it's been a nice weekend, after some very good election results around the country. i thought i'd put up some random thoughts specifically about the results in hamilton (cos i think everyone has heard enough about auckland, wellington & christchurch!).
that we have a new mayor is actually quite surprising, in that over a month ago, the polls showed there was absolutely no competition. i think bob simcock's campaign suffered from two things: a huge sense of complacency & considerably negative coverage in the waikato times. there also is the fact that many people are unhappy about the huge surge in council debt, the financial drain and lack of promised economic benefits from the v8s, the secrecy around mr simcock's funders (and the very related issue of montana catering getting some prime city council contracts, including an exclusive contract for the v8s).
so there was a strong sense of dissatisfaction there, but nowhere to focus it. julie hardaker is certainly not a well-known figure in the city, she didn't have any kind of profile prior to this campaign, nor has she had any involvement in politics. but the coverage she got during the campaign was pretty positive, and i guess that gave voters a place to park their discontent.
things i'm sad about: that the very excellent mark servian didn't get through, and the lack of ethnic representation. no pacific islanders, no asians, and the only person who could be considered maori is the ex-netballer margaret forsyth. it's not that people didn't stand, and it's not that they didn't have a profile. for example matiu dickson, another excellent candidate, is not only known for having been the chair of one of our most successful public high schools but also made the local news for publicly challenging that nasty garry mallett at a political meeting a few years ago. he's an incredibly capable person, but it wasn't enough.
which is a big problem, particularly in hamilton. it's almost impossible to unseat established sitting councillors. people tend to vote only for names they know or who have a previous media profile. which means that the city misses out on some excellent people. what's the alternative? taking some time to find out about candidates by either attending meetings, researching them online or picking up the phone and giving them a call. i think we do have a responsibility to take the time to do this.
it's name-recognition that got the owner of the now-defunct kiwi airlines, ewan wilson, through again. even though the last time he was a councillor, he had the poorest attendance record & in my opinion did not provide adequate representation for the city. i just can't believe the westies (of hamilton) voted him back in.
the good news: gary mallet lost. i can't tell you how happy it makes me that the ACT party president (or ex-president? i can't be bothered keeping up) is not representing our city in any way. he lost the WEL energy trust elections last year and yesterday he was the highest polling loser, which is not good, but margaret forsyth kept him out, which is brilliant.
also good is that the rates control team ticket (centre right) was unsuccessful in the city. despite the fact that they had the backing of greypower (who claim to be politically neutral) & federated farmers, they stood 11 candidates and have 2 seats. they were much more successful in the environment waikato elections, which i suspect is not going to be too good for the environment. but i feel sorry for many of those candidates, who would have had to put money into what looked like a pretty expensive joint campaign but really got no benefit out of it. maybe they did better than they otherwise would have, it's hard to tell.
it's great to see that martin gallagher was the highest polling councillor. perhaps a sign that the west now regrets not putting him back into parliament. but most interesting, and just to prove my theory about well-known names wrong, was the fact that lisa lewis was the lowest polling candidate from the east. despite the fact that she had the most free publicity from the times compared to any other candidate. still, it goes to show that a failure to grasp the political issues & to answer questions and resorting to gimmicks like pulling out a tequila bottle at a mayoral candidates meeting mean that you won't be getting the votes.
Sunday, 10 October 2010
paul henry resigns
woohoo!!! yes!! yippee!!! hooray!!! and about damn time:
Breakfast host Paul Henry has resigned after mounting pressure over his ethnic slurs against Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand and a senior Indian Government Minister.
TVNZ made the announcement at 6pm today.
Henry appears to have resigned from TVNZ before he was pushed, with chief executive Rick Ellis admitting for the first time that the shock-jock's on-air ethnic jibes was threatening advertising.
"It is no longer practical in the current environment for me to do the job I was employed to do, and have so enjoyed doing," Mr Henry said tonight.
"It is also difficult for TVNZ to get on with the business of being a first class broadcaster as long as I remain."
[emphasis added]
who says activism doesn't get results. the question is, though, where is he going to go next. because it's not like he's going to stop doing what he does. i'm predicting increased talkback radio time at the least. let's hope the other television networks in this country stay well clear from him, as his brand has definitely been tarnished.
edited to add: here is the statement from TVNZ chair rick ellis:
Paul Henry and I met earlier today and Paul offered me his resignation, which I have accepted.
In doing so, I offer my sincere apology on behalf of myself and TVNZ, to all those who have been offended by Paul’s inappropriate on-air comments.
I will be apologising in person to the Governor General.
I also apologise to the Indian community, both here and in India.
Paul has many loyal supporters and there will be those who question whether his resignation was the right outcome.
I believe Paul has done the right thing.
The reality is that his comments have split the community and damaged New Zealand’s international relationships, and there is no going back from that.
Breakfast host Paul Henry has resigned after mounting pressure over his ethnic slurs against Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand and a senior Indian Government Minister.
TVNZ made the announcement at 6pm today.
Henry appears to have resigned from TVNZ before he was pushed, with chief executive Rick Ellis admitting for the first time that the shock-jock's on-air ethnic jibes was threatening advertising.
"It is no longer practical in the current environment for me to do the job I was employed to do, and have so enjoyed doing," Mr Henry said tonight.
"It is also difficult for TVNZ to get on with the business of being a first class broadcaster as long as I remain."
[emphasis added]
who says activism doesn't get results. the question is, though, where is he going to go next. because it's not like he's going to stop doing what he does. i'm predicting increased talkback radio time at the least. let's hope the other television networks in this country stay well clear from him, as his brand has definitely been tarnished.
edited to add: here is the statement from TVNZ chair rick ellis:
Paul Henry and I met earlier today and Paul offered me his resignation, which I have accepted.
In doing so, I offer my sincere apology on behalf of myself and TVNZ, to all those who have been offended by Paul’s inappropriate on-air comments.
I will be apologising in person to the Governor General.
I also apologise to the Indian community, both here and in India.
Paul has many loyal supporters and there will be those who question whether his resignation was the right outcome.
I believe Paul has done the right thing.
The reality is that his comments have split the community and damaged New Zealand’s international relationships, and there is no going back from that.
Saturday, 9 October 2010
Congratulations Julie!
The results of the Auckland elections are in. The headline news is that Len Brown beat John Banks.*
In other news from Auckland, our own Julie was elected to Puketapapa Community Board. Congratulations!** Here are some cupcakes to celebrate:
Talking of awesome feminists - Sandra Coney was elected to the new Auckland City Council.
Consider this a thread to talk about the awesomeness of Julie, or the local body elections round the country, whichever takes your fancy.
* I would have been tempted to vote for Len Brown myself if I lived in Auckland, and lose all my radical cred, because I find free swimming pools just that exciting.
** When discussing Julie's victory David Farrar not only spells her name wrong, but only mentions it in the context of her marital status. Sexism alive, well and kicking round the blogosphere.
In other news from Auckland, our own Julie was elected to Puketapapa Community Board. Congratulations!** Here are some cupcakes to celebrate:
Talking of awesome feminists - Sandra Coney was elected to the new Auckland City Council.
Consider this a thread to talk about the awesomeness of Julie, or the local body elections round the country, whichever takes your fancy.
* I would have been tempted to vote for Len Brown myself if I lived in Auckland, and lose all my radical cred, because I find free swimming pools just that exciting.
** When discussing Julie's victory David Farrar not only spells her name wrong, but only mentions it in the context of her marital status. Sexism alive, well and kicking round the blogosphere.
Friday, 8 October 2010
Friday Feminist - Sarah M Grimke (2)
Cross posted
Sarah M Grimke, Letter VIII: On the Condition of Women in the United States, 1837
There is another and much more numerous class in this country, who are withdrawn by education or circumstances from the circle of fashionable amusements, but who are brought up with the dangerous and absurd idea, that marriage is a kind of preferment; and that to be able to keep their husband's house, and render his situation comfortable, is the end of her being. Much that she does and says and thinks is done in reference to this situation; and to be married is too often held up to the view of girls as the sine qua non of human happiness and human existence. For this purpose more than for any other, I verily believe the majority of girls are trained. This is demonstrated by the imperfect education which is bestowed upon them, and the little pains taken to cultivate their minds, after they leave school, by the little time allowed them for reading, and by the idea being constantly inculcated, that although all household concerns should be attended to with scrupulous punctuality at particular seasons, the improvement of their intellectual capacities is only a secondary consideration, and may serve as an occupation to fill up the odds and ends of time. In most families, it is considered a matter of far more consequence to call a girl off from making a pie, or a pudding, than to interrupt her whilst engaged in her studies. This mode of training necessarily exalts, in their view, the animal above the intellectual and spiritual nature, and teaches women to regard themselves as a kind of machinery, necessary to keep the domestic engine in order, but of little value as the intelligent companions of men.
Sarah M Grimke, Letter VIII: On the Condition of Women in the United States, 1837
this is to mother you
i put this up at my own blog last night, but wanted to share it here as well, because i loved it:
the person i got the link from put it up in tribute of the la leche conference happening today, at which she is speaking. ruth desouza's topic is "lost in migration: breastfeeding in a new country". hope it goes well.
the person i got the link from put it up in tribute of the la leche conference happening today, at which she is speaking. ruth desouza's topic is "lost in migration: breastfeeding in a new country". hope it goes well.
Thursday, 7 October 2010
sophie elliot foundation
after an appalling panel on tuesday afternoon, when graham bell & jim mora ripped into heather henare of women's refuge, it seems that afternoons were trying to balance things out a little by interviewing sophie elliot's mum on wednesday. the tuesday session really was appalling, with mr bell deciding that qualitative research isn't real research, and that people who report what happens to them via research projects should have their experiences summarily dismissed for reasons unknown. i could only listen to part of it before switching off in disgust.
the interview with lesly elliot was a gem though (afternoons, 6 october, 14.22). she talked about the work she's doing with for the sophie elliot foundation, which has just been launched. basically involves an education campaign for young women and their mothers, making both aware of the signs of an abusive relationship.
what courage this woman has, to be doing the work she's doing after having lived through such an awful tragedy. the thing is that she is able to put forward the issues that so many of us having been talking about for years, and be received a much more sympathetic hearing. while it's extremely sad that it takes such an awful event to give her the platform to do this work, the fact that she is able and willing to do it will benefit many people, men & women alike.
i've had a quick look around the website, and it's looking great. i've just signed up to the facebook page, and see that there are already over a thousand others. i wish mrs elliot and the foundation every success.
the interview with lesly elliot was a gem though (afternoons, 6 october, 14.22). she talked about the work she's doing with for the sophie elliot foundation, which has just been launched. basically involves an education campaign for young women and their mothers, making both aware of the signs of an abusive relationship.
what courage this woman has, to be doing the work she's doing after having lived through such an awful tragedy. the thing is that she is able to put forward the issues that so many of us having been talking about for years, and be received a much more sympathetic hearing. while it's extremely sad that it takes such an awful event to give her the platform to do this work, the fact that she is able and willing to do it will benefit many people, men & women alike.
i've had a quick look around the website, and it's looking great. i've just signed up to the facebook page, and see that there are already over a thousand others. i wish mrs elliot and the foundation every success.
Brilliance from Boganette
Head on over to Boganette's place to read a little piece of brilliance.
How can you be pro-choice?
How can you be pro-choice?
I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice. Pro-choice means believing women aren't just incubators. Women are not just put on this earth to be impregnated and give birth. Women are smart enough to know what is best for them. Women can be trusted with choice. It's their bodies and they should decide. Nobody owns my body. Only I own my body. I'm pro-choice because I don't think having a child should be a punishment. I am pro-choice because anti-choice means killing and maiming women. I am pro-choice because I freakin' love kids. And I think all kids should be wanted. I'm pro-choice because it's the right, and just and moral position. I'm pro-choice because I'm a woman. Frankly - How the FUCK can you be anti-choice?
Another opportunity for body policing lost
Cross posted
When I was pregnant, I was very careful about how much alcohol I drank. From vague recollection, I think I had a couple of half glasses of wine during my first pregnancy, and maybe three during my second one. Except for the full glass of wine I had on my midwife's recommendation on the dark and stormy night when my waters broke, but nothing else was happening to indicate that labour might be starting. Seriously, it was a dark and story night: according to the midwife the air pressure may have caused my waters to break.
I didn't exactly feel guilty about it, but I was faintly worried, and I had to talk myself through the worries. I had completely absorbed the "DO NOT DRINK DURING PREGNANCY" mantra.
Each time, I was worried that someone would tell me off (except for that glass of wine on the dark and stormy night). The excellent Blue Milk has an excellent post on policing women who drink from time to time during pregnancy: Compare and contrast. And see also Lauredhel's post at Hoyden about Town: Bad science on booze in pregnancy: Women infantilised with absolutist messages.
But it turns out that there is no evidence to suggest that women who have one or two drinks a week during pregnancy do any harm to their babies whatsoever.
Light drinking during pregnancy fine - study
What are the pregnancy police going to do now?
Previous posts:
Firing up the baby machines
Because it's always better to police women
When I was pregnant, I was very careful about how much alcohol I drank. From vague recollection, I think I had a couple of half glasses of wine during my first pregnancy, and maybe three during my second one. Except for the full glass of wine I had on my midwife's recommendation on the dark and stormy night when my waters broke, but nothing else was happening to indicate that labour might be starting. Seriously, it was a dark and story night: according to the midwife the air pressure may have caused my waters to break.
I didn't exactly feel guilty about it, but I was faintly worried, and I had to talk myself through the worries. I had completely absorbed the "DO NOT DRINK DURING PREGNANCY" mantra.
Each time, I was worried that someone would tell me off (except for that glass of wine on the dark and stormy night). The excellent Blue Milk has an excellent post on policing women who drink from time to time during pregnancy: Compare and contrast. And see also Lauredhel's post at Hoyden about Town: Bad science on booze in pregnancy: Women infantilised with absolutist messages.
But it turns out that there is no evidence to suggest that women who have one or two drinks a week during pregnancy do any harm to their babies whatsoever.
Light drinking during pregnancy fine - study
Women who have one or two alcoholic drinks a week during pregnancy do not harm their children's behavioural or intellectual development, according to a new study.
The British researchers found that pregnant women who drank up to a glass (175 millilitres) of wine, up to 50 ml of spirits or just under a pint of beer a week did not affect their children.
What are the pregnancy police going to do now?
Previous posts:
Firing up the baby machines
Because it's always better to police women
Wellington Local Body Elections - 1 woman's view
The time has come again where I have to try and figure out which of the various candidates for local body elections I can bear to vote for.
Here is a brief summary of my decisions - too late to do anyone else any good sorry.
Mayor
I'm not opposed to voting for lizards so the wrong lizards don't get in. However, I have my limits. So I'm not voting for Mayor. I am aware that a large number of Wellingtonians will outraged by this, but I'm not convinced that Kerry Prendergast with a slight green tinge will be improvement on Kerry Prendergast. Celia Wade-Brown, the only serious contender for mayor, has made it clear that economically she is no different from Kerry Prendergast. Recently the rates burden has moved from commercial to residential - a move Celia Wade-Brown supports. A 'green' approach to local body politics, can and has been cover for privatisation and an anti-people pro-business way of working.
I would get great pleasure from Kerry losing her job, and while normally that would be enough for me too vote for her opponent, but I cannot support Celia Wade-Brown.
Lambton Ward
What's super frustrating about local body politics is how hard it is to vote for any of them, because they seem to think voters are more interested in their CV, their love of Wellington and their family, than their actual policies.
1. Stephanie Cook - She's probably the reason that I bothered to vote at all. She has a good record of being on the right side of issues - and manages not to mention her family. So I'll vote for her - even though I think making her main campaign planting fruit trees is pretty inane.
2. Marcus Ganley - He has a clear statement against privatisation in his blurb, and is equally clear about his position on water metering. I've made me feelings about the labour party known on this blog several times. But with obvious (Alick Shaw) exceptions I think you can sometimes do +worse than a Labour party candidate on a local body. They tend to be on the left of the party, and they have a basic grasp that they should pretend to be on the side of people rather than business - under like their Green party counter-parts.
3. Mark Greening - I shouldn't rank him - because he believes in engaging youth to stop Graffiti - whereas I think that Graffiti is awesome. However, he's pro-library and he doesn't support water metering, or mention his family. Plus free wi-fi.
Yep I'm super unprincipled.
I'm not ranking:
Ioana Pannett - I vote for her last time, because I hate Alick Shaw just that much. I have appreciated her work against the liquor ban. But she supports the shifted burden of rates - Green party politics are particularly suseptible to neo-liberalism on councils. Plus she mentions her kid in her bio - which is the last straw.
John Bishop - I respect that he puts in that he's business friendly, I do like to see some policies, and respect for that fact that voters might want to know where you stand. But business friendly is Maia unfriendly.
Adam Cunningham - He actually ends his profile - SO IF YOU LOVE WELLINGTON TOO - VOTE CUNNINGHAM 1 IN LAMBTON WARD - just like that all in caps. I am not ranking him Number 1 - so clearly I hate Wellington.
Michael Fowler - He goes into the third person in his bio 'most of our lives were spent in Wellington' - I assume he means him and his wife - but he hasn't even mentioned her. Or possibly he has delusions of grandeur.
Ian McKinnon - Like John Bishop I respect that he made his politics clear, but I don't share them.
Kris Price - So I almost ranked him 4th just for not mentioning his family. Buthis complete lack of politics, as opposed to urban design ideas put me off.
Wellington Regional Council
I find it super difficult to choose candidates for the Wellington Regional Council. They're very pro-business.
Paul Bruce - Just to prove that my prejudice against the Green Party is not my ruling emotion.
Judith Aitken - I suspect she's less than awesome, but she has some good policies, and activism in the women's liberation movement goes a long way with me.
Chris Lipbscombe - clearly I'm getting soft near the end of the ballot, because I voted for him even though he mentions his family.
Not voting for
Sally Barber - Her water policy sounds suspiciously like she supports water metering
Dianne Buchan - More 'business is awesome' 'look at my business experience'
Charles Finny - I would vote for most people in Wellington before I'd vote for the former CEO of the Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce. Plus he hates bus drivers - how can anyone hate bus drivers? Bad person!
Michael Gibson - He hates trains, and writes about himself in the third person. Where do these people come from?
Chris Laidlaw - I may get soft on Labour party candidates in local government. But I draw the line at former MPs.
Terry McDavitt - Blurb is non-stop inanity.
Daran Ponter - If he'd had more actual politics I probably would have voted for him. But his material is so slimy - and he spends so much time talking about his family that I just couldn't do it.
Bill Rainer - Why do these people think we want to know about their experience rather than how they will vote?
Fran Wilde - See I have these vague warm feelings towards her, because of her role in Homosexual Law Reform, but that was almost 25 years ago, and she's pro-business.
DHB
My main criteria is choosing people who believe in fighting for the health system, and it's workers. Also avoiding anyone who might think their religious beliefs are relevant to other people's health care.
1. David Choat - I broke my very important rule and forgave him for mentioning his family - partly because I know them, but more importantly because he has policy that I agree with.
2. Margaret Faulkner - Nurses who are clear where they stand on politics are worth voting for.
3. Maureen Gillon (you may notice that I'm voting for people in alphabetical order - this is because I'm lazy). Another nurse.
4. Malakai Jiko - On my list on easy gimmes is people who have worked for Primary Health Services such as Newtown Union Health.
5. Peter Roberts - He used to work for the doctors union and the coalition for public health - I would totally have voted him higher if only his name was further up the alphabet.
6. Peter Kelly - He used the phrase 'social justice' in his list. When it comes to the Health Board it doesn't take a lot.
7. Judith Aitken - see above.
8. Russell Franklin - his heart is obviously in the right place, even though he has a dodgy past and 8 is pretty far down my list.
9. Mark Jacobs - You were inane enough that I ranked you 9 - congratulations.
Not Ranking
Elizabeth Anderson - She accepts the funding limitations, and thinks her management experience is what's important. Nope.
John Apanowicz - Management. Management. Management.
Maureen Cahill - She doesn't just mention her family - she mentions her cat.
Camilia Chin - She used to be the 'Corporate Management Reporting Accoutnant for the CCDHB' - not my priority.
Barbara Donaldson - I don't disagree "Our DHB is in trouble" I do disagree "The Board needs poeple like me with experience in governance, management and health systems."
Andrew Holmes - actually your young family don't give you perspective for visionary governance FFS.
Virginia Hope - All management speak all the time.
Helene Ritchie - I'm PREJUDICED against random CAPS.
David Scott - If you're going to advertise your christianity when you're running for the Health Board that better come with a disclaimer - "I support a woman's right to choose" or else I'm not voting for you.
Donald Urquhart-Hay - I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I saw a House of Cards at a far too impressionable age to vote for anyone called Urquhart.
Nigel Wilson - The ratio of meaningless jargons to actual words is far too high.
Jack Wood - Funnily enough when thinking about who I want to run my health system and 'international business consultant' isn't it.
Now I've done my democratic duty I'm going to bed. I'll do a report of the abortion protest tomorrow I promise.
Here is a brief summary of my decisions - too late to do anyone else any good sorry.
Mayor
I'm not opposed to voting for lizards so the wrong lizards don't get in. However, I have my limits. So I'm not voting for Mayor. I am aware that a large number of Wellingtonians will outraged by this, but I'm not convinced that Kerry Prendergast with a slight green tinge will be improvement on Kerry Prendergast. Celia Wade-Brown, the only serious contender for mayor, has made it clear that economically she is no different from Kerry Prendergast. Recently the rates burden has moved from commercial to residential - a move Celia Wade-Brown supports. A 'green' approach to local body politics, can and has been cover for privatisation and an anti-people pro-business way of working.
I would get great pleasure from Kerry losing her job, and while normally that would be enough for me too vote for her opponent, but I cannot support Celia Wade-Brown.
Lambton Ward
What's super frustrating about local body politics is how hard it is to vote for any of them, because they seem to think voters are more interested in their CV, their love of Wellington and their family, than their actual policies.
1. Stephanie Cook - She's probably the reason that I bothered to vote at all. She has a good record of being on the right side of issues - and manages not to mention her family. So I'll vote for her - even though I think making her main campaign planting fruit trees is pretty inane.
2. Marcus Ganley - He has a clear statement against privatisation in his blurb, and is equally clear about his position on water metering. I've made me feelings about the labour party known on this blog several times. But with obvious (Alick Shaw) exceptions I think you can sometimes do +worse than a Labour party candidate on a local body. They tend to be on the left of the party, and they have a basic grasp that they should pretend to be on the side of people rather than business - under like their Green party counter-parts.
3. Mark Greening - I shouldn't rank him - because he believes in engaging youth to stop Graffiti - whereas I think that Graffiti is awesome. However, he's pro-library and he doesn't support water metering, or mention his family. Plus free wi-fi.
Yep I'm super unprincipled.
I'm not ranking:
Ioana Pannett - I vote for her last time, because I hate Alick Shaw just that much. I have appreciated her work against the liquor ban. But she supports the shifted burden of rates - Green party politics are particularly suseptible to neo-liberalism on councils. Plus she mentions her kid in her bio - which is the last straw.
John Bishop - I respect that he puts in that he's business friendly, I do like to see some policies, and respect for that fact that voters might want to know where you stand. But business friendly is Maia unfriendly.
Adam Cunningham - He actually ends his profile - SO IF YOU LOVE WELLINGTON TOO - VOTE CUNNINGHAM 1 IN LAMBTON WARD - just like that all in caps. I am not ranking him Number 1 - so clearly I hate Wellington.
Michael Fowler - He goes into the third person in his bio 'most of our lives were spent in Wellington' - I assume he means him and his wife - but he hasn't even mentioned her. Or possibly he has delusions of grandeur.
Ian McKinnon - Like John Bishop I respect that he made his politics clear, but I don't share them.
Kris Price - So I almost ranked him 4th just for not mentioning his family. Buthis complete lack of politics, as opposed to urban design ideas put me off.
Wellington Regional Council
I find it super difficult to choose candidates for the Wellington Regional Council. They're very pro-business.
Paul Bruce - Just to prove that my prejudice against the Green Party is not my ruling emotion.
Judith Aitken - I suspect she's less than awesome, but she has some good policies, and activism in the women's liberation movement goes a long way with me.
Chris Lipbscombe - clearly I'm getting soft near the end of the ballot, because I voted for him even though he mentions his family.
Not voting for
Sally Barber - Her water policy sounds suspiciously like she supports water metering
Dianne Buchan - More 'business is awesome' 'look at my business experience'
Charles Finny - I would vote for most people in Wellington before I'd vote for the former CEO of the Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce. Plus he hates bus drivers - how can anyone hate bus drivers? Bad person!
Michael Gibson - He hates trains, and writes about himself in the third person. Where do these people come from?
Chris Laidlaw - I may get soft on Labour party candidates in local government. But I draw the line at former MPs.
Terry McDavitt - Blurb is non-stop inanity.
Daran Ponter - If he'd had more actual politics I probably would have voted for him. But his material is so slimy - and he spends so much time talking about his family that I just couldn't do it.
Bill Rainer - Why do these people think we want to know about their experience rather than how they will vote?
Fran Wilde - See I have these vague warm feelings towards her, because of her role in Homosexual Law Reform, but that was almost 25 years ago, and she's pro-business.
DHB
My main criteria is choosing people who believe in fighting for the health system, and it's workers. Also avoiding anyone who might think their religious beliefs are relevant to other people's health care.
1. David Choat - I broke my very important rule and forgave him for mentioning his family - partly because I know them, but more importantly because he has policy that I agree with.
2. Margaret Faulkner - Nurses who are clear where they stand on politics are worth voting for.
3. Maureen Gillon (you may notice that I'm voting for people in alphabetical order - this is because I'm lazy). Another nurse.
4. Malakai Jiko - On my list on easy gimmes is people who have worked for Primary Health Services such as Newtown Union Health.
5. Peter Roberts - He used to work for the doctors union and the coalition for public health - I would totally have voted him higher if only his name was further up the alphabet.
6. Peter Kelly - He used the phrase 'social justice' in his list. When it comes to the Health Board it doesn't take a lot.
7. Judith Aitken - see above.
8. Russell Franklin - his heart is obviously in the right place, even though he has a dodgy past and 8 is pretty far down my list.
9. Mark Jacobs - You were inane enough that I ranked you 9 - congratulations.
Not Ranking
Elizabeth Anderson - She accepts the funding limitations, and thinks her management experience is what's important. Nope.
John Apanowicz - Management. Management. Management.
Maureen Cahill - She doesn't just mention her family - she mentions her cat.
Camilia Chin - She used to be the 'Corporate Management Reporting Accoutnant for the CCDHB' - not my priority.
Barbara Donaldson - I don't disagree "Our DHB is in trouble" I do disagree "The Board needs poeple like me with experience in governance, management and health systems."
Andrew Holmes - actually your young family don't give you perspective for visionary governance FFS.
Virginia Hope - All management speak all the time.
Helene Ritchie - I'm PREJUDICED against random CAPS.
David Scott - If you're going to advertise your christianity when you're running for the Health Board that better come with a disclaimer - "I support a woman's right to choose" or else I'm not voting for you.
Donald Urquhart-Hay - I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I saw a House of Cards at a far too impressionable age to vote for anyone called Urquhart.
Nigel Wilson - The ratio of meaningless jargons to actual words is far too high.
Jack Wood - Funnily enough when thinking about who I want to run my health system and 'international business consultant' isn't it.
Now I've done my democratic duty I'm going to bed. I'll do a report of the abortion protest tomorrow I promise.
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
Crap reasons to defend Paul Henry
These are all crap* reasons I've been encountering around the place, particularly on Facebook where many status update debates are raging!
1. That's just the way Paul Henry is; he challenges the PC world we live in and that's a good thing
How can anyone think we truly live in a PC world when a major media figure can say something incredibly racist, having escaped unscathed and unbowed from previous racist, sexist, ableist and generally mean and nasty blurts in the past, and be defended not only by his employer in a manner that said we're all racist on the inside (initially), but unchallenged at the time by our own Prime Minister?
If trying not to denigrate people on the basis of their race, gender, physical appearance, or sexuality is Political Correctness Gone Mad then what do we call being respectful to others these days?
Paul Henry was not speaking truth to power. He was not challenging authority. He was not championing that downtrodden minority that is so disempowered in our society (heterosexual white men of a certain age and income bracket).
What he was doing was, yet again, using a position of power to put down people who are already discriminated against and judged unfairly.
2. Because his People's Choice award speech was funny
Guilty confession: I really enjoyed Henry's speech. And I've written complaints in the past to TVNZ and/or the BSA about Henry, although none of them included the kind of language or sentiments of the one he read out.
Just cos someone is funny once, or even more than once, doesn't give them a Free Pass For All Time. As another example, I enjoy 7 Days, when I can stay up that late, and sometimes I have been known to even laugh out loud at something Paul Ego says on it, but by and large I find his attempts at humour sexist. And there seems to be some kind of one prison rape reference, supposedly a joke, per episode, which is sick. Other than that I find it pretty good telly.
3. To criticise Paul Henry's behaviour/call for consequences for it is a threat to Our Holy Right To Freedom of Speech!!11!!
No one has said Paul Henry can never be a racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, offensive arse at the pub, in his own home or even at an informal gathering of his National party mates. To do so, to say he should never ever say this stuff, would be to curtail his right to free speech. But that's not what people are concerned about, what he says as a private citizen on his own dime and in his own time. It's about abusing his position as a broadcaster to spout this crap, particularly as he doesn't seem to be learning that it's not ok from previous concerns raised.
Even the Blog Defender of the Tory Faith, David Farrar, has said that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Henry is entitled to natural justice from his employer, and I hope he got it before the suspension. Remember this is the same employer, TVNZ, who fired a security guard who dared to challenge Christine Rankin off air after she said some racist stuff on the show.
4. Cos Hone Harawira said stuff about not wanting his kids to date Pakeha
Extended version: ... and no one said anything about that/he got away with it/he's still an MP
This one I've seen quite a bit. There's a lot of rewriting history in this trope, which is necessary because the reality is pretty different from what those using this argument require for this one to work:
5. There are so many bigger issues we should be concentrating on
Bigger than racism? Really?
Especially as Henry has so much past form, judging based on appearance, and he seems to have a particular problem with those of Indian descent, ranting about petrol station attendants and Cabinet Ministers alike.
Also: multitask, people. I may have more than the normal level of outrage to go around, but surely it is possible to be concerned about more than one thing at once?
---
Any other crap reasons you've come across?
* See how I managed to not say "lame reasons"? I used to do it too, before Deborah rightly schooled me.
** Yes the same Prime Minister who shamefully just giggled with Henry. And to those who say he was boggled by it and didn't have time to compose a reaction - the man deals with difficult queries designed to trip him up in Question Time three days a week when the House is sitting, with no notice of what blind-sides he will get. Thinking on your feet is a core competency for PMs.
1. That's just the way Paul Henry is; he challenges the PC world we live in and that's a good thing
How can anyone think we truly live in a PC world when a major media figure can say something incredibly racist, having escaped unscathed and unbowed from previous racist, sexist, ableist and generally mean and nasty blurts in the past, and be defended not only by his employer in a manner that said we're all racist on the inside (initially), but unchallenged at the time by our own Prime Minister?
If trying not to denigrate people on the basis of their race, gender, physical appearance, or sexuality is Political Correctness Gone Mad then what do we call being respectful to others these days?
Paul Henry was not speaking truth to power. He was not challenging authority. He was not championing that downtrodden minority that is so disempowered in our society (heterosexual white men of a certain age and income bracket).
What he was doing was, yet again, using a position of power to put down people who are already discriminated against and judged unfairly.
2. Because his People's Choice award speech was funny
Guilty confession: I really enjoyed Henry's speech. And I've written complaints in the past to TVNZ and/or the BSA about Henry, although none of them included the kind of language or sentiments of the one he read out.
Just cos someone is funny once, or even more than once, doesn't give them a Free Pass For All Time. As another example, I enjoy 7 Days, when I can stay up that late, and sometimes I have been known to even laugh out loud at something Paul Ego says on it, but by and large I find his attempts at humour sexist. And there seems to be some kind of one prison rape reference, supposedly a joke, per episode, which is sick. Other than that I find it pretty good telly.
3. To criticise Paul Henry's behaviour/call for consequences for it is a threat to Our Holy Right To Freedom of Speech!!11!!
No one has said Paul Henry can never be a racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, offensive arse at the pub, in his own home or even at an informal gathering of his National party mates. To do so, to say he should never ever say this stuff, would be to curtail his right to free speech. But that's not what people are concerned about, what he says as a private citizen on his own dime and in his own time. It's about abusing his position as a broadcaster to spout this crap, particularly as he doesn't seem to be learning that it's not ok from previous concerns raised.
Even the Blog Defender of the Tory Faith, David Farrar, has said that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Henry is entitled to natural justice from his employer, and I hope he got it before the suspension. Remember this is the same employer, TVNZ, who fired a security guard who dared to challenge Christine Rankin off air after she said some racist stuff on the show.
4. Cos Hone Harawira said stuff about not wanting his kids to date Pakeha
Extended version: ... and no one said anything about that/he got away with it/he's still an MP
This one I've seen quite a bit. There's a lot of rewriting history in this trope, which is necessary because the reality is pretty different from what those using this argument require for this one to work:
- Harawira actually didn't quite say what was reported, whereas Henry's quotes are accurate and have been repeatedly played verbatim
- There was a lot of outcry about his comments, and calls for him to apologise, including from other Maori, the Prime Minister** and the Race Relations Commissioner
- Many of the same people who have been critical of Henry have also been critical of Harawira, and it is possible to oppose racism towards Pakeha and oppose racism towards other groups simultaneously, whatever your own skin colour.
5. There are so many bigger issues we should be concentrating on
Bigger than racism? Really?
Especially as Henry has so much past form, judging based on appearance, and he seems to have a particular problem with those of Indian descent, ranting about petrol station attendants and Cabinet Ministers alike.
Also: multitask, people. I may have more than the normal level of outrage to go around, but surely it is possible to be concerned about more than one thing at once?
---
Any other crap reasons you've come across?
* See how I managed to not say "lame reasons"? I used to do it too, before Deborah rightly schooled me.
** Yes the same Prime Minister who shamefully just giggled with Henry. And to those who say he was boggled by it and didn't have time to compose a reaction - the man deals with difficult queries designed to trip him up in Question Time three days a week when the House is sitting, with no notice of what blind-sides he will get. Thinking on your feet is a core competency for PMs.
Reminder: Chance for Aucklanders to have direct input to Child Support review
Thanks very much to Leonie from Auckland Women's Centre for the timely reminder about this event, I strongly encourage anyone with experience of the child support system to try to make it if you can.
Have you had experience with Child Support through inland revenue?If you have an event you'd like us to promote please feel free to Contact Us, and if it meets our criteria (broadly, women-focused/feminist and in NZ) then we'll pop it up.
The Families Commission would like you to participate in a focus group exploring the proposed review of the child support scheme and what this would mean in practical terms and also any other changes that may be required for child support.
You will need to be available on the evening of Monday, 11th October 2010, and we are able to provide $30 per participant to help with child minding and transport costs.
Please register on 376 3227 or womensservices@womens.org.nz. Please do not attend without registering - thanks!
niqabitches
a friend on facebook linked to this video:
it's a protest against the burqa-ban in france, which i suppose is a good thing. and it's certainly calculated to garner attention, which the women in the video get plenty of.
on the other hand, the women are doing exactly the opposite of what women who choose to wear the burqa want to do. for some women, the burqa is about not being on show, not being available for public consumption as a sex object. i know most people disagree with the burqa as a solution to that particular problem, which is fine, but that's how burqa-wearing women want to deal with it. i'm not sure many of them would support a protest in this particular form.
still, the women seem to have a good grasp of the issues:
"To put a simple burka on would have been too simple. So we asked ourselves: 'how would the authorities react when faced with women wearing a burka and mini-shorts?," asked the students, one of whom is a Muslim.
"We were not looking to attack or degrade the image of Muslim fundamentalists – each to their own – but rather to question politicians who voted for this law that we consider clearly unconstitutional," they said.
"To dictate what we wear appears to have become the role of the State (as if they didn't have other fish to fry ...)."
and i do actually admire the fact that they are willing to oppose the ban so publicly.
it's a protest against the burqa-ban in france, which i suppose is a good thing. and it's certainly calculated to garner attention, which the women in the video get plenty of.
on the other hand, the women are doing exactly the opposite of what women who choose to wear the burqa want to do. for some women, the burqa is about not being on show, not being available for public consumption as a sex object. i know most people disagree with the burqa as a solution to that particular problem, which is fine, but that's how burqa-wearing women want to deal with it. i'm not sure many of them would support a protest in this particular form.
still, the women seem to have a good grasp of the issues:
"To put a simple burka on would have been too simple. So we asked ourselves: 'how would the authorities react when faced with women wearing a burka and mini-shorts?," asked the students, one of whom is a Muslim.
"We were not looking to attack or degrade the image of Muslim fundamentalists – each to their own – but rather to question politicians who voted for this law that we consider clearly unconstitutional," they said.
"To dictate what we wear appears to have become the role of the State (as if they didn't have other fish to fry ...)."
and i do actually admire the fact that they are willing to oppose the ban so publicly.
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
Hoopla! Abortion protest and court case round-up
As Maia posted on the weekend, today was the day anti-abortion group Right To Life was back in court trying to restrict abortion access by suing the Abortion Supervisory Committee.
Maia and others, notably the Vic Action for Abortion Right's group, were involved in organising a protest outside the Court of Appeal in Wellington to show support for a woman's right to choose and law reform that heads in that direction; No More Jumping Through Hoops.
Here's a round-up of coverage of the court hearing and the protest, which I'll add to as I get a chance (kindly help me out by posting relevant links in comments, ta!):
Comment direction: Kindly take any arguments about the morality of abortion to the whole page we have set up especially for debating that topic. Comments on this post should focus on the court case and/or the protest.
Maia and others, notably the Vic Action for Abortion Right's group, were involved in organising a protest outside the Court of Appeal in Wellington to show support for a woman's right to choose and law reform that heads in that direction; No More Jumping Through Hoops.
Here's a round-up of coverage of the court hearing and the protest, which I'll add to as I get a chance (kindly help me out by posting relevant links in comments, ta!):
- Dominion Post article - Abortion rally outside court - with a great pic of the demonstration
- Speech to the rally by Rebecca from Mothers For Choice - sample quote: "We have a very strong message for the Right to Life brigade – not only do you not own women’s bodies, you don’t own families."
- ALRANZ media statement on the court case - Anti-Abortion Case Reflects Political Apathy Over Women's Rights - including: "Until Parliament acts to enshrine women’s reproductive rights in law, this kind of costly legal harassment will continue, [Dame Margaret Sparrow] said."
- Stuff article on the court hearing - Hearing to review abortion ruling
- Anti-abortion Group Is Not Angry With You, Just Very Very Disappointed - Right To Life put out an odd media statement that doesn't really look like a media statement, and reckon it's inappropriate to protest outside the court. Also, did you know that everytime you wear red you are endorsing a culture of death?
- Background on the court case, which has been going on for a long time now, can be found at the ALRANZ site.
Comment direction: Kindly take any arguments about the morality of abortion to the whole page we have set up especially for debating that topic. Comments on this post should focus on the court case and/or the protest.
yes, we do actually need to see it
i can't say that i'm a great animal lover. well, as i've said before, i love them collectively as a group and as a concept. it's just individual animals that i would prefer kept their distance from me.
however, i don't think you have to be much of an animal-lover to be appalled at the story about inducing cows early to increase milk production. last week, we learnt that fonterra chair, henry van der heyden, owns farms where this practice is rife, though fonterra discourages it and is trying to phase it out.
the waikato times has been covering this issue over several days, as they would. but this comment, in an article on the front page of saturday's paper, really had me fuming:
A farming leader, National Agricultural Fieldays vice-chairman Lloyd Downing, has reacted angrily to publicity about the practice and emphasised the pressure farmers are under economically.
"There's a lot of things we do on the farm that the public don't really need to see."
of course there were others in the sector who disagreed with this, but really? if there are practices on the farm that the public shouldn't see, then they really shouldn't be happening. yes, i know we kill the animals and eat them, and i'm no vegetarian. i accept that it's an inconsistent position, but even so, just because we eat them doesn't mean that we should condone practices that are cruel and painful.
i wonder if the practice of farming itself causes some people to become desensitised, as a coping mechanism. i could understand that. but this is more reason to have scrutiny of what goes on at the farm, particularly by those who aren't so directly involved in the processes. transparency can only be a good thing when it comes to ensuring animals are treated humanely.
there just seems to be a big disconnect between consumers and producers of animal products around what is acceptable. part of the disconnect arises from wider issues, like the difficulty of surviving when land prices are so expensive, when selling prices fluctuate from year to year, when many farmers are up to their eyeballs in credit, when the large landholdings are held by corporates who don't seem to care about much beyond the bottom line. all of these factors create the pressure to increase production per animal by any means.
this is why the solution is not simply tougher animal welfare laws and more inspections. there is something fundamentally wrong with the economic structure under which farming operates, and until we are ready to address that and make serious changes, nothing much is likley to change.
however, i don't think you have to be much of an animal-lover to be appalled at the story about inducing cows early to increase milk production. last week, we learnt that fonterra chair, henry van der heyden, owns farms where this practice is rife, though fonterra discourages it and is trying to phase it out.
the waikato times has been covering this issue over several days, as they would. but this comment, in an article on the front page of saturday's paper, really had me fuming:
A farming leader, National Agricultural Fieldays vice-chairman Lloyd Downing, has reacted angrily to publicity about the practice and emphasised the pressure farmers are under economically.
"There's a lot of things we do on the farm that the public don't really need to see."
of course there were others in the sector who disagreed with this, but really? if there are practices on the farm that the public shouldn't see, then they really shouldn't be happening. yes, i know we kill the animals and eat them, and i'm no vegetarian. i accept that it's an inconsistent position, but even so, just because we eat them doesn't mean that we should condone practices that are cruel and painful.
i wonder if the practice of farming itself causes some people to become desensitised, as a coping mechanism. i could understand that. but this is more reason to have scrutiny of what goes on at the farm, particularly by those who aren't so directly involved in the processes. transparency can only be a good thing when it comes to ensuring animals are treated humanely.
there just seems to be a big disconnect between consumers and producers of animal products around what is acceptable. part of the disconnect arises from wider issues, like the difficulty of surviving when land prices are so expensive, when selling prices fluctuate from year to year, when many farmers are up to their eyeballs in credit, when the large landholdings are held by corporates who don't seem to care about much beyond the bottom line. all of these factors create the pressure to increase production per animal by any means.
this is why the solution is not simply tougher animal welfare laws and more inspections. there is something fundamentally wrong with the economic structure under which farming operates, and until we are ready to address that and make serious changes, nothing much is likley to change.
How bad does he have to get? Paul Henry suspended
As Stuff reports, TVNZ has belatedly come to its senses and suspended Paul Henry without pay for his remarks about the Governor-General and his possible successor. TVNZ chief executive Rick Ellis said that Mr Henry's remarks were inappropriate for anyone in the company to make.
"I have met with Paul and told him that while his apologies were the right thing to do and that I believe he is sincere in his regret, I still consider his remarks unacceptable for any employee of TVNZ to make. TVNZ is a multi-cultural company that is representative of modern New Zealand's rich ethnic diversity. We give Paul a lot of freedom with the Breakfast programme and he does a magnificent job. But as we have said before, with that freedom comes responsibility. Paul is one of New Zealand's best broadcasters. He is a provocative host who speaks his mind and that is what many New Zealanders like about him. He often pushes the boundaries and that's important in a country that values freedom of speech. But I consider his latest remarks to have well and truly crossed that line. As Editor-In-Chief I have today suspended Paul without pay effective immediately. He will return on air on Monday 18 October. When Sir Anand returns from the Commonwealth Games I will be personally apologising to him."
I do not think the public - or at least that proportion of it that instantly understood exactly how racist and offensive Henry's remarks were - will quickly forget John Key's inability to show the same understanding, and react appropriately to what Henry said to him, preferably by immediately walking out of the studio.
But I also agree with Stargazer - it seems that sexism is not in the same league as racism, and that had Henry stuck to insulting women, those with disabilities and those who do not hold high public office, he would have continued to get away with it. Still, at least even TVNZ (or at least Rick Ellis) did grasp, though very belatedly, and after compounding the offence by saying that Henry voices what "we" think, did finally understand that Henry's conduct was completely unacceptable - though not, apparently, unacceptable enough to fire him.
"I have met with Paul and told him that while his apologies were the right thing to do and that I believe he is sincere in his regret, I still consider his remarks unacceptable for any employee of TVNZ to make. TVNZ is a multi-cultural company that is representative of modern New Zealand's rich ethnic diversity. We give Paul a lot of freedom with the Breakfast programme and he does a magnificent job. But as we have said before, with that freedom comes responsibility. Paul is one of New Zealand's best broadcasters. He is a provocative host who speaks his mind and that is what many New Zealanders like about him. He often pushes the boundaries and that's important in a country that values freedom of speech. But I consider his latest remarks to have well and truly crossed that line. As Editor-In-Chief I have today suspended Paul without pay effective immediately. He will return on air on Monday 18 October. When Sir Anand returns from the Commonwealth Games I will be personally apologising to him."
I do not think the public - or at least that proportion of it that instantly understood exactly how racist and offensive Henry's remarks were - will quickly forget John Key's inability to show the same understanding, and react appropriately to what Henry said to him, preferably by immediately walking out of the studio.
But I also agree with Stargazer - it seems that sexism is not in the same league as racism, and that had Henry stuck to insulting women, those with disabilities and those who do not hold high public office, he would have continued to get away with it. Still, at least even TVNZ (or at least Rick Ellis) did grasp, though very belatedly, and after compounding the offence by saying that Henry voices what "we" think, did finally understand that Henry's conduct was completely unacceptable - though not, apparently, unacceptable enough to fire him.
Monday, 4 October 2010
how bad does he have to get to be fired?
paul henry's comments on the governor-general's position have been covered pretty widely on the internet & facebook, and there's not too much to add. a quick round-up of links:
i'd like to echo julie's comment on facebook (hoping you won't mind me metioning it here) that its sad that there appears to be more opposition to comments against a member of the establishment than there was to his unacceptable comments about women. as others have said, it's strange that racism seems to be viewed as worse than sexism.
being a person to whom both racism and sexism often applies, rest assured that both feel equally crappy when one happens to be at the receiving end. this latest episode from mr henry was quite depressing. it seems that no matter how much i contribute to this country, there are people out there who are happy to tell me that i will never belong. and those people have a much bigger profile, a much bigger audience, than i can ever hope to achieve. still, all the links above made me feel a lot better as the day progressed. thank you to all the people who are standing up and telling tvnz that mr henry is not actually saying what "everyone" thinks. not by a long shot.
for those (and i'm sure they'll turn up) who are going to tell us to harden up & get a sense a humour, let me head you off at the pass & give you the response i've put up elsewhere: how about you soften up and get a sense of empathy.
update: tvnz has grown a little bit of a spine, and now mr henry has been suspended without pay until 18 october. still not enough as far as i'm concerned. he's had plenty of chances, it's time for him to go.
- here is the response from the race relations commissioner
- excellent intial post by the sprout here at the standard, and a follow-up here by irish bill on the non-apology.
- the dim-post has a series of posts, this one showing the original clip if you really want to see it, but also this, this, this and especially this.
- john drinnan at the herald puts up a good piece, and for once the comments section there is not particularly puke-inducing (although a couple are)
- i'm particularly impressed by the stand taken by ben gracewood, who has resigned from the breakfast programme. you can read his views here.
- grant robertson posts on red alert here.
- pablo chimes in with some pertinent questions at kiwipolitico here.
- the ever-acerbic idiot/savant has this, this (love it!), and this at no right turn.
- and of course, there's the facebook page here.
i'd like to echo julie's comment on facebook (hoping you won't mind me metioning it here) that its sad that there appears to be more opposition to comments against a member of the establishment than there was to his unacceptable comments about women. as others have said, it's strange that racism seems to be viewed as worse than sexism.
being a person to whom both racism and sexism often applies, rest assured that both feel equally crappy when one happens to be at the receiving end. this latest episode from mr henry was quite depressing. it seems that no matter how much i contribute to this country, there are people out there who are happy to tell me that i will never belong. and those people have a much bigger profile, a much bigger audience, than i can ever hope to achieve. still, all the links above made me feel a lot better as the day progressed. thank you to all the people who are standing up and telling tvnz that mr henry is not actually saying what "everyone" thinks. not by a long shot.
for those (and i'm sure they'll turn up) who are going to tell us to harden up & get a sense a humour, let me head you off at the pass & give you the response i've put up elsewhere: how about you soften up and get a sense of empathy.
update: tvnz has grown a little bit of a spine, and now mr henry has been suspended without pay until 18 october. still not enough as far as i'm concerned. he's had plenty of chances, it's time for him to go.
awards for feminist geographers
spotted in a small paragraph in a sidebar on page A9 of saturday's waikato times:
Waikato University feminist geographers have been presented with achievement awards from the National Geographical Society. Author of the book "Place, Space and Sex: Geographies of Sexualities", Robyn Longhurst won the Distinguished Geography Gold Medal for ourstanding and sustained contribution and service to geography. Lynda Johnston received a Distinguished Service Award for her significant contribution to New Zealand geography and its community over the last five years.
and here is the uni of waikato press release on scoop:
The Geographical Society’s Executive Manager June Logie says it’s great to see them rewarded for many years of strategic and important work. “They are significant feminist New Zealand geographers who’ve made enormous contributions in their area of research. Their work has received much acknowledgement here and overseas and it’s great to see them.”
congratulations to these two, good to their work being recognised. just wish it could be recognised more widely in the MSM.
Waikato University feminist geographers have been presented with achievement awards from the National Geographical Society. Author of the book "Place, Space and Sex: Geographies of Sexualities", Robyn Longhurst won the Distinguished Geography Gold Medal for ourstanding and sustained contribution and service to geography. Lynda Johnston received a Distinguished Service Award for her significant contribution to New Zealand geography and its community over the last five years.
and here is the uni of waikato press release on scoop:
The Geographical Society’s Executive Manager June Logie says it’s great to see them rewarded for many years of strategic and important work. “They are significant feminist New Zealand geographers who’ve made enormous contributions in their area of research. Their work has received much acknowledgement here and overseas and it’s great to see them.”
congratulations to these two, good to their work being recognised. just wish it could be recognised more widely in the MSM.
Sunday, 3 October 2010
No More Jumping Through Hoops: Abortion Rights Demo
We've talked a lot on this blog about the problems of abortion laws in New Zealand. If you live in Wellington, you can do something about it this Tuesday.
5 October · 12:30 - 13:30
Outside Court of Appeal (Corner of Aitken & Molesworth Streets)
Right to Life is taking the Abortion Supervisory Committee to court, to try and further restrict women's access to abortion in New Zealand (I'm going to try and get to at least some of the court case, so I'll try and provide a summary soon).
Our current law requires women to jump through many hoops before they can get access to abortion. Join the demo to demand that the current law is repealed, rather than interpreted more conservatively.
All welcome - bring your friends (If you're on facebook, you can invite your friends here)
5 October · 12:30 - 13:30
Outside Court of Appeal (Corner of Aitken & Molesworth Streets)
Right to Life is taking the Abortion Supervisory Committee to court, to try and further restrict women's access to abortion in New Zealand (I'm going to try and get to at least some of the court case, so I'll try and provide a summary soon).
Our current law requires women to jump through many hoops before they can get access to abortion. Join the demo to demand that the current law is repealed, rather than interpreted more conservatively.
All welcome - bring your friends (If you're on facebook, you can invite your friends here)
Saturday, 2 October 2010
Should this woman have gone to prison?
A report of a mother's sentencing this week has been haunting me. The first thing to note is that the woman, a recent immigrant from Fiji, aged 29, had suffered long-term domestic violence. In other words, her husband regularly beat her up. She was also suffering from a "major depressive episode" and was not copng with her youngest child, a toddler, so Child Youth and Family removed him and his older sister. However, they then put him back with her. They later admitted that this was a mistake, due to the case being handled by "an inexperienced social worker and an overloaded supervisor" and failure to complete "final checks".
After the child had been home for two days, his mother left him alone in a deep bath and he drowned. The judge accepted that "she had no intention of killing her son". But this week she was sentenced to two years and ten months in prison. Her five-year-old daughter, who had been sexually assaulted by a 13-year-old boy while she was in CYF care, was being looked after by her father. (It was not clear whether this was the same man who had inflicted the "domestic violence", or a different man.)
I can't see that sending this woman to prison for two years and ten months was the right and just thing to do. She should obviously have been getting help, not simply so she could cope as a parent, but for her own sake. But the only solution was to remove the children - which I would have thought wasn't calculated to make her feel any better about herself. Nor was it safe to leave them with her on her own - as the little boy's death so tragically proved. I do understand how difficult it must be for CYF to cope with such cases, but somehow it seems that it was no one's job to look after her, and everything else stemmed from that.
After the child had been home for two days, his mother left him alone in a deep bath and he drowned. The judge accepted that "she had no intention of killing her son". But this week she was sentenced to two years and ten months in prison. Her five-year-old daughter, who had been sexually assaulted by a 13-year-old boy while she was in CYF care, was being looked after by her father. (It was not clear whether this was the same man who had inflicted the "domestic violence", or a different man.)
I can't see that sending this woman to prison for two years and ten months was the right and just thing to do. She should obviously have been getting help, not simply so she could cope as a parent, but for her own sake. But the only solution was to remove the children - which I would have thought wasn't calculated to make her feel any better about herself. Nor was it safe to leave them with her on her own - as the little boy's death so tragically proved. I do understand how difficult it must be for CYF to cope with such cases, but somehow it seems that it was no one's job to look after her, and everything else stemmed from that.
Friday, 1 October 2010
Friday Feminist - Kaz Cooke
Cross posted
Kaz Cooke, "The F-word - Isn't everything okay now" in Girl Stuff: Your Full-on Guide to the Teen Years, Viking: Melbourne, 2007
...if someone tells you that all the fights are over, and nobody needs to bother about being a feminist any more, think about these questions.
- How come, on average, girls do much better than boys at school and uni, yet women are more likely to be in lower paid part-time or casual jobs with fewer benefits and worse conditions?
- Why are most managers, bosses and politicians men?
- How come the average full-time wage for women is still less than the average weekly earnings for men? (In most cases, less than or around 80% of the man's wage.)
- What is the 'glass ceiling' - and why do women keep talking about it?
- Why is it that in many countries women who have been raped are arrested and punished because they are no longer 'virgins'?
- Why is it that in some cultures girls' genitals are mutilated? And why are girls in some countries forced to cover themselves entirely with fabric or risk being insulted or assaulted in public or legally punished?
- Why is it that in many cultures young girls are 'promised' to older men and forced to marry against their wishes?
- How come so many guys in our own society don't respect girls and women or their achievements?
- Why do some people persist in behaving as if girls are just toys for guys?
- Why do some girls feel they need to know 'What guys want' and 'Will guys like it if I...'? Wouldn't it be nice if girls more often thought, 'What would a guy have to do to impress me'?
- Why is it that radio stations and music channel;s play songs in which guys call girls 'hos', bitches and other brutal, disrespectful things, as if it was nothing - as if it was okay to do that?
- How come more girl singers can't sing their own songs dressed the way they want, instead of having to look as if they're practically in a porn video?
- Why do some religious leaders say that women who have their period can't enter a place of worship?
- Why is a teenage girl who gets pregnant sometimes asked or pressured to leave school, but the father of the baby isn't?
- How come most of the sports reports (and sponsorships) are for men's sports?
- Why do large corporations sponsor only (or mainly) men's sports, not women's?
- Why do so many radio and TV shows have lots of men but only one woman, never the other way round?
- How come male newsreaders and actors are allowed to get old and look 'distinguished', but the women have to try to 'look younger' by using cosmetic surgery?
- How come the mostly male politicians in the national government haven't fixed the child-care problem?
- How come the mostly male politicians in the national government, many of them with a religious bias, make the rules about abortion when they will never be pregnant? And when most male politicians leave the raising of their families to their wives and disappear for weeks at a time?
- How come even the women who work full-time with children usually do a lot more of the housework than their partners?
- Why do so many children's stories have male heroes, rather than female ones?
- How come women writers often write dramas and comedies with equal roles for guys and women, while most male writers tend to write interesting roles for guys but not so many good roles or lines for women? ...
Being a feminist doesn't mean you can't wear girly clothes, or you hate guys. Being a feminist means you support girls and women have equal rights with guys.
Kaz Cooke, "The F-word - Isn't everything okay now" in Girl Stuff: Your Full-on Guide to the Teen Years, Viking: Melbourne, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)