Wanted: Health Minister who reads their own research

Content note: discussions of transphobia and it's impacts, focussed on the recent political discussions about trans* healthcare.

There's so much to find troubling about National calling life-saving healthcare for trans* people "nutty" and Labour leadership failing to stand behind regional conferences voting to have funded gender reassignment surgery on the table.

For our health minister to be so poorly educated about trans* healthcare needs is horrifying.  It's increasingly obvious that transphobia, transmisogyny, gender policing and the institutionalised discrimination and stigma that people from marginalised genders experience kills.  It kills by making employment and housing less accessible.  It kills through people seeking solace in drugs and alcohol.  It kills through increasing vulnerability to being targeted for intimate partner and sexual violence.  It kills through creating a climate where violence towards trans people is invisible, enabled and lethal.  It kills through people being unable to contemplate going on living.

The Ministry of Health fund our best research into trans* needs so far, the Youth 2000 research where thousands of secondary school students are asked questions about their experiences.  Seems our Health Minister didn't bother to read the trans* section - 20% of our beautiful trans* secondary school students attempted suicide in the previous 12 months.  That compares with 4% of other kids.  40% of trans* young people had "significant depressive symptoms" and half had self-harmed in the previous 12 months.

But the Labour leadership rush from the possibility of championing trans* rights to life-saving healthcare is equally disgraceful.  Andrew Little's happy with his gender.  David Shearer didn't know what gender reassignment surgery was.  Stuart Nash says the issue isn't important to the people in New Zealand.  I'll save special disdain for every(gay)man Grant Robertson though - he doesn't feel strongly about life-saving surgery apparently.  Must be nice to be that kind of Rainbow champion.

(In the queer press Grant Robertson is "absolutely committed" to the best possible trans* healthcare services.  I guess he thinks queer people are stupid.)

As usual, public debate about a socially contested issue - where there is real ignorance, I suspect, amongst the majority of the general cis public - is an opportunity for social change.  If at an incredibly hurtful cost for trans* and gender diverse peeps, as well as pain for those of us who love them.  And Jan Logie has stepped up to the gender diverse plate, not for the first time, to show us what a real Rainbow champion looks like.

She's pulled together an LGBTI rights MP group to educate, provide leadership and push for changes in legislation.  Beyond Marriage Equality.

So, improving access to life-saving trans* healthcare, including hormones, counselling and surgery.  Stopping once and for all state sanctioned (and funded) genital mutilation of babies and children in the name of gender policing.  Creating increasing space for queer people of colour to create and determine spaces which are culturally appropriate for them.  Providing inclusive and positive information about sexuality, sex, gender, relationships and all kinds of bodies to every young person in Aotearoa.  Naming biphobia as a real thing, leaving bi people with the highest rates of mental health difficulties, sexual violence and intimate partner violence of all sexualities.  Dealing with the homelessness risks for queer young people.  For starters.

First though: Writing the job description for the next Health Minister - whether they come from National or Labour - and making sure "understanding the health needs of the most vulnerable" is bullet point number one.

Guest Post: Saving incentives

Many thanks to Rebecca Fraser, manager of a community organisation that works with single parents, for this post.

The Budget released this week described an almost immediate end to the Kiwisaver $1000 kick-start incentive.  We know that inequality is growing within our current system and unless we start to look at things very differently, it will continue to grow. However, even within the system, sometimes there are mechanisms that work against unfairness. The Kiwisaver $1000 kick-start incentive was one of these. Income based retirement schemes like Kiwisaver tend to perpetuate inequality, because they don’t level out the playing field for people. The disappearance of the kick-start incentive makes the system worse.

Who is disadvantaged by the disappearance of the $1000 kick-start? They don't collect ethnicity stats about Kiwisaver take-up so we don't have any data about which ethnicities are enjoying the extra $1000. My reflection of this is based purely on what people I know have told me, when I asked them. Almost always I have heard from working Pākehā that they are enrolled in Kiwisaver and from working Māori that they are not, and I have noticed this trend amongst people I have employed. It might be different in different workplaces and sectors - I hope.

Because why would you save for a retirement when you're more likely to die before you get there? Māori are expected to live 7.3 years less than non-Māori. The gap is reducing, but not quickly. Having money in one's retirement inevitably prolongs life where lack of money shortens it but due to lifetime employment and income patterns, women are more likely to live in poverty in retirement than men, and Māori more than European. People who might not make it to retirement are not naturally incentivised to join a retirement savings scheme.

People who do not expect to own their own home are not naturally incentivised to join a scheme that can help them with the deposit on their first home. With Māori home ownership rates at 28.2% vs. European at 56.8%, people’s expectations that Kiwisaver would prove useful might understandably be different.

 And people who are struggling to make ends meet right now are not naturally incentivised to join a retirement savings scheme. Fair enough too, a bun in the hand is worth more than a loaf in the trees, as it were. According to the indicators about inequality for Māori and Pacific people put forward by the Victoria Business School, Māori end up with $96 a week less than European, on average. And this is only one small measurement of the current inequalities of our system.

 All the little inequalities add up. The tricky little fact that children who are not earning any money could sign up to Kiwisaver and gain the $1000 incentive was, in my experience, a piece of information shared across monied connections. A mortgage consultant looked at my daughter when I brought her into the bank and handed me a sheaf of forms that required signatures and proof of ID from both parents to sign her up for Kiwisaver. But people who don't have regular discussions with bank managers, people whose negotiation with the other parent of their child can barely cope with whose turn it is to drop them at school, let alone which Kiwisaver scheme to opt the kid into, people whose daily existence is in the 'Let’s get through it' mode rather than 'Let’s think about what happens when you're 70' mode - these people could all have done with the $1000 kick-start that isn’t available any more.

People who might not have natural incentives to join a retirement savings scheme is anyone for whom life is not an orderly procession from school to university to a job to marriage... home ownership, a couple of kids, a regular holiday in Fiji, the eventual divorce, the delighted remarriage, honeymoon in Europe and a peaceful retirement.

People who, in other words, distrust that the system will work for them, with good reason.

And they *are* perfectly good reasons not to take up Kiwisaver. But 'perfectly good reasons why not' are EXACTLY why incentives need to be in place. Incentives like the $1000 kick-start. I am gutted for us. I watched John Key on TV last night dismiss concerns by saying something to the effect of 'Well, it has been around for ages and they've had the chance, so if they haven't done it by now then they were never going to.'  He is wrong.  Incentives are not in place for the people who can get over the finish line first, but to encourage the people who feel like they’re not even in the race to begin with.

I bet his retirement still feels pretty cosy.

Rest in peace, Adrienne Rich

Adrienne Rich is dead. The beautiful, extraordinary brain who once refused a poetry prize from Bill Clinton, saying art was:

"incompatible with the cynical politics of this Administration.” She told a reporter, “I am not against government in general, but I am against a government where so much power is concentrated in so few hands.”

Adrienne Rich wrote the definitive tract exploring women's sexuality, when she fisked the idea that heterosexuality is natural rather than socially constructed and socially supported. For women this argument, in 1980, was revolutionary. She explained being lesbian to other feminists.

The white, Jewish, lesbian poet who fought for women's rights for decades, through prose and poetry. Who explained why white Jewishness was so strongly linked to anti-racism in the USA. Who integrated her identities by acknowledging them:

I have been reflecting on what feels so familiar about all this: to identify actively as a woman and ask what that means; to identify actively as a Jew and ask what that means. It is feminist politics - the efforts of women trying to work together as women across sexual, class, racial, ethnic and other lines - that have pushed me to look at the starved Jew in myself. If Not with Others, How? (1985)

Adrienne Rich wrote about the world and inequality with passion, kindness and anger. She made me consider what I thought about all the grand narratives, in particular white privilege:

This body. White, female; or female, white. The first obvious, lifelong facts. But I was born in the white section of a hospital which separated Black and white women in labor and Black and white babies in the nursery, just as it separated Black and white bodies in its morgue. I was defined as white before I was defined as female. Notes Towards A Politics of Location, (1984)

And she wrote about loving women, just when I was starting to. So deliciously, with such enthusiasm, that there was no doubt this was specifically erotic, this was loving women:

Whatever happens with us, your body
will haunt mine -- tender, delicate
your lovemaking, like the half-curled frond
of the fiddlehead fern in forests
just washed by sun. Your traveled, generous thighs
between which my whole face has come and come --
the innocence and wisdom of the place my tongue has found there --
the live, insatiate dance of your nipples in my mouth --
your touch on me, firm, protective, searching
me out, your strong tongue and slender fingers
reaching where I have been waiting years for you
in my rose-wet cave -- whatever happens, this is.
The Floating Poem, Unnumbered,
The Dream of a Common Language, Poems 1974 - 1977

I feel as shocked by her death as I would a friend. She has been part of my life, a treasured part of my life, for more than twenty years. I wish those who loved her in person have the chance to mourn her with the grace and honour she deserves. For me, I'm taking two of her books away with me to read while I cycle in our beautiful southern maunga.

REST IN PEACE Adrienne Rich, you are one of my sheros.

For debate: Why don't more feminists support libertarianism?

WARNING:  This post and the ensuing thread include a lot of libertarian ranting.  You may prefer to find another time-wasting/procrastinating technique.

Prompted by a discussion in comments in another post, here's a question for debate, and I'll recreate the comments on the matter so far so you can see how it's all come to this:

Mark Hubbard:

To state my ideology, I'm an Objectivist Libertarian. From that point of view, a query.

An enabling alternative universe

30 November 2011


Dear Ms Mathers,

I'd like to extend my congratulations to you, and welcome you into your new role as a member of parliament. You will be aware that I have held the Speaker's role in the last parliament, a role which holds some responsibility in terms of parliamentary funding.

I am of course aware that you will be the first member of New Zealand's parliament with a hearing impairment, and would like to ascertain whether there is anything you will require in order to make your working environment here in parliament, and your ability to participate as a representative, work smoothly. This may also provide us with an opportunity to consider the many hearing impaired people in New Zealand's communities who may not always be able to access our democratic debates in progress, and I welcome your input and guidance in this area.

I am aware that if expenditure is required in order to ensure you can participate fully, the Speaker will possibly need to refer this decision to the appropriate committee. Fortunately, we are breaking over the Christmas period for several weeks, so if you were able to make us aware of your needs before this period, it's my expectation that we should be able to resolve any communication needs in a timely way to ensure in 2012 you will be able to participate fully.

Congratulations once again. I have been a member of parliament for a long time, and it continues to be an honour to represent our New Zealand communities.

Yours sincerely,

Lockwood Smith

why not?

"shouldn't be pandering to minorities"

i can't count the number of times i've heard that phrase, and it still makes me sick. let's deconstruct it. what it actually means is that a party shouldn't devise policy and have messages that appeal to minority groups. because minority groups aren't important. they don't count. if you're going to try to appeal to them at all, do it very quietly. so quietly that everyone else can pretend they don't exist and know that they don't matter. their concerns don't matter. their lived experiences and needs don't matter.

if they have needs, nobody should have to hear about them and no-one should be advocating for them. no policies should be implemented that benefit minority groups, because that is clearly "pandering".

more than that, the phrase is used every single time someone from a minority group is selected for a significant position. they can't possibly be selected for their talents and abilities. they can't have been chosen by a process that is genuinely able to look past minority characteristics at actual ability.

and what if it's true that a person has been selected specifically to appeal to a minority group? i really can't see what's wrong with that. minority groups deserved to be courted and appealed as much as majority group. why don't they? and why should the majority be offended by that? it's not a zero-sum game. it's not like addressing the needs of minority groups is going to lead to less for the majority. it is almost certain that policies benefitting minority groups will benefit the whole, particularly in the long term.

seriously, who is going to suffer if maori life expectancy begins to equal that of pakeha? who is going to miss out if women get paid the same as men? no-one at all. but any moves to iron out inequality is "pandering", even though that inequality is causing unneccessary and unfair distress to a significant number of people.

frankly, i'm sick of it. sick of the phrase and the ideas that underpin it.

MMP and diversity

People who support MMP say it has increased the diversity of our parliament like that's a good thing.

Now there are arguments here, about what "representative" means, and whether you believe diverse views are valuable and important. And there are also arguments about whether you believe parliament looking more like Aotearoa's demographics means parliament is more likely to approach political issues in ways which are mindful of all Aotearoa's people, or if that requires policy and engagement with community as well as MPs in parliament. Then there's the oft squaring off from the right of "diversity" and "competence", like they are two different things, really just code for "white, middle-class, heterosexual men know what's best for everyone."

I'm not debating those points this post, but I am going to explore diversity by looking at parliamentary make-up pre and post the first MMP election in 1996. I've struggled to get good data on this, so it's a bit of a patchwork of different sources, not all of which compare well. Feel free to follow the links and let me know if I'm wrong.

Pre 1996 we'd had:

• 44 women MPs over 25 elections (women could only be elected to parliament after 1919. The first women MP, Elizabeth McComb, was elected in 1933). Collectively those 44 women served 125 terms or 2.84 terms each on average. Just four of these women were Maori (Parekura Horomia's speech names three Maori women, but he has missed Jill Pettis, who won election before 1996)
• 79 Maori MPs over 43 elections (before 1967 Maori could not stand in general electorates, with the odd exception of Sir James Carroll, on account of his Pakeha whakapapa). After 1967 there were just a handful of Maori elected in general seats.
• 1 Pacifica MP - Taito Phillip Field
• 1 out queer MP - Chris Carter - who came out after being elected. (Marilyn Waring did not come out as lesbian until after she left parliament).

After 1996:

• 79 women over 5 elections. Collectively those 79 women have served 196 terms, or 2.48 terms each on average. Fifteen of these women have been Maori (Parekura's 12 plus Paula Bennett, Hekia Parata and Rahui Katene)
• Maori political representation has almost exactly matched population percentages, with a total of 92 seats held by Maori MPs over 5 elections (some MPs have served multiple terms, so this doesn't equate to numbers of MPs)
• Pacifica MPs have held steady at 3 MPs per election, or 2.5% of MPs (cf 5.8% - 6% of our population describing themselves as Pacifica). This includes NZ's first Pacifica woman MP, Samoan Luamanuvao Winnie Laban and first MP of Tongan descent, Carmel Sepuloni
  
• Georgina Beyer became the world's first openly trans MP in 1999, so far the only one
• Maryan Street became the first out lesbian MP in 2005, joining Tim Barnet, Chris Finlayson and Chris Carter, all of whom, post MMP, were elected as out queer people. Since then Louisa Wall (first Maori out queer person), Grant Robertson, Charles Chauvel and Kevin Hague have joined them, and this election there are 14 out queer candidates standing, of which Jan Logie (lesbian) is a near certain newbie. "Lesbian end of bi" Kelly Buchanan and "bisexual" Rachael Goldsmith may be the first candidates daring to use the B word, though they are probably not headed for parliament.
• In terms of ethnicities wholly unrepresented when we had First Past the Post, MMP has seen the first Chinese MP (Pansy Wong), later joined by Kenneth Wang and Raymond Huo; first Tahitian MP (Charles Chauvel); first Korean MP (Melissa Lee); the first Indian MPs (Fijian Indian Rajen Prasad and Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi); the first Pakistani MP (Ashraf Choudhary) and the first MP of African descent (Nandor Tanczos)
• In terms of religion, MMP has given us the first Sikh MP and the first and second Muslim MPs

Let's look at some pictures. Numbers of women in parliament pre and post MMP:

Or Maori political representation and population demographic, compared with pre MMP in 1993:

I'm going to collate MPs with Asian, Pacifica and African ancestry (so ethnic minorities of colour, based on this, with the addition of Arthur Anae, Kenneth Wang, Ashraf Choudhary, Rajen Prasad, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi and Nandor Tanczos):

Despite the steep curve after MMP, in 2008, with 9% of seats in parliament being won by people from these ethnic minority communities, it is still woefully short of the population demographic of 16.6% last census. Diversity has some way to go it seems, if you're Pacifica, Asian or African.

How about absolute numbers of queer MPs:

It's only in the last two elections that the percentage of out queer MPs gets close to 5%, the figure of secondary school students reporting same and both sex desire. This is about the only general population survey asking about sexuality, so it's probably the best estimate we have. Just where are those gaggle of gays, anyway?

Joking aside, it's clear that MMP has driven real diversity and movement away from a parliament which is completely unrepresentative of anyone but white, middle class, heterosexual men. Of course those guys are still doing alright - leading the National, Labour, United Future and ACT Parties and co-leading the Greens - so no need to worry about them.

There's a simple choice to make on Saturday if you value diversity.

Who needs the toilet training?

Hopes were high when Aotearoa New Zealand became the first nation to hold an inquiry into discrimination experienced by trans people in 2006. 200 people rocked up to talk to the Human Rights Commission. The subsequent report found 80% had experienced discrimination, from avoidance and insults to violent physical and sexual assaults. Difficulties accessing affordable healthcare including around gender reassignment services were widespread – but so were problems with finding somewhere to live, work and play – the kinds of things that we should all be able to take for granted.

According to questions in parliament a couple of months ago, progress on the report’s recommendations has been slow and patchy. The decision not to explicitly include gender identity within the Human Rights Act because this government feels it’s covered already by “sex” – without going to select committee – may need to be tested by an individual trans person, according to Rainbow Wellington.

I’m interested particularly in how the government answered questions about whether they had implemented a human rights education programme to improve understandings about human rights and discrimination issues for trans people. They said:

The Human Rights Commission has worked to improve the public’s understanding, and that of the transgender community, of gender identity issues by: running workshops in five cities alongside the Assume Nothing exhibition (from April 2008 – February 2010); hosting two national human rights training hui for trans people including opportunities for them to meet with government officials; collating FAQs, resource lists links and workshop notes from that human rights education work which should soon be on the HRC’s website; and created on line FAQs and resources, some specifically targeted to enable schools to support trans students. The HRC has also: included a chapter on the rights of sexual and gender minorities in Human Rights in New Zealand 2010; supported the Outgames Human Rights Conference and the pre-conference regional hui for trans and intersex people.

These are good things, but not exactly wide-reaching in terms of numbers. And I’m not sure that to reduce discrimination we need to be working with trans people – unless the aim is increased reporting – seems like it’s cis types who probably need the learning. So here’s something kinda cool (with some potentially triggering scenes, so please be careful) from trans activists in the USA, focusing on access to public toilets:

It might seem like a small thing. But getting beaten up for using a toilet other people don’t want you using, or developing health problems because you can’t go when you want to, not small things.

So bring on the toilet training. Because as Helen Keller said, the highest result of education is tolerance.

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.

Let's not tell rape jokes

The Labour Party's Let's Not game has been out for a few days.* I'm not linking to it, for reasons that will become apparent, but I do want to discuss one of the offensive parts of it.**

If someone puts their finger in someone else's anus without their consent then that is sexual assault. This is still true if the two people involved are on a rugby field.

Ten years ago John Hopoate puts his finger in three other players anuses during a rugby league match. Apparently the people who were making this flash game thought "You know what we should do? We should animate this in an amusing way. That'll help us win the election and be awesome." Apparently people being violated without their consent is kind of funny if it's men on the rugby field.

One of the basic rape-myths that help uphold a culture where sexual assault is endemic is that sometimes consent doesn't matter. If you ever say that some people's violation doesn't matter - if you ever set some people up as unrapeable - then you, or in this case the Labour Party, are upholding that rape myth.

* I do incidentally think it's a terrible, terrible, terrible, piece electioneering even if you take all the offensive material out (it makes me think of David Mitchell - but thinking of David Mitchell could just be my brain's defense mechanism).

** It's not the only offensive part. I may try and write a follow-up post of what is so offensive about its portrayal of the treaty, Hone Harawira, the relationship between daughters and fathers in general and Maori women as a group.

poverty - the solution is political

following on from my post of yesterday, below is the speech i gave at an international women's day event yesterday:

I’m going to talk about politics today, and I make no apology for it. Because the solution to poverty is political. Poverty will not be solved by NGOs, not by charity groups, not by fundraising drives by well-meaning groups. Live Aid didn’t solve the poverty problem. Bill Gates & Warren Buffett donating half their fortunes haven’t solved it.

Why? Because poverty is not the result of a lack of resources. It is a result of uneven distribution of resources. It is about power structures, trading structures. An example is a clip I saw on Al-Jazeera last week, which showed the effect of speculation on food prices. The way our commodity markets are structured serves to pushes up basic food prices, as those with money stockpile when demand is high. One hedge fund based in Mayfair, London bought 200,000 tonnes of cocoa on the commodities market. This is 7% of the world’s supply. Having cornered the market, they stored all the cocoa in warehouses, which lead to the price of chocolate reaching highest level in 30 years. Deregulation of the commodities markets mean that the same firms that caused the stock market crash are now trading in staple foods. Whenever there’s a disaster like a flood or a drought, traders bet on prices going up or down. They are systematically distorting prices to make money. Every economic decision has a moral consequence. Food is a fundamental human right, not a commodity. Speculation turns crises into disasters.*

Or another example: subsidies that allow farmers in western countries to sell at lower than cost on the open market. While their income is secure due to subsidies from their own government, it reduces the prices earned by those in poor countries, to below subsistence levels.

These problems can only be solved through political means. Through political resolve and the willingness of governments to stand up to capital, to regulate and to stand firm against the threats of capital flight. It requires a global response and a rethinking of the way we run economies. We have been fed the mantra of neo-liberalism, free markets and individual responsibility. We have had any attempts at collective action demonised, the most recent example of which is the union- breaking legislation in Wisconsin, USA, with other states trying to follow.
We had the employment contract act here, which has served to push down wages, and heralded the start of the wage gap with Australia. With the mantra of free choice, compulsory membership was removed, and inequality is the result. NZ used to be in the top 6 OECD countries when it came to the gap between rich and poor. We are now in the bottom six of the OECD countries.

Not only have wage rates dropped, but in the last few years there has been a push to treat workers as self-employed contractors, meaning they don’t even have to be paid minimum wage, they don’t get sick leave or guaranteed holidays. Here are the causes of poverty, and they require a political solution.

Which leads me to another point. When we think of poverty, we tend to think of people of colour. All the ads for aid agencies on television show poor brown people. Saturday’s Waikato Times, in discussing social welfare, had only one picture on the front page, of a brown man. Poverty is associated with colour, and what that serves to do is to alienate the majority of the population from those who are poor. They are “over there” and “not like us”. Combine this with the fact that the poor are blamed for their own condition, as if society doesn’t exist, as if government policy doesn’t exist, as if there was no economic recession and loss of jobs, as if employers never threw away a CV when they saw a foreign-sounding name. This narrative around poverty makes invisible any societal and collective responsibility for the conditions that allow poverty to exist. This mix of racism and vitriol allows us to treat the poor as unworthy and undeserving. Lazy. Bludgers. Sucking off the public tit. All these narratives allow us to unburden ourselves from the responsibility to help them, to work towards bettering their condition.

It means we don’t have to think about paying more taxes so that there will be enough all around. Tax is seen as theft rather than the economic means to create a stable and healthy community. It means we don’t have to think about paying decent wages, and taking less of a profit so that everyone can have a fair share in the fruits of their labour. It means we don’t have to think about the cheap goods we get to buy from countries that have weak labour laws, where workers work long hours for poor pay in unsafe conditions. We don’t have to think about how we contribute to poverty every single day of our lives, in almost every economic, social or political decision we make. It means we can avoid taking responsibility and pretend that it isn’t our fault.

But it is. If there are people dying of hunger today, it is my fault. If there are people dying of cold, because they have no home, it is my fault. If there are people dying from water-borne diseases because they don’t have access to clean drinking water, it is entirely, 100% my fault.

This situation exists because we allow it to exist. Because we fail to act. And there is only one way to act: collectively and politically. If we want to end poverty, it starts with the policies of our government. It starts with public action, organisation, collective voices, collective protest. It starts with all of us seeing ourselves as a community and working as a community, rather than as individuals who are here simply to look after ourselves and our own immediate families. We have to see every person as part of our human family.

Let’s not wait for the destruction of a city and the loss of so many lives before we develop that community spirit. Let’s demand more of our politicians – let’s expect them to have the courage to stand up to big business. Let’s push them to make decisions that benefit the whole community, not just the proportion of it that votes for them. We’ve seen in the Middle East the power of the collective voice. It is only when we have a collective voice, shouting one message and demanding change in the fundamental structures of society and of the world, that we will have any hope of tackling poverty.

* the second half of this paragraph, starting from the words "one hedge fund" is pretty much a direct quote from the al-jazeerah clip.

If only those poor people would stop breeding

Cross posted

The Welfare Working Group was established by Cabinet:

... to undertake an expansive and fundamental review of New Zealand’s welfare system. The Group’s primary task was to identify how to reduce long-term welfare dependency.

In the midst of the Welfare Working Group's final report (downloadable from the Group's homepage), there is a nasty jibe about poor people breeding.

For some people the idea that it is not appropriate to have further children while receiving welfare is a significant change in expectation and will require a very different pattern of welfare use. ...We have found this issue difficult and have given careful consideration to our response. In the long term, the most positive measures to reduce the number of children born to parents relying on welfare payments is to provide more positive alternatives, especially for teen sole parents. The Working Group considers that a component of addressing this issue is providing all parents within the welfare system ready access to free long-acting reversible contraception. ... A majority of members of the Working Group are also in favour of strong signals to parents that a welfare payment is intended to provide temporary support while they get back on their feet and into employment. ... In practice, for most this means taking active steps to avoid pregnancy while receiving Jobseeker Support.

Welfare Working Group final report, p. 77

And if you do have the temerity to have another child while you are already on the benefit, then:

The Working Group suggests that if the changes to the work test requirements do not address the incentives to have additional children while receiving welfare assistance, then the Government may need to consider financial disincentives, say by withholding part or all of the extra payments that come with having an additional child.

Welfare Working Group final report, p. 78

By the way, that 'contraception" is going to be "long-acting reversible contraception" (p. 77, plus footnote 65 on p. 77).

In other words, if you are on the benefit, the government is going to control your fertility.

Wealthy white people have always had a problem with poor people breeding. Many years ago, I watched a documentary by Deepa Dhanraj, "The Legacy of Malthus", in which she argued that the (alleged) problem with the world's population is not the number of children being born, but the distribution of resources. The documentary contained a couple of video clips that revolted me. Two movie stars, both well-fed are white, both with no particular concerns about how to feed and clothe themselves and their children, appeared in commercials urging people to donate to the Population Institute. The Population Institute:

is an international non-profit that educates policymakers and the public about population, and seeks to promote universal access to family planning information, education, and services. Through voluntary family planning, we strive to achieve a world population in balance with a healthy global environment and resource base.

The donations were to enable the Population Institute to provide contraceptives to women in third world countries. A fine and noble purpose, on the surface, perhaps. But the subtext that I heard, loud and clear, was that wealthy white people who were already consuming far more than their share of the world's resources, wanted all those poor brown people to stop breeding. The world would be a much better place for everyone, that is, for the wealthy white people, if poor brown people would stop causing all the problems.

And I am revolted by the wealthly, well-educated, well-resourced people who wrote the Welfare Working Group's final report suggesting that all would be well in this country if only the poor people stopped breeding.

It turns out that the key to decreasing the size of the world's population is not forcing people to use contraceptives, or to have just one child, but to educate and empower women. Ensure that women are educated, ensure that they have the resources and capability to build lives for themselves, and can sustain themselves and their children, and in time, the population will drop. The process is so well known that we have a name for it: "demographic transition."

Educating women is the critical factor in reducing the birth rate. Providing contraceptives turns out to be neither here nor there:

While the bomb has been largely defused, the implication remains that to bring growth down more rapidly we should do the only thing we can do now: fund and promote family planning programs among fast-growing populations. The rest is pie in the sky.

Our response is twofold. First, demographers will tell you that even if average family size in a fast-growing society were cut by half tomorrow, its population would not stop growing until well into the next century. So every solution, including family planning programs, is a long-term one; there are no quick fixes. The second part of our answer is more surprising: simply providing birth control technology through family planning programs doesn't affect population growth all that much.

Individual women on the Domestic Purposes Benefit are not the same as populations. There is no 'demographic transition' for an individual. But 'demographic transition' does provide some clues. The key is to empower women, to ensure that they have the resources the need to obtain and retain a job. That means investing in education and training and childcare. It means pouring far more resources into schools for teenage parents, where young mothers can be sure that their children are being cared for while they finish their secondary education. It means enabling sole parents to access training grants, such as the grant that our Minister of Social Development used herself when she was a sole parent on the DPB. It means truly focusing on giving sole parents a helping hand. And that will be a complex and expensive solution.

Or we could just put all sole parents on the pill. Cheap, simple, and with that nice overtone of punishment.

And there's a final sting in the tail. I know of no 'long-acting, reversible contraception' for men. The Welfare Working Group is making women into gatekeepers of the nation's domestic purposes benefit bill. Except that last time I enquired into the matter, except in very unusual circumstances, it still took two people to make a baby. Why is is only women who are required to take responsibility for keeping the cost of the domestic purposes benefit down?

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.

What's wrong with watching porn?

NB: This post is my own view, not a Hand Mirror view.

Cross posted

Now that the Labour party caucus has castigated the people concerned, and some MPs have been sin-binned, and it might be possible to be heard above the rapidly subsiding roar, I'm going to add my tuppence worth.

For people reading in Australia and further afield, New Zealand has been having its very own little ministerial and MPs expenses scandal. But being New Zealand, it's all very small beer. No moat cleaning or duck houses or pricey toasters as there were in the UK. In NZ, it's been a matter of ministers having a few drinks on the taxpayers' tab, or getting a massage, or putting some purchases on the Crown plastic instead of a personal one (notably some golf clubs and a bike). Even then, the money was refunded almost before the bill came due, but the minister in question nevertheless thought that the taxpayer was a jolly good source of short term credit.

The biggest offence seems to have been one minister who spent his lonely nights in hotels watching pay-per-view porn, and putting it on the Crown tab. Again, it was all repaid, well before the minister left office, and several years before the press got wind of it. He tried in the first instance to pretend that he was just a movie buff, but when a little bit of press digging revealed that his movies cost $19.95 each (the standard price for porn) and regular movies cost $14.95 each, he had to change his tune. To his credit, when his cover was blown he fronted the press, admitted his misdeeds, made his apologies, and asked for forgiveness.

The issue in the NZ press and the NZ blogosphere has been whether or not it is appropriate to put private expenditure on taxpayer funded credit cards, even if the private expenditure is subsequently repaid. The answer is no. I agree with that answer.

Everyone has very very carefully said that watching porn is not an issue. Oh no, what a person does in the privacy of their own room is their business and its private and there's no public interest in poking our noses in there and people's sexuality is their own affair.

Hmmm....


In general, New Zealanders aren't really concerned with what consenting adults do. Some politicians have been pilloried for hypocrisy - for example, Don Brash, who allowed himself to be portrayed as supporting traditional family values, but had an affair on the side - but usually, the New Zealand press gallery don't report on pollies' private affairs, unless they begin to think that those private affairs are having a public effect. Even then, they err on the side of caution. New Zealanders have happily elected gay and lesbian and transgender MPs. Sex and sexuality is very much regarded as a politician's own business, thank the FSM.

However, I think that watching porn could be an issue.

I see two potential problems with porn. The first is to do with the extent to which it involves consenting adults, and the second is to do with the narrative about women that it may contain. Because porn may not involve consenting adults, and because porn may portray demeaning ideas about women, it is ethically risky. Not necessarily ethically wrong, but ethically risky.

Please be very clear about the distinctions I'm making here. I am not saying that porn infringes against morality. If morality consists in precepts about who is permitted to have sex, and in what position, and with whom, then I'm just not interested. Take your tired shibboleths, do what you will with them, in the privacy of your own bedroom, and stay away from mine. And anyone else's. Really, just f*ck off.

I'm also not saying that watching porn is necessarily wrong. Rather, I'm saying that it is risky. It may be that the porn that you are watching does not involve consenting adults. And that's a problem.

Remember that the gold standard in sexual activity is consenting adults. It's not just the gold standard - it's the minimum standard. If the porn you are watching is not made by consenting adults, then you are watching rape. You may not be getting your rocks off by watching rape, that is, by participating vicariously in scenes depicting rape, but your jollies come at the expense of the actors in the scene. Because that's what they are. Actors. Those big smiles, the sounds and words of consent and delight: they're an act. Just because the actors look like they want to be doing what they're doing, doesn't mean that their consent is real.

Equally, it doesn't mean that the actors haven't consented either. Just as plenty of sex workers say that they enjoy sex work, and it's something they freely choose to do (see for example, this great post from Hexy: Accessories, Australian sex workers, and Sheila Jeffreys and Claire Finch's story in The Guardian: I ran a brothel in a country village), plenty of actors in porn are happy to do the work. But just as plenty of sex workers are cruelly exploited, trapped into sex slavery, plenty of performers in porn movies are forced into it. And if you think Linda Lovelace was the only person ever forced into performing in porn, then I've got a very nice bridge that crosses Sydney Harbour that I'd like to sell to you. As a viewer, you just don't know whether the actors you are watching have consented, and are continuing to consent, to perform in the movie, or whether they never consented, or consented initially, and then withdrew their consent. If they have not consented, if they have withdrawn their consent, then what you are watching is rape. That's why porn is ethically risky.

Even if all the actors participating in the movie consented, and you're sure about that, then there's still the problem with the narratives contained in porn. Porn contains narratives that suggest that underage girls want sex ("barely legal" movies, using actors of legal age, but made up and dressed to look adolescent), that women like being raped, that the only way sex should end is with a money shot all over a woman's face. They are narratives of aggression and derision towards woman. Domestic and Laboratory Goddess Dr Isis has a great post about the aggression towards women in porn, complete with edited photos. Go take look, unless you're my mum or Ms Eleven, in which case do yourself a favour, and don't look. Those narratives disturb me. Sure, it's only fantasy, but they are fantasies which involve the degradation of human beings.* That makes them, to my mind, ethically risky.

There is at least some porn that is made ethically. Fair trade porn, if you will. No, I'm not going to include links to it in this blog, but if you google say, "feminist porn", and do a little research and exercise a little judgement, you should be able to come up with some porn that doesn't involve exploitation of women, and doesn't contain nasty narratives about women. In other words, take some responsibility for what you're viewing. Mutatis mutandis, for gay or lesbian or bi or trans or wev, really.

I suppose that given that the minister in question purchased his movies through a hotel, they probably weren't too extreme. Perhaps that might give us some reassurance, because the business retailing the porn might have taken some care about what it was offering to its customers. However, given what Motella (who'd have thought you could write a blog about motels?) tells us:

Most major hotels seem to offer adult pay movies. Why do they do this? Simply, because their guests demand it AND it generates huge profits! It has been reported that up to 50% of the hotel guests purchase the material and it is estimated that between 70 -80% of the hotel's in-room profit come from adult movie viewing.

...I wouldn't be counting on that.**

I think we ought to be worried about pollies purchasing porn on the Crown tab. The reason that we ought to be worried is not because porn is necessarily immoral - it isn't. If it passes that gold standard consenting adults criterion, then it's probably okay. Maybe not great, given the concerns about nasty narratives, but almost certainly there are worse transgressions. But it's ethically risky.

We make ethically risky purchases all the time. I eat chocolate, drink coffee, wear clothes, use a computer and a mobile phone and watch TV. All of these products may be made with child or sweated labour, and I haven't made the effort to find out. Where I do find out about ethically dubious practices, I sometimes stop buying the product, but even then, it's not necessarily the best thing to do: "fair trade" is rife with anomalies.

More than that, who manages to live an ethically perfect life all the time? I don't, even though I do try to get it right. But I am no moral saint. Nor do I expect ministers and other parliamentarians to be moral saints. However, I do expect them to demonstrate a reasonable degree of judgement. They are, after all, in the business of making judgements about how to run the country.

I suppose that I think that porn is more likely to come closer to the point of being ethically wrong, because people may have been harmed in the making of it, because the making of it may be a crime, because it may contain narratives that demean people (I really do recommend reading Dr Isis' post in respect of this last point). We need to be cautious about porn, to consume it, if that's your thing, with care and with discretion. And that's why it may be reasonable to be rather more concerned about ministers who consume porn than we are about ministers who simply consume.

* And those fantasies are pretty minor. I came across some sites while I was researching this post that made me feel nauseously ill. I don't even want to begin to describe them.
** I've not linked directly to the post where Motella makes this claim, but you can go find it for yourself if you like. It's just not something that I really want to link to from this blog.

Iceland bans strip clubs

Thanks to the Auckland Women's Centre for flagging this great piece by Julie Bindel which appeared in The Guardian:

Iceland has just banned all strip clubs. Perhaps it's down to the lesbian prime minister, but this may just be the most female-friendly country on the planet. Iceland is fast becoming a world-leader in feminism. A country with a tiny population of 320,000, it is on the brink of achieving what many considered to be impossible: closing down its sex industry.
While activists in Britain battle on in an attempt to regulate lapdance clubs – the number of which has been growing at an alarming rate during the last decade – Iceland has passed a law that will result in every strip club in the country being shut down. And forget hiring a topless waitress in an attempt to get around the bar: the law, which was passed with no votes against and only two abstentions, will make it illegal for any business to profit from the nudity of its employees.

Even more impressive: the Nordic state is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing for feminist, rather than religious, reasons. [I think they mean it's been banned for feminist reasons - they're not implying that anyone does it for feminist or religious reasons!] Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press on Wednesday: "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold."

When I asked her if she thinks Iceland has become the greatest feminist country in the world, she replied: "It is certainly up there. Mainly as a result of the feminist groups putting pressure on parliamentarians. These women work 24 hours a day, seven days a week with their campaigns and it eventually filters down to all of society."

The news is a real boost to feminists around the world, showing us that when an entire country unites behind an idea anything can happen. And it is bound to give a shot in the arm to the feminist campaign in the UK against an industry that is both a cause and a consequence of gaping inequality between men and women.

According to Icelandic police, 100 foreign women travel to the country annually to work in strip clubs. It is unclear whether the women are trafficked, but feminists say it is telling that as the stripping industry has grown, the number of Icelandic women wishing to work in it has not. Supporters of the bill say that some of the clubs are a front for prostitution – and that many of the women work there because of drug abuse and poverty rather than free choice. I have visited a strip club in Reykjavik and observed the women. None of them looked happy in their work.

So how has Iceland managed it? To start with, it has a strong women's movement and a high number of female politicans. Almost half the parliamentarians are female and it was ranked fourth out of 130 countries on the international gender gap index (behind Norway, Finland and Sweden). All four of these Scandinavian countries have, to some degree, criminalised the purchase of sex (legislation that the UK will adopt on 1 April). "Once you break past the glass ceiling and have more than one third of female politicians," says Halldórsdóttir, "something changes. Feminist energy seems to permeate everything."

Johanna Sigurðardottir is Iceland's first female and the world's first openly lesbian head of state. Guðrún Jónsdóttir of Stígamót, an organisation based in Reykjavik that campaigns against sexual violence, says she has enjoyed the support of Sigurðardottir for their campaigns against rape and domestic violence: "Johanna is a great feminist in that she challenges the men in her party and refuses to let them oppress her."

Then there is the fact that feminists in Iceland appear to be entirely united in opposition to prostitution, unlike the UK where heated debates rage over whether prostitution and lapdancing are empowering or degrading to women. There is also public support: the ban on commercial sexual activity is not only supported by feminists but also much of the population. A 2007 poll found that 82% of women and 57% of men support the criminalisation of paying for sex – either in brothels or lapdance clubs – and fewer than 10% of Icelanders were opposed.

Jónsdóttir says the ban could mean the death of the sex industry. "Last year we passed a law against the purchase of sex, recently introduced an action plan on trafficking of women, and now we have shut down the strip clubs. The Nordic countries are leading the way on women's equality, recognising women as equal citizens rather than commodities for sale."

Strip club owners are, not surprisingly, furious about the new law. One gave an interview to a local newspaper in which he likened Iceland's approach to that of a country such as Saudi Arabia, where it is not permitted to see any part of a woman's body in public. "I have reached the age where I'm not sure whether I want to bother with this hassle any more," he said.

Janice Raymond, a director of Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, hopes that all sex industry profiteers feel the same way, and believes the new law will pave the way for governments in other countries to follow suit. "What a victory, not only for the Icelanders but for everyone worldwide who repudiates the sexual exploitation of women," she says. Jónsdóttir is confident that the law will create a change in attitudes towards women. "I guess the men of Iceland will just have to get used to the idea that women are not for sale."