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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

exhibition

this week is islam awareness week.  it's a week where the muslim community in nz makes an effort to open it's doors and invite the community to get to know us.  not that the doors are closed at any other time of the year, but sometimes people need an invitation before they'll come in.  it's an attempt to break down barriers, to provide a positive response to prejudice & discrimination, to stop being "other" and show that we are part of an increasingly diverse community.

the dominion post decided to lead in to islam awareness week with an article about a museum in lower hutt holding an exhibition, a small part of which is not accessible to men.  i'm not saying this isn't a newsworthy item - of course it's something people would want to know about and be able to discuss.  but i really debate that it was so newsworthy that it merited most of the front page, with a large picture of a woman in a burqa.  i've written about the use of such pictures before, but funnily enough, this would be one of the few stories where such a picture might actually be appropriate.

the decision to place the story in this way and with such prominence was clearly deliberately, with the decision-makers perfectly aware of the consequences.  they want those consequences: the outrage, the furious letters to the editor (yup, they published one stating that Muhammad was a rapist), the howls of complaint from some white men about discrimination.  of course they wanted all that - it's what sells papers and makes money.

what do they care how it affects a minority community that already gets plenty of vilification in this country.  not their business if the lives of muslim women are made more difficult, if prejudice is more entrenched, if they knowingly inflame the bigots.  in covering this issue the way they did and subsequently choosing to publish the letters in the way they have, they are clearly giving a nice, big "f**k you" to the well-being of muslim women in this country.  and don't tell me publishing letters is a freedom of speech issue, because it really isn't.  the paper does not publish every letter it receives verbatim.  there are plenty it chooses not to publish, plenty it chooses to abridge.  letters to the editor are a censored medium, published at the whim of the editorial team, and when they decide to put your name under the "points noted" bit without publishing your letter, they don't even bother to give an explanation as to why they've made that decision.

no, this was a deliberate decision to provoke, at the expense of a minority community, as our media so loves to do.  because it works.  hence michael laws, leighton smith, paul holmes and so many more.  these people would not get column space for some pretty awful views otherwise.

on the other hand, i find that rosemary mcleod has actually had some sensible things to say on the subject, particularly this [emphasis added]:

I'm not sure what the exact purpose of the video is, but I suspect the reaction is exactly what the maker expected. It creates in our non-Muslim men a deep curiosity over something they normally take for granted, a curiosity unwelcome to women who regard the male gaze as such a problem that they hide all of themselves, apart from their eyes, when they're in public.

That turns men who insist on viewing them into voyeurs, who seek to over-ride their wishes, which are in effect a demand for privacy.... Mr Young believes there is a 'human right' involved in his being able to peek at women who don't want him to. That's an attitude a rather long stretch, but a relevant one, from that of Julian Assange. It's about consent. The Wiki Leaks hero-to-some seems to think that a woman consents to everything he feels like doing to her if she has once succumbed to his manifold charms. He is wrong.

that's what it's about for me: the entrenched sense of entitement to women's bodies, including their faces, the view that women's bodies are somehow public property which leads to this notion that women choosing to deny access to men is somehow an infringement of human rights.  it also has it's roots in a colonialist view of eastern women.  when europeans came to the east, they came with this romaticised notion of exotic eastern women, and their sense of entitlement of these women.  the fact that european men were denied access by a cultural practice of segregation and seclusion lead to a similar sense of outrage from early travellers to the east, and a similar condemnation.  all couched in the rhetoric of emancipation and empowerment, which of course only belonged to european women.  their eastern sisters apparently needed to be freed from their bonds, but for what exactly was never made clear.  it's not like women's education improved with the arrival of colonisers, nor their participation in public life.

much of the outrage over this is couched in the language of culture and cultural supremacy.  this exclusion/seclusion is apparently not part of nz culture - it's how they do things "over there", definitely not what we do here.  which nicely disappears all kiwi muslims who very much belong here, and very much have equal right to determine how culture over here develops.  and if some of these women choose seclusion, well allowing them to make that choice is exactly how we do things over here.  and if women here allowed to make that choice, then why can't qatari women?

here's another excellent post on the issue, one that deals really well with the issue of privilege.  and also this:

If we really cared about the rights of Islamic women, rather than just using them as a political football when it is expedient, we would listen to them, and respect their choices.  Respecting someones rights means respecting their autonomy and treating them as they wish to be treated.  Going against the express wishes of the artist and the women who consented to be in her video is not helping islamic women, it is saying that their voices don’t matter and their decisions are not to be respected.

This really isn’t about men being able to view the exhibit, at it’s core this issue is about people setting boundaries about what they feel is appropriate behaviour in New Zealand. Apparently many people feel that islamic women setting boundaries for safe space for themselves, in accordance with their wishes and their religion is inappropriate in New Zealand.  In New Zealand we value diversity but only if it is palatable, and fits in with “New Zealand values” whatever that might mean.  People seem to be more willing for the Dowse gallery to give up the exhibition than actually respect the artists wishes.

the thing is that i see coverage like this, i see the way the debate is couched and often find myself in despair.  how does one even begin to counter it?  well, i was reminded by the secretary of the waikato interfaith council that we counter it by organising things like islam awareness week, but engaging directly with the community and creating spaces where we can foster and model harmony rather than division.  the council has been hugely supportive of islam awareness week, both in participation and organisation, and it has made a huge difference to our community here in the waikato.

so check out the islam awareness week website for events, and if you're in the waikato, please do come to the mosque open day in the morning or the interfaith tree planting in the afternoon.  we would love to see you there.

Uncomfortable Overlaps

A few years ago, I sought counselling from a feminist organisation. I had effectively untreated and quite serious PTSD from events earlier in my life, and there were a couple of other smaller stresses on me at that time. I've never had a good time with counselors; my previous experiences had ranged from outright homophobia and pretty significant verbal abuse to my pissing them off for reasons I simply couldn't identify. Suffice it to say that I didn't try again until I really needed to.

Said feminist organisation was the only option - at least that I was aware of - that was possible given my budget. I wasn't comfortable with it from the start; I knew people whose employment or voluntary work brought them into contact with it in a professional capacity. Rationally, most of the people I had in mind were caring and supportive - or at least capable of acting so. But every week I sat in the waiting room on the verge of throwing up from the fear that I would meet someone I knew and explain that I was not there in my usual activist role. However much I believed there was no shame in being there, I was utterly ashamed.

This post is an attempt to untangle, both from personal experience and a more theoretical standpoint some of the issues around the uncomfortable intersection between the activist community and the provisions and receipt of services (none of these are ideal terms, but I lack better ones). And the first point is criticism. Because my experience wasn't good. It involved - and I won't go into the details - significant amounts of implied victim blaming, repeated dismissal of my disabilities, telling me to do things I'd explicitly identified as triggering and ultimately - when the counselor left the service -  dropping me when I was in an obviously incredibly vulnerable state without any kind of follow up.

Yet I really hesitated about writing this post. It's been brewing in my head for a while, and I'm still not sure if I'll actually click 'publish'. And one of the reasons is I feel uncomfortable criticising this organisation when I know many people who do important work to support it. I don't think I personally know anyone who works or volunteers there, but I could. They're the sort of people I organise events alongside, go to meetings with, march with. It goes against a lot of instinct - even though the only place my criticism gets personal is against that one counsellor - to criticise when we should be standing together against some scary common enemy, or something like that. Moreover, I know this organisation and others like it are horribly underfunded and need support - and they do help a lot of people and I really don't want to undermine that in any way. It's not a new, or an unusual quandry - how to criticise from within a marginalised group or perspective without reinforcing that coming from without, but I think it has a particularly concerning place here.

The second point is about supporting people who are within activist groups. This is a much bigger topic than I have the scope for here, and a lot has been written about it. But all I've found is centred on two things; one is when someone is being supported with an issue that relates to the group (for example abuse by another group member) or short term support - such as someone being triggered within a meeting. I don't necessarily consider this a bad thing, or that activist groups should be taking on long term support roles - in fact, I think often the danger is taking on too much and it is better to draw a clear line around what can and can't be done well. But where activism and service provision are mixed, things can become problematic, and I'm not sure a lot of people involved even note this as an issue.

Part of this relates to heirarchy. This is not to discount the hierarchy present within activist organisations, and part of this is personal - I really struggle with interacting with medical and related services and I tend to thrive in environments where I get to talk loudly, organise things and play with websites and mailing lists. I appreciate this isn't universal. But the movement of the same people, involving the same issues, between the fuzzy, ill defined and informal roles and heirarchy of informal activist groups and the really clear cut roles of (say) counsellor and client is not necessarily an easy one. And then - more simply but perhaps hard to resolve - simpler issues like confidentiality and how relationships change between spaces.

I think also, there are different stories told in service provision and activist groups. I'm sure there are a lot of exceptions to these, as there are people about whom they are true, but as much as anything it's the assumptions that are made that's relevant. One, by (generally charitable) service providers, is of the client who comes to them with a problem; usually there are multiple things wrong in their life. They are helped by the organisation, they grow in confidence. They volunteer for the group and become a campaigner on the issue they experienced. The other story is - well I've found it most common in socialist groups, particularly around sexual orientation, but I think it's wider than that - of people who participate in activism for a cause, perhaps defending people they care about, perhaps because it relates to something else they're involved in, perhaps seeing it in pretty abstract terms initially. It's that involvement that gives them the knowledge and confidence to address it in their own lives.

And there are problems - probably for both groups - in reconciling these two stories. It was really hard to explain that yes, I'd organised a reclaim the night march (hey look, there's the poster for it on the wall right there), yes, I'd blogged for the best part of the year on victim blaming, but that doesn't mean that I haven't internalised a whole lot of these ideas.

The third angle I wanted to talk about was exclusion. Whilst the counselor crossed some very clear lines with me, as others have done, I'm increasingly seeing my general negative interactions in terms of my disability status. I didn't fit into the typical mold of people they catered for, and they didn't cater for me. The lack of acknowledgement or understanding of this is what makes it particularly problematic, but even with that, it's exclusionary.

I'm reasonably confident in my response to groups that deliberately discriminate against groups of people (it ain't positive). I also recognise that they cannot provide services to all people, and that there are legitimate limits to what they can and can't do. But this indirect exclusion becomes more difficult when there are discrepancies between a funded service provider that may well have a mandate to meet the more typical needs of the majority, versus a dynamic where questioning such exclusions is a discussion that comes naturally to some of the members.

On a personal level, I found options that worked for me and I am doing much better now. Options that required having someone to help me research them, and a disposable income, both of which I had, neither of which should be expected. On a more general level... once again, I feel only that I have a whole heap of issues to raise and no solutions to offer, but it's a start.

Comment direction: no speculation about the identities of individuals and organisations involved please. It makes me really uncomfortable and isn't relevant. I ask you to remember that this post represents my thoughts and experiences and not necessarily those of anyone else at THM.

Lurking.

I used to read the Hand mirror and other feminist blogs on a semi-regular basis, without ever considering commenting. Then I read regularly. Then I made a few comments, most of which were bitch slapped into place by someone more informed, or evolved, or just more opinionated than me.
99% of the time, I was incorrect about something, or didn’t frame my point clearly enough for people to fully grasp what I was saying. Sometimes people just jumped on me because I was an unknown factor, and it is easier to assume that someone is deliberately wrong rather than just ignorant.
In spite of several moments where I stomped away from the keyboard in tears I continued. And now, I write for the hand mirror. It is still 50/50 whether I think it is worth it. The rapport of my fellow writers, regardless of whether we agree on points, is wonderful. I have met fabulous women in the real world who have changed my life for the better. Other days, I am in a tricky battle to maintain my own positivity while moderating.

I had coffee with a friend this morning who reminded me of all the lurkers out there. The people who read regularly, and irregularly. They talk about issues over coffee with friends, debate topics with family. They work in amazing jobs, and participate in developing amazing families. They may write themselves in other forums, or blogs.

I have no idea how many of you are out there but I wanted to say Hi, and thank you.

My friend this morning said that she wouldn’t be commenting on the hand mirror any time soon because it is too intimidating.
She was concerned about saying something wrong.
Not even a morally wrong concept, or a wrong understanding of someone else’s idea, but just simply WORDING it wrong. She didn’t want to be criticised or misunderstood, and it made me realise that not everyone bounces back stubbornly when smacked down.
There is a lot of talk about who is and isn’t a “101” space and I actually have no idea whether the hand mirror officially is or isn’t. I know my own personal blog, and anything I write always will be, because when I was new, and didn’t know what spoons were, or why the fuck strangers kept all caps-ing “PRIVILEGE” at me, my friend Julie was there for me to email and ask, on top of my google-fu, and other bloggers.
It really upset me to think that we are being robbed of a brilliant young woman’s opinion, ideas and thoughts. She contributes so much in her community, and yet we are missing out.

So how’s about we start here?
Any lurkers, feel free to say Hi, introduce yourself and talk about feministic things…
If anyone isn’t happy, I can pick this up in my own space.

NB: The usual moderating rules apply, so please use a consistent handle, even if you keep it an anonymous one.

"beautification of mosques for women"

baby steps, but steps nonetheless. it was nice to read this piece (via facebook) about turkey making mosques more women-friendly:

"This is about mosques being a space for women," declared Kadriye Avci Erdemli, Istanbul's deputy mufti, the city's second most powerful administrator of the Islamic faith. "When a woman enters a mosque, she is entering the house of God and she should experience the same sacred treatment. In front of God, men and women are equal; they have the same rights to practice their religion."

As part of the "Beautification of Mosques for Women" project, Erdemli sent 30 teams to visit all of Istanbul's mosques and report back on the facilities for women. What the teams found was shocking, she claimed. "Many of the mosques have no toilets for women, no place for women to wash before praying," Erdemli recounted. "Most of the places allocated for women were used as storage places, and those that weren't were usually filthy and freezing cold in winter."

Istanbul's mosques are now under strict instructions to clean up and provide equal facilities for both men and women by February 2012. But it's not only a push for cleanliness and improved sanitation that is underway. The way mosques are arranged is also being changed, according to Erdemli. "In most mosques, the women's area was divided by a curtain or a wall, and this is not fair," she elaborated. "They are sacred places and women have the right to take advantage of their spiritual feeling as well.

the thing is that originally, mosques were open to men and women alike, and there were no physical barriers at all. this idea of having curtains or walls separating the women is a more recent phenomenon - i don't know where it started or how it caught on, but it's against the spirit of the mosque.

mosques were social centres as much as they were places of worship. they were places where foreign delegations would visit and would stay, sometimes for months. they were places where physical contests such as wrestling or foot races were held. they were places of education, where lectures were given. the mosque was the hub of the community, and open to all people at all times.

it would actually be good to have a review of mosques in nz as well. they vary in the quality of space, but all bar one mosque does have space for women, and they have separate toilet and washing facilities for women as well. some have plenty of space as well as other rooms available for use, others have spaces that are just too cramped.

internationally, women's space in mosques tends to depend on geographic location. so in the indian subcontinent, women going to the mosque has traditionally been frowned on, and very few mosques will accommodate women. from what i hear, this is starting to change, particularly in the cities. malaysian and indonesian mosques, on the other hand, tend to all have women's spaces that are roomy and comfortable. and women from this part of the world are very used to being in the mosque.

the other thing about the very early mosques is that they were simple. the first one had a dirt floor and palm leaves for a roof. no fancy calligraphy, no expensive floor coverings or elaborate decorations. of course this reflected the state of the community, which was quite impoverished at the time, so couldn't afford more. but even so, i don't believe in pouring money into elaborate buildings, be they places of worship or something else. i think it's much more important to spend money on people - on ensuring that they are fed, clothed, housed and have opportunies for education and work.

i totally understand the desire for people to create beautiful places to aid in spiritual contemplation. i just disagree with it. the opportunity cost is too high, and in a world where people are dying of starvation and preventable diseases in such high numbers, i know i'd much rather have that money spent elsewhere, and let the spiritual reward of saving lives uplift us more than the aesthetic beauty of a building.

however, the turkish project is more than just beautification. it's about claiming women's spaces, and through that, their places in society. equality in the mosque will slowly lead to equality outside the mosque, so it's a good place to start.