so back in july, chally at zero at the bone sent some questions on feminism & faith. since they weren't easy questions and since i'm an ace procrastinator, i didn't get around to answering them til this month. she has now put up my answers at her blog, so if you're interested, i'd recommend you go on over to her place to have a read.
i've closed comments on this post, because i think it's better that any comments are put up over there.
Wednesday, 17 October 2012
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Imagining a world without sexual violence
Cycling and camping alone, I am confronted regularly with our gendered world. Not just because people are surprised, or impressed, when they see me struggling up a hill or mountain on my laden bike. Not just because people often seem uncomfortable with the fact that, after cycling for six hours, I don't care in the slightest if I'm dirty or unkempt - I just want to make piles of food to fill my belly. Not just because those piles of food will sometimes provoke incredulous questions: "You're eating all of that? By yourself?" Not even just because sometimes men older than I am (though this happens less often these days) tell me "I'd never let a daughter of mine do that....."
True stories.
In all of these cycling experiences, my gender is, I believe, relevant. But it's not the constant, the only question I've been asked in every country I've cycle-toured, by all genders, all ages, and many races.
"But do you feel safe, travelling alone? Aren't you scared, of, you know, being alone?"
My take on these queries is not that they are wondering if my precarious sanity will survive so much meditative time, because when I reply time alone in beautiful parts of the world is what I crave, the question becomes more specific.
What is really being asked here - and often becomes explicit - is "aren't you worried you'll be raped?"
I don't answer this with telling one kind of truth - sexual violence statistics - that of course I'm more likely to be raped by a man I know. That I'm more likely to be raped in my home or his, than in my tent in a national park by a lake somewhere.
I tell another kind of truth.
Yes, on a handful of occasions in twenty years of solo cycling trips I've felt scared, really scared. Sometimes I've been alone and literally no one knew where I was and I allowed the fear many (maybe most) women live with around sexual violence to flourish. Once, camping alone by a river in England, that was because two men were outside my tent discussing coming in. I pretended I was with someone: "David, David, wake up, there's someone outside the tent!"
They ran away.
But even if I have been scared those handful of times - and I'm not diminishing those fears, they were real and debilitating - I don't want to stop doing something I love so much. I don't want to constrain my life, to make it smaller, because of sexual violence or the fear of sexual violence.
So I keep cycling, alone and in beautiful places. Every cycling trip I make, I come home refreshed and rejuvenated, my world a little larger. When I meet other women cyclists, we talk about hills and campsites, the sea and our bikes. We don't talk about mistressing our fears.
When I talk to other women, many, too many to count, tell me they are going to travel alone one day. Fathers tell me they want their daughters to be able to see the world solo. We are talking about imagining a world without sexual violence - it's far from all we need, but it's part of the picture.
True stories.
In all of these cycling experiences, my gender is, I believe, relevant. But it's not the constant, the only question I've been asked in every country I've cycle-toured, by all genders, all ages, and many races.
"But do you feel safe, travelling alone? Aren't you scared, of, you know, being alone?"
My take on these queries is not that they are wondering if my precarious sanity will survive so much meditative time, because when I reply time alone in beautiful parts of the world is what I crave, the question becomes more specific.
What is really being asked here - and often becomes explicit - is "aren't you worried you'll be raped?"
I don't answer this with telling one kind of truth - sexual violence statistics - that of course I'm more likely to be raped by a man I know. That I'm more likely to be raped in my home or his, than in my tent in a national park by a lake somewhere.
I tell another kind of truth.
Yes, on a handful of occasions in twenty years of solo cycling trips I've felt scared, really scared. Sometimes I've been alone and literally no one knew where I was and I allowed the fear many (maybe most) women live with around sexual violence to flourish. Once, camping alone by a river in England, that was because two men were outside my tent discussing coming in. I pretended I was with someone: "David, David, wake up, there's someone outside the tent!"
They ran away.
But even if I have been scared those handful of times - and I'm not diminishing those fears, they were real and debilitating - I don't want to stop doing something I love so much. I don't want to constrain my life, to make it smaller, because of sexual violence or the fear of sexual violence.
So I keep cycling, alone and in beautiful places. Every cycling trip I make, I come home refreshed and rejuvenated, my world a little larger. When I meet other women cyclists, we talk about hills and campsites, the sea and our bikes. We don't talk about mistressing our fears.
When I talk to other women, many, too many to count, tell me they are going to travel alone one day. Fathers tell me they want their daughters to be able to see the world solo. We are talking about imagining a world without sexual violence - it's far from all we need, but it's part of the picture.
Monday, 15 October 2012
Why the MSD privacy breach matters
It's pretty easy when you see politics as a game to forget that the scandal now known as #WTFMSD is not just about Paula Bennett's competence (or not) as a Minister, continuing to tarnish a Government that has been just a wee bit beleaguered of late.
What a massive privacy breach, of really quite gargantuan proportions, means in practical terms is actually fear.
Fear of people finding out your private stuff. Fear of people who Don't Need to Know finding out your private stuff. Fear of people who You Don't Want To Know finding out your private stuff. Fear of people who are Dangerous to You and Your Loved Ones finding out your private stuff.
Private stuff like your new name, your current address, your beneficiary or CYFS arrangements. Private stuff which could make it easy to find you.
Emma explains it succintly, clearly, and powerfully, on PAS today:
But please let us not forget just why this breach matters so much; because MSD were not reliable and secure stewards of the information they hold, and have thus made many of the most vulnerable in our society, those MSD is supposed to assist confidentially and with respect, even more at risk. And even more afraid.
What a massive privacy breach, of really quite gargantuan proportions, means in practical terms is actually fear.
Fear of people finding out your private stuff. Fear of people who Don't Need to Know finding out your private stuff. Fear of people who You Don't Want To Know finding out your private stuff. Fear of people who are Dangerous to You and Your Loved Ones finding out your private stuff.
Private stuff like your new name, your current address, your beneficiary or CYFS arrangements. Private stuff which could make it easy to find you.
Emma explains it succintly, clearly, and powerfully, on PAS today:
[quote from someone else, upthread] Mind you, you know exactly who could (would) do what Keith did? Bored, inquisitive, mildly anti-social young men...
[Emma's comment].... who have children hidden from them in CYFS care, and have just been given enough information to find them.
I read this column last night, and had to go to bed and have a wee cry. And it wasn't just because my daughter's had dealings with Youth Specialty Service that involved funded counselling and drugs.
I was one of those kids. For two years in the 70s, my family was in hiding from my father. He had access rights: on one of those visits he managed to trick me into telling him where we were living (I was six, okay), and we had to move. I had to change schools. The very information Keith has detailed here, which would have been on Social Welfare's files about us, would have been sufficient for my dad to at least find my school and wait for me. He could have used me to find my home, and my mother. She could have died.
If we were in that situation now, all he'd need is some unsupervised time on a kiosk, and the technical knowledge to open a file in Word.The political management of this issue has become the main topic of conversation now. When did MSD know they had a problem? A year ago; several months back; last week; on Sunday night; or, like the PM, today? If they found out earlier than yesterday why didn't they act sooner?
But please let us not forget just why this breach matters so much; because MSD were not reliable and secure stewards of the information they hold, and have thus made many of the most vulnerable in our society, those MSD is supposed to assist confidentially and with respect, even more at risk. And even more afraid.
Sunday, 14 October 2012
targetting young women
here's another story of a young person who is now dead, believed to have committed suicide, as a result of internet bullying. if you haven't heard the full story of amanda todd, it's best you hear it directly from her:
it's an incredibly sad story, and there are several things that bother me about it.
the initial problem started when someone convinced her to go topless during a chat using a webcam. a year later, the same man threatened to send a topless photo of her to everyone she knew, unless she agreed to further demands. he had accessed her personal information and also knew how to contact the important people in her life. he did end up sending the photos around, and continued to stalk her even after she moved cities and schools.
what i don't understand is why the police didn't look for this man. from the video, it appears the police were the ones to notify her that the photograph had been circulated. it was taken when she was in 7th grade, and i don't know how old she would have been, but it clearly appears she would be underage. that in itself is a crime. then using the photo to coerce her into doing other sexual acts would be another crime. i would think circulation of the photo without her consent would be a crime as well.
that initial circulation, according to her own words in the video, affected her badly, leading to anxiety. how is it that the authorities were unable to find out who this guy was and have him brought to justice? it doesn't make sense to me. even if they didn't do it at the point the photo was first circulated, surely it would have been done at this point:
She changed schools and found a new group of friends in an effort to leave behind the bullies. Then the man created a Facebook profile, using her uncensored photo as his profile picture. "Cried every night, lost all my friends and respect people had for me... again... then nobody liked me," she wrote in the video.
on top of that, her reaction to the circulation of the photograph is likely to have been the result of feeling shamed. that shame comes from the people around - she talks about people losing respect for her. it's appalling that shaming a young person in this way would take precedence over shaming the person who did it to her. if she had supportive people around her, particularly from her peers, the feelings of shame would have been a lot less. clearly, all the young people around her were judging her for what she did.
and where would they have learned to do that? from the adults in their lives, who either had the same reaction or who didn't bother to correct the reaction of their young ones. it's possible some might not have known this shaming was going on, which suggests to me that they weren't involved enough in the lives of their young ones to know about they way their kids were mistreating others.
then there was the further incident of a group of young girls from her old school beating up this young woman, for the crime of having sex with the boyfriend of one of them. while she chose not to press charges, i believe those kids could have been tried for the crime, with use of witness statements from the teachers who came over to see what happened, from the 50 or so witnesses from the new school, and from some of the members of the group from the old school. ms todd need not have had to testify at all. the fact that nothing was done, the total lack of consequences for the physical violence, empowers the bullies and add to the culture which allows bullying to keep happening.
while i'm talking about young women being bullied, let me also mention malala yousafzai, the young pakistani woman fighting for her life after being shot by a member of the taliban. what has been done to her is appalling, and it is heartening to see the outpouring of support from around the world. i really do wish her all the best, and hope she survives and continues to be an inspiration to young women in pakistan and around the world.
one of her "crimes" was to be seen to align herself with the very western powers who are responsible for invasion and occupation of afghanistan, and for the drone attacks in northern pakistan. that would have been motivation enough for those who killed her. but that they think there is any kind of religious justification for the attempted murder of a young woman, effectively still a child. even if they believed she had committed a crime, there is no room for vigilante justice without any kind of trial.
i can only hope that the outpouring of support and prayers around the world will lead to some kind of cultural change in the places where it's most needed.
it's an incredibly sad story, and there are several things that bother me about it.
the initial problem started when someone convinced her to go topless during a chat using a webcam. a year later, the same man threatened to send a topless photo of her to everyone she knew, unless she agreed to further demands. he had accessed her personal information and also knew how to contact the important people in her life. he did end up sending the photos around, and continued to stalk her even after she moved cities and schools.
what i don't understand is why the police didn't look for this man. from the video, it appears the police were the ones to notify her that the photograph had been circulated. it was taken when she was in 7th grade, and i don't know how old she would have been, but it clearly appears she would be underage. that in itself is a crime. then using the photo to coerce her into doing other sexual acts would be another crime. i would think circulation of the photo without her consent would be a crime as well.
that initial circulation, according to her own words in the video, affected her badly, leading to anxiety. how is it that the authorities were unable to find out who this guy was and have him brought to justice? it doesn't make sense to me. even if they didn't do it at the point the photo was first circulated, surely it would have been done at this point:
She changed schools and found a new group of friends in an effort to leave behind the bullies. Then the man created a Facebook profile, using her uncensored photo as his profile picture. "Cried every night, lost all my friends and respect people had for me... again... then nobody liked me," she wrote in the video.
on top of that, her reaction to the circulation of the photograph is likely to have been the result of feeling shamed. that shame comes from the people around - she talks about people losing respect for her. it's appalling that shaming a young person in this way would take precedence over shaming the person who did it to her. if she had supportive people around her, particularly from her peers, the feelings of shame would have been a lot less. clearly, all the young people around her were judging her for what she did.
and where would they have learned to do that? from the adults in their lives, who either had the same reaction or who didn't bother to correct the reaction of their young ones. it's possible some might not have known this shaming was going on, which suggests to me that they weren't involved enough in the lives of their young ones to know about they way their kids were mistreating others.
then there was the further incident of a group of young girls from her old school beating up this young woman, for the crime of having sex with the boyfriend of one of them. while she chose not to press charges, i believe those kids could have been tried for the crime, with use of witness statements from the teachers who came over to see what happened, from the 50 or so witnesses from the new school, and from some of the members of the group from the old school. ms todd need not have had to testify at all. the fact that nothing was done, the total lack of consequences for the physical violence, empowers the bullies and add to the culture which allows bullying to keep happening.
while i'm talking about young women being bullied, let me also mention malala yousafzai, the young pakistani woman fighting for her life after being shot by a member of the taliban. what has been done to her is appalling, and it is heartening to see the outpouring of support from around the world. i really do wish her all the best, and hope she survives and continues to be an inspiration to young women in pakistan and around the world.
one of her "crimes" was to be seen to align herself with the very western powers who are responsible for invasion and occupation of afghanistan, and for the drone attacks in northern pakistan. that would have been motivation enough for those who killed her. but that they think there is any kind of religious justification for the attempted murder of a young woman, effectively still a child. even if they believed she had committed a crime, there is no room for vigilante justice without any kind of trial.
i can only hope that the outpouring of support and prayers around the world will lead to some kind of cultural change in the places where it's most needed.
Saturday, 13 October 2012
Putting your money where your mouth is!
is holding a movie fundraiser:
Sunday 11 November from 5 p.m. (for a movie start at 5:30)
at the Penthouse Cinema, 205 Ohiro Road, Brooklyn, Wellington
for a screening of "Diana Vreeland: The Eye Has To Travel".
This is the well-reviewed documentary about Vreeland, the self-made titan of
the fashion world. (I've seen it and it's fascinating - sometimes repellent,
but always fascinating!)
Tickets are $25 waged, $15 unwaged.
You can secure your tickets by making a deposit to
02-0534-0128842-00 with the reference MOVIE.
Email rebecca.matthews427@gmail.com for more information.
More info, and some links about the movie, at:
http://alranz.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/film-fundraiser-fun/
Friday, 12 October 2012
Epic
Julia Gillard’s speech in the Australian House of Representatives, calling Tony Abbott out as a misogynist..
For good NZ comment, see Deborah's post on A Bee of A Certain Age. her speech also features prominently on the US blog Feministing.com.
Wednesday, 10 October 2012
Mike Tyson: the Undisputed Truth
When the Hand Mirror publicised feminist calls to stop convicted rapist Mike Tyson coming to New Zealand to "inspire" us, some responses suggested it was unfair to Mr Tyson to object to his presence here, mostly because he might have changed his women-hating behaviour since being convicted of raping Desiree Washington in 1992.
So let's check it out, by looking at what he talks about in his new Broadway show about his life, the modestly titled "Undisputed Truth." Firstly, he didn't get to call the show what he wanted - "Boxing, Bitches and Lawsuits."
Secondly, he jokes about not knowing the difference between menstrual blood, miscarriage blood and blood from a rape - in reference to Robin Givens, an ex-partner who has publically accused him of domestic violence. Right before he affirms he doesn't owe teenager Desiree Washington an apology, and complains about all the money he has spent on women over the years.
That's all from August this year. Even more recently he's told the media he was "set up" around raping Desiree Washington.
Then there is his description of himself as a "prostitute-hunter". In the past, you know, before he got all redeemed.
Just last year, Mr Tyson gave his views on Sarah Palin, in relation to inter-racial sexual experiences:
UPDATE: And round two, Mr Tyson is still not coming here. Perhaps the Immigration Minister was influenced by one of Mr Tyson's supporters emailing a specialist sexual violence sector agency manager to say he hoped Mr Tyson raped her. #RAPECULTURE, you're soaking in it.
So let's check it out, by looking at what he talks about in his new Broadway show about his life, the modestly titled "Undisputed Truth." Firstly, he didn't get to call the show what he wanted - "Boxing, Bitches and Lawsuits."
Secondly, he jokes about not knowing the difference between menstrual blood, miscarriage blood and blood from a rape - in reference to Robin Givens, an ex-partner who has publically accused him of domestic violence. Right before he affirms he doesn't owe teenager Desiree Washington an apology, and complains about all the money he has spent on women over the years.
That's all from August this year. Even more recently he's told the media he was "set up" around raping Desiree Washington.
Then there is his description of himself as a "prostitute-hunter". In the past, you know, before he got all redeemed.
Just last year, Mr Tyson gave his views on Sarah Palin, in relation to inter-racial sexual experiences:
“But you want her to be with somebody like [Dennis] Rodman getting up in there. Pushing her guts up in the back of her head! Glen Rice is a nice, mellow, docile man, non-threatening black guy — you want someone like Rodman — yeah baby! Imagine Palin with a big old black stallion ripping — yeehaw!”
Mr Tyson is not redeemed, he's a misogynist man who excuses and perpetrates violence against women. No forgiveness from me, Mr Tyson. Go and do the real work of facing up to your actions before you claim you've changed. And stop talking about women and our bodies with such hatred. The saddest thing about this whole saga is how invisible your hatred seems to be, to too many people.
UPDATE: And round two, Mr Tyson is still not coming here. Perhaps the Immigration Minister was influenced by one of Mr Tyson's supporters emailing a specialist sexual violence sector agency manager to say he hoped Mr Tyson raped her. #RAPECULTURE, you're soaking in it.
Tuesday, 9 October 2012
some links
i've been reading some good stuff in the last couple of days. i've been directed to some of it by twitter, some by facebook & some from various blogs. apologies for the lack of attribution - it would take a while to find all the sources.
first of all, regardless of what you think of her politics or the stance she has taken regarding peter slipper, this speech by julia gillard is well worth listening to in its entirety (sorry, i can't seem to embed it, though i'm not so good at that anyway.
great piece at the guardian by a nigerian woman, in response to a dismissive tweet by caitlin moran. avoid the comments which are pretty nasty, even for the guardian. it's funny how people from the majority group suddenly want minorities to start defining themselves in any way at all, in order to talk about marginalisation. suddenly we should all become "one people" and not highlight differences - as if somehow this would make the marginalisation go away. of course it wouldn't, it just means that the majority group can keep acting like it doesn't happen, even as they themselves keep discriminating.
from the above piece, i was directed to this post at racialicious, telling us about the origins of the phrase "women of colour". i did not know any of this history, even though i use that term constantly and have always found it to be a phrase of solidarity.
another excellent post at racialicious about intersectionality, and the problematic issues in framing re a documentary about violence against women in developing countries. i haven't yet read an article linked to in the piece (pdf), but hope to get to it soon.
i also loved this translated speech regarding islamic feminism, but more specifically on decolonising feminism. and possibly related (and possibly not), this is a post that shouldn't have had to be written, in defense of a young nz'er of palestinian heritage who recently won the AMP scholarship in a vote-off.
first of all, regardless of what you think of her politics or the stance she has taken regarding peter slipper, this speech by julia gillard is well worth listening to in its entirety (sorry, i can't seem to embed it, though i'm not so good at that anyway.
great piece at the guardian by a nigerian woman, in response to a dismissive tweet by caitlin moran. avoid the comments which are pretty nasty, even for the guardian. it's funny how people from the majority group suddenly want minorities to start defining themselves in any way at all, in order to talk about marginalisation. suddenly we should all become "one people" and not highlight differences - as if somehow this would make the marginalisation go away. of course it wouldn't, it just means that the majority group can keep acting like it doesn't happen, even as they themselves keep discriminating.
from the above piece, i was directed to this post at racialicious, telling us about the origins of the phrase "women of colour". i did not know any of this history, even though i use that term constantly and have always found it to be a phrase of solidarity.
another excellent post at racialicious about intersectionality, and the problematic issues in framing re a documentary about violence against women in developing countries. i haven't yet read an article linked to in the piece (pdf), but hope to get to it soon.
i also loved this translated speech regarding islamic feminism, but more specifically on decolonising feminism. and possibly related (and possibly not), this is a post that shouldn't have had to be written, in defense of a young nz'er of palestinian heritage who recently won the AMP scholarship in a vote-off.
Auckland public meeting on Extending Paid Parental Leave - 23rd Oct
What: Public meeting as part of the 26 for Babies campaign, supporting Sue Moroney's bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks.When: Tuesday 23rd October, 7pm
Where: At the Fickling Centre, underneath the Mt Roskill Library, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings (best accessed from the lower carpark)
Who: You, your friends, your neighbours, your workmates, that person you say hi to at the bus stop, and...
- Michele A'Court in the chair
- Jacquie Brown - famous from such things as Keep Calm and Carry On
- Sue Moroney MP - Labour
- Jan Logie MP - Greens
- Marama Davidson - Te Wharepora Hou
- Professor Tim Hazeldine - Economist
Facebook event.
Monday, 8 October 2012
a culture of silence
i've been reading about jimmy savile, and the news that is now coming out regarding allegations of sexual assault [trigger warning for these links which contain descriptions of sexual assault and rape]. some of which he appears to have admitted to quite clearly in his own autobiography. it seems that the police are now investigating, even though the alleged perpetrator is now dead, and i'm really hoping that the investigation will shine some light on the people who may have been complicit in allowing this offending to continue, even though they knew something criminal was going on.
people in a similar position to those who enabled the offending of jerry sandusky by their silence, or what should be called active covering up. and people who are or were also offenders. maybe i'm being overly optimistic, but i'm really hoping that this inquiry will lead to criminal prosecutions and some justice.
mostly because there is nothing worse than having this stuff hushed up. there has been such a silence around sexual assault, particular of young people by much older adults, in a variety of social settings. it's time to pick apart the reasons for that silence, and to challenge each and every one of them.
complicity is a separate issue - those who actively provided sexual abuse victims, or provided places for the assault to happen. they are committing a more direct crime. i'm talking more about those who know or strongly suspect offending is taking place but do nothing.
one of the main reasons for silence is to protect an institution or organisation. i have real difficulty with this one. it seems to stem from "the greater good" type of argument, in that the institution/organisation is providing such a valuable service to so many people, and a few victims of sexual abuse should not be allowed to put that to risk. especially since they could be making it all up anyway, right? it's such a stupid way of thinking, because of the sheer lack of humanity, but also because of the lack of logic. the organisation will be found out hiding or covering up sexual abuse - sooner or later - and then the fallout is going to be much worse than if they took the first case seriously, ensured that justice was done and put in place measures to ensure the safety of all people within the organisation.
another reason is that people don't want to be dragged into the situation, don't want to deal with the nastiness that comes with being a whistle-blower. it's not just the victims who get blamed for doing [xyz] action that lead to the abuse. other parties who try to something about it are just as much targets, criticised for trying to ruin someone's life, that someone who now gets defined as a pillar of the community or a nice young man whose shining bright future is about to be ruined, or a good person who works so hard for charity (this latter being all the more sickeningly ironic because it is often the charity work which allows the perpetrator to cherry-pick vulnerable victims, as it appears mr savile was able to do).
it's tough to be the one that calls out sexual abuse, especially when others in the family/ institution/ organisation gather around to protect the perpetrator and to isolate & shame the victim and those associated with her. the consequences can range from isolation and ostracisation to outright bullying and threats of physical violence.
one of the reasons for silence, or for the cover-up, that i find most difficult to deal with is the "protection of the victim" defense. i've seen this so very often, and it sickens me every time. the argument goes like this: if the offending is brought to light, the damage to the reputation and the very life of the victim will be so high that it's better to be kept quiet. in some cultures, a young woman will be considered as tainted, she will never receive an offer of marriage, even though she is the one who has been offended against. in pretty much all cultures, there will always be doubt that she shouldn't have allowed herself to be in a situation that such a thing could have happened to her. she is culpable of the crime against her for any number of reasons, so best that it is all hushed up. let the victim be sent away, or let the perpetrator be sent away, but let the reason never be known.
the thing is, with the latter defense, cultural norms and practices make the reasoning valid. the appalling treatment of victims of sexual abuse means that it is much easier, much more the logical option to stay silent. and when we have silence, we have conditions where sexual abuse and violence continue & even flourish.
perhaps this is why i'm hopeful about the police inquiry into the alleged crimes of jimmy savile. so many women have come forward to speak out. the culture within the BBC and other media organisations is coming out into the open. i'm really hoping that there are some people who are feeling incredibly scared right now, because the crimes they have committed might come to light. and maybe, just maybe, we'll see a culture change that makes life safer for a lot of people.
people in a similar position to those who enabled the offending of jerry sandusky by their silence, or what should be called active covering up. and people who are or were also offenders. maybe i'm being overly optimistic, but i'm really hoping that this inquiry will lead to criminal prosecutions and some justice.
mostly because there is nothing worse than having this stuff hushed up. there has been such a silence around sexual assault, particular of young people by much older adults, in a variety of social settings. it's time to pick apart the reasons for that silence, and to challenge each and every one of them.
complicity is a separate issue - those who actively provided sexual abuse victims, or provided places for the assault to happen. they are committing a more direct crime. i'm talking more about those who know or strongly suspect offending is taking place but do nothing.
one of the main reasons for silence is to protect an institution or organisation. i have real difficulty with this one. it seems to stem from "the greater good" type of argument, in that the institution/organisation is providing such a valuable service to so many people, and a few victims of sexual abuse should not be allowed to put that to risk. especially since they could be making it all up anyway, right? it's such a stupid way of thinking, because of the sheer lack of humanity, but also because of the lack of logic. the organisation will be found out hiding or covering up sexual abuse - sooner or later - and then the fallout is going to be much worse than if they took the first case seriously, ensured that justice was done and put in place measures to ensure the safety of all people within the organisation.
another reason is that people don't want to be dragged into the situation, don't want to deal with the nastiness that comes with being a whistle-blower. it's not just the victims who get blamed for doing [xyz] action that lead to the abuse. other parties who try to something about it are just as much targets, criticised for trying to ruin someone's life, that someone who now gets defined as a pillar of the community or a nice young man whose shining bright future is about to be ruined, or a good person who works so hard for charity (this latter being all the more sickeningly ironic because it is often the charity work which allows the perpetrator to cherry-pick vulnerable victims, as it appears mr savile was able to do).
it's tough to be the one that calls out sexual abuse, especially when others in the family/ institution/ organisation gather around to protect the perpetrator and to isolate & shame the victim and those associated with her. the consequences can range from isolation and ostracisation to outright bullying and threats of physical violence.
one of the reasons for silence, or for the cover-up, that i find most difficult to deal with is the "protection of the victim" defense. i've seen this so very often, and it sickens me every time. the argument goes like this: if the offending is brought to light, the damage to the reputation and the very life of the victim will be so high that it's better to be kept quiet. in some cultures, a young woman will be considered as tainted, she will never receive an offer of marriage, even though she is the one who has been offended against. in pretty much all cultures, there will always be doubt that she shouldn't have allowed herself to be in a situation that such a thing could have happened to her. she is culpable of the crime against her for any number of reasons, so best that it is all hushed up. let the victim be sent away, or let the perpetrator be sent away, but let the reason never be known.
the thing is, with the latter defense, cultural norms and practices make the reasoning valid. the appalling treatment of victims of sexual abuse means that it is much easier, much more the logical option to stay silent. and when we have silence, we have conditions where sexual abuse and violence continue & even flourish.
perhaps this is why i'm hopeful about the police inquiry into the alleged crimes of jimmy savile. so many women have come forward to speak out. the culture within the BBC and other media organisations is coming out into the open. i'm really hoping that there are some people who are feeling incredibly scared right now, because the crimes they have committed might come to light. and maybe, just maybe, we'll see a culture change that makes life safer for a lot of people.
Sunday, 7 October 2012
53rd Down Under Feminist Carnival
Up now at Bluebec - make with the clicky!Each month I am so pleased to see this carnival continue and grow and share really good stuff.
A weekend in Dunedin - National Council of Women's 2012 conference
In 2010 I decided that I should get involved in the National Council of Women. To me it was a somewhat shadowy organisation, with a mandate I didn't understand, which occasionally popped up with submissions to Select Committees or media statements which I either agreed with or was strongly concerned by. One such example of the latter was NCWNZ submitting in favour of the 90 day legislation for employment, on the basis that it would be good for women. My experience and observation is that those who face discrimination in the workplace already, as women do, are usually made more vulnerable by losing rights, not less so. But anyway...A couple of months ago QoT wrote about the NCWNZ support for the Who Needs Feminism campaign, and expressed her concerns about the level of feminist analysis NCWNZ was (or rather wasn't) undertaking. While I agree with some of the points The Thorny One made, we are not in total agreement - which is not unusual ;-) - and it has been very interesting to become more involved in NCWNZ over the last two years and learn about why it is the way it is, and how it is changing.
This weekend I have been in Dunedin for the biennial conference of NCWNZ. It's an organisation established in 1896, and I see it as much like the game of cricket - highly evolved rules and customs which had reasons and made sense to insiders for a long time, but some of those reasons are lost in the mists of time, so it's hard for current participants to understand the relevance of positions such as Silly Mid Off. There have certainly been Silly Mid Off moments for me during the conference.
But putting that to one side, I do see some significant value in NCWNZ, to the point where I am becoming more involved, not less, despite some frustrations. Partly this is because I think it's important to have feminist voices (in particular those who aren't first or second wave), and a diversity of life experiences, active in NCWNZ, and that that is part of the evolution of the organisation which won't happen if it is abandoned by progressive people.
Which is not to say that most of those currently involved are not progressive. I am constantly amazed by the staunch advocacy for women that fellow members will articulately share in branch meetings, online and now on the floor of the conference. Some base their advocacy on the idea that women are mothers first and foremost, and thus what happens for children is of supreme importance, and that really grates for me, but often we find ourselves in agreement, albeit for quite different reasons.
At a recent branch meeting we had a ripper of a debate about marriage equality. Yes I would have prefered we had been in agreement, but it was heartening to see so many wonderful arguments for marriage equality put up by women who were in the demographic that the polling shows us is most likely to be opposed to Louisa Wall's bill. In the end we decided not to take a branch position, which was disappointing to me.
The highlight of the weekend for me, in regard to the democratic aspects, has been the vote to support a remit on making contraception available to all women for free. This includes both the actual contraception (pill, condom, IUD, implant, etc) and the consultation fee. Currently there is a confusing array of free access for certain circumstances, especially those under 25. However there is undoubtedly a need to widen this, as I argued in my 2010 presentation on why abortion needs to be legal. The motion was put up by the Manawatu branch, seconded by ALRANZ (whose president Morgan Healey spoke very well to the motion) and I appreciated having the opportunity to speak to it too. When I tweeted (@juliefairey) about the passing of this remit I was quite surprised at the positive responses from many people glad to see NCWNZ stand up on this issue.
The conference has been an interesting experience, for a variety of somewhat unexpected reasons. The guest speakers and panel discussions have been very valuable; as I type there is a fantastic keynote being given on the issue of how family trusts undermine social justice, particularly as that impacts on women. "Women and Work: No Barriers" is the theme of the conference, and there have been a lot of discussions that show a very wide definition of "work" amongst the delegates, including a focus on the need to recognise the unpaid work that so often falls to women. I've also met some fascinating women through my involvement in Auckland branch, and added to that number at the conference. In particular, I greatly value the perspective of older women that I can access readily through NCWNZ, and which is absent from much public dialogue and not prevalent in my own personal circles.
I'm involved because I think there is a role for an umbrella body, a peak organisation, for women's organisations (and the women's sectors/networks/etcs of other organisations), and because I want to help to shape the future of NCWNZ as it evolves. If you are interested in getting involved too, it can sometimes be difficult to navigate the entry points, so I'm more than happy to assist, and can be emailed on julie dot fairey at g mail dot com.
Friday, 5 October 2012
What about the war on greed?
Welcome, those who do not agree with seeing those most impoverished in our society treated like the cause of the recession, to the National Day of Action Against Welfare Reform. There are peaceful events protesting the Government approach to social welfare at WINZ offices around the country:
NELSON: WINZ 22 Bridge street contact: kayoss2@gmail.com or Facebook
DUNEDIN: Central WINZ Cnr St Andrews & Castle st contact (027) 259218 olive.mcrae@gmail.com or Facebook
TAURANGA: Spring street Tauranga CBD, Facebook.
KAIKOHE: Rally at WINZ Kaikohe contact: ketanasaxon@gmail.com or Facebook
AUCKLAND: Henderson WINZ contact unitewaimata@gmail.com or Facebook
WELLINGTON: Willis St. (Wellington City) WINZ contact Heleyni (029) 4949865, heleyni@unite.org.nz or Facebook
CHRISTCHURCH: Riccarton Rd WINZ contact joanna.wildish@gmail.com (022) 1726120 or Facebook
HAMILTON: WBAHamilton@gmail.com (022) 307 9324 or Facebook
HAWKE'S BAY: Hastings East WINZ Office. contact is msnhuata@gmail.com (022) 6014959 or Facebook
If you think making sure children in the poorest families in Aotearoa are not penalised by ideological decision making designed to stop us paying attention to who continues to be doing just fine during the recession, get yourselves down to WINZ. See Wellington supporters there.
NELSON: WINZ 22 Bridge street contact: kayoss2@gmail.com or FacebookDUNEDIN: Central WINZ Cnr St Andrews & Castle st contact (027) 259218 olive.mcrae@gmail.com or Facebook
TAURANGA: Spring street Tauranga CBD, Facebook.
KAIKOHE: Rally at WINZ Kaikohe contact: ketanasaxon@gmail.com or Facebook
AUCKLAND: Henderson WINZ contact unitewaimata@gmail.com or Facebook
WELLINGTON: Willis St. (Wellington City) WINZ contact Heleyni (029) 4949865, heleyni@unite.org.nz or Facebook
CHRISTCHURCH: Riccarton Rd WINZ contact joanna.wildish@gmail.com (022) 1726120 or Facebook
HAMILTON: WBAHamilton@gmail.com (022) 307 9324 or Facebook
HAWKE'S BAY: Hastings East WINZ Office. contact is msnhuata@gmail.com (022) 6014959 or Facebook
If you think making sure children in the poorest families in Aotearoa are not penalised by ideological decision making designed to stop us paying attention to who continues to be doing just fine during the recession, get yourselves down to WINZ. See Wellington supporters there.
Tuesday, 2 October 2012
Queering Twitter
So language, I'm all down with reclaiming you, in that incredibly hip, post-modern type way, a lot of the time. Only for words that describe me or a group I belong to - so queer say, rather than nigger - but often reclaiming and reimbuing langugage with new meanings is part of significant challenges to existing power relations in my opinion.
So when someone sent me this real time counting of the times "faggot", "so gay", "dyke" and "no homo" crop up on Twitter, I was kinda hoping that for faggot and dyke at least, some of the thousands of tweets would be affirming banter between queer people. "Dykey" is often a compliment in my circle of queer friends at least, and I know "fag" is similarly used by queer men at times.
Nope, back to modernist reality. These tweets are about all that's wrong with the world in terms of homophobia. Depressing - and do something queer positive after you check it out - to remember we can and are changing this world every time we challenge homophobia, biphobia and transphobia. Including counting how many times it appears.
So when someone sent me this real time counting of the times "faggot", "so gay", "dyke" and "no homo" crop up on Twitter, I was kinda hoping that for faggot and dyke at least, some of the thousands of tweets would be affirming banter between queer people. "Dykey" is often a compliment in my circle of queer friends at least, and I know "fag" is similarly used by queer men at times.
Nope, back to modernist reality. These tweets are about all that's wrong with the world in terms of homophobia. Depressing - and do something queer positive after you check it out - to remember we can and are changing this world every time we challenge homophobia, biphobia and transphobia. Including counting how many times it appears.
Friday, 28 September 2012
Reading reports helps sometimes
More on Judith Collins and the alternative trial processes for sexual violence. In parliament today Minister Collins explained she didn't want to have different processes for sexual violence cases than other kinds of awful crimes like kidnapping and murder - despite the crimes having different conviction rates and different experiences for those victimised. She then tried to quote an opposition MP before being reminded by Lockwood Smith that she was supposed to be answering the question herself.
Minister Collins looks rattled on this - and underdone. She doesn't appear to have read the Law Commission recommendations, or understand that the justice system is failing survivors of sexual violence in unique, proven-by-research ways. She looks like she doesn't understand the issues. She looks like she doesn't care.
It's not a good look for a Minister of Justice with designs on party leadership. Check it out here.
Minister Collins looks rattled on this - and underdone. She doesn't appear to have read the Law Commission recommendations, or understand that the justice system is failing survivors of sexual violence in unique, proven-by-research ways. She looks like she doesn't understand the issues. She looks like she doesn't care.
It's not a good look for a Minister of Justice with designs on party leadership. Check it out here.
Thursday, 27 September 2012
Oppose the issuing of a visa to Mike Tyson
Danna Glendining is asking people to email the Minister of Immigration, Nathan Guy, your Member
of Parliament, etc.to oppose the issuing of a visa to boxer Mike Tyson, who
was convicted of rape in 1992. She says, "We need to support women who have been raped, and the issuing of a visa to Tyson would send the wrong message within New Zealand and
abroad."
28 September - Too late. According to the Dom-Post this morning, he's on his way.
12 October - But of course, he wasn't. See the great post by Luddite Journo.
28 September - Too late. According to the Dom-Post this morning, he's on his way.
12 October - But of course, he wasn't. See the great post by Luddite Journo.
social workers' day
today is social workers' day, and i have to say that this is one group of workers who don't get the recognition they deserve. it's an incredibly difficult area of work, one that causes high levels of stress. it's an area of work that tends to be understaffed, regardless of the organisation, and definitely underpaid.
given the fact that the work can be physically dangerous, and is definitely emotionally fraught, in a society that cares about the well-being of all its members, social work should be valued at least as much as (if not more than) high-level business managers who earn 7-figure salaries. they have the potential to have a huge impact on the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in society. remuneration is the most important way we have of showing how much we value work, which means that social workers have been seriously shortchanged.
i have to say that i was really grinding my teeth listening to paula bennett congratulate social workers, when one of the first things the national government did when coming into office in 2008 is to scrap the pay equity unit - the unit that was currently working on improving the wages and conditions of social workers working for the government. if she actually wants to recognise the value of the work they do, then she really needs to do a lot more than give us hollow words in parliament. she'll do something concrete to ensure they get adequate remuneration for the work which she claims to value.
social workers working the NGO sector fare even worse. the current funding environment is particularly challenging, with private funding organisations having much less funding available because of investments performing poorly in a recession. this situation is exacerbated by the fact that we have a government who have been prepared to cut revenue via taxes, which then provides the justification for cutting the pool of funding available to NGOs who provide social services. the end result is that NGOs offer much lower wages than these workers deserve, especially when you take into accoun the fact that they have a 3-year degree & are required to be registered with the social worker registration board.
on the whole, there's not much for social workers to celebrate. this day is rather a chance for us to celebrate and acknowledge the work that social workers do. so i would like to thank social workers across the country for their efforts, and to acknowledge that our society would be so much worse without them.
given the fact that the work can be physically dangerous, and is definitely emotionally fraught, in a society that cares about the well-being of all its members, social work should be valued at least as much as (if not more than) high-level business managers who earn 7-figure salaries. they have the potential to have a huge impact on the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in society. remuneration is the most important way we have of showing how much we value work, which means that social workers have been seriously shortchanged.
i have to say that i was really grinding my teeth listening to paula bennett congratulate social workers, when one of the first things the national government did when coming into office in 2008 is to scrap the pay equity unit - the unit that was currently working on improving the wages and conditions of social workers working for the government. if she actually wants to recognise the value of the work they do, then she really needs to do a lot more than give us hollow words in parliament. she'll do something concrete to ensure they get adequate remuneration for the work which she claims to value.
social workers working the NGO sector fare even worse. the current funding environment is particularly challenging, with private funding organisations having much less funding available because of investments performing poorly in a recession. this situation is exacerbated by the fact that we have a government who have been prepared to cut revenue via taxes, which then provides the justification for cutting the pool of funding available to NGOs who provide social services. the end result is that NGOs offer much lower wages than these workers deserve, especially when you take into accoun the fact that they have a 3-year degree & are required to be registered with the social worker registration board.
on the whole, there's not much for social workers to celebrate. this day is rather a chance for us to celebrate and acknowledge the work that social workers do. so i would like to thank social workers across the country for their efforts, and to acknowledge that our society would be so much worse without them.
Tuesday, 25 September 2012
Feminist Event: Women, Class & Revolution!
A facilitated discussion on how the struggle for socialism intersects with the struggle for women's liberation, led by Workers Party member Kassie Hartendorp. Bring your thoughts and ideas, or feel free to sit and absorb. All welcome!
Tuesday 9th October, 18:00, 19 Tory Street, Wellington. Facebook event here.
Accessibility information: the venue is street level but there is a small lip at the door.
Terrible news for rape survivors
We finally have an answer to the many years work that have gone into trying to change our justice system's response to sexual violence so that it feels less retraumatising for survivors.
Justice Minister Judith Collins "isn't interested."
Justice Minister Judith Collins has reduced the Law Commission research and consultation, with an wide range of suggestions, most of which could be done within our present legal system, to "her predecessor Simon Power's plan to introduce an inquisitorial system in New Zealand."
Justice Minister Judith Collins says she will be shelving this consultation - this independent examination of the fact that for the last thirty-five years those working in the criminal justice system have raised concerns about how we prosecute cases of sexual violence. This despite the Law Commission website still saying they will be summarising the 500 + submissions they received about this by, well, six days time.
Earlier I shared research about how those in the criminal justice system feel about sexual violence cases. Police Officers who say:
Look again, Justice Minister. This isn't a pissing contest with Simon Power. It's real people's lives. Whether we want the inquisitorial system or not - and isn't that what the Law Commission research and consultation was for, to decide that? - whether we want that or not, there are a myriad suggestions which could improve survivors experiences now which were part of this consultation.
Read it. Listen to experts like law academic Elisabeth McDonald. Stop acting like the Ultimate Ruler of the Universe. Start acting like you care about Justice.
Justice Minister Judith Collins "isn't interested."
Justice Minister Judith Collins has reduced the Law Commission research and consultation, with an wide range of suggestions, most of which could be done within our present legal system, to "her predecessor Simon Power's plan to introduce an inquisitorial system in New Zealand."
Justice Minister Judith Collins says she will be shelving this consultation - this independent examination of the fact that for the last thirty-five years those working in the criminal justice system have raised concerns about how we prosecute cases of sexual violence. This despite the Law Commission website still saying they will be summarising the 500 + submissions they received about this by, well, six days time.
Earlier I shared research about how those in the criminal justice system feel about sexual violence cases. Police Officers who say:
"I wouldn’t put myself through this and certainly would let a friend or family know how degrading it is and that they will be revictimised and the chances of a guilty verdict are very, very low."Crown Prosecutors who say:
"In my view the process for complainants in sexual violence cases is brutal, every aspect of the complainant’s character and conduct is questioned and exposed, and the likely outcome is not guilty. "Yet Justice Minister Judith Collins knows better, by reducing all of the work that has gone into imagining survivors not feeling re-victimised by going to court to try to stop sexual offending to "an inquisitorial system".
Look again, Justice Minister. This isn't a pissing contest with Simon Power. It's real people's lives. Whether we want the inquisitorial system or not - and isn't that what the Law Commission research and consultation was for, to decide that? - whether we want that or not, there are a myriad suggestions which could improve survivors experiences now which were part of this consultation.
Read it. Listen to experts like law academic Elisabeth McDonald. Stop acting like the Ultimate Ruler of the Universe. Start acting like you care about Justice.
Tuesday, 11 September 2012
What the world needs now is Buffy
Finally, the proof I've been waiting for.
Watching Buffy is not just my fave dvd retreat, it actually makes women feel less anxious about sexual violence, and challenges men's negative ideas about women.
Interesting study. The researchers chose sexually violent material from shows with either subordinate women characters, or strong female characters (this is an interesting subject in itself. What makes someone "strong"? Do you have to be able to kick vampire ass?) And they compared both genres with some shows without sexually violent content, by asking their research subjects to view the shows and then comparing reactions across groups.
The sexually violent shows with subordinate women characters were The Tudors and Masters of Horror. The sexually violent shows with strong women characters were SVU and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The control shows without sexually violent content were 7th Heaven and Gilmore Girls.
The findings, in the words of the researchers:
Now, where is my Season 1?
Watching Buffy is not just my fave dvd retreat, it actually makes women feel less anxious about sexual violence, and challenges men's negative ideas about women.
Interesting study. The researchers chose sexually violent material from shows with either subordinate women characters, or strong female characters (this is an interesting subject in itself. What makes someone "strong"? Do you have to be able to kick vampire ass?) And they compared both genres with some shows without sexually violent content, by asking their research subjects to view the shows and then comparing reactions across groups.
The sexually violent shows with subordinate women characters were The Tudors and Masters of Horror. The sexually violent shows with strong women characters were SVU and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The control shows without sexually violent content were 7th Heaven and Gilmore Girls.
The findings, in the words of the researchers:
Women who watched sexually violent media were more anxious, and males who watched sexually violent media had more negative attitudes toward women, but only when female characters were subordinate. Sexual and violent content had no influence on viewer attitudes when strong female characters were present, suggesting these are not the crucial influence variables.Women were actually less anxious watching SVU or Buffy than the control group shows. The inverse was true for men, who reported least anxiety watching the Tudors or Masters of Horror.
Now, where is my Season 1?
Saturday, 8 September 2012
Making friends, with fruit trees
Earlier today, before the rain started, I gathered together food, jackets, children and buggy and headed off for a short walk over the ridge, to a leafier part of town. As we bumbled down the hill towards our destination I could see the people, two big trucks, and the bright shafts of spades. When we got closer we could make out spindly trees, poking up from the grass, and the flurry of activity from adults and children alike.
This was a community fruit tree planting exercise, organised by the Puketapapa Local Board in response to submissions from the residents in surrounding streets to refresh their tired park and playground. The renewal of the play equipment was completed earlier this year, and today was the day for all to muck in and make sure these fifteen fruit trees got the best possible start on a sunny slope above the houses.
I love this stuff. Events like this have been the surprise joy of my local government involvement - local people coming together to achieve positive changes in their community that they can't do on their own. I didn't get to actually plant a tree, as there was plenty of help from neighbours and I was more useful wrangling children, talking to people about how this happened, and taking photos. But I've come away with a buzz nonetheless.
Part of the spark I get out of it is from the connections you see people making with each other, and the aha moments you can watch them having as they realise what they have in common, and what they could work on together.
The best examples of this today for me were the woman and her partner who had got the flyer in their letterbox and come along, having recently moved here from another part of Auckland where there was lots of community stuff, keen as beans to get into it here, and three children I came across helping put the mulch bark around the planted trees. I had a chat to the kids and asked them their names, told them mine, pointed out my kids too, and then asked them if they knew each other before today. "Nope" was the response. Half an hour later they were making up their own games to play together on the playground.
Community building can be as simple as giving neighbours a reason to get together and meet each other. Lots of the people I spoke to today were interested in coming over the hill in a fortnight's time to a poorer part of town to help with a community planting day there. I look forward to seeing them again, and being able to at least exchange smiles of recognition in the street, on the bus, and in the supermarket. I hope they are feeling as zippy as I am this afternoon!
This was a community fruit tree planting exercise, organised by the Puketapapa Local Board in response to submissions from the residents in surrounding streets to refresh their tired park and playground. The renewal of the play equipment was completed earlier this year, and today was the day for all to muck in and make sure these fifteen fruit trees got the best possible start on a sunny slope above the houses.
I love this stuff. Events like this have been the surprise joy of my local government involvement - local people coming together to achieve positive changes in their community that they can't do on their own. I didn't get to actually plant a tree, as there was plenty of help from neighbours and I was more useful wrangling children, talking to people about how this happened, and taking photos. But I've come away with a buzz nonetheless.
Part of the spark I get out of it is from the connections you see people making with each other, and the aha moments you can watch them having as they realise what they have in common, and what they could work on together.
The best examples of this today for me were the woman and her partner who had got the flyer in their letterbox and come along, having recently moved here from another part of Auckland where there was lots of community stuff, keen as beans to get into it here, and three children I came across helping put the mulch bark around the planted trees. I had a chat to the kids and asked them their names, told them mine, pointed out my kids too, and then asked them if they knew each other before today. "Nope" was the response. Half an hour later they were making up their own games to play together on the playground.
 |
| Three children spreading bark mulch around a newly planted fruit tree. From left to right: Emma, Sarah and Dave. |
Friday, 7 September 2012
52nd Down Under Feminist Carnival out now!
And hosted graciously at Lip Magazine:52nd Down Under Feminist Carnival.
Make with the clicky, and thanks to those who put it together and submitted :-)
Thursday, 6 September 2012
in a supporting role
for those following the presidential elections in america, you will know that the big thing this year (well ok, the second biggest thing, the first would have to be this) is the speeches from the wives at both the republican and democratic national conventions. they seem to be a bigger deal than usual particularly because the republicans have been waging the "war on women" and suddenly realised they need votes from women, so hyped up ann romney's speech to the nth degree. then the democrats needed to respond in kind, and super-hype up michell obama's speech.
in case you haven't listened to them yet, and particular want to, here's michelle obama:
and here's ann romney:
i've listened to the first but not the second - don't think i could bear it. but that's not the point. the point is that i'm not comfortable with these women being put in this position of having to sell their husbands to the voters. it's too much of women in a supporting role, which we already get constantly. it's too much focusing on the man, rather than on the skills and achievements of the woman.
the need to play happy families in a presidential race falls so much on the wives, but also on the husbands. and it's the standard, stereotypical portrayal of husband, wife & 2 kids - with the central focus on the husband. and because this stereotypical portrayal is then closely linked to "family values", the message is clearly given that only a person in this type of family can possibly have strong family values.
hence why it's nearly impossible for a single woman (or man) to run for a leadership role. even though she may have just as strong family values as anyone else. but no, she is bound to be maggie-barry'd. i saw this happen to helen clark, who only appeared with her husband on crucial occasions like election night, but rarely at other times. he never campaigned directly for the labour party as the political wives above are doing, and i'm glad about that. i remember a rally at the university of waikato, where someone asked (and i paraphrase) "why isn't your husband here with you? don't you believe in family values?". given that she was probably asked this 10 times a week, she had the perfect response, something along the lines of "he lets me go out by myself, he doesn't need to be here holding my hand all the time".
i don't recall burton shipley doing a lot of rallying and campaigning for the national party either - but then i wasn't really interested so might not have been paying attention. i certainly don't get the impression that julia gillard's partner nor mr merkel are out and about, and furiously campaigning in the way these 2 wives are. in fact the only male politician i can think of who has done that is bill clinton, but given his history & the support he received from his wife, that's the least he could do.
another thing that annoys me is this: why do we need the wives to tell us how much their husbands love women voters. surely the men themselves should be able to come out and clearly give that women. if a male presidential candidate can't directly appeal to and relate to women voters, then he shouldn't be running.
i suppose there are a few positives. even in a supporting role, these women are strong and positive, articulate (even if saying things i'm not particularly interested in listening to) and active. and having them in the foreground rather than the background is not a bad thing. i just wish michelle obama's speech was about michelle obama - some of it was, but all of it could have been. her husband is clearly capable of speaking for himself. not so sure about mitt romney, and not interested in finding out.
and i'm not saying there's anything wrong with wives being supportive of husbands. i think it's more about the context and culture, and the way that support is being played out - the messages that it sends. i don't like it, i just don't.
in case you haven't listened to them yet, and particular want to, here's michelle obama:
and here's ann romney:
i've listened to the first but not the second - don't think i could bear it. but that's not the point. the point is that i'm not comfortable with these women being put in this position of having to sell their husbands to the voters. it's too much of women in a supporting role, which we already get constantly. it's too much focusing on the man, rather than on the skills and achievements of the woman.
the need to play happy families in a presidential race falls so much on the wives, but also on the husbands. and it's the standard, stereotypical portrayal of husband, wife & 2 kids - with the central focus on the husband. and because this stereotypical portrayal is then closely linked to "family values", the message is clearly given that only a person in this type of family can possibly have strong family values.
hence why it's nearly impossible for a single woman (or man) to run for a leadership role. even though she may have just as strong family values as anyone else. but no, she is bound to be maggie-barry'd. i saw this happen to helen clark, who only appeared with her husband on crucial occasions like election night, but rarely at other times. he never campaigned directly for the labour party as the political wives above are doing, and i'm glad about that. i remember a rally at the university of waikato, where someone asked (and i paraphrase) "why isn't your husband here with you? don't you believe in family values?". given that she was probably asked this 10 times a week, she had the perfect response, something along the lines of "he lets me go out by myself, he doesn't need to be here holding my hand all the time".
i don't recall burton shipley doing a lot of rallying and campaigning for the national party either - but then i wasn't really interested so might not have been paying attention. i certainly don't get the impression that julia gillard's partner nor mr merkel are out and about, and furiously campaigning in the way these 2 wives are. in fact the only male politician i can think of who has done that is bill clinton, but given his history & the support he received from his wife, that's the least he could do.
another thing that annoys me is this: why do we need the wives to tell us how much their husbands love women voters. surely the men themselves should be able to come out and clearly give that women. if a male presidential candidate can't directly appeal to and relate to women voters, then he shouldn't be running.
i suppose there are a few positives. even in a supporting role, these women are strong and positive, articulate (even if saying things i'm not particularly interested in listening to) and active. and having them in the foreground rather than the background is not a bad thing. i just wish michelle obama's speech was about michelle obama - some of it was, but all of it could have been. her husband is clearly capable of speaking for himself. not so sure about mitt romney, and not interested in finding out.
and i'm not saying there's anything wrong with wives being supportive of husbands. i think it's more about the context and culture, and the way that support is being played out - the messages that it sends. i don't like it, i just don't.
Tuesday, 4 September 2012
feminism & the war on terror
via the ever-wonderful ruth desouza, this is really worth listening to. while i wouldn't agree with everything she says, i think she provides some really challenging perspectives:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)