Fairey's Theory of Awesomeness (Nominate 2016)

Part of the series Nominate 2016, hoping to open up local government a bit so y'all will at least think about running in 2016.  

Fairey's Theory of Awesomeness

Some elected people think they have been elected because they are awesome.  For those who think this, all they will likely do, once elected, is continue to radiate their awesomeness.  Avoid members of Team Awesome; please don't be one and please don't vote for one.

I've noticed there are really two main kinds of people who are politicians, by which I mean elected people like me.  There are those who think they are elected because they are awesome, and those who have a broader understanding of why they are elected and what the role is.  In my opinion you do not want to vote for the former, and if you run you do not want to be the former either.  

How can you pick who is on Team Awesome?

Those on Team Awesome will of course differ in their individual practice but can often be discerned by markers such as:

• Low attendance at meetings, briefings and the like that are part of the elected role, particularly if formal minutes are not being taken or the public are not present and/or it is a consultation process where listening and answering questions is key - why would they need to go, they already know how to be awesome!
• Often very quick responses to public scrutiny such as angry constituent emails, but then no actual follow through on the issue raised - the very fact that they have shared their awesomeness with you by replying is sufficient!
• A lack of detail in their reporting, or possibly even just no reporting at all - they don't need to prove their awesomeness to anyone, yo, it is self-evident.
• Confusion between governance and management/operational and also potentially quite a removed idea of governance - their role is to be awesome, that's it!
• Good blurb and soundbites - because of the awesomeness!
• Inability to have a detailed dialogue about an issue beyond soundbites - detail and knowledge is for people who aren't awesome!
• Few completed projects, few if any with much complexity - the awesomeness does not fit well with persistence and consistency, two qualities essential to getting projects done in a democratic environment, sadface.

If you think the above is acceptable once you are elected then please don't run.  This isn't what being a politican is.  For some posts I wrote much earlier (2013) on what being a politician is and can be see here and here.  I'll be revisiting that theme later in this series.

Why does it matter?

Sadly some do operate on the basis of their own awesomeness, and often times they get re-elected too, and they not only give all politicians a bad name, more importantly they fundamentally undermine what can be achieved through the democratic process.  They short change constituents by having a limited vision of the role, of what local government can achieve, and also by spending the time and resources they have access to on being awesome instead of Getting Stuff Done.  (More on what Getting Stuff Done can look like in another post!)  Often they get in the way of people who are trying to get on with the Getting Stuff Done, sometimes deliberately (especially if they are a small government advocate I have found, aka a small c conservative), sometimes accidentally by diverting attention and resources, and other times by the sheer amount of will to live they suck out of other people around them.

TLDR:  It is better to get awesome stuff done than to be seen to be awesome.  If you care about this and want to be involved in making it better then nominate, if you want to be awesome then find somewhere else to do that please. 

Being on the ballot with blokes

One of the issues I've written a lot about, and done some basic analysis on, is women's political representation in Aotearoa New Zealand.  For the last two general elections I've looked at each party's likely caucus, based on list placings and electorate seats, and predicted the gender breakdown.  I've been particularly critical of National, whose 2011 election result explicitly reduced the number of women in Parliament, due to their list and electorate seat selections.

Now that I myself am an elected politician I have focused a bit more on the politicians around me - Auckland Council's Local Boards and Governing Body.  I put together a presentation for the women themed session of the Social & Community Development Forum about the topic.  My conclusions were that women's representation seems to be plateauing at around 35%, and the problem is not with the voters but with the selections.

Now I have to eat my words, at least in part.

Thirteen.  That's the number of women me or one of my running mates asked to run on our ticket for the Puketapapa Local Board.   Each one turned us down; immediately (a few), after a bit of a think (most), after being a strong maybe (a few), after saying yes please (one).  I believe every single one of them would have made a great Local Board member.  Maybe, hopefully, some will in future elections.

None of them mentioned the politics of our ticket as the issue.  All were gratified to have been approached, and in most cases had never considered it themselves, despite being actively involved in their local community.  With each respective "no thanks" came good wishes for the campaign and in many cases offers to help out.  

And so now I am the last woman standing; one woman on the Roskill Community Voice ticket with five others, standing for the six spots available.  I'm sure I won't be the only woman standing in this area as there is at least one other ticket and both of the incumbent Governing Body members (councillors) are women and seeking re-election, one of them with the umbrella ticket RCV is affiliated with, City Vision.  But it does feel a bit lonely, a bit of a boys' club!

Don't get me wrong, I am very pleased with my ticket-mates; their commitment to our area is strong, their past records on social justice good.  They will all be fantastic Local Board members too.

So why did these wonderful capable intelligent women turn down this great opportunity to make positive change in their neighbourhoods and surrounds?  Mostly because of time. The Remuneration Authority recently calculated that Local Board members spend on average 24 hours a week on that job.  My observation is that that would vary wildly amongst those currently elected, but then we are the first to experience a brand new super-city structure.  Many genuinely didn't realise the time commitment when they stood and haven't been able to rearrange their lives to allow for that.   Others seem to think they can do the job justice by limiting their time to a few hours a week.  It will be interesting to see how the latter fare if they stand for re-election.

There aren't a lot of part time jobs out there which allow the flexibility required for local body politicians to cover everything.  The pay for being a local board member isn't enough to ditch other income options entirely, for most.  I get $36,000 a year (before tax) and I have so much respect for those who get by on that alone;  I work two days a week in another job as well.   I gave up an $80K+ pa job to do this (and I don't regret it except when I go shopping).

So the time issue is considerable; wondering if you could keep doing your other job, whether your boss would let you go part time, potentially giving up a role you love or a project you wanted to see through, and then there's working in with other obligations like family, being on a Board of Trustees, perhaps a health condition, or wanting to be able to travel.  

There were a lot of other practical considerations too; what if I have a baby?  Does it get nasty?  How autonomous is the role or does the chair order everyone around?  Would it create a conflict of interest with this other thing I'm involved in?  How much does it cost?  While the overriding factor given was time, all of these and more were in the mix for some.  

What I noticed from this was how almost every woman was carefully thinking myriad factors through.  Less focused on "do I want to do this, would I be good at this" but instead on "can I actually do this?"

In contrast there was no issue finding men to run.  There almost never is, from my political experience of the last fifteen plus years.  The men I've observed have largely been more likely to say yes, to put themselves forward, and worry about how it will all work out if they get elected after polling day, not before.  

Maybe it's because many fellas have women in their lives who do sort the practicalities; behind every great man etc (vomit).  Maybe it's because many ladies are socialised more to think they have to have everything just right to do something, have to be able to answer every question emphatically.  Possibly it's because politics is still a male-dominated environment, and many women know that, even if just sub-consciously, and they don't really want to go to there.

How do we fix this?  I don't know.  But I'm very super extra keen to find out.  Do let me know what your ideas are!

My thoughts are that this shouldn't be, and isn't, about fixing women (Judy McGregor once called me, rightly, on the oft-raised solutionidea of mentoring) but about fixing a system that women don't seem to fit into.  

Finally, if you are a woman and you are thinking about running for local government and you are wavering then my advice is to run.  Worry about how it will work out later, if you need to.  Put yourself up, put your nomination in, contest selection if you need to, then campaign.  If you are not the electioneering type then find some great women to support, and some great men who support women too, and do what you can to help.  Even if it's simply using the power of like, please don't underestimate the difference you can make, even just with the clicky.

PS  If anyone wants to have a chat with me about running or supporting awesome people who are running in their area then feel free to email julie dot fairey at gmail dot com. In some places selections for tickets are already done, so you may have missed your window of opportunity to run with a team, but I'm happy to answer questions and share thoughts regardless.

Marriage equality talk at university of Auckland 24th August 2012

(Apologies for the lateness of this being posted, I've been sick.)

I left Louisa Wall’s talk at the University of Auckland with some serious warm fuzzies. Within the room there had been a myriad of people, religions, and ages, all united in one single cause. The cessation of separation of human rights related to gender and sexuality.

Had we all gone to a café after and tried to have a conversation about any other topic, we would have struggled to include everyone without some serious bickering but in marriage equality, we were united.

Louisa spoke passionately and without notes. She spoke of her personal history, the history of rainbow rights in NZ and around the world, and she spoke about what this bill will mean.

If you want to hear the basics from her mouth, take a look at her speach today at parliament house.

If you would like to hear a more in depth discussion about what the bill means to NZ, including a very clear discussion on what it will mean for NZ churches (spoiler alert – NOTHING), take a peek here.

If you want to watch Colin Craig get OWNED on public television, check this out. *snort*

I’m just briefly going to give an insight into the questions session of the day, because that is the one thing you won’t see elsewhere.

In the questions.

A woman stepped forward and spoke about marrying into an interracial relationship only one year after Loving vs Virginia, and the hate that continued after that point.

She and her daughter pointed out the similarities in argument the social right use against gay marriage and against mixed race marriage. The fact we have grown past the latter, doesn’t mean the stupid arguments wont be re-used to hurt a new minority group.

They spoke of evolution and the fact both sides survived the revolution and they will both survive this one, but we need to ignore the bigots and keep fighting for what is right.

Aaron raised the fact that the media, and this includes the rainbow media, keeps calling the bill the “gay marriage bill”, the frustration was evident from his passion, when speaking about the fact that trans people are even more marginalised than the cis-gay community.

Louisa spoke compassionately to this point and clarified that this is why this is the bill is called the “definition of marriage amendment bill”.

She got a laugh from the group when she said

“this bill couldn’t BE ANY STRAIGHTER” and I know it wasn’t just me that choked up when she followed on

“It isn’t about being gay, or straight, or what your gender identity, it’s about being EQUAL.”

Section 32 will be highlighted when she speaks on Wednesday, and I for one will be watching.

Soraiya Daud stood “It’s been a long time since I sat in a room and been moved by a labour mp, and I’m IN the labour party.” Cue raucous laughter from the room!

“I hope that you can be an example to the rest of our MPs”

Finally Nathan, a Christian who has recently joined the salvation army stood up. He had a loud voice and after overhearing conversations from before we started I was terrified of what he was going to say. So much positivity was bouncing around the room, and I was so scared we were going to end on a downer.

He told a story about a Friend who texted him- “I’m gay, does Jesus love me?”

He said he thought about it, and said “Jesus does love you because you are made in his image”. He quoted “Come now for it is time to worship, come as you are.”

He said that his friend replied

“Thank you, I was on the edge of a bridge, and I have gotten off”

The room audibly sighed. To hear of people working within organisations who are in support of this cause was wonderful, and someone in the crowd shouted "Kia-Ora Nathan”.

He Pointed out that there ARE Christians out there who agree, but want to work within their groups, churches, leadership, they want to make their own boundaries.

Louisa nodded in agreement, and reiterated her points about the fact that this bill doesn’t change what the church can or has to do.

“Churches continue to be able to discriminate based on religious belief.”

What this bill will do is open bigger spaces for churches to have their own discussions, and this is already happening.

The discussion was thrilling, and I think most people wished they could raise their hand just to shout THANK YOU, but there wasn’t enough time.

I was there because the Marriage equality bill is in front of parliament Wednesday the 29^th August.

I sincerely hope that this law is changed through this process. Partly because I honestly can’t see why it hasn’t been already, and partly because I don’t want any future generations to have to fight this rubbish. We should be raising our young people in spaces safe for all genders and sexualities. People should feel safe as they are, with who they love.

So as a person who feels passionately about this bill, and hopes that THIS will be the time for change, I want to soak everything up, be part of it, support those putting themselves out there, enable safe spaces for open conversation and remember this.

Because one day I want to tell my nieces and nephews, or kids, that I was there, I was part of this, I helped the change.

I don’t want to tell them I went out for dinner and don’t remember the specifics.

Because this… this is important people.

Sit up, take notice, write letters, talk to your family, talk to your friends, talk to your leaders, religious groups, community groups. Raise this issue.

Most hate is driven by ignorance, and change is hindered by apathy. So if you think you can’t make a difference, you can. 

It will be our generation who makes the difference, because WE are the ones who overwhelmingly support this bill. It is us who needs to raise its profile and put a loving face on the front of it.

Go to it people.

Wellington launch of NZ 'Who needs feminism?" campaign

Many thanks to Sara for sending through the blurb used in Salient to promote this.  Facebook event here.

The VUWSA Women’s Group will be challenging misconceptions about feminism and demonstrating its relevance in today’s society with an exciting event this Thursday.

Inspired by a group of students at Duke University in the USA, The National Council of Women of New Zealand (NCWNZ) has this week launched its own NZ-based version of the ‘Who Needs Feminism?’ campaign – and the VUWSA Women’s Group is urging Vic students to get involved.

VUWSA Women’s Officer, Sara Bishop, explained: “This is a really great photo campaign which allows people to share a message about why feminism is important to them and we really encourage everyone – students and staff – to get involved.

“The idea is to show that feminists are not ‘man-hating’ and ‘bra-burning’ – feminists are people who believe that men and women should be equal.

“We also want to overcome the perception that we don’t need feminism anymore. There’s a pretty widespread belief that equality has been achieved. Even in forward thinking New Zealand, there are plenty of shocking statistics on pay equity, women in leadership and family violence. And that’s before you even consider things like street harassment and the pressures on girls and women to achieve a singular and unrealistic standard of beauty.”

The VUWSA Women’s Group will be taking photos for the campaign in Library Foyer on  Thursday, July 19 from 1pm. Paper, pens and even some suggestions will be provided, so all you need to do is come along and get involved. Pictures taken at the event will be shared on the NCWNZ ‘Who needs feminism?’ campaign tumblr page (whoneedsfeminismnz.tumblr.com).

Here's the NCWNZ trailer for the campaign:

becoming aware

something tonight (which i don't want to explain) caused me to think about when i first became politically aware and motivated to be politically active.

it's really hard to pin these things down to one specific factor or moment, especially at age 45 trying to have an accurate memory of my teen years! but i think one of the most defnining influences for me was the springbok tour of 1981. i was around 15 years old then, and all i could remember was a muldoon government. i had vague recollections of norman kirk dying, but was too young when he died for that to have a real impact.

initially i had been convinced by all the people who were adamant that politics should be kept out of sport, and that the tour must go ahead. yes, really. then at school, there was a debate on the tour, and teachers being the wily things that they are, my teacher put me on the side of arguing that the tour shouldn't happen. of course i was annoyed at the time, because i had all the arguments of the other side in my head already.

but the debate forced me to research the other side. and when i started reading, and finding out what apartheid was, how it worked, what effects it had on black south africans, and the sheer injustice of it all, well i can hardly describe the experience. i could go poetic and tell you that it was like a veil of ignorance had lifted from my mind. or maybe it's more accurate to say that it just blew my mind.

it was that process and the events around it that really caused political awareness. the following year, i studied south african history as part of the 5th form history syllabus. it was while of all this was going on that the game was stopped in hamilton, and i had friends who had been in the middle of rugby park, in the midst of all the anger and violence. i wasn't allowed to go, but i really wish i could have been there.

following from that experience, i started becoming aware of other issues both around the world and locally - ireland, palestine, becoming nuclear free, women's rights. it's like becoming aware of one injustice opened the doors to learning about others. and it opened the doors to caring and wanting to act.

wanting to act and actually getting involved are two different things. there was another event that pushed me towards getting involved in various things, but that was much later in my life. i'll save that post for another day - if i write it at all.

so, if people feel comfortable sharing, i'd be really interested in hearing what inspired or motivated you to become politically aware. i'll be doing my best to keep the comments thread safe for people to share.

The Officer Ether

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

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

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

Here's an example:

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.

A ramble about unacceptable behaviour in activisty groups

Trigger warnings for rape, sexual abuse, violence, exploitation of power:

The other day Stef and I were having a chat about the Omar Hamed stuff that has come up here and elsewhere lately.  Neither of us know Omar at all, but sadly the theme was familiar; sexist injustice and exploitation, hidden within activist groups supposedly overwhelming in their right-on expressions of gender equality and general comradely behaviour of The Highest Order.

We both knew of examples the other was unaware of, even in groups we had both been active in around the same time. I don't know about Stef, but I kept at least one story back, one I just still cannot share with people who know the rapist even vaguely.  So often these stories feel like they are not our own to share because they happened to someone else, and we want to protect them, not the abuser.  It's difficult to know what to do; the worry that by telling what the areshole did you will open the victim up to shame and recrimination.

Which is where leadership comes in.  One of the responsibilities of leadership is dealing with the internal Hard Stuff too.

I've noticed it too many times now.  When concerns are raised about a prominent member, a "Good Guy", who is behaving in a predatory sexist manner towards others in the group, the shutters come down on the faces of the political leaders and the problem becomes not the unacceptable behaviour, but the fact that people are labelling that behaviour as unacceptable and challenging it.

The person with the problem, the person who acts unacceptably, might not be an out-front leader, they might be someone who delivers lots of leaflets, or has a great hoarding spot, or is one of the few in paid employment for the group.  Whatever role they fill there seems to be some protection afforded, some reason to not rock the boat in case they decide to jump out and take their contribution with them. 

But what about all the contributions withdrawn by others because of that person and the fact that their behaviour is tacitly accepted by the leadership?  What about the women who don't go to SlutWalk in case the man who raped them is there?  What about the men who just never come back to another planning meeting?  What about the discussions had over a few beers at the pub that a whole heap of the activists just never seem to participate in?

It terrifies me that when I start talking to people about this stuff more and more comes out.  Stories with statements like:

• "Oh yeah, someone told me to watch out for him because I'm an attractive young blonde and apparently he has a bit of history."
• "I always make sure I don't put any young women in a car alone with that guy, just in case."
• "He said if I gave him a blow-job he'd back my friend in the election, but I figured he was just joking and I laughed it off.  But he never did write anything nice about my mate."
• "The only reason he stopped following me around campus was because someone threatened to break his legs."
• "Well he's a bit of a groper, but some young gay men like that, so I guess it's ok."
• "Best to billet men with them."
• "So then I said 'it's probably best I walk home with you both,' and it was alright."
• "Everyone thinks he's so sweet and adorable but I shake whenever I see him and apparently I'm overreacting."
• "There was this time in the carpark where I had to lock my car doors and drive away."

At heart I believe that rejection of the actual problem, the bad behaviour, is sexist.  It is unjust.  It is making a judgement call that the accused is entitled to protection from the consequences of their actions.  It enables them to continue as they were, maybe get worse, and not have to think critically about what they are doing and why.  Saying nothing, doing nothing, changes nothing.

Yes someone accused has rights; in the criminal justice system these include a presumption of innocence.  I support that.  In a legal system we do need to come from a position, most of the time, of proving guilt.  Being found guilty in the courts has massive repurcussions for the individual in the dock; not least often a serious loss of liberty.  Our society needs to be really really certain before enforcing that.*

But in activist groups we don't need to have mock trials and legal representation at the table.  The first thing we need to do is believe and trust women.  The second thing we need to do is put in place structures to address these types of concerns when they are raised.  With mechanisms already in place when something comes up there is already a clear path to follow in that immediate period when as a leader you are flailing around going "oh shit, I really wish that I hadn't heard that."  It changes the instant response from Make It Go Away *puts heads in hands* into This Needs To Go To There First *starts doing something*.

We basically rely on gossip to keep people safe in our activist groups.  That's not good enough.   When someone's behaviour is unacceptable it needs to be raised with them.  The earlier it is done the more likely it is that change will happen and harm will be lessened.  No one should have to confront an abuser alone.  Anyone should be able to approach others for support, and receive it, particularly amongst a group's leaders.

My experience to date has been male political leaders (not exclusively, but mostly) putting concerns raised by women (not exclusively, but mostly) to one side.   A sexist mathematical calculation which continues to see women's concerns about a man < the man's contribution to the cause.

This is the personal mainfestation of a broader political equation: Women's issues < so-called "mainstream" issues.  Abortion law reform, low rates of prosecutions and conviction for rape, pay equity, women's political representation.  They're all so-called "side issues."  We're told to roll our dainty sleeves up, put on the kettle, and help the fellas fix the Big Problems first, then we'll all pitch in on that other stuff.  The Cause is more important than the issues of any members within The Cause, or something.

It's bullshit. 

The very fact that we've been having a public conversation about these matters shows a commitment to change.  The bravery of those raising these issues (as they multitask and work on heaps of other great stuff too) gives me heart.  This is change we can make, we must make, and we are starting to make.  Let's keep going.


*  Actually I'm pretty dubious about how our criminal justice system approaches sentencing, but that's a bit off topic.

Happy Suffrage Day!

Although as AnneE points out some people seem to have neglected to remember what today means, I've been heartened by the tweets and Facebook status updates expressing Happy Suffrage Day sentiments.  Not just from women either.  Take this example from Idiot/Savant marking the day, and also how far we still have to go to achieve fair political representation for women, even here in Aotearoa New Zealand where women have had the vote for 118 years now.

It's also a timely point to thank our readers, and the blogging team, for the community that we all contribute to here.  There have been some tough times since last Suffrage Day, and The Hand Mirroristas still have some work to do on issues identified by readers, so we thank you for your goodwill and feministy comradeness as we work through those behind the scenes.

And if you're in Auckland on Thursday night we would love love love to see you at this year's Suffrage Eve debate - Women's Choice 2011 - 7pm in LibB10, in the basement of the University of Auckland's main library, on Alfred St in the city.  If you do the Facebook thing you can find lots of info here, and if not then there are links to helpful stuff like maps here.  Oh, and since I wrote that last post we now have a fifth candidate confirmed - Sue Bradford speaking for Mana.  Hope to see you there.

How to lose your own political identity in one easy step

When I was 16 I worked in a take-away store that sold fried chicken, and on Saturdays things were invariably slow and quiet during the day.  The manager would usually get stuff done in the office, while the main cook and the cashier (me) would mainly do prep for the evening shift when things were busier.*  For a while the main cook was a guy called Peter and we used to have quite interesting discussions about politics.  I remember the specifics of none of what we talked about, except for the time when Peter told me I should be a Cabinet Minister's wife someday.  I asked why I couldn't be a Cabinet Minister myself.

That discussion, nearly two decades ago, has come back to me in the last few days.  On Thursday I rang back a journalist at the Herald on Sunday who had left a message saying he wanted to discuss my take on the marginal seats.  To put this in context, I generally do a couple of media interviews a month since I was elected to the Puketapapa Local Board, mostly about local issues, but sometimes about feministy political things as a result of work on this very blog you're reading.  I've been asked to be on TV panels for political shows (invitations I haven't been able to take up) to add a feminist perspective.  All of these media contacts, and ones I've experienced in the past for other hats I've worn, have been to me, as a person in my own right, a politician or a blogger or a spokesperson on an issue.

Back to my conversation with the HoS journo.  To start with I thought we were just talking about my take on the marginals.  I thought this was a bit strange, as I don't profess to have any particular expertise on the marginals, and had only made some loose predictions a couple of weeks back to aid my calculations for the projected Labour and National caucuses (and the gender analysis of the parties I've been doing for two elections now).  Indeed I declined to comment on the Hamilton seats at all because I just don't know enough about them.  I would have done the same for most of the other seats on my marginal list, but he really only asked me about Auckland Central and Maungakiekie, which I do know a little about.  I said I thought the door-knocking Nikki Kaye had done for six months before election day in 2008 had been key for her victory and that I had heard Jacinda Ardern's team had been canvassing there for ages already, making it difficult to predict.  I talked at length about what a good job Carol Beaumont was doing as a local MP in Maungakiekie, and how impressed I had been when we worked on the Pah Rd Warehouse issue together.

Then the penny dropped, when I was asked if I thought it would be demoralising to Labour to have the wife of a candidate saying they would lose some marginals.

Was it naive to think that a reporter might actually want to talk to me about some political analysis I'd written?

Sometimes a red scarf is just a red scarf

Lately there's been a daily misunderstanding I've been striving to overcome.  Most days someone will assume I am in the NZ Labour Party.

I've signed people up to Labour (three at last count) and I've done stuff to help out (mainly by releasing my partner to do the masses of voluntary work he does for the party, or helping him to learn how to do vaguely technical online campaigning things).  I'm a member of a union (SFWU) which is affiliated to Labour, so some people reckon this makes me a member, but it doesn't really unless I choose to be active, which I don't.

The other day I was getting my photo taken by the Central Leader outside the future site of a Warehouse store in my constituency, which I've been assisting locals to oppose (on the grounds that it's a stupid place to put any big box retail, but that's a whole other blog post).   It was first thing in the morning and chilly with it, so I was wearing my black wool coat and a warm red scarf.  The photographer and journalist asked me if the red scarf was "because it is the Warehouse or because of the Labour Party."  I explained that I hadn't even thought of the Warehouse's colours, that I wasn't in the Labour party, and that actually it was because black next to my face makes me look really washed out in photos.  We all laughed about it. 

I've had this scarf since before I met my Labour partner, I think; it was a present from my Mum years and years ago.*  Twice in the last fortnight other people have assumed I'm Labour** based on said scarf.  On other occasions the nominal reason for the assumption is a red jumper or hand-bag or shoes.

Two things:

1. The colour red does not belong to the Labour party.  In other contexts it might be assumed I'm in the Bloods, or supporting the Dragons.  How come when I wear green no one assumes I'm Green?***
2. Because really the assumption is not about the scarf, or the jumper or the shoes or the handbag.  It's about who my partner is; i.e. a prominent Labour person.  

Interestingly, when I was very active in the Alliance, including being on the National Council, co-convenor of the youth wing, and an election candidate, no one ever assumed my partner (the same person as now) was a fellow party member.  Partly because it was commonly known he was in Labour, but also, I think, because there was a respect and assumption that he might have different political affiliations from me.

I don't entirely mind the Labour assumption.  I spend a lot of time with Labour people,**** and I have to say my local government electoral success was in large part a result of a lot of hard work from Labour supporters and members, who campaigned for me even though I wasn't one of their own.

But I do find the gender difference intriguing.  As is the label that I'm a "politician's wife".  I've been involved in politics since well before I met my partner.  If you want to get technical, I was a politician before he was by some measures, and started at the same time by others.  For several years now it's been clear that his political future, in terms of limelight, may be more significant than mine, but that doesn't reduce me to an appendage clutching my pearls on the sideline while my man does the real work. He definitely doesn't see me that way and neither do I.


*  Thinking back I suspect she gave it to me to get me to stop wearing my North Harbour scarf incessantly. 

**  I'm not Labour but I am definitely in the labour movement.  The difference is very clear in my mind.
***  Although someone did say I was "looking very National Party today" last week because I was wearing blue tights.  And here I thought I was looking like a Blue Stocking.  
****  Yes some of my best friends are in the Labour party.

Topp Twins in Toronto.

This summer I had the opportunity to see the Top Twins live at Womad.
Their music set was fabulous and had me and all the rest of the crowd laughing, singing along and kicking up our heels to the great music.
But what I really enjoyed was ‘Ken and Ken’,
They did an hour long show on the food stage and their fabulous warm hearted characterization of the typical kiwi bloke was so neat to see live.
My partner had heard me rant about their political awareness work for nuclear-free New Zealand, the bastion point protests, and gay rights. I had tried to explain how most kiwis knew these twins who were gay, and they felt like family.
In essence, anyone with a TV could be educated out of fear of the “otherness” of gay people, by the sheer goodwill and approachability of these women.
I think I told him; “If you don’t love them, there is something missing in your chest cavity.”

He loved them.

After their food show I hovered by the stage hoping just to say hello and get a pic with either Jools or Linda. I was pleasantly surprised that when I approached Linda and she took the time to step away and grab Jules so they could both be in the picture.
I’ve met Zach Braff, Mandy More, Jon Cryer and a bunch of other celebrities and I’ve never felt out of depth.
With the twins I only just managed to stutter out an awkward blushing “I love you both – you are AMAZING” before they saved me from idiocy by making inane chit chat and posing for the photo.
I will treasure that photo forever.
While waiting to say hello, I saw a young woman throw herself at them and gush that they gave her courage to come out, and a heavily pierced woman break down in tears, unable to express exactly why they meant so much to her.
They have impacted an entire country.

I was pleased to see this write up on the Women’s media centre website by Emily Wilson.
An international audience is starting to sit up and take notice of the pair, now that their film “Untouchable Girls” won the audience award at the Toronto film festival.
It’s a shame they aren’t getting tvnz show spots for their shows, because the two of them are both still very keen to work, and it is simply a lack of interest from NZ broadcasters that stands between the NZ audience and them.

I will be very embarrassed if they get better recognition from an international audience than their own home, where they work so hard for their communities.

a women's revolution

got this via email about developments in saudi arabia:
As election centers across Saudi Arabia opened on April 23 for voters to register for forthcoming municipal elections, groups of women turned up asking to take part.

As expected, they were turned away -- women will not be able to stand or vote in September's municipal elections -- but just by showing up they had made their point.

This was one of the first public acts of the newly-formed "Saudi Women Revolution," a movement set up to campaign for the end of Saudi Arabia's discriminatory laws.

Their chief aim is ending male guardianship, which means Saudi women often need permission from their husband, father, brother or even son to work, travel, study, marry, or access health care, according to Human Rights Watch.

They also want to be allowed to drive, which is forbidden for women in the Kingdom.

The Saudi Women Revolution was started as a Facebook page and a discussion topic, or hash tag, on Twitter in February, by Nuha Al Sulaiman.

as you would expect from a piece by CNN, the whole article has a very western framing. but the one thing that i really do appreciate is that the narrative is not the usual "oppressed eastern women need saving", but rather "strong eastern women are taking up the fight".

then there is the whole social media thing, again showing itself as a powerful tool for connecting and organising. not only that, but providing access to information & ideas from outside of the country. now i know that saudi has very strong controls on the internet, but they obviously haven't yet taken the step of blocking social networking sites. that may indeed be a possibility.

and finally, i would also have to say that the arab spring has inspired people around the world, and i suspect this group have also been motivated by what they have seen happening in other countries. i wish them all the best in their endeavours, and hope to hear some good news coming out of saudi in the near future.

we care nz

a quick post to direct you to the "we care campaign", who are directing their efforts towards advocacy for carers in the health sector. from their website:

More than 420,000 New Zealanders care for ill, frail, injured or disabled family members and friends.

Carers are New Zealand’s biggest health workforce, and their unpaid work has an annual value of more than $7 billion. We will all give or need family care during our lives.

Despite their important role in family life and society, carers can feel invisible … taken for granted.

Add your voice to ours to call for genuine support and good decision-making for carers!

Send an email to the Prime Minister, John Key, or submit a photo to our visual petition with your own message about caring!

if you're interested, there's a facebook page as well.

remember that the majority of these 420,000 carers will be women, and those who get paid get the minimum wage - unless they are a close family member of the person being cared for. again from the website, here is brian easton's article on the latter subject (pdf).

this matters

it's late & i should be getting to bed, but i had to share this - which no doubt many of you will have read already. it's sady doyle writing about her twitter campaign against mike moore (& keith olbermann). if you want some background about it, her earlier post here is probably the best one to read.

on my own blog, i wrote a while back on the concept of slactivism, basically a concept coined to cover those who do their activism through the click of a mouse or pressing a few buttons on their favourite technology & not much more. this is considered a bad thing because the mouse click is in lieu of more concrete actions in the "real" world that would make a difference.

but here is sady making a massive difference, fighting the good fight purely from her phone & her keyboard, and it matters. here she is, challenging all those myths about rape and rape victims, to the utmost of her ability, and of course it matters.

i'm in awe of her determination and courage, of her strength and her ability to draw support from a range of people. of her ability to withstand the kind of harassment that would have me struggling to rise above it.

please go over and read the whole post. and if you feel able, take part in the protest as this comment from one of the authors suggests:

Tweet messages to @MMFlint (This is Michael Moore’s Twitter account) and @KeithOlbermann with the hashtag #MooreandMe. Have a conversation with them. Tell them that publicizing the names of women accusing a powerful man of rape was wrong. Remind them that these women are now receiving death threats, that they are now in jeopardy because of Assange’s supporters. Ask them to apologize, to speak to us, to acknowledge that we even exist. Remind them of the many times they have asked us to stand up to the powerful in the name of people who could not defend themselves. Ask them to donate to a charity that helps rape victims in crisis. Donate if you can and encourage others to do the same.

campaigning for MMP

i attended a meeting in hamilton this evening, which was to start some movement on the campaign to keep MMP. it's a crucial issue in terms of keeping the type of diverse representation we currently have in parliament. all the alternatives to MMP that will be included in the vote at the next election are less proportional than MMP.

some key points bought up at the meeting:

- while there are issues with MMP, it's possible (in fact desirable) for us to tweak the MMP system in order to sort those out. some examples are fixing the anomaly that saw rodney hide bring in 4 other MPs when his party had a lower level of the vote than NZ first; or creating more transparency around the list selection process for all parties.

- more education is required about the role of list MPs, who are working for constituents & are democratically elected. jeannette fitzsimmons gave a good response to this issue. she said when people questioned whether or not she had been properly elected, she said that as an MP for the coromandel electorate she had received 13,000 votes. but as a list candidate, she had received around 150,000 votes for a list with her name at the top. the latter was just as legitimate as the former, possibly more so. also, list MPs are valuable for those constituents who believe that their local MP is not adequately representing their views (eg not pushing for increased access to early childhood education). list MPs provide alternative representation for these people. because of this, they also ensure that electorate MPs provide a better service.

- women's representation in parliament went up markedly as a result of MMP (from 21% to 33%) as did representation for ethnic minorities. diversity in representation actually leads to better decision-making, because it ensures different types of issues are put on the agenda & different perspectives are brought to the table. also, having minority parties in parliament ensures that debates aren't just "for or against", but have a greater depth and breadth of coverage.

- a proper proportional system will mean that every vote counts. unlike FPP, where votes in safe seats don't count for much. any attempt to reduce proportionality will reduce the value of some people's votes.

it was a good meeting with a lot of positive interest. the campaign for MMP has a website with suggestions for positive action. they could definitely use donations, as those opposed to MMP will have some very big funders. if you have the time & energy, i hope you'll be able to contribute to the campaign.

rallying for workplace rights

i was one of the people at the "fairness at work" rally in hamilton today. it was incredibly well-attended & the first time i've seen people from so many different unions get together in such numbers. there's a lot of anger in the community about the erosion of worker's rights, and people are ready to fight back.

the thing that was interesting was that it was such a mixed group. there were the PSA workers & univerity staff, the NZEI & other teachers unions, service & food workers, rail & maritime, NDU, dairy workers, and more. one of the more rousing speakers represented workers in the justice sector. the people attending were not only diverse in the range of jobs but also by ethnicity. this was a real cross-section of nz society, and i saw john key brush them off in the news tonight, but i'm sure even he knows that he does so at his peril.

in the meantime, the news coverage around work issues continues to be appalling. i see all the DHB bosses tried a bit of media pressure today, bringing out stories of patients at risk because of striking radiographers. of course, they failed to mention that those patients wouldn't be at risk if employers were move from their position, and make as much effort to resolve the situation as they are on PR stunts.

ditto with the coverage of the teacher's strike. the reporting very rarely puts forward the view that children are missing out on school because the ministry is refusing to negotiate in good faith (ie they don't select interviewees who would put forward that view).

i've see reports today of the situation in france, where after major strikes that are disrupting normal activity, the vast majority of people are still supporting the unions. i'm sure that unions here also have support, the numbers who turned up around the country today show that they do.

child support review

a couple of weeks ago, peter dunne announced a review into the child support scheme:

"The reality is that family life in New Zealand has changed considerably in the 18 years since the current scheme was introduced," Mr Dunne said in releasing the Supporting Children discussion document.

"Families have evolved and their domestic and financial situations have changed, and are often more complex today than they were in the past.

"Today both parents are far more likely to be working than was the case in 1992, and often separated fathers have a far greater involvement with their children than they used to have," he said.

However, Mr Dunne said his first message to New Zealanders was simple: "While we need a scheme that serves children better and is fair to parents, we do not want people in this system if it can be avoided.

"It is better if parents can come to their own arrangements for the benefit of their children when their relationship breaks down. Child support is a backstop when you cannot do that.

Currently, the scheme arranges financial support for the care of 210,000 children.

there seems to be quite a bit of support for the review, from a range of organisations including men's rights groups, family first & every child counts. i don't have much experience (well none at all really) with the child support system, but have heard of inequities with the way it works.

there was some discussion about this on radio nz, nine to noon (thursday 2 sept, 9.08am). while they did have one woman discussing her personal situation, i'm concerned that there won't be enough women's voices being heard on this issue. and given this governments very poor record when it comes to women (or hostility to women, according to gordon campbell), chances are that the outcome will not be good for many women and therefore their children.

anyway, the discussion document is here, and online submissions can be found here. if you have a moment, i'd recommend putting in a submission.

Abortion - why it needs to be legal (A Presentation)

Please find below (indeed below the Read More) the presentation I gave today on why abortion needs to be legal, and why we need a pro-choice law change. Many thanks to Kristy, Alana and Soraiya for organising it, and Nicole for pressing buttons, and everyone for coming along. Especially Nikki for being my friendly face in the crowd, and also big thanks to Deborah for proofing it from afar.

As you read please bear in mind that I was writing it to speak to the slides (which I've inserted as pics above the section of the speech that goes with them), and also that I've never done that before.

Here goes...

social connectedness vs social justice

i was at an interesting talk on sunday by a manager of mental health services*. he talked about social connectedness and it's effect on well-being. he referred to the MSD's 2009 social report, which defines social connectedness [pdf] as "the relationship people have with others". it goes on to say:

Relationships give people support, happiness, contentment and a sense they belong and have a role to play in society. They also mean people have support networks in place they can call on for help during hard times...

Several studies have demonstrated links between social connectedness and the performance of the economy and positive outcomes for individual health and wellbeing.

Social connectedness is fostered when family relationships are positive, and when people have the skills and opportunities to make friends and to interact constructively with others. Good health, employment, and feeling safe and secure all increase people’s chances of developing positive relationships.

the speaker mentioned that well-being actually leads to good health, then went on to talk about aspects around social connectedness. one example he gave was of the roseto effect, which is basically the study of an isolated but close-knit community in america that had much better health stats than the average even though lifestyle factors such as employment, diet and exercise were pretty much the same as everyone else. the factors that explained this unusual health outcome were said to be communal rituals, social support and cohesion, shared values, a common aim, family meals, and a lack of uncertainty.

there was plenty more to the talk (including a mention of the roots of empathy thing), and it was really interesting. but the thing that struck me most is that, as an activist, the one thing you do is go against prevailing values and customs. because your views or your activities are designed to change the status quo, you often face hostility and lose that social connectedness. which, according to the above, will have negative consequences on your well-being and general health.

i did ask the speaker about this, and how to deal with it. i wasn't entirely satisfied with his answer, though it was pretty good. he said something along the lines of treating the people you want to change with respect, recognising that you yourself are not perfect just as they are not perfect. that i agree with, in the sense that i always think you kill more flies with honey ie i prefer to bring people along incrementally than to be confrontational and challenging. having an inherent respect for the people you're interacting with will always show in the way you behave and the words you choose, and is more likely to get them listening.

but. often the change that is required of people will mean that they are potentially less well-off, at least in the short term. in being an activist, you are actually challenging the power structures of society and seeking to change them. those who currently have the power aren't likely to give it up easily, no matter how polite and respectful you might be.

there are times when activism has to be direct and confrontational, when someone has to go out on a limb to stand up for their cause because progress just isn't being made. a relevant example for here is the suffragettes, many of whom suffered and were ostracised but without whom women in some countries would not have been able to vote.

it seems to me that social justice is more important than social connectedness. that there is no point in having personal wellbeing when there are people around you who are suffering and need help. when that help can only be effectively delivered through institutional and structural changes in society, then i think we have a moral duty to go out on a limb and challenge the shared values that allow marginalisation to exist. even at the cost of social-connectedness, although we can always hope that there will be other people who agree with us and can provide us with some positive connections.

*i haven't got permission to use his name, so the speaker will remain anonymous. would love to attribute though, as i was certainly impressed.