I spied her clipboard from across the room, as she drew it slowly from her bag. Noting the image across the top of the petition sheet, my heart sank. It was the Family First Protect Marriage petition and it had no good purpose being anywhere near me.
"You'll sign this won't you? To protect marriage!"
"Ah no, I've already signed the other one, the opposite one, in fact."
Shocked look.
"But, but, but, you're MARRIED!"
"Yes, and I think any two people who love each other should be able to marry. Let's make it open to more people, and share the love."
"Oh."
We both found something else important to do elsewhere.
---
Opposite sex marriage is simply not under attack. It doesn't need to be protected from same sex marriage at all. Marriage is about a commitment between people* which has meaning for them. What I might think about their marriage is irrelevant. What happens in my marriage doesn't impact on anyone else's marriage, or civil union, in any way. What does Family First think they are protecting marriage from?
Tonight a friend of mine, who happens to be gay, mentioned to me how he appreciated my support because this doesn't affect me. In a way it is easier for me to be out there about my views, precisely because it is not about me; there is no criticism of the way I live my life, of the person I am, in all the many awful arguments against marriage equality that I have seen. I really feel for those out there who are on the frontlines of this in a way I am not; many of whom will not want to be even having a battle, and shouldn't have to be, to justify who they are.
There are many many people who support marriage equality, for reasons of justice and fairness, and just down right treating everyone as a full human being. We should be making the world better than it was when we arrived, for those who come after, and marriage equality is one little way to help.
---
For those interested in the debate and vote on the first reading, estimates so far is that it is likely to occur at around 8pm Wednesday night. There is a celebration rally going from Civic Square to Parliament tomorrow also, from 12noon. There is a great deal of activity on Facebook in support of Louisa Wall's Bill too, not least longstanding group LegaliseLove, the adorable Can these otters holding hands get more fans than Protect Marriage NZ? (the answer is YES THEY CAN), and a range of pages showing that support is definitely not restricted to Pakeha queer atheists, but is rather more widespread than that: Tagata Pasifika for Marriage Equality, Christians for Marriage Equality Aotearoa NZ and Straights for Marriage Equality in Aotearoa NZ (SMEANZ).
Currently the Bill looks likely to pass its first reading tomorrow night. The process from there is that it goes to Select Committee for public submissions. After that it gets a second and then a third and final reading in Parliament. After the third reading it is officially law.
* I'm pretty open-minded on the issue of polyamorous marriage. I think it has had a bad reputation because it has most commonly been seen in societies where women do not have high status and has thus been a tool for oppressing women, but it doesn't have to be that way imho. This is not really a post about that though.
Comment direction: No hate in the comments thanks, plenty of other places on the interweb for that, sadly. There have been a lot of amazing posts about this issue over the last few weeks, not least from my co-bloggers, so you may wish to share the ones that particularly appealed to you in comments :-)
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Tuesday, 28 August 2012
Thursday, 23 August 2012
Love isn't Love isn't Love: The Marriage Game
Love is love is love. That's the game we're playing now. That's what the images say, uniform toilet-symbol representations of binary genders in three different (two person) combinations. Conventionally attractive white young photographed kisses in three different (two person) combinations. Still more - usually young, usually conventionally attractive, usually white - couples photographed in couples, professing how just like anyone else they are, how they pay their taxes and eat toast in the morning and how they're just like anyone else. Our love is just like your love. Love is love is love.
This is the game we're playing. This is the game to get marriage.
We're used to games. We've played them all our lives, played them for survival from the first slight difference bubbling in our consciousness, played them later in press releases and on parliament grounds. We've accepted compromises, concocted strategies. We know we will always have to do this. Sometimes there are winnings. Sometimes we play together and stay together, ready for the next round. Games aren't all bad.
We always play to the same goal. Love is love is love.
Except ours is love is a society that ignores it, that discredits it, that overtly oppresses it. Our love is in secret, or with a never ending shame, a belief that maybe, maybe, it should not be. Our love is a brazen fuck you, our love is a show of pride. Our love is us just wanting, just wanting our love to be like your love. Our love is wanting our love to never be like your love. Our love is never in a vacuum. Your love and our love never started on equal footings. Our love is having to hide our other differences to make us more normal, make us more ordinary, to gain an acceptance of our love you will never have to work or fight for.
You can choose your pieces. You can be yellow or green or red or blue. Sometimes you can be a boot or a dog or an iron or a car.
Make no mistake. This is a game for ordinary people. A game for normal people. A game for people who look good in the newspapers, people who the average kiwi can relate to. No-one likes it, but it's what we have to do to win. Jostling at the edges, or maybe staying home, will be those who will never look good in the papers, but found in the queer community a home of sorts, or those who were never welcome even there. We'll pick up our placards and we'll march, because we know this fight has to be fought, this game has to be won. We may even have a share of the winnings, or we may have a penalty deducted. It won't have been our fight. It won't have been our liberation.
This is the game to get marriage. But does the winner take all? Who has to fold up the board and put away the pieces? And will you, and your winnings, be on our team for another round?
This is the game we're playing. This is the game to get marriage.
We're used to games. We've played them all our lives, played them for survival from the first slight difference bubbling in our consciousness, played them later in press releases and on parliament grounds. We've accepted compromises, concocted strategies. We know we will always have to do this. Sometimes there are winnings. Sometimes we play together and stay together, ready for the next round. Games aren't all bad.
We always play to the same goal. Love is love is love.
Except ours is love is a society that ignores it, that discredits it, that overtly oppresses it. Our love is in secret, or with a never ending shame, a belief that maybe, maybe, it should not be. Our love is a brazen fuck you, our love is a show of pride. Our love is us just wanting, just wanting our love to be like your love. Our love is wanting our love to never be like your love. Our love is never in a vacuum. Your love and our love never started on equal footings. Our love is having to hide our other differences to make us more normal, make us more ordinary, to gain an acceptance of our love you will never have to work or fight for.
You can choose your pieces. You can be yellow or green or red or blue. Sometimes you can be a boot or a dog or an iron or a car.
Make no mistake. This is a game for ordinary people. A game for normal people. A game for people who look good in the newspapers, people who the average kiwi can relate to. No-one likes it, but it's what we have to do to win. Jostling at the edges, or maybe staying home, will be those who will never look good in the papers, but found in the queer community a home of sorts, or those who were never welcome even there. We'll pick up our placards and we'll march, because we know this fight has to be fought, this game has to be won. We may even have a share of the winnings, or we may have a penalty deducted. It won't have been our fight. It won't have been our liberation.
This is the game to get marriage. But does the winner take all? Who has to fold up the board and put away the pieces? And will you, and your winnings, be on our team for another round?
Wednesday, 1 August 2012
Disability and Queer Issues Part 1
The following is an edited version of a short talk I gave on disability and queer issues to a queer, mostly studenty, audience. It is limited by the short time I had to speak, as well as my own perspective. At the end I touched on some aspects of movement building and common experiences, however I have ended this post quite abruptly before that as I'd like to explore these in more depth in a later post.
As a queer disabled person, the disadvantages and exclusion you face end up being multiplied. It’s hard to find queer friendly housing, and it’s hard to find accessible - which may mean quiet or dry or wheelchair accessible - housing. If you need both, you get slammed. Queer friendly healthcare isn’t that easily come by - but try finding queer friendly healthcare that is accessible and includes the specialist knowledge you might need. Queer people generally get useless, inappropriate and often outright damaging sex education. Disabled people can get the same, or often don’t get it at all, perhaps because we are assumed to be non-sexual, because we are removed from those classes for extra tuition, because it is not offered in a way we can understand or interpret or because it is not appropriate to our bodies. Again, the effect is multiplied.
Queer spaces are too often inaccessible - even on the most basic level of being wheelchair accessible. It's not acceptable, and constitutes a 'not welcome' sign on the door for many disabled people. And whilst this isn't okay anywhere, I think most of us here know how essential queer spaces can be, and that they're often the place you go after being excluded from anywhere else. Accessibility needs can be quite varied, though - to give one personal example, I struggle with the reliance on bars and clubs as queer spaces because I have problems in noisy environments. I'm happy that more and more alternatives are being offered, but there's a long way to go. Accessibility is often overlooked in event planning, but it needs to become as routine as booking a room or putting up posters.
The next thing I want to talk about is family and relationships. The picture above is from the movie Milk in which this young person calls up Harvey Milk for help as his parents are about to send him off to be degayed. He’s advised to run away, and get to a big city. The image then zooms out, revealing he’s a wheelchair user. That story had a happy ending, but many don’t.
It’s hard enough escaping from abusive or bigoted family - but if you have limited mobility, if sleeping on a couch isn’t possible for you, if you need personal care provided by your parents, if they’re the ones who take you to medical appointments, if public transport is inaccessible and your escape can be attributed to your disability then it’s a whole other story. You’ve probably heard about parents of disabled adults fighting to be paid for carework in the news recently. Mostly it’s been fought from the angle of these parents’ rights - which is important. But it’s also important that disabled people are not forced to live with family members longer than they would otherwise choose for financial reasons.
Similarly, there can be pressure for disabled people to stay in relationships longer than they otherwise would if they are meeting support needs - this includes abusive relationships, but also those which have simply run their course. I think this issue is particularly important to the queer community, not just because abuse in queer relationships is under recognised, but because we place a lot of value on the fight to be accepted as in relationships, and we need to understand that for some leaving can be just as much as a struggle.
The sexuality and gender identity of disabled people can be linked to their disabled status in a way which pathologises or dismisses that identity. For example, asexual disabled people are assumed to be examples of the belief that ‘disabled people don’t have sex’ rather than having their identity acknowledged in its own right. Disabled lesbians are assumed to be lesbian because they can’t get a man. Genderqueer disabled people can be assumed to be confused or lack understanding of social appropriateness.
That said, I think queer people can often be unaware of the complex ways sexuality and gender identiy can be linked to disability for some people. To give just one specific example, a lot of autistic people see themselves as outside the gender binary. And a number of them would never identify as genderqueer or join groups catering for queer and gender diverse people (though of course some do!). They might see their gender identity as an extension of their autistic identity, but not talk in the terms or feel welcome in the spaces that other non-binary people do.
Disabled queer people of course experience similar issues to many who experience more than one form of oppression. The more acceptable norms a person fits, the more easily they can get away with breaking others. Sometimes this starts externally, and becomes internal, with people trying to hide one part of themselves because it is all ‘too much’.
Okay, shoe time:
Say (to make it simple) if you were at a queer women’s group, and a woman walked in wearing one of these pairs of shoes. You’d probably assume it related to her identity in some way. If I gave you two stereotype hairstyles, I’m sure you could match them with the shoes - and you might make some assumptions about the type of person she is and what she does with her time.
I look at those shoes and see one pair I could never ever conceive of wearing anything like them, because I’d fall over, and another that I might manage but would be a struggle. I don’t see identity; I see functionality. But so much of identity in the queer community is assumed to be tied up with what we wear or how we look which excludes those of us who have limited choices in this matter.
Related to this is the label of ‘assimilationist’. To me, an assimilationist position is one in which someone seeks to advance the position of their own group whilst leaving the system intact, someone who (for example) focuses on fighting for rich white gay men to have the same rights as rich white straight men, and thinks that’s as far as it needs to go. But I’ve seen it directed at individuals for focussing on meeting personal needs or living a conventional lifestyle.
The truth is, we all do what we need to survive in this society - but the needs of some disabled people may not be recognised as needs. Having - say - a quiet living space or a car because you need it (or even if you don’t need it) isn’t a problem - assuming that because you have the world isn’t broken is. Disabled queer people can also find themselves in a complicated position when it comes to breaking or conforming to stereotypes. The same action can be viewed as challenging stereotypes in one community, but upholding them in others. And therefore we really need to stop making this about our lifestyles, about how we live and what we own, because those don’t change anything. But what we fight for - and how we fight it, collectively - does.
Language and concepts associated with disability - intellectual disability and mental illness in particular - are often used to oppress queer people. Two particular examples come to mind; some of you may remember Constance McMillen, a young person in Mississippi who was not allowed to take her same sex partner to her school prom. After public pressure, the school seemingly relented, only trick to her into what was dubbed a ‘fake’ prom with her intellectually disabled classmates, whilst the so called ‘real’ prom went on elsewhere. Meanwhile in New Zealand a woman recently received an apology for years of medical abuse - including electro-convulsive therapy - resulting from her sexual orientation.
And I think it’s so important we’re careful how we respond to these. Our response shouldn’t be “this abuse was so bad because she wasn’t really mentally ill” or “it was wrong to segregate her from the rest of her school because she’s not intellectually disabled” but to acknowledge that people are on the receiving end of similar forms of oppression for ostensibly different reasons and we need to fight it together.
As a queer disabled person, the disadvantages and exclusion you face end up being multiplied. It’s hard to find queer friendly housing, and it’s hard to find accessible - which may mean quiet or dry or wheelchair accessible - housing. If you need both, you get slammed. Queer friendly healthcare isn’t that easily come by - but try finding queer friendly healthcare that is accessible and includes the specialist knowledge you might need. Queer people generally get useless, inappropriate and often outright damaging sex education. Disabled people can get the same, or often don’t get it at all, perhaps because we are assumed to be non-sexual, because we are removed from those classes for extra tuition, because it is not offered in a way we can understand or interpret or because it is not appropriate to our bodies. Again, the effect is multiplied.
Queer spaces are too often inaccessible - even on the most basic level of being wheelchair accessible. It's not acceptable, and constitutes a 'not welcome' sign on the door for many disabled people. And whilst this isn't okay anywhere, I think most of us here know how essential queer spaces can be, and that they're often the place you go after being excluded from anywhere else. Accessibility needs can be quite varied, though - to give one personal example, I struggle with the reliance on bars and clubs as queer spaces because I have problems in noisy environments. I'm happy that more and more alternatives are being offered, but there's a long way to go. Accessibility is often overlooked in event planning, but it needs to become as routine as booking a room or putting up posters.
The next thing I want to talk about is family and relationships. The picture above is from the movie Milk in which this young person calls up Harvey Milk for help as his parents are about to send him off to be degayed. He’s advised to run away, and get to a big city. The image then zooms out, revealing he’s a wheelchair user. That story had a happy ending, but many don’t.
It’s hard enough escaping from abusive or bigoted family - but if you have limited mobility, if sleeping on a couch isn’t possible for you, if you need personal care provided by your parents, if they’re the ones who take you to medical appointments, if public transport is inaccessible and your escape can be attributed to your disability then it’s a whole other story. You’ve probably heard about parents of disabled adults fighting to be paid for carework in the news recently. Mostly it’s been fought from the angle of these parents’ rights - which is important. But it’s also important that disabled people are not forced to live with family members longer than they would otherwise choose for financial reasons.
Similarly, there can be pressure for disabled people to stay in relationships longer than they otherwise would if they are meeting support needs - this includes abusive relationships, but also those which have simply run their course. I think this issue is particularly important to the queer community, not just because abuse in queer relationships is under recognised, but because we place a lot of value on the fight to be accepted as in relationships, and we need to understand that for some leaving can be just as much as a struggle.
The sexuality and gender identity of disabled people can be linked to their disabled status in a way which pathologises or dismisses that identity. For example, asexual disabled people are assumed to be examples of the belief that ‘disabled people don’t have sex’ rather than having their identity acknowledged in its own right. Disabled lesbians are assumed to be lesbian because they can’t get a man. Genderqueer disabled people can be assumed to be confused or lack understanding of social appropriateness.
That said, I think queer people can often be unaware of the complex ways sexuality and gender identiy can be linked to disability for some people. To give just one specific example, a lot of autistic people see themselves as outside the gender binary. And a number of them would never identify as genderqueer or join groups catering for queer and gender diverse people (though of course some do!). They might see their gender identity as an extension of their autistic identity, but not talk in the terms or feel welcome in the spaces that other non-binary people do.
Disabled queer people of course experience similar issues to many who experience more than one form of oppression. The more acceptable norms a person fits, the more easily they can get away with breaking others. Sometimes this starts externally, and becomes internal, with people trying to hide one part of themselves because it is all ‘too much’.
Okay, shoe time:
Say (to make it simple) if you were at a queer women’s group, and a woman walked in wearing one of these pairs of shoes. You’d probably assume it related to her identity in some way. If I gave you two stereotype hairstyles, I’m sure you could match them with the shoes - and you might make some assumptions about the type of person she is and what she does with her time.
I look at those shoes and see one pair I could never ever conceive of wearing anything like them, because I’d fall over, and another that I might manage but would be a struggle. I don’t see identity; I see functionality. But so much of identity in the queer community is assumed to be tied up with what we wear or how we look which excludes those of us who have limited choices in this matter.
Related to this is the label of ‘assimilationist’. To me, an assimilationist position is one in which someone seeks to advance the position of their own group whilst leaving the system intact, someone who (for example) focuses on fighting for rich white gay men to have the same rights as rich white straight men, and thinks that’s as far as it needs to go. But I’ve seen it directed at individuals for focussing on meeting personal needs or living a conventional lifestyle.
The truth is, we all do what we need to survive in this society - but the needs of some disabled people may not be recognised as needs. Having - say - a quiet living space or a car because you need it (or even if you don’t need it) isn’t a problem - assuming that because you have the world isn’t broken is. Disabled queer people can also find themselves in a complicated position when it comes to breaking or conforming to stereotypes. The same action can be viewed as challenging stereotypes in one community, but upholding them in others. And therefore we really need to stop making this about our lifestyles, about how we live and what we own, because those don’t change anything. But what we fight for - and how we fight it, collectively - does.
Language and concepts associated with disability - intellectual disability and mental illness in particular - are often used to oppress queer people. Two particular examples come to mind; some of you may remember Constance McMillen, a young person in Mississippi who was not allowed to take her same sex partner to her school prom. After public pressure, the school seemingly relented, only trick to her into what was dubbed a ‘fake’ prom with her intellectually disabled classmates, whilst the so called ‘real’ prom went on elsewhere. Meanwhile in New Zealand a woman recently received an apology for years of medical abuse - including electro-convulsive therapy - resulting from her sexual orientation.
And I think it’s so important we’re careful how we respond to these. Our response shouldn’t be “this abuse was so bad because she wasn’t really mentally ill” or “it was wrong to segregate her from the rest of her school because she’s not intellectually disabled” but to acknowledge that people are on the receiving end of similar forms of oppression for ostensibly different reasons and we need to fight it together.
Monday, 14 May 2012
It's time
Well actually, it's past time. But now is still good.
If you want to vote on this poll, (screenshot above taken at 11am) it's at this Stuff article.
Sunday, 12 February 2012
a rather cynical (early) valentine's day post
reading a post on stephanie's blog last week reminded me (of all things) about how much i used to love this song:
so i had to go searching for it on youtube. and as is usual with these things, the memory of them turns out to be better than the reality. it's not that i don't like the tune any more - i still do. it's just that i never really paid attention to any of the words other than the chorus. but the clip above forced me to pay attention to the words, and i've decided i don't like them.
i'm generally not a fan of love songs. there are very few i can be bothered listening to. most of the music i really like has something meaningful to say, and yes, love can be meaningful. so let me say that i'm not a romantic at heart. i've never been one to believe in true love and happily ever after. maybe it happens, but in my experience, successful relationships don't come effortlessly. they take a lot of work, attention and maintenance. a relationship tends to be as good as the amount of time you put towards it.
i'm certainly not a fan of relationships where one of the parties is using words like "worship" and "obsessed". maybe it's just me, but those are kind of creepy words and i'd rather not be worshipped or have anyone be obsessed with me. i'd rather that they saw me as a whole person, which includes the less charming bits. love tends to be more meaningful (for me anyway), when a person sees your flaws and decides they care for you regardless. which is much more than an obsession with the perfect someone they have always been looking for.
i guess i don't believe in perfect matches either. i don't think there's a single perfect person waiting out in the world - a perfect soulmate who will complete you. one of the most intelligent things i've heard is that a relationship is not about two halves making up a whole, but it's two whole people coming together. the thing is that if you're not complete in yourself, then you're not going to find that completeness from someone else. looking to someone else to make your life perfect always seemed to me to be a recipe for disaster.
maybe i'm too much of a realist, but i prefer love songs and stories that include the messiness, the awkwardness and sometimes the heartbreak & ugliness that are part of human relationships. as you can imagine, i don't do well with romance movies either - whether they be comedies or dramas. aside from all the gender stereotypes that are so annoying, and the fact that women are generally supposed to give up their career & all ambitions for their man, when they end up with the happy couple looking forward to their glorious new life, i'm sitting there thinking "yeah right".
but getting back to the song, stealing of hearts with spells and the like doesn't sound so wonderful to me either. hearts should be won over, not stolen. and even then, only with the consent of the owner of said heart. not with incessant stalking when the object of your affections has clearly shown a lack of interest. i'm reminded of "the graduate", which i saw again last year, and again realised it was more awful than i remembered. particularly the stalking of the daughter by dustin hoffman's character, to the extent of going to her university and getting access to her dorm. that is not not romantic, it's scary and unfair.
so i'm really wishing that someone would write new lyrics to this song so that i could like it again. i'm not any good with poetry, so i'm not even going to try. and i'd just like to acknowledge that there will be people for whom the true love, romantic fairytale has worked, and for whom the relationship doesn't require too much effort but just comes naturally. if you're in that category, then i'm really happy for you.
while we're on music, i'm sad to hear of whitney houston's passing. yes, i used to adore her music in my younger days & loved the power of her voice. regardless of how her life has played out in more recent years, it's hard to forget the talent she possessed. right now, i'm going with this as one of my favourites:
i hope you had your moment whitney. RIP.
so i had to go searching for it on youtube. and as is usual with these things, the memory of them turns out to be better than the reality. it's not that i don't like the tune any more - i still do. it's just that i never really paid attention to any of the words other than the chorus. but the clip above forced me to pay attention to the words, and i've decided i don't like them.
i'm generally not a fan of love songs. there are very few i can be bothered listening to. most of the music i really like has something meaningful to say, and yes, love can be meaningful. so let me say that i'm not a romantic at heart. i've never been one to believe in true love and happily ever after. maybe it happens, but in my experience, successful relationships don't come effortlessly. they take a lot of work, attention and maintenance. a relationship tends to be as good as the amount of time you put towards it.
i'm certainly not a fan of relationships where one of the parties is using words like "worship" and "obsessed". maybe it's just me, but those are kind of creepy words and i'd rather not be worshipped or have anyone be obsessed with me. i'd rather that they saw me as a whole person, which includes the less charming bits. love tends to be more meaningful (for me anyway), when a person sees your flaws and decides they care for you regardless. which is much more than an obsession with the perfect someone they have always been looking for.
i guess i don't believe in perfect matches either. i don't think there's a single perfect person waiting out in the world - a perfect soulmate who will complete you. one of the most intelligent things i've heard is that a relationship is not about two halves making up a whole, but it's two whole people coming together. the thing is that if you're not complete in yourself, then you're not going to find that completeness from someone else. looking to someone else to make your life perfect always seemed to me to be a recipe for disaster.
maybe i'm too much of a realist, but i prefer love songs and stories that include the messiness, the awkwardness and sometimes the heartbreak & ugliness that are part of human relationships. as you can imagine, i don't do well with romance movies either - whether they be comedies or dramas. aside from all the gender stereotypes that are so annoying, and the fact that women are generally supposed to give up their career & all ambitions for their man, when they end up with the happy couple looking forward to their glorious new life, i'm sitting there thinking "yeah right".
but getting back to the song, stealing of hearts with spells and the like doesn't sound so wonderful to me either. hearts should be won over, not stolen. and even then, only with the consent of the owner of said heart. not with incessant stalking when the object of your affections has clearly shown a lack of interest. i'm reminded of "the graduate", which i saw again last year, and again realised it was more awful than i remembered. particularly the stalking of the daughter by dustin hoffman's character, to the extent of going to her university and getting access to her dorm. that is not not romantic, it's scary and unfair.
so i'm really wishing that someone would write new lyrics to this song so that i could like it again. i'm not any good with poetry, so i'm not even going to try. and i'd just like to acknowledge that there will be people for whom the true love, romantic fairytale has worked, and for whom the relationship doesn't require too much effort but just comes naturally. if you're in that category, then i'm really happy for you.
while we're on music, i'm sad to hear of whitney houston's passing. yes, i used to adore her music in my younger days & loved the power of her voice. regardless of how her life has played out in more recent years, it's hard to forget the talent she possessed. right now, i'm going with this as one of my favourites:
i hope you had your moment whitney. RIP.
Monday, 30 January 2012
Guest Post: The R-Word
Thanks to hazel for allowing to crosspost this from The Money Pit where she blogs about home renovation and her life.
Field and I are in a relationship.
We don’t have sex.
It’s a relationship where we split the bills and squabble over what kind of cheese to buy; where I get away with picking the bacon I want, and she has all the salt-and-vinegar chips her little heart desires; where we have long sprawling conversations at eleven o’clock at night about Books We’ve Read and Why Television Is Hard; where we email each other from our respective workplaces about what we want to eat for dinner, what we’ve read on the internet news that day, why four hours sleep is not enough, whether it’s a good idea to buy more wine (yes). But at the end of the day, we go to our separate beds in our separate rooms and close the doors.
And it’s invisible.
*
A few nights ago we had a conversation about how we want to refer to each other: we flatted with each other (and with Nish) for six years, but this is something new. We’re hiring plumbers now. In the end we decided that “co-owner” fit the best, but that’s not quite right either: too much business in the front, not enough party at the back. “Partners” has connotations that I in no way disapprove of, but which just aren’t accurate; it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if people thought that Field and I were a couple, but we’re not. I toyed with “lady-wife”, mostly as a joke, but while that kind of shit is fun with friends it’s difficult to say with a straight face to your lawyer, your electrician, your bank-manager, your mum.
So co-owners it is for now, and we’ll change it if it stops being the closest match for what we are.
*
But we’re invisible, this thing. When I talk about buying a house with Field, I’m talking about my long-term life plan. I’m talking about planning a garden, about where we’re planting the fuschia (me) and the hebes (me) and the carpet roses (Field) and the agapanthus (over my dead body). I’m talking about the six-month conversation we’ll have about whether we’re going to wallpaper or paint the lounge, and what shade it should be, and what the curtains should be made of. I’m talking about how we run the kitchen, how we cook together, how we make plans to go to the supermarket and what our budget there will be. I’m in charge – always and forever – of making electronics Go; she’s in charge of the alphabet because my god how I hate reshelving books.
I’m talking about the two or three years of planning that went into this. I’m talking about how I researched suburbs and public transport routes; about how grateful I am that Field got her full licence and a car, and how much easier that made the house-hunting process. I’m talking about the gin-and-tonics she made us tonight for dinner, before she went to lie down on her bed in the summer evening sun and I came online to watch comedy routines on youtube and write this post. I’m talking about the expression of my hopes and dreams, my plans and schemes, how I’ve wanted to do up a house for forever (as long as Nish has known me, and that’s a bloody long time).
I’m talking about how we started having conversations about how we wanted this to work 18 months ago, how we set up a joint savings account over a year ago, how we now have 2 joint accounts plus the mortgage, insurance in both our names and shared household goods. I know where she was born, her date of birth, what her passport photograph looked like when she was thirteen. I chat to her mum sometimes on the phone a bit. She knows these things about me.
And so I have conversations with people about buying a house with Field, and what they hear is of two good friends buying a house together, and what they say is:
That’s sensible.
and
Have you thought about what would happen if you didn’t want to live together anymore?
*
And.
No. No, it isn’t sensible, you utter moron, do you know how much it would devastate me if it all turned to pot, how difficult it would be to disentangle our lives? Our finances are complicated and not wholly governed by standard law, but that’s the least of it when we have mostly shared friends and I can’t remember exactly how to cook dinner on my own anymore, when the kitchen seems strange when she’s not there to navigate around and pass me spoons and pepper.
and
Yes, what, you think we set up a joint savings account and talked to banks and lawyers and looked at houses and put in an offer and went unconditional and settled and moved without ever thinking about what we were doing? Without ever talking to each other about it?
*
This wasn’t an accident, this house in this street. It wasn’t the easy or the simple choice; it wasn’t obvious. It wasn’t a calculated financial decision. My life isn’t good financial planning – single girls without options, women on the shelf looking to get on the property ladder. I may be a spinster with a cat, but by god I have done it with intent.
Field and I are in a relationship.
We don’t have sex.
It’s a relationship where we split the bills and squabble over what kind of cheese to buy; where I get away with picking the bacon I want, and she has all the salt-and-vinegar chips her little heart desires; where we have long sprawling conversations at eleven o’clock at night about Books We’ve Read and Why Television Is Hard; where we email each other from our respective workplaces about what we want to eat for dinner, what we’ve read on the internet news that day, why four hours sleep is not enough, whether it’s a good idea to buy more wine (yes). But at the end of the day, we go to our separate beds in our separate rooms and close the doors.
And it’s invisible.
*
A few nights ago we had a conversation about how we want to refer to each other: we flatted with each other (and with Nish) for six years, but this is something new. We’re hiring plumbers now. In the end we decided that “co-owner” fit the best, but that’s not quite right either: too much business in the front, not enough party at the back. “Partners” has connotations that I in no way disapprove of, but which just aren’t accurate; it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if people thought that Field and I were a couple, but we’re not. I toyed with “lady-wife”, mostly as a joke, but while that kind of shit is fun with friends it’s difficult to say with a straight face to your lawyer, your electrician, your bank-manager, your mum.
So co-owners it is for now, and we’ll change it if it stops being the closest match for what we are.
*
But we’re invisible, this thing. When I talk about buying a house with Field, I’m talking about my long-term life plan. I’m talking about planning a garden, about where we’re planting the fuschia (me) and the hebes (me) and the carpet roses (Field) and the agapanthus (over my dead body). I’m talking about the six-month conversation we’ll have about whether we’re going to wallpaper or paint the lounge, and what shade it should be, and what the curtains should be made of. I’m talking about how we run the kitchen, how we cook together, how we make plans to go to the supermarket and what our budget there will be. I’m in charge – always and forever – of making electronics Go; she’s in charge of the alphabet because my god how I hate reshelving books.
I’m talking about the two or three years of planning that went into this. I’m talking about how I researched suburbs and public transport routes; about how grateful I am that Field got her full licence and a car, and how much easier that made the house-hunting process. I’m talking about the gin-and-tonics she made us tonight for dinner, before she went to lie down on her bed in the summer evening sun and I came online to watch comedy routines on youtube and write this post. I’m talking about the expression of my hopes and dreams, my plans and schemes, how I’ve wanted to do up a house for forever (as long as Nish has known me, and that’s a bloody long time).
I’m talking about how we started having conversations about how we wanted this to work 18 months ago, how we set up a joint savings account over a year ago, how we now have 2 joint accounts plus the mortgage, insurance in both our names and shared household goods. I know where she was born, her date of birth, what her passport photograph looked like when she was thirteen. I chat to her mum sometimes on the phone a bit. She knows these things about me.
And so I have conversations with people about buying a house with Field, and what they hear is of two good friends buying a house together, and what they say is:
That’s sensible.
and
Have you thought about what would happen if you didn’t want to live together anymore?
*
And.
No. No, it isn’t sensible, you utter moron, do you know how much it would devastate me if it all turned to pot, how difficult it would be to disentangle our lives? Our finances are complicated and not wholly governed by standard law, but that’s the least of it when we have mostly shared friends and I can’t remember exactly how to cook dinner on my own anymore, when the kitchen seems strange when she’s not there to navigate around and pass me spoons and pepper.
and
Yes, what, you think we set up a joint savings account and talked to banks and lawyers and looked at houses and put in an offer and went unconditional and settled and moved without ever thinking about what we were doing? Without ever talking to each other about it?
*
This wasn’t an accident, this house in this street. It wasn’t the easy or the simple choice; it wasn’t obvious. It wasn’t a calculated financial decision. My life isn’t good financial planning – single girls without options, women on the shelf looking to get on the property ladder. I may be a spinster with a cat, but by god I have done it with intent.
Sunday, 22 January 2012
ARRRRRGH
There's some interesting - and worrying - news regarding employment for women in Christchurch in the aftermath of the earthquake:
Ahaha no. No. It's because it's leading to a woman drought, silly.
A FUCKING WOMAN DROUGHT.
Oh, but wait, there's more. Not only are there less women for men to choose from, the quality of them has diminished, because women from university age to thirties are the first to leave. Not only that, "the girls stopped making as much effort with their appearance. They obviously didn't have to try as hard."
So nice to know we've got our priorities sorted.
...research showed female employees were hit hardest by job losses after the February 22 earthquake.Why this this interesting and worrying? Because of the effect on women? Because women are under-represented in growing industries? Because it may indicate that women are being discriminated against when it come to dismissals?
A Ministry of Women's Affairs study found women accounted for 70 per cent of job losses in the city. Women made up 90 per cent of the 12,600 jobs lost in the retail and accommodation industries.
Meanwhile, just one in 10 of the 4500 construction jobs created in Christchurch last year were filled by women
Ahaha no. No. It's because it's leading to a woman drought, silly.
A FUCKING WOMAN DROUGHT.
Oh, but wait, there's more. Not only are there less women for men to choose from, the quality of them has diminished, because women from university age to thirties are the first to leave. Not only that, "the girls stopped making as much effort with their appearance. They obviously didn't have to try as hard."
So nice to know we've got our priorities sorted.
Saturday, 21 January 2012
So let's get *this* straight (or otherwise)
This image has been floating round on my Facebook feed over the past few days, and it's not the first of it's kind. And I understand what people are reacting to, and that it's primarily a reaction to the hypocrisy of those who view same-sex marriage as a threat to their - generally unrealistic - ideals of mixed-sex marriage. But that doesn't make me comfortable with that; as a queer woman one thing I really have zero interest in doing is critiquing the validity of other people's relationships. Sure, some of the practices listed above may be unethical (and others I'd need more information to determine, which I don't care to seek out) but that makes them relationships with bad things going on in them, not non-relationships.
And yeah, it's tempting to turn around, when someone says that queers are destroying traditional marriage (which is, apparently, a bad thing) and list all those examples. But that means letting people who think there are valid and invalid relationships (and that same sex ones fall into the latter category) define the terms of the argument. And the next thing you know, we're falling over ourselves trying to prove why our relationships are valid - we've been together for twenty years, we're completely monogamous, we have three kids, we own a house, we celebrate a big family Christmas...
Our relationships may be all that, and they may be none of that. They're valid because we say they are. And I don't begrudge Britney her 55 hour marriage one fucking bit.
Tuesday, 6 December 2011
On Big Decisions and Hysterical Ladybrains
Good friends of mine - I'll call them Hazel* and Catherine - are buying a house together. They're both women in their twenties; this is their first owned home and whilst they're not exactly poor, as the whole house buying thing would indicate, their incomes are sufficiently limited that they don't have a lot of choice.
Anyway, they have more or less completed a purchase; it's a doer upper, that will need significant work both inside and outside, and it's a commute out of the city, but it's both closer and more convenient to transport than most others in their price range, and it has the right number and configuration of rooms for their needs and whilst compromises have been made they're pretty happy about it. It's happened in a rush, and there is So Much To Do, but both of them seem excited, in amongst the terror.
But through the process, there have been Concerns. Doubts raised by people I shall amalgamate into the character of 'Concerned of Titahi Bay'**. Concerned of Titahi Bay thinks that the project they are taking on is too much work. Concerned of Titahi Bay thinks they should have bought in Kelburn or Petone or Mount Victoria or something (for those of you not familiar with Wellington, these are not remotely realistic places for them to buy a house on their budget). Concerned of Titahi Bay is very, very concerned that they are letting their hearts get in the way of their heads, that they are making emotional rather than rational decisions.
Hazel and Catherine are close friends, who have lived together a number of years. They are not in a sexual or romantic relationship, but this is not simply a matter of pooling resources for a few years in order to get on the property ladder before going their separate ways; they are a family and a household and intend to be so indefinitely.
Yup, you've guessed it. Concerned of Titahi Bay is very concerned. Have you thought, Concerned of Titahi Bay wants to know, of what's going to happen if you fall out! If one of you goes overseas! If one of you gets married! If you have different views on decisions about the property!
Yes, yes they have thought about that a lot. They've thought about what would happen if their lives took them in various directions. Or if they fell out. They're intelligent people, one of them has substantial legal knowledge. They've talked about this extensively, drawn up an agreement and each engaged a (separate) lawyer. These are sensible things to think about before making any major life decision, particularly one where your property is intertwined with that of someone else. It's sad - and infuriating - though, that had they been an engaged couple buying their first home, these issues may have come up but they likely wouldn't be at the forefront of people's minds.
They've also thought about the building work required. They've made provisional budgets and weighed the stress and time and money involved against the compromises - chiefly location - they would have to make if they bought another property within their budget. They've set a price range they can afford - not just in terms of the bank signing off, but someone that will reasonably fit into their day to day budget.
My partner and I bought a house about eighteen months ago. It's out of the city - significantly further out than Hazel and Catherine's new house. We don't have a car - aside from not being able to afford that and a house deposit at that time, I can't drive, primarily for disability reasons, and my partner chooses not to. I was shocked by the number of people who decide to tell me I was making a Very Bad Decision living where I do without a car. Leaving aside the limited amount of choice without making significant sacrifices in other areas, they were acting like I had never thought about this before. Like I didn't know that my life would be easier if I could drive. Like looking at transport options hadn't been top of our priority list. Like we hadn't been managing with public transport all our adult lives.
And then there's the whole emotional decision problem. Emotions are absolutely a valid part of any big life decision. They're not on the level of 'will attempting to meet the repayments be a recipe for bankruptcy', but if you're buying a house to live in, and you haven't thought about how you'll feel living in it, you're probably not going to end up that happy. It's not that advice isn't helpful. I've benefited a lot, when making Big Decisions (and I'm sure my friends have too) from people sharing stories, giving local or technical knowledge, or simply being a sounding board to talk things through with. But I wish people would do that with the assumption that the people they are talking to - even if they are women in their twenties! - are both intelligent people who are capable of thinking about the major issues and have priorities which may not be your own, but are no less legitimate for that.
I'll leave the last (edited) word to Hazel:
* I asked Hazel tonight what I should blog about and she ranted for a bit, and I said "so basically about you and your lifedrama". "Yes," she said. So here it is.
Anyway, they have more or less completed a purchase; it's a doer upper, that will need significant work both inside and outside, and it's a commute out of the city, but it's both closer and more convenient to transport than most others in their price range, and it has the right number and configuration of rooms for their needs and whilst compromises have been made they're pretty happy about it. It's happened in a rush, and there is So Much To Do, but both of them seem excited, in amongst the terror.
But through the process, there have been Concerns. Doubts raised by people I shall amalgamate into the character of 'Concerned of Titahi Bay'**. Concerned of Titahi Bay thinks that the project they are taking on is too much work. Concerned of Titahi Bay thinks they should have bought in Kelburn or Petone or Mount Victoria or something (for those of you not familiar with Wellington, these are not remotely realistic places for them to buy a house on their budget). Concerned of Titahi Bay is very, very concerned that they are letting their hearts get in the way of their heads, that they are making emotional rather than rational decisions.
Hazel and Catherine are close friends, who have lived together a number of years. They are not in a sexual or romantic relationship, but this is not simply a matter of pooling resources for a few years in order to get on the property ladder before going their separate ways; they are a family and a household and intend to be so indefinitely.
Yup, you've guessed it. Concerned of Titahi Bay is very concerned. Have you thought, Concerned of Titahi Bay wants to know, of what's going to happen if you fall out! If one of you goes overseas! If one of you gets married! If you have different views on decisions about the property!
Yes, yes they have thought about that a lot. They've thought about what would happen if their lives took them in various directions. Or if they fell out. They're intelligent people, one of them has substantial legal knowledge. They've talked about this extensively, drawn up an agreement and each engaged a (separate) lawyer. These are sensible things to think about before making any major life decision, particularly one where your property is intertwined with that of someone else. It's sad - and infuriating - though, that had they been an engaged couple buying their first home, these issues may have come up but they likely wouldn't be at the forefront of people's minds.
They've also thought about the building work required. They've made provisional budgets and weighed the stress and time and money involved against the compromises - chiefly location - they would have to make if they bought another property within their budget. They've set a price range they can afford - not just in terms of the bank signing off, but someone that will reasonably fit into their day to day budget.
My partner and I bought a house about eighteen months ago. It's out of the city - significantly further out than Hazel and Catherine's new house. We don't have a car - aside from not being able to afford that and a house deposit at that time, I can't drive, primarily for disability reasons, and my partner chooses not to. I was shocked by the number of people who decide to tell me I was making a Very Bad Decision living where I do without a car. Leaving aside the limited amount of choice without making significant sacrifices in other areas, they were acting like I had never thought about this before. Like I didn't know that my life would be easier if I could drive. Like looking at transport options hadn't been top of our priority list. Like we hadn't been managing with public transport all our adult lives.
And then there's the whole emotional decision problem. Emotions are absolutely a valid part of any big life decision. They're not on the level of 'will attempting to meet the repayments be a recipe for bankruptcy', but if you're buying a house to live in, and you haven't thought about how you'll feel living in it, you're probably not going to end up that happy. It's not that advice isn't helpful. I've benefited a lot, when making Big Decisions (and I'm sure my friends have too) from people sharing stories, giving local or technical knowledge, or simply being a sounding board to talk things through with. But I wish people would do that with the assumption that the people they are talking to - even if they are women in their twenties! - are both intelligent people who are capable of thinking about the major issues and have priorities which may not be your own, but are no less legitimate for that.
I'll leave the last (edited) word to Hazel:
We've got the "you need to not make emotional decisions" thing from almost every guy we've talked to. Most of the women I've spoken to about house buying have (a) accepted that an emotional reaction to the place is totally okay and (b) assumed that we've, like, thought about that shit. I just really feel that if we were two dudes buying a fixer-upper in [suburb], the things we're getting told would be different and we wouldn't be being accused of having been MAKING STUPID DECISIONS BECAUSE OF OUR HYSTERICAL LADYBRAINS.
* I asked Hazel tonight what I should blog about and she ranted for a bit, and I said "so basically about you and your lifedrama". "Yes," she said. So here it is.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
Only in our dreams
 |
| Unrequited Love No. 31 Sleeping Beauty. Princess, recently awakened: "I was dreaming of a place where household tasks were shared equally between men & women" Prince, with moustache: "Really? Doesn't sound like any kingdom I've ever heard of." |
Part of this month's cartoon series on the theme "Sleep and Sleeplessness" by the wonderful witty Judy Horacek.
Sunday, 24 April 2011
Two ARGHs in one morning is two too many
ARGH the first, was the news, via Russell Brown on twitter (@publicaddress), that Bronagh Key is down on the royal wedding invite list as "Mrs John Key." I don't know who is responsible for this but it really bugs me that anyone gets to be differentiated from their partner by only one little "s".If that's genuinely what Bronagh wants to be referred to then that is her choice, and I'll shut up about it (publicly, no doubt I'll mutter into my cereal about it privately).
But if it's been imposed by anyone, or just assumed, then that sucks. Russell thought it was better than being John Key's +1, however I'm not so sure. Both seem to me to indicate she's just an appendage, not a person in her own right.
ARGH the second, totally didn't have to be an ARGH. The Unnecessary ARGH if you will. Dr Tiso pointed me to an awesome set of bathroom scales (right) which are not only pink (win), fluffy (extra win) and decorated with a shiny star (ultra mega win), they also don't feature numbers but instead wonderful friendly words like "Perfect", "Hot" and "Ravishing." The Yay Scale is the work of Marilyn Wann, a body acceptance activist who wrote Fat? So! and has done some great stuff with Healthy At Every Size (aka HAES).
So where's the ARGH in that, pretty awesome right? Sadly this isn't the order I read about this Cool Thing in.First I stumbled into a savage "review" (who reviews bathroom scales?) all about how the Yay Scale was apparently not so yay because it was Encouraging Unhealthy Eating Habits. The reviewer has been put right in comments, although there's no response to the well made points about the positive nature of the scales.
I was particularly galled by the idea that those who wanted to know their weight might inadvertently purchase the Yay Scale and have to live in ignorance of their mass! ZOMG False Advertising the Like of Which Has Never Been Seen Before! Except if you count almost the entire fashion and beauty industries, basically. But I digress.
Now I'm hoping for an ARGH-free Monday. Might be lucky and get away with a few minor GRRRRRRs.
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
The name's the thing
A question: Will the rise of social media mean fewer women change their names on marriage?Finding people on Facebook relies largely on knowing their name, or recognising it in someone else's friend list. And usernames for Twitter are often based on a person's name. In some social media cases you can't even change the username at all after you've set up your account. Your username, and thus your real life name if they're related, becomes a marker of your presence and a trace of your wise (or not) thoughts.
Not changing your name when you marry* has been stereotyped as the preserve of the professional middle class woman, who is possibly motivated by feminism, but more likely seeking to continue her "brand" in her chosen career. I suspect there are in fact quite a few cultures where keeping your name is more common than changing it, but in Aotearoa New Zealand I still get called Mrs more often than Ms.
Your thoughts, dear readers?
* Does anyone know if there's any data yet on name changes with civil unions?
Saturday, 24 July 2010
in case i don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening & goodnight
**spoilers**
i just sat down and watched "the truman show" again tonight. it's one of my favourite ever films, one of those films that gives me something more every time i watch it. i'm not generally a jim carrey fan, and have given most of his comedic films a miss. but he is quite brilliant here, as is ed harris as the director.
i know the main themes of the film are around media manipulation, the lengths a society will go to for the purposes of entertainment and a dig at reality tv shows, with a whole heap of religious imagery thrown in. but to me, the relevance of this film is more to real life.
"the truman show" mirrors the lives of many people i've seen, particularly many asian people. possibly not so common among other cultures, but feel free to share if it sounds familiar. i see many parents who map out their childrens lives from a young age, directing them towards a safe career, choosing for them (or encouraging them to choose) a safe spouse with a very similar cultural background and similar values. they help the couple into a nice, safe suburban family home; the two of them have nice, safe jobs that provide the nice, safe middle class lifestyle.
it's a path that is chosen for children, and they are encouraged down it through the passing on of values such as: success = nice home, latest material possessions, and 2 or 3 kids (& please try to make sure at least one is a boy); familial responsibility and duty to parents; family traditions and cultural traditions.
and the thing is that it is all so well-intentioned, wrapped up in the utmost love and wanting the best for their kids. sometimes there's also a little bit of living vicariously eg i never got to be a doctor due to lack of opportunity, so i'm going to make sure my child becomes a doctor. and there's certainly a strong dash of power and control - the need to control and direct life towards a safe and happy future. and often a strong dose of self-sacrifice ie parents going without so that their children can have the best of everything. that last is a great tool for emotional blackmail down the track: "i gave up so much for you, so you could have this or that; how can you not do what i want/expect of you".
despite all of that, there is no maliciousness involved. these parents genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, and getting the right result for their children. it is exactly like christos, the director of the trueman show, who loves truman even as he directs and controls truman's life.
where it all unravels is about the age that truman is when the film starts. around 30, mabye a bit later, even up to 40. this child looks around at her or his life, and finds that it wasn't what they imagined their life to be like. it's a life of unfulfilled dreams, nice and successful but extremely bland and unsatisfying.
what then? how many have the courage to leave? i think there are a fair few that don't, who then go on to live vicariously through their own children, and who try to get some sense of power and control by directing their own children's lives.
then there are the ones who do walk away, but the cost is pretty high. broken relationships, hurt children and spouses, heartache, and a whole lot of painful soul-searching. that's the part of truman's life we never get to see. we're sort of left with the impression that he has escaped oppression and will live happily ever after with his true love. except that christos warns him that the world he's going into is as full of deception as the one he is leaving, and we (the audience) know that this is completely true.
i often wonder how truman's life on the outside would have gone, and would dearly love to see someone write that book. of course, if we extrapolate from the movie, truman is already famous and would no doubt earn heaps from interviews with various media and probably a best-selling book or two. he would definitely find his girlfriend and it no doubt would end up reasonably well.
and i think, in the end, it usually does end up well for the people that have the courage to walk away and build up a new life for themselves. even after all the heartache, there's that sense of personal freedom that is extremely precious, and the endless possibilities there for the taking (but only if you feel like it). the people close to you, who truly love you, they eventually learn to accept that they can't control and channel another person's life - but that is a difficult lesson to learn when they've spent a lifetime doing just that.
the thing is that a cage is cage, no matter how pretty you make it, and none of us can be truly happy living in a cage. that's the essential message i take from this film, and probably why i love it so much.
i just sat down and watched "the truman show" again tonight. it's one of my favourite ever films, one of those films that gives me something more every time i watch it. i'm not generally a jim carrey fan, and have given most of his comedic films a miss. but he is quite brilliant here, as is ed harris as the director.
i know the main themes of the film are around media manipulation, the lengths a society will go to for the purposes of entertainment and a dig at reality tv shows, with a whole heap of religious imagery thrown in. but to me, the relevance of this film is more to real life.
"the truman show" mirrors the lives of many people i've seen, particularly many asian people. possibly not so common among other cultures, but feel free to share if it sounds familiar. i see many parents who map out their childrens lives from a young age, directing them towards a safe career, choosing for them (or encouraging them to choose) a safe spouse with a very similar cultural background and similar values. they help the couple into a nice, safe suburban family home; the two of them have nice, safe jobs that provide the nice, safe middle class lifestyle.
it's a path that is chosen for children, and they are encouraged down it through the passing on of values such as: success = nice home, latest material possessions, and 2 or 3 kids (& please try to make sure at least one is a boy); familial responsibility and duty to parents; family traditions and cultural traditions.
and the thing is that it is all so well-intentioned, wrapped up in the utmost love and wanting the best for their kids. sometimes there's also a little bit of living vicariously eg i never got to be a doctor due to lack of opportunity, so i'm going to make sure my child becomes a doctor. and there's certainly a strong dash of power and control - the need to control and direct life towards a safe and happy future. and often a strong dose of self-sacrifice ie parents going without so that their children can have the best of everything. that last is a great tool for emotional blackmail down the track: "i gave up so much for you, so you could have this or that; how can you not do what i want/expect of you".
despite all of that, there is no maliciousness involved. these parents genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, and getting the right result for their children. it is exactly like christos, the director of the trueman show, who loves truman even as he directs and controls truman's life.
where it all unravels is about the age that truman is when the film starts. around 30, mabye a bit later, even up to 40. this child looks around at her or his life, and finds that it wasn't what they imagined their life to be like. it's a life of unfulfilled dreams, nice and successful but extremely bland and unsatisfying.
what then? how many have the courage to leave? i think there are a fair few that don't, who then go on to live vicariously through their own children, and who try to get some sense of power and control by directing their own children's lives.
then there are the ones who do walk away, but the cost is pretty high. broken relationships, hurt children and spouses, heartache, and a whole lot of painful soul-searching. that's the part of truman's life we never get to see. we're sort of left with the impression that he has escaped oppression and will live happily ever after with his true love. except that christos warns him that the world he's going into is as full of deception as the one he is leaving, and we (the audience) know that this is completely true.
i often wonder how truman's life on the outside would have gone, and would dearly love to see someone write that book. of course, if we extrapolate from the movie, truman is already famous and would no doubt earn heaps from interviews with various media and probably a best-selling book or two. he would definitely find his girlfriend and it no doubt would end up reasonably well.
and i think, in the end, it usually does end up well for the people that have the courage to walk away and build up a new life for themselves. even after all the heartache, there's that sense of personal freedom that is extremely precious, and the endless possibilities there for the taking (but only if you feel like it). the people close to you, who truly love you, they eventually learn to accept that they can't control and channel another person's life - but that is a difficult lesson to learn when they've spent a lifetime doing just that.
the thing is that a cage is cage, no matter how pretty you make it, and none of us can be truly happy living in a cage. that's the essential message i take from this film, and probably why i love it so much.
Monday, 19 April 2010
The "But" that judgeyness wrote?
From the Herald website yesterday:
There is a world of difference between putting something up on the internet in a manner that you control, and disclosing your name to the biggest newspaper in New Zealand. For a start, searches for your name on Google are likely to rank the Herald's article top, mentioning you as a victim of a horrific beating. Who wants that to be what a prospective employer finds when they are looking to short-list you for an interview?
Good on this woman for sharing her story. She goes on to say, later in the article:
A barrister who suffered severe head injuries after she was attacked by her ex-husband has spoken out about the devastating effects of domestic violence.Hang on a second, what's that "But" doing in there??
The 39-year-old lawyer was bashed five times around the head with a large rock in front of her terrified 5-year-old son and suffered "horrendous" facial injuries including a broken nose, bruising and cuts to her head and face.
Her former husband, Kevin Hume, was jailed for 16 months at the North Shore District Court on Thursday for injuring with intent to injure and breaching a protection order.
The court was told Hume sent text messages saying "I will never hurt you" and "this is the final text" just a few hours before he crept into her home north of Auckland in the early hours of January 8.
When she woke up at about 2.45am, Hume chased her into her bedroom, pinning her down before beating her over the head with a large river stone.
Hume only stopped the attack when their young son, who was sleeping in the same bed, was woken by his mother's screams and switched on the bedroom light.
...The victim hopes to start a new life with her three children aged 19, 8 and 5, and did not want to be named.
But she wrote a harrowing account of the assault and posted it on the internet, and updated her 1500 Twitter followers on the case. [my emphasis]
There is a world of difference between putting something up on the internet in a manner that you control, and disclosing your name to the biggest newspaper in New Zealand. For a start, searches for your name on Google are likely to rank the Herald's article top, mentioning you as a victim of a horrific beating. Who wants that to be what a prospective employer finds when they are looking to short-list you for an interview?
Good on this woman for sharing her story. She goes on to say, later in the article:
"I never thought I would be one of those women that this happened to," the lawyer said after the hearing. "I kept saying to my friends, 'I'm not a battered woman, that's not me'. Even though I know it wasn't my fault, I started blaming myself."She said sharing the experience with others helped her to get through it: "It's given other people the opportunity to come to me with their stories."
I hope that stupid, senseless "But" doesn't put her off.
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
a public proposal
i was watching an ad for some kind of tv show or something last week (i've been told my mind is a sieve, and this beginning may give you a clue as to why!). anyway, the only bit i remember is a man proposing to his beloved in front of an audience full of people. and it struck me that this wasn't a particularly nice thing to do.
it's something that's pretty hollywood - the hero going down on bended knee in a crowded restaurant, or having his proposal announced at a baseball match as tens of thousands of screaming fans watch on. i'm sure you remember many such similar scenes. and it's always presented as some kind of super romantic thing.
but really, i see it more as a kind of harassment. ok not in 100% of cases, but it seems to me that the main purpose of the public proposal is to put pressure on the other person to say yes, or to make it that much more difficult for her to say no due to the general embarassment it would cause for herself and for the person who was asking.
i guess it wouldn't be as bad if you were absolutely sure your partner was going to say yes - but then how can you be absolutely, completely, totally sure? people can change their minds for any number of reasons, in the space of hours or even minutes. what they thought was a wonderful idea in for months on end might suddenly not seem such a good idea, and suddenly they're not interested in marriage any more.
maybe i'm just an arch-cynic who doesn't have a romantic bone left in her body. but a public proposal does not seem like a good idea to me.
it's something that's pretty hollywood - the hero going down on bended knee in a crowded restaurant, or having his proposal announced at a baseball match as tens of thousands of screaming fans watch on. i'm sure you remember many such similar scenes. and it's always presented as some kind of super romantic thing.
but really, i see it more as a kind of harassment. ok not in 100% of cases, but it seems to me that the main purpose of the public proposal is to put pressure on the other person to say yes, or to make it that much more difficult for her to say no due to the general embarassment it would cause for herself and for the person who was asking.
i guess it wouldn't be as bad if you were absolutely sure your partner was going to say yes - but then how can you be absolutely, completely, totally sure? people can change their minds for any number of reasons, in the space of hours or even minutes. what they thought was a wonderful idea in for months on end might suddenly not seem such a good idea, and suddenly they're not interested in marriage any more.
maybe i'm just an arch-cynic who doesn't have a romantic bone left in her body. but a public proposal does not seem like a good idea to me.
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
she'll grow up when she's damn well ready, thank you
well comments to my previous post here certainly didn't go in a direction i intended or anticipated! i've been thinking about my response, and decided it would be too long for a comment so i've turned it into a blog post.
the common theme amongst commenters is their own autonomy at around 17 or 18, and the way they were brought up to be independent. maybe i'm reading too much in to it, but some of the comments imply that kids who aren't brought up this way aren't brought up well.
which brings to mind a piece of paper i got from a nz university, giving me tips about how to treat my child at university. all of the page and a half of bullet points boiled down to were "leave them alone". i didn't mind the stuff about the privacy act and not giving out information - that's the law & if i don't have a good enough relationship with my child to get the information i need, that's my own problem.
but the gratuitous advice about how i should treat or relate to my kid? not cool. for a start, it assumes a particular style of parenting that not everyone subscribes to. nor should they have to subscribe to it. all sorts of parenting styles can turn out wonderfully well-adjusted kids who do well in life.
i've seen parents who continue feed their kids (ie sit with them at the dinner table and put food in their mouths) up to age 7 or 8. said kids have grown up to be lovely people. one mother i know used to cook food for her kids when they were 2nd year students - she would cook enough for the whole week on sunday, pack it up into daily parcels and send it up for them. they never had to cook at all. again, said kids are now working as doctors, and really nice, sensitive and caring people that i'm proud to know. for other kids, that kind of care won't work and they'll turn into spoilt brats. the "leave them alone" method will suit them a lot better.
so basically, i don't take kindly to people (in institutions or at a personal level) giving me parenting advice with the underlying assumption that they know better than me how i should raise my child. and i was thinking that if anyone at said university dared to make any such comments to my face when i was there, my response would be this very simple one: "how about i don't tell you how to raise your kids, and you don't tell me how to raise mine; that way we'll both be happy". that's the politest version of f&*# off that i can think of in this context.
my view of the world is that i don't suddenly stop being a parent when my child turns 18 (or 21 or any other arbitrary). nor does she stop being my child. i know that my job as a parent is to bring her up to be a fully-functioning adult who achieves her full potential and is able to pursue her dreams. but it's up to me and her to determine how that relationship works; when and how i let go; when and how she lets go. the letting go will happen in stages, for some things it may not happen. like when i had my kids, my mum was my biggest support and i needed her to visit me every morning to look after my baby so that i could catch up on my sleep, because i had a baby that wouldn't sleep for more that one hour at a stretch. i need her still for various things, and she needs me for other things.
so if you happened to be very independent at 18 and were able to manage everything on your own with little parental support, good for you. that's an admirable thing (nope, not being snarky or sarcastic here, i really mean it). but it certainly doesn't give you the right to judge people who aren't at that level or don't want to be that way at that age. and i think that's what annoyed me most about a couple of the comments on that last post - they were just a little too judgemental for my liking.
the common theme amongst commenters is their own autonomy at around 17 or 18, and the way they were brought up to be independent. maybe i'm reading too much in to it, but some of the comments imply that kids who aren't brought up this way aren't brought up well.
which brings to mind a piece of paper i got from a nz university, giving me tips about how to treat my child at university. all of the page and a half of bullet points boiled down to were "leave them alone". i didn't mind the stuff about the privacy act and not giving out information - that's the law & if i don't have a good enough relationship with my child to get the information i need, that's my own problem.
but the gratuitous advice about how i should treat or relate to my kid? not cool. for a start, it assumes a particular style of parenting that not everyone subscribes to. nor should they have to subscribe to it. all sorts of parenting styles can turn out wonderfully well-adjusted kids who do well in life.
i've seen parents who continue feed their kids (ie sit with them at the dinner table and put food in their mouths) up to age 7 or 8. said kids have grown up to be lovely people. one mother i know used to cook food for her kids when they were 2nd year students - she would cook enough for the whole week on sunday, pack it up into daily parcels and send it up for them. they never had to cook at all. again, said kids are now working as doctors, and really nice, sensitive and caring people that i'm proud to know. for other kids, that kind of care won't work and they'll turn into spoilt brats. the "leave them alone" method will suit them a lot better.
so basically, i don't take kindly to people (in institutions or at a personal level) giving me parenting advice with the underlying assumption that they know better than me how i should raise my child. and i was thinking that if anyone at said university dared to make any such comments to my face when i was there, my response would be this very simple one: "how about i don't tell you how to raise your kids, and you don't tell me how to raise mine; that way we'll both be happy". that's the politest version of f&*# off that i can think of in this context.
my view of the world is that i don't suddenly stop being a parent when my child turns 18 (or 21 or any other arbitrary). nor does she stop being my child. i know that my job as a parent is to bring her up to be a fully-functioning adult who achieves her full potential and is able to pursue her dreams. but it's up to me and her to determine how that relationship works; when and how i let go; when and how she lets go. the letting go will happen in stages, for some things it may not happen. like when i had my kids, my mum was my biggest support and i needed her to visit me every morning to look after my baby so that i could catch up on my sleep, because i had a baby that wouldn't sleep for more that one hour at a stretch. i need her still for various things, and she needs me for other things.
so if you happened to be very independent at 18 and were able to manage everything on your own with little parental support, good for you. that's an admirable thing (nope, not being snarky or sarcastic here, i really mean it). but it certainly doesn't give you the right to judge people who aren't at that level or don't want to be that way at that age. and i think that's what annoyed me most about a couple of the comments on that last post - they were just a little too judgemental for my liking.
Monday, 22 February 2010
News bite: Solo mums raise police bashers
Yes, I've probably extrapolated slightly too far, with my headline, but it really isn't that far from what Family First appear to be saying in this media statement:
...Fatherlessness is a major contributor to increasing rates of juvenile violence,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.Click through for the whole thing.
“Scientific research is unanimous on a number of conclusions regarding family structure – that strong marriages increases the likelihood that fathers have good relationships with their children and lowers the risk of alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence and child abuse,”
“Conversely, parental divorce or non-marriage appears to increase children’s risk of delinquent and criminal behaviour, amongst other factors. One only needs to observe proceedings at the Youth Court to see the effect of fatherlessness.”
“According to The Heritage Foundation, an influential US research institute, an analysis of social science literature over 30 years shows that the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers. A state-by-state analysis indicated that a 10% increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes lead typically to a 17% increase in juvenile crime. The research found that criminal behaviour has its roots in habitual deprivation of parental love and affection going back to early infancy.”
“Research has shown time after time that the father’s authority and involvement in raising his children are great buffers against a life of crime,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“There are other factors such as violence in the media, the ‘rights’ culture being fed to young people, and the undermining of parental authority which are contributors, but family structure is a crucial place to start.”
“Violent crime will continue to increase as long as we downplay the importance and significance of having two parents, a mum and a dad, committed to each other and to their children.”
Monday, 8 February 2010
Not News
The Herald on Sunday yesterday dedicated a third of their front page and most of page 3 to a total Not News story.
It's not Not News because it isn't new. Maybe the rest of the country knew that newsreader Alison Mau was possibly in a new relationship, but I didn't. It probably is new knowledge, for most people, but that isn't sufficient, to my mind, to make it News.
IMHO it's Not News because actually who cares? This story is by no stretch of the imagination in the public interest to report on, because who bases any decision making on the gender of a celebrity's possible current partner? It's not going to change any votes, not going to inform people better about something that affects large chunks of the population, nor should it lead anyone to make judgements about any of those involved. There's no hypocrisy and no one is cheating on anyone else.
Classic Not News.
In fact it seems to me more like prurient gossip, complete with paparazzi pics. And if Ali had a new boyfriend rather than a new girlfriend it would never have made the front page, or the third page. There's more than a whiff of homophobia about this one.
Update: GayNZ.com has a news story on the Herald's coverage, including:
It's not Not News because it isn't new. Maybe the rest of the country knew that newsreader Alison Mau was possibly in a new relationship, but I didn't. It probably is new knowledge, for most people, but that isn't sufficient, to my mind, to make it News.
IMHO it's Not News because actually who cares? This story is by no stretch of the imagination in the public interest to report on, because who bases any decision making on the gender of a celebrity's possible current partner? It's not going to change any votes, not going to inform people better about something that affects large chunks of the population, nor should it lead anyone to make judgements about any of those involved. There's no hypocrisy and no one is cheating on anyone else.
Classic Not News.
In fact it seems to me more like prurient gossip, complete with paparazzi pics. And if Ali had a new boyfriend rather than a new girlfriend it would never have made the front page, or the third page. There's more than a whiff of homophobia about this one.
Update: GayNZ.com has a news story on the Herald's coverage, including:
Anne Speir, a past TVNZ editor, says she can't and won't speculate on Mau's sexuality and finds the paper's coverage despicable. "A quarter of a century ago Marilyn Waring was outed on the front page of Truth newspaper, clearly nothing has changed, and that deeply saddens me," she says. "Alison is at an age when a lot of lesbians come out but if she is in a relationship with a woman does she, and that woman too, need to be outed like this?"
Friday, 11 December 2009
Scathing blog post about Twilight
By Fiona Imlach Guneskara at Pundit:
I haven't read any of the Twilight books although I'd been starting to think maybe I should. I was repulsed by Harry Potter, until I gave in and got hooked. Likewise with the Tomorrow When the War Began series, and Cross Stitch (although this one I gave up on part way through the fifth volume). But Fiona's caused me to reconsider.
What say you? Especially if you have read the books/seen the movies!
Annoying white naval cap thingy which you have to clean with toothpaste tipped in the direction of my dear friend L, via Facebook.
Based on Stephenie Meyer's blockbuster book, New Moon contains elements that are deeply disturbing, although little critique of the underlying messages pervading the Twilight series has appeared in mainstream media. At least one theme that recurs strongly in New Moon should be of great concern to those who work with young people, at whom this movie is targeted, and those working in mental health services.Click through for the whole thing, it's well worth a read.
...The most dreadful aspect of Bella’s insipid character is that she is entirely dependent on the males in her life. All of her actions revolve around them – everything she does is in response to Edward or Jacob. She plays the consummate damsel in distress, without any desire to save herself – how is this possible in the 21st century?
...Why has this story had such appeal to women, despite the dark undercurrents of violence and self-repression? Perhaps it is due to the tremendous pressure society places on women to be superhuman – to simultaneously hold down a job, run a home, be mother, daughter, wife and friend. The appeal of the superhuman man, who is not only unbelievably gorgeous, the perfect gentleman, sensitive, intelligent and wonderfully rich, is overwhelming.
I haven't read any of the Twilight books although I'd been starting to think maybe I should. I was repulsed by Harry Potter, until I gave in and got hooked. Likewise with the Tomorrow When the War Began series, and Cross Stitch (although this one I gave up on part way through the fifth volume). But Fiona's caused me to reconsider.
What say you? Especially if you have read the books/seen the movies!
Annoying white naval cap thingy which you have to clean with toothpaste tipped in the direction of my dear friend L, via Facebook.
Monday, 30 November 2009
Family First pimp marriage
Seems that least progressive of organisations, Family First, has decided to turn its great swivelly burning eye away from the pro-smacking lobby and towards the issue of marriage. Their summer advertising campaign is going to feature the following billboard:
Apologies if it's not that large, but never fear, they are raising funds to put ginormous versions of it up all over the show (for surprisingly cheap sums of money too, hmmmm, might be something in that for a journo...)
Now coming from Family First I'm guessing that this campaign is aimed at coming up with a positive message beneath which to sell the following rather negative bits and bobs:
Apologies if it's not that large, but never fear, they are raising funds to put ginormous versions of it up all over the show (for surprisingly cheap sums of money too, hmmmm, might be something in that for a journo...)Now coming from Family First I'm guessing that this campaign is aimed at coming up with a positive message beneath which to sell the following rather negative bits and bobs:
- No sex before marriage
- No non-hetero marriage
- No non-marriage relationships with kids
- No non-marriage relationships with state-recognition (and that's not just about the Civil Unions Act, which turns 5 shortly, but also about things like state housing, welfare provision, who can be your next of kin, etc)
- No divorce
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)