared to act as a deputy to a leader (mr shearer) who would not commit to standing up against racists, but instead kept talking about a "broad church".  a leader who wasn't prepared to discipline MPs who were not only publicly dismissive and pretty nasty about fellow MPs and the aspirations of women, but who actually promoted those MPs.  perhaps, for the sake of public unity, mr robertson was quiet in public but vociferous behind closed doors.  it's entirely possible, and i'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

but there comes a point where we expect people in leadership positions to stand up and be counted.  and to respond positively and constructively when members take the trouble to put forward their serious concerns.  if he was listening, it didn't come across that way.

which leaves mr cunliffe.  referring back to my post which i linked to above, i was impressed that he had the strength of character to take on ms mahuta as his deputy and the ability to recognise her talents.

not only in this but in other ways, he has shown himself to be a secure male who isn't threatened by women and is willing to support their aspirations.  this is something we saw in people like michael cullen, steve maharey and many other men in the 5th labour government, who happily supported the introduction of paid parental leave, childcare subsidies, pay equity legislation and much more.  men who were advocates and champions of policy that positively impacts the lives of so many women.

this time around, i get a vote in who gets to be a leader.  my vote will be going to david cunliffe and i'll be advocating for him as much as i'm able to within the time pressures i'm currently facing.  it's not just about policy regarding women, which i've focused on in this post, but about the ability to articulate a vision and to take on powerful elites.  the willingness to make some fundamental changes and to challenge long-standing narratives that serve to increase inequality.  maybe he won't be able to do all of those things, but i certainly think he is much more likely to do so than the other two.  and after a pretty long stretch of time, i do feel some hope that the party i joined in 2003 will stand for strong progressive values once again.

so if you're a labour party member, i'm asking you to vote for david cunliffe.

hoping for the best

so, where to start on this susan devoy thing?

i guess the place to start is that this a difficult thing for me to talk about.  because i'm dependent on the person who will be race relations commissioner in so many ways.  i need to depend on her being the voice standing up for people of colour.  i need to count her being willing to step in and stand up and fight when i can't fight or when my voice isn't loud enough or strong enough to be heard.

because her voice is strong enough to cut through - it carries the full weight of her office and the institution that stands behinds her.  it opens doors that aren't accessible to me, in that she is much more likely to be granted entrance into organisations or given interviews with people than i am.  she has access to funding and support structures that i don't have access to, at least not in the same way.  in fact, sometimes she gets to be a gatekeeper in regards to my ability to access that support.

if she fails to act or to speak, she won't suffer the consequences: i will, or some other marginalised person and/or community of colour will.  if she fails to do her job properly, i will find it harder to fight the discrimination i face in my day to day life.

i've written plenty of times about the support either myself or my community have received support from the previous race relations commissioner.  when the danish cartoons were published, he stepped in immediately to organise a meeting with leaders of various faith communities and the editor of the dom.  that allowed a crucial piece of dialogue to happen and affected how the issue played out in the media over the coming days.

when greg o'connor, head of the police association, decided to go public with his criticism of a new police policy in relation to burqa-wearing drivers, the race relations commissioner organised a meeting between myself and mr o'oconnor. at this meeting, myself and a friend were able to explain to mr o'connor the impact of his words on the lives of women in our community, and it was an incredibly powerful meeting.

when i decided to take on an op-ed in the waikato times, he offered me not only his sound advice, but also the supporting cases and the institutional support i needed to achieve a successful outcome.

there are plenty of other examples i could give, but i think this is enough to give you an idea of just how important this role is to me personally, in my activism and advocacy, and in my ability to feel like i could possibly make a difference to the world i live in.  and because i am dependent on the person in that role doing not just a good, but an excellent, job - well, that makes me afraid to criticise the new appointee.  to criticise the appointment risks me getting offside with a person who i desperately and crucially need on my side.

so in a way, i'm silenced by my need, by the very marginalisation that the position is supposed to fight against.  and yet i'm very afraid that a person who finds burqa's "disconcerting" is not going to be able to advocate effectively for burqa-wearing women when, for example, they are refused entry on public transport for no good reason.  i'm afraid that someone who complains about discord on waitangi day and is so unaware of the experiences of people of colour on australia invasion day that she actually holds it up as an example for us to follow - is such a person going to be able to advocate effectively for maori?

and yes, it is great to have a woman in the role.  but it would have been better to have a woman in the role who had had some experience of marginalisation based on race, nationality and colour.  because experiences of marginalisation aren't transferrable.  just because you know what it's like to be marginalised as a woman doesn't mean that you understand the issues or the experiences of people who suffer a difference form of marginalisation.

if that was the case, then there would be no tension between feminists and the trans* community.  but we on this blog have first-hand experience of that tension, and i'll be the first to acknowledge that we didn't handle it particularly well.  and there would be no tension between white feminists and women of colour.  but there is a huge amount of such tension, and there have been screeds of words written about that by women of colour around the world and a whole thing called intersectionality.

so when judith collins makes the statement:

"Frankly she's the 10th person in the job, the first woman, and that speaks volumes about the way in which women, particularly ethnic women... have been kept out of the race relations debate."

it makes me pretty angry.  because our new appointee is not an ethnic woman, so this appointment will not change the fact that ethnic women are being "left out of the race relations debate" - if in fact we are. for ms collins to say so means that she is ignoring the work and the words of wonderful ethnic women activists across the country, just to make a rather spurious point in support of her appointment.

i don't know how ms devoy will do in this role, and i don't want to undermine her from the start because, as i said, i desperately need her to do well.  in her interview with radio nz this morning (morning report, 7:39am), she expressed a willingness to listen and learn, so i will hope for the best.  what else is there to do?

nope, not all of this is a backlash

i was directed to this article at slate by someone on twitter, who was lauding it as a good defence of successful women.  i was pretty hopeful, but having read the thing, it pretty much leaves me seething.  there's this:

Mayer was attacked recently for her decision not to allow employees to work at home. She is a woman, this line of thinking goes, how could she think women should have to work away outside of their houses, away from their children? But why should Marissa Mayer have some special responsibility to nurture her employees with a cozy, consummately flexible work environment just because she is a woman? Isn’t her responsibility to run a company according to her individual vision? If we want powerful female entrepreneurs shouldn’t we allow them to pursue entrepreneurial power?

and then there's this:

Think of Lena Dunham and the outsized rage she has attracted for her large book advance, for attracting huge amounts of attention with her show. These could be greeted as welcome signs of success for a woman in the largely male world of comedy, but instead she too is attacked for “not being like us.” She too is expected to create a mini utopia on the set of her show. She is attacked for not hiring minorities, or not representing people without college educations. In one cranky piece in Slate, Amanda Hess complains: “so far Dunham hasn’t appeared to use her position to give a leg up to less-privileged voices.” To which one can only wonder, “Is  she supposed to run a home for starving comedy writers of other races?”

and that last line pretty much had me ready to scream: "way to completely miss the point!!!"

reading the piece as a whole, i get what the writer is trying to say: that we should be supporting successful women, and that successful women get judged in a way that successful men don't.  particularly women in the business world, and particularly when they challenge notions of how women are supposed to be ie always in angst between their roles as caregivers and as ambitious working women; always supposed to feel guilty for not doing enough and/or not suffering enough for their families.  men, on the other hand, don't need to have any angst and are allowed to have it all - successful job and family with kids - without any questions about whether or not they should be trying to have it all.


but this piece in slate?  reads less like a defence of successful women and more like a defence of privilege.  the privileges of class and colour in the 2 paragraphs i've quoted above. and all it makes a case for is that those who don't have those privileges should shut up and stop complaining, should be unquestioning cheerleaders of these women who have finally MADE IT, cos weren't you all complaining that there weren't enough  women CEO's anyway?  b*tches are never happy, are you?

it's somewhat like the republican defence of sarah palin: here you go, we've given you a woman in a position of power, shut up and support her.  if her policy positions are anti-women, well so what?  any criticism of her means you women don't really want women in positions of power do you?

which is pretty stupid, because yes, we want more women in positions of power.  but just because they get there doesn't mean they suddenly become immune to criticism.  it doesn't mean they get some special status that prevents then from being called out, and especially when they do things againsts the interests of the majority of other women.  having them there serves a great purpose - it breaks down barriers when we become accustomed to seeing women in such positions.

but we are allowed to expect more.  we allowed to expect that once women get into these positions, that they actually do what they can, in that position, to improve the lives of others.  and we expect this because very often the women who have MADE it, they have direct experience of discrimination and the difficulties involved in trying to succeed in a system that has been designed for people who are not like them.

is it wrong to expect empathy?  i don't think so.  is it wrong to at least expect an absence of hostility towards the issues of importance of other women?  not at all.  so i don't see it in any way wrong to criticise marissa mayer's policy which prevents employees from working at home, particularly in a society where the larger part of the burden of caregiving work is still borne by women.  and i think it's perfectly valid to criticise lena dunham for being extremely dismissive of any concerns raised about the lack of women of colour in her shows.

but more than that, these are things that men would and have been criticised for - often and for a long time by feminists, by activitists, by people of colour.  i don't understand the position that men can be criticised for these things but women in the same position doing exactly the same thing can't.

where i draw the line is misogynist attacks against successful women, and i know that this blog and most other feminist blogs defended sarah palin against misogynistic attacks while continuing to denounce her destructive policy positions.  because it's absolutely very easy to do the latter without doing the former, and because doing the former is never acceptable.

so have people been unfairly hating on successful women? absolutely, and i would love to see a piece which details that.  but this slate piece wasn't it, not by a long shot. by conflating valid criticism with sexist putdowns, the article harms rather than helps these women.

on mitt romney not getting it

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

A weekend in Dunedin - National Council of Women's 2012 conference

In 2010 I decided that I should get involved in the National Council of Women.  To me it was a somewhat shadowy organisation, with a mandate I didn't understand, which occasionally popped up with submissions to Select Committees or media statements which I either agreed with or was strongly concerned by.  One such example of the latter was NCWNZ submitting in favour of the 90 day legislation for employment, on the basis that it would be good for women.  My experience and observation is that those who face discrimination in the workplace already, as women do, are usually made more vulnerable by losing rights, not less so.  But anyway...

A couple of months ago QoT wrote about the NCWNZ support for the Who Needs Feminism campaign, and expressed her concerns about the level of feminist analysis NCWNZ was (or rather wasn't) undertaking.  While I agree with some of the points The Thorny One made, we are not in total agreement - which is not unusual ;-) - and it has been very interesting to become more involved in NCWNZ over the last two years and learn about why it is the way it is, and how it is changing. 

This weekend I have been in Dunedin for the biennial conference of NCWNZ.  It's an organisation established in 1896, and I see it as much like the game of cricket - highly evolved rules and customs which had reasons and made sense to insiders for a long time, but some of those reasons are lost in the mists of time, so it's hard for current participants to understand the relevance of positions such as Silly Mid Off.  There have certainly been Silly Mid Off moments for me during the conference.

But putting that to one side, I do see some significant value in NCWNZ, to the point where I am becoming more involved, not less, despite some frustrations.  Partly this is because I think it's important to have feminist voices (in particular those who aren't first or second wave), and a diversity of life experiences, active in NCWNZ, and that that is part of the evolution of the organisation which won't happen if it is abandoned by progressive people.

Which is not to say that most of those currently involved are not progressive.  I am constantly amazed by the staunch advocacy for women that fellow members will articulately share in branch meetings, online and now on the floor of the conference.  Some base their advocacy on the idea that women are mothers first and foremost, and thus what happens for children is of supreme importance, and that really grates for me, but often we find ourselves in agreement, albeit for quite different reasons. 

At a recent branch meeting we had a ripper of a debate about marriage equality.  Yes I would have prefered we had been in agreement, but it was heartening to see so many wonderful arguments for marriage equality put up by women who were in the demographic that the polling shows us is most likely to be opposed to Louisa Wall's bill.  In the end we decided not to take a branch position, which was disappointing to me.

The highlight of the weekend for me, in regard to the democratic aspects, has been the vote to support a remit on making contraception available to all women for free.  This includes both the actual contraception (pill, condom, IUD, implant, etc) and the consultation fee.  Currently there is a confusing array of free access for certain circumstances, especially those under 25.  However there is undoubtedly a need to widen this, as I argued in my 2010 presentation on why abortion needs to be legal.  The motion was put up by the Manawatu branch, seconded by ALRANZ (whose president Morgan Healey spoke very well to the motion) and I appreciated having the opportunity to speak to it too.  When I tweeted (@juliefairey) about the passing of this remit I was quite surprised at the positive responses from many people glad to see NCWNZ stand up on this issue.

The conference has been an interesting experience, for a variety of somewhat unexpected reasons.  The guest speakers and panel discussions have been very valuable; as I type there is a fantastic keynote being given on the issue of how family trusts undermine social justice, particularly as that impacts on women.  "Women and Work:  No Barriers" is the theme of the conference, and there have been a lot of discussions that show a very wide definition of "work" amongst the delegates, including a focus on the need to recognise the unpaid work that so often falls to women.  I've also met some fascinating women through my involvement in Auckland branch, and added to that number at the conference.  In particular, I greatly value the perspective of older women that I can access readily through NCWNZ, and which is absent from much public dialogue and not prevalent in my own personal circles. 

I'm involved because I think there is a role for an umbrella body, a peak organisation, for women's organisations (and the women's sectors/networks/etcs of other organisations), and because I want to help to shape the future of NCWNZ as it evolves.  If you are interested in getting involved too, it can sometimes be difficult to navigate the entry points, so I'm more than happy to assist, and can be emailed on julie dot fairey at g mail dot com.

some essential reading

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

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

[...]

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

brilliant.  please go across and read the whole thing.

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

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

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

The Officer Ether

In Councillese the term "officer" actually means "a staff member of the Council".  We democratically elected people (governing body or local board members in Auckland) rely on officers for advice, and to make our decisions into reality.  Officers are essential to our work and without them it would be pretty hard to function meaningfully.

As with any large group of people there are good eggs and bad eggs.  So far my experience is that the good officers far outweigh the bad.  I've been astonished by the number of highly accomplished and truly effective officers I've encountered to date.  For every one person who has frustrated me by going all Sir Humphrey and not really answering my questions, there have been at least 5 who have been flexible, smart, and committed to empowering local board members.

But good eggs or bad there is one thing that no officer seems to be able to overcome:  The Officer Ether.

Here's an example:

in support of nanaia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

quick hit: on women's participation

a couple of links on women's participation in politics and business. first this call for more women to have strong political roles:

More than 20 of the world’s most powerful women called for more political participation for women as a crucial step for democracy, peace and sustainable economic and social development at an event during the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly today.

[...]

“We are in an age of participation and every political party should make room for women to play a greater role,” Hilary Clinton said. “When we liberate women we boost economies; human rights cannot be stopped.”

on the latter point, there has been some research from the university of waikato, proving yet again what we already know: that companies with women on their boards of directors are more profitable than those that don't:

Dr Stuart Locke, director of the university’s Institute for Business Research, said research showed women directors are good for business.

The institute analysed 10 years of data from New Zealand Stock Exchange companies and found that increasing the number of women on boards increased financial performance.

The institute’s study looked at performance measured by rate of return on assets for companies in New Zealand. It looked at a number of variables relating to corporate governance including the size of boards, the number of women and other measures.

"We found that the number of women on the boards was positively correlated to performance. Those companies that had higher performance – not just greater profit but greater profit on the assets they owned – had more women on the board. That was a statistically significant result," Locke said. The study did not explain how women boosted financial performance, as it was purely a financial study.

of course i'm one of those who thinks we should have diversity because it's the right thing to do, not solely because it has financial or economic benefits. but it's nice to know the latter is true as well.

NZ Speculative Fiction Blogging Week: Women in Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

and he's gone

i know i'm a bit late for this post, but never mind. i have to say i'm very glad to see that alisdair thompson is no longer in a position to make public statements for the EMA. of course he can still make public statements, but they won't mean as much.

i am actually an employer in a voluntary capacity, being on the board of a couple of NGOs. one of these is a women's organisation, and i know that we need support as employers. the EMA should be an option for us, but until now, i really haven't felt that they are - given that their public positions and lobbying haven't been consistent with good employment policy. an employer's organisation that advocates the youth wage or that won't take more concrete actions for equality in the work place is not one that i can justify giving money to. especially from an NGO that is working to improve the lives of people in this community. to belong to that organisation in its current state is to betray the very people our organisation serves. i'm pretty sure that the rest of the board agrees with me on this.

the sacking of mr thompson is a big step but still not good enough. if this organisation really wants to represent employers, it needs to make itself accessible to all types of organisations. i don't believe it's accessable to NGOs in the way it currently operates, but NGOs employ a considerable number of staff. chambers of commerce actually do tend to be a lot better, and have managed to do some progressive things. perhaps EMA could look to them for some ideas on how to actually serve the needs of their community.

on another note, there has been some great writing on the whole alisdair thompson thing from various bloggers, but also in the MSM. there was a good piece by denise irvine in the waikato times yesterday, but i can't find it online. this there's also this one from mai chen, which is very good. and not just because it happens to mention my sister!! who is absolutely as awesome as mai chen thinks she is:

My concern is that stereotyping may stop you from hiring the best staff. New Zealand is a small country.

I had a call some years back from a law professor who asked if I would hire her top student. Despite a stellar academic record, and a formidable work ethic, no one would hire this lawyer because she was Muslim, wore a hijab and prayed five times a day facing Mecca. The woman interviewed well, so I hired her and found she was the best law clerk I had ever had.

please ignore my bias and read the whole thing - it's worth it!

then there is this article about the low number of women on nz boards:

Korn/Ferry surveyed the top 100 boards by market capitalisation in Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia China, and New Zealand, finding 65% of New Zealand boards had no women directors compared to 29% in Asia-Pacific leader Australia. In Singapore, 59% of boards had no women members, 57% in India, 56% in Malaysia, 43% in Hong Kong and 39% in China.

The news gets even worse, with the Asia-Pacific region lagging Europe and America, an imbalance report author Alicia Yi describes as "stark".

the difference in figures for asia can be explained by the low wages there, making it much more affordable to hire domestic staff for housework & child-rearing. also the cheaper & greater variety of food, making takeaways and eating out a much more affordable option. these are not things that we want to be emulating.

however, there is no reason we should be lagging behind australia, europe & america. many of these countries have government policies that help to improve equality, particularly in europe. as usual, our government is not prepared to look at these. although i will be impressed if they do something about removing secrecy re wages as was mentioned not too long ago. or even ask companies to report on gender payrates within their organisations.

finally, i'm currently awaiting brian edwards' defense of john ansell. based on past form, i'm sure it will be forthcoming.

census of women's participation

today, the human rights commission has published it's census of women's participation (pdf). since i'm still pretty exhausted from my weekend away, i'm just going to do some cut & paste stuff. here is judy mcgregor's op-ed piece, which really should be read in full, & deals with the corporate sector:

Fifty-seven of the top 100 companies by market capitalisation, including five of the top 10 companies, have no women in their boardrooms. Only 45 women in 43 companies hold a total of 58 directorships out of a total of 622 directorships....

Australia is leaping ahead of New Zealand. So far this year 36 women have been appointed to ASX 200 boards, compared with only 10 in the whole of 2009. New Zealand is now at the bottom of an international comparison of 14 countries in terms of women's representation as corporate directors....

So what would break the cycle of women's boardroom invisibility? A flurry of programmes and activities has sprung up to address the problem, including cross-company mentoring schemes, coaching programmes, accelerator activities and women in leadership courses. Some of these are sector-specific and aimed at younger women.

here she is again, on the public sector:

In the public sector the 2010 Census of Women’s Participation notes that although women make up 59 per cent of public servants, but only 17.6 per cent of chief executives and experience a gender pay gap where women earn 15.4 per cent less than men for doing the same or a similar job....

Female representation on Government appointed boards had gone backwards, from 42 per cent to 41.5 per cent, and remained 8.5 per cent shy of the Government’s target of 50 per cent by 2010.

here is sue moroney, on some of the causes:

"The key areas New Zealand has gone backwards in for women are all the direct responsibility of the National Government.

“They appoint to state sector boards, they abolished the pay and employment equity unit and stopped pay equity audits in the state sector, and they have done nothing to create jobs in areas of the economy where women work.

“In fact, in areas like early childhood education, they have deliberately cut funding, and now women working in that sector are losing their jobs.

“The fee increases for ECE brought about by this Government are also causing women to reassess whether they can afford to participate in the workforce and therefore limiting the choices women have.

“In comparison Labour introduced paid parent leave and encouraged women on benefits into study by offering the Training Incentive Allowance, an allowance which National cut.

as usual, the minister of women's affairs appears to be nowhere, and doing not much at all.

congratulations australia

woohoo!! congratulations to julia gillard, not only australia's first woman prime minister, but now australia's first elected woman prime minister. i'm so glad that she has managed to put together a coalition to lead the country.

not that i've been a huge fan of her approach towards assylum seekers & her response to mining companies. but here's hoping that the next couple of years will see an effective ETS in place - one that doesn't put an undue burden on the poor. and also a more humanitarian and compassionate treatment of those seeking refuge, but i'm not holding my breath on that one.

despite her faults, she is still light-years ahead of that tony abbott person, & i'm really glad that he's not our neighbouring PM. if that had happened, i suspect that the net migration figures between australia & nz would see a significant change in direction.

i'm sure that the new coalition government is going to struggle to do very much, given how tight the numbers are. and i'm also sure that the attacks on ms gillard simply for being a woman, and daring to be a childless one, will also continue. but still, i've got a smile on my face tonight, and i bet a lot of australian women do too.

a woman leading friday prayer

and following on from deborah's last post, i just found this in my inbox:

A Canadian author will become the first Muslim-born woman to lead a mixed-gender British congregation through Friday prayers tomorrow in a highly controversial move that will attempt to spark a debate about the role of female leadership within Islam.

Raheel Raza, a rights activist and Toronto-based author, has been asked to lead prayers and deliver the khutbah [sermon] at a small prayer session in Oxford. [...]

Raza, 60, is part of a small but growing group of Muslim feminists who have tried to challenge the mindset that has traditionally excluded women from leadership roles within the mosque. They argue that nowhere in the Koran are female imams expressly forbidden. Instead scholars rely on the hadiths (the words and sayings of the Prophet Mohamed) to exclude women – although Muslim feminists and some progressive scholars argue that even these are not clear enough to say with confidence that women are altogether banned. [...]

Ms Raza's appearance in Oxford is a repeat of a similar prayer session in 2008 which was led by Amina Wadud, an American-born convert and Muslim feminist. But this is the first time a Muslim-born woman will lead a mixed prayer service in Britain.

what i find interesting about these events is not just the women that put themselves forward to lead prayer (quite a courageous act in itself), but the number of men who are prepared to stand behind & follow them. because without the latter, the former wouldn't exist.

having it all

via a friend on facebook, this piece from holly robinson at the huffington post asking whether women can really have it all:

Fast forward 18 years. Husband #1 and I are divorced (but still friends). I have, for the most part, continued to raise our children while he has traveled. He rose through the ranks of his company to become a Really Big Cheese. Meanwhile, I kept freelancing. I took more jobs as the kids got older, but I was still the one on call for snow days and sick days, school vacations and summer, juggling what needs to be juggled by mothers everywhere.

I put motherhood before my career. That was my choice. Little did I know that, just by having a baby, I was jeopardizing my career and putting myself at risk for poverty, as so many studies around the world show....

Husband #2 is a wonderful domestic partner when he's at home. He'd be a better stay-at-home parent than I would be in many ways. However, again the reality is that he makes more money than I do, and he has the health benefits. So, when somebody has to take a day off to meet the appliance repairman or take a kid to sports practices, it's me.

It's me, and it's most working mothers, who -- even before we get to our desks every morning -- have to wake kids and get them dressed, make breakfasts and lunches, throw in loads of laundry, bake for the PTO sale, fill in the permission slips for field trips, schedule haircuts and oil changes, figure out summer camp and daycare and dinner. And, oh yeah, try to get to to our desks on time to meet deadlines. Maybe even while wearing matching socks.

this puts me in mind of blue milk's post that i linked to a while back, and the difficult choices we all have to make. to me, one of the main issues is that, as a society we need women in leadership positions. we will all benefit when that happens. but how much are we prepared to let individual women sacrifice for them to reach those positions? how much as a society are we prepared to support women so that they can get there?

another important point that comes up in comments to the post is the fact that women need to be financially independent if they are to avoid poverty in case of a divorce. i have a friend who works for a budget advisory service, and she is always surprised at the number of women who haven't planned or even thought about how they'd survive if a divorce happens.

women in leadership, not.

while julie has a bit of much deserved down time, i thought i'd do a quick post on women's representation on boards. nowhere near as well as she'll be doing it, no doubt. but i found a couple of press releases on the scoop website today that seemed to be topical.

the first is from the nz federation of business and professional women, which commends hon paula bennett for gender diversity on the welfare working group, but also says:

BPWNZ deplores the fact that Mr Joyce has only appointed 20 women out of 78 to the Polytechnics councils – a mere quarter.

“The Minister for Tertiary Education, Steven Joyce surely deserves the brickbats award,” says Angela McLeod, President of [BPWNZ]. This is especially so given that nearly 50% of the graduates from polytechnics are women and that it’s proven world-wide that gender diversity on boards increases the bottom line.

this is, of course, in addition to the fact that the size of the councils have been cut significantly back in december, reducing the ability of local communities to have an input into decisions that will have a significant impact on them. these changes reduced diversity on the councils further, by refusing to guarantee maori representation.

meanwhile, the minister of women's affairs had a press release out yesterday saying, well, i'm not sure exactly what:

The dismal record of having just 8.6 percent women directors in our top 100 listed companies’ boardrooms needs to be changed, Women’s Affairs Minister Pansy Wong told the Institute of Directors’ AGM in Wellington today.

International research continues to show that women directors add competitive advantage to companies and boost performance. For example, a recent study conducted by Leeds University in the UK looked at 17,000 companies and found that those with at least one woman director were 20 percent less likely to go bankrupt.

The Harvard Business Review looked into legislation in Norway - which requires companies to have a 40 percent quota of women directors - finding companies had no negative feedback.
France also recently introduced a quota system for women on boards, while Australia’s listed companies are required to disclose the number of women they have on their boards....

[Mrs Wong says] “All we need for companies to reap the benefits is for them to give women directors a fair go. I am determined to be the catalyst of change by working with Business New Zealand and the Institute of Directors”.

so what does that last paragraph tell us exactly? what is the minister going to do to be this catalyst of change? shouldn't we get to hear about it, so we can be sure that the measures taken (if any) are likely to be effective?

given the research and overseas policies quoted in the press release, could we assume that she's considering quotas like norway and france, or at least greater disclosure like australia? although, as regards the latter option, all annual reports i've seen have a photograph of the board with members names listed below, so i think we're pretty much have that kind of disclosure already and it hasn't helped.

i do have to say that it was great that the minister was addressing the institute of directors, but it would have been nice if her press release included some specific policy initiatives. the full speech is here, but i can't say that i'm much wiser for having read it. it talks about the "women on boards initiative", but doesn't give much detail of what is being done. the only thing of substance i could find was reference to the ministry's nomination service, but that has been running for years and is nothing new.

so how about it minister? are you ready to take a really bold initiative like france and norway? and if not, why bother mentioning it at all?

Bullies and how people enable them

I don't like bullies. I don't like adults who threaten and yell and generally throw their toys to try and get their own way, who belittle others to wield power over them, particularly when it is their default setting in life to operate that way. I guess that's one of the reasons Paul Henry's behaviour bothers me so.

The big problem with bullies is always how to deal with them effectively. When I'm talking to someone else about how to deal with a bully the first step I always suggest is to get together with anyone else who is being bullied, or who may not support the bully. Bullying works on the basis of isolating victims from each other, encouraging people to keep their heads down so that they will avoid the unwelcome attentions of the bullies. If you can overcome the isolation you are halfway to winning. At least you can bitch about the bully with someone else, and acknowledge between you that it is bullying, and take a bit of the power back.

Personally I'm a big fan of naming stuff what it is. I remember pointing out to someone once that they were trying (somewhat ineffectually) to bully me. She was outraged and proceeded to prove that she was not bullying by standing between me and the door, in a small space, hectoring me with her finger, leaning over me and yelling. I believe there may have been spittle. Major not-bullying FAIL.

Right now I have a problem with a bully, and it's got me musing on the theme.

I should start by saying this is not a work-related issue. It's not my workplace and it's not anyone else's either.

The Bully has a long long history of this behaviour. She goes straight to the Yelling Place, and I have literally had to hold the phone away from my ear more than once. She once wrote another target of her bullying a twenty page letter outlining all the times she had been sinned against by this person. Who has time to write a twenty page letter about anything, unless they're being paid to write it, or maybe it's about love. Or like your first novel or something. Anyway, the point is that twenty pages of hate is pretty hard to sustain, for most people.

The Bully in this case has basically burnt off almost everyone else. There's one person staunchly in her corner, two people pretending this is all Someone Else's Problem,* and then me and one other who reckon the bullying sucks. So we have one Bully, one Bully-supporter, two Bully-enablers (by refusing to take any responsibility and looking away), and two Bully opposers. For those yet to be rescued by National's Crusade For (Literacy &) Numeracy, that's four versus two. Not looking good for the Bullying Must Stop camp.

And there is one other person in this equation too, who is in a leadership role, and it's their special brand of enabling that is really getting to me.

To my way of thinking leaders, whatever their actual title, have an obligation to ensure the good running of whatever group they lead. Implicit in that should be to deal with any bullying amongst the group. But too often leaders too get bullied, and to make it worse they don't see that's what's going on, because then they'd have to do something. So they pretend, to themselves and everyone else, that they are just being neutral and rising above a spat between those they lead.

This approach solves precisely Nothing.

It undeniably hard for leaders to deal with bullying, especially when they too are suffering from the Bully's activities. It's even harder when a leader is in denial, and just avoiding confronting the Bully about anything, even when the Bully does stuff that really is beyond acceptable. Contact the Bully makes with the leader only serves to reinforce the Bully's view that they are in the right, because the leader says soothing things to avoid being bullied themselves. Stuff like "of course I can see that you are both coming to this with Good Intentions and think you are doing the right thing" and "it's my role to remain neutral and not get involved in disagreement between you people down there."

So what do you do about a leader who abdicates their responsibility in this crucial area? Who is okay with giving power up to the Bully rather than confront behaviour that is unacceptable and should be dealt with?

Today I'm at a loss.


* Props to the irreplaceable Douglas Noel Adams.