Guestie: Babe of the Day

Thanks to Maus for writing and submitting this. Readers may also be interested in an alternative set up just last night:"NZ Misogynist of the Day.".

In the past month or so there have been several ‘Babe of the Day’ facebook pages popping up. The worst offenders seem to be the universities, although some of the more questionable pages such as ‘New Zealand Pair of the day’ and ‘WINZ babe of the day’ have their authors and affiliations hidden. I was recently approached by TV3’s nightline for a feminist opinion on these pages, and although I gave a fairly lengthy and detailed report of the problems associated with the pages, it was boiled down to ‘Angry feminists are killjoys’, and I was subsequently told across various social mediums that I didn’t like them because I was ugly. Of course.

The biggest problem is the lack of consent. These pages are created without the subjects consent; in fact on many of them, you are unable to nominate yourself. So we have pictures of girls, taken from their private facebook pages, and posted for all to see, and for all to ‘appreciate’. In fact, on the most recent ‘New Zealand Pair of the day’ page, out of the eight pictures posted, four have the subjects asking the pictures to be taken down, something the moderators ignored. When I posted under these comments telling the girls that although facebook doesn’t care about sexual harassment, you could report the image as your intellectual property and they would remove it fairly promptly, my comments were deleted and I was banned from posting further. There was even a picture of a woman holding her newborn child on one of the groups pages, which violates several peoples consent.

NOTE:: TVNZ, after interviewing me and listening to me talk about lack of consent, used several images from these pages, WITHOUT GAINING THE GIRLS CONSENT.

There are of course other problems with these pages. The university ones are full of comments like ‘who cares what she studies, shes bangin’, and although some of them have men featured, the sexisim is very apparent; for starters, mostly the guys are ‘Blokes of the Day’, not babes, and the accompanying text reads like a dating profile; ‘Bloke is a great guy, loves puppies and kittens and volunteers at homeless shelter’, and other such harmless banalities. Another interesting thing is that there seems to be a semblance of ethnic diversity in the ‘blokes’, you have many from many races, and the photos are typical headshots. In direct contrast, the women are uniform in their race, invariably skinny, and all wearing not much at all in the full body shots (I want to stress there is nothing wrong with being white and skinny, or dressing however you like. I just wanted to point out the standards of beauty are surprising given the diverse populations of universities).

There are enough reasons to have body image problems, and it is difficult to succeed as a woman in a academic world without being judged solely on how you supposedly look in a bathing costume. The response to my ten second sound bite was enough to show the reactions you get for speaking out from a feminist viewpoint. And I’m sick of it. There are hundreds of articles about there about why we don’t need to be judged for our looks, about the issues we face in the workforce and academic worlds.

I really feel like we should have come further than this, that I shouldn’t have to be typing this, I shouldn’t have to say something as simple as gaining a womans consent before encouraging hundreds of people to jack off to her picture is not a hard or wrong thing. And I certainly shouldn’t be abused for it, or told that I am ugly and therefore worthless. Wake the fuck up people. Consent isn’t hard, and I’m sick of having to shout ‘Yes means Yes’.

Auckland Libraries push past expectations...

Keen to see the library buildings used for more than just reading and storage? Want to take back your local library with an event that makes you THINK?

Join Auckland Libraries as they question, challenge and celebrate sex and sexuality on the page, stage and screen with a special series of thought-provoking events for over-18s.

Dark night celebrates diversity across the borders of gender, sexual identity, and sexual orientation. I for one would love a strong feminist group in the audience, especially for the Thursday night panel, and the Dark Night cabaret, where audience input have the capacity to mold the tone of the evening.

The events are as follows, further info can be found at the Auckland Libraries website.
I will see you there! - Scube.

Shame, a film.

Academy Cinema (next to Auckland city Library)

8pm Friday 21^st June

Auckland Library's events series "Dark night" launches with a special screening of Shame, a portrait of sex addiction starring Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan. Introduced beforehand by a panel discussion with psychologist Dr. Pani Farvid.
Price $10 or $16 - including a drink. Book online at www.academycinemas.co.nz

Shelley Munro

Wednesday 26 June, 6pm
Leys Institute, Ponsonby
Join erotic romance author Shelley Munro in conversation.

The new erotica?

Central City Library, Whare Wananga, Level 2

1800hrs Thursday 27^th June.

From Fifty shades of grey to erotic fan fiction and the new burlesque, how has erotica changed at the dawn of the 21st century? A panel discussion with Dylan Horrocks, Sam Orchard, Karen Tay, and Tosca Waerea


Dark Night Cabaret

Grey Lynn Library

8pm Friday 28th June.

A night of sultry, saucy cabaret that includes burlesque performers and Fringe Festival stars, alongside frank explorations of sex and sexuality in fact and fiction.
Scuba Nurse will be Hosting the Q&A section of the night with the answers to all those sticky questions... If you would like to submit a question - go to Twitter and use the hash tag #DarkNight

Call Grey Lynn Library to book on (09) 374 1314.

 

 

Winners can't be victims, or victims cant be winners?

Cross posted from my usual spot...

Massive trigger warning for rape and assault, domestic violence, and victim blaming.

Please note that I repeatedly use the term Victim in this piece. This is a term a lot of people choose to leave behind in their recovery from assault, domestic violence and rape, for the purpose of moving on, and empowerment.
Please understand that the term is used to point out the power imbalance in the scenarios given, and is not meant with disrespect.

Much love to those survivors out there.

There has been a lot of discussion on gaming and feminist sites around the rape joke at Microsoft's E3 Reveal. I have a few points I want to make.

Firstly, those two people were supposed to be showing how FUN gaming is, how great the new console is, and why people should buy it. They were supposed to be the epitome of what is awesome about gaming.

And rape jokes were a part of that.
This rubbish is so ingrained in the culture that not only did it happen, but it happened at a “show” about how fun gaming is. Could you isolate some of your audience any more if you TRIED?

My second point is less about this specific incident, but about the responses to it.

I found something very interesting with regards to the response in support of the “joke”.

In multiple cases, they pointed out that“in the end” the woman gamer won.

 

Can someone please explain to me what about winning makes an assault/rape/victimisation less real or awful?
Yes, that woman eventually won the bout (don’t even get me started on staging that) but at a point in time, the other gamer made a reference that most people in the room, certainly any rape victim understood.

“Just let it happen. It will be over soon."

There are phrases that I am very, verycareful not to use with patients. One of those phases is “it will be over soon.”There are few things more triggering than hearing the exact phrase an attacker used, coming out of the mouth of someone you thought was safe. I can only imagine that then hearing a ROOM of people laughing at that phrase would be truly sickening.

So I think some people agree with me that that particular phrase was Not OK. So what about the fact that she won, suddenly made it ok?

What about a woman turning around and stabbing her rapist makes what he did less of a rape?
What about winning a court case and sending some pack rapists to jail makes a teenage girl less of a victim, and more of someone who “stole someone’s future’?
What about a successful life makes someone an unbelievable victim?

The minimisation of the trauma of assault due to surrounding circumstances is common.

“She was asking for it”

“They were friends for a long time”
“He had a history of promiscuity”

But this whole “winners aren’t victims”thing is more subtle, and just as dangerous.

Bad things happen to successful people. Ask anyone who works with domestic violence cases. Some of the shiniest homes with the biggest incomes have hidden bruises inside.

People who are in the spotlight due to great success are not immune to the cruelties of the world.

And this is REALLY important people. The person who is smart, and eloquent, and able to fight back is NO LESS a victim than those who cannot. Rape is still rape.
It doesn’t matter how many fights, or court cases, or reputations you win back.
The person who perpetrated an assault, did something WRONG.
No matter how many rights happen after that, the wrong doesn’t go away.

Quit making this about the victim's actions, before, after or during the event. Let’s start looking at the perpetrators.

Rugby without the side order of queer-bashing, thanks

Hannah Spyksma cannot expect to go to a rugby game without homophobic abuse, because Eden Park and New Zealand rugby don't want to be the "PC Police."

Quite right too, how on earth could they be expected to challenge men calling players not behaving in manly enough ways for them "homos and faggots"?  What is this, communist fairy land?

We haven't done that anywhere else, after all.  People can be told to stop "acting gay" at work and that's fine, right?  Or be criticised for having "man hands"?

It's not ok for politicians to say or do homophobic things either. 

Let's face it, this list could go on and on.  The point is homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are everywhere, and challenging them is a part of many queer* people's lives, as well as cis-gendered and straight people with integrity and confidence in standing up against oppressions they do not experience first-hand.  And rugby is far from alone in being a safe place for queer* hating.

But my second point is this: being able to go to flagship social events - and in Aotearoa New Zealand, an All Blacks game is a flagship social event - and not be surrounded by abuse should be a right.  We shouldn't have to listen to racist or sexist or gender policing or homophobic or biphobic or transphobic or ableist abuse.  We should be able to expect to enjoy a flagship social event safely.  We should be able to cuddle our same-sex partner or sit in our wheelchair or korero Māori or wear a short skirt or play with our gender presentation or not fit rigid gender norms.......

Without that being terrifying.  Without being scared of being verbally abused.  Without being threatened by people around us. 

So come on sports venues and sports bodies.  Welcome the bravery of Hannah Spyskma.  We shouldn't accept homophobia - or any other kind of oppression, discrimination and hate speech - in our sports grounds or anywhere else.  Other multi-million dollar professional men's sports have taken a stance on homophobia - why not the All Blacks?

The learning goes on

Content warning: this post is about rape myths, victim blaming and rape culture.  Please be careful reading it.

When the Steubenville rapists were convicted three months ago, there was a great deal of media sympathy for the two young men, which highlighted yet again that many societies bend over backwards to excuse rape.  Astonishingly, CNN reporter Poppy Harlow described herself as "outraged" people thought she was excusing rape.  Here's her original report:

"It was incredibly emotional -- incredibly difficult even for an outsider like me to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believe their life fell apart.
One of -- one of the young men, Ma'lik Richmond, when that sentence came down, he collapsed. He collapsed in the arms of his attorney, Walter Madison. He said to me, "My life is over. No one is going to want me now."
Very serious crime here. Both found guilty of raping this 16- year-old girl at a series of parties back in August, alcohol-fueled parties. Alcohol is a huge part in this.
But Trent Mays was also found guilty on a second count and that is of felony illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material because he took a photograph of the victim laying naked on the floor that night. Trent Mays will serve two years in a juvenile detention facility. Ma'lik Richmond will serve one year on that one count that he was found guilty for.
I want to let our viewers listen because for the first time in this entire trial we have now heard from the two young men. Trent Mays stood up, apologizing to the victim's family in court. After him, Ma'lik Richmond.
Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRENT MAYS, FOUND GUILTY OF RAPINGIN JUVENILE COURT: I would really like to apologize to (INAUDIBLE), her family, my family and community. No pictures should have been sent out or should be taken. That's all. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Anything you'd like to say, Ma'lik?
MA'LIK RICHMOND, FOUND GUILTY OF RAPE IN JUVENILE COURT: I would like to apologize. I had no intention to do anything like that and I'm sorry to put you guys through this. (INAUDIBLE) I'm sorry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: I was sitting about three feet from Ma'lik when he gave that statement. It was very difficult to watch.
You know, something that came up throughout this sentencing. Ma'lik's father had gotten up and spoke. Ma'lik has been living with guardians. His father, a former alcoholic, gotten to a lot of trouble with the law, been in prison before.
And his father stood up and he told the court, "I feel responsible for this. I feel like I wasn't there for my son." And before that, he came over to the bench where his son was sitting. He approached him, he hugged him and whispered in his ear.
And Ma'lik's attorney said to us in a courtroom, I have never heard Ma'lik's father before say, I love you. He's never told his son that. But he just did today.
This was an incredibly emotional day."

I have a friend who calls events like Steubenville "social change learning moments." 

On a good day, I think that's right.  When people who do not usually notice rape myths notice a news report of RAPE CONVICTIONS doesn't refer once to what it must have been like for the young woman who was raped, filmed, threatened, mocked, bullied and pilloried - well, that's a great thing.  Because it makes those processes which support and enable rape more visible, which means we can change them.

But it's not always that easy for those of us who do notice rape myths operating, all the time.  For me at least, those "social change learning moments" are torture, because they remind me of the scale of victim blaming and the pain that survivors have to manage and the ways we excuse power over, in myriad little ways, all of the time.

One of the team-mates of the two men who raped walked past them while they were raping the young woman on his way out of the party.  Just moments before, he'd stopped another team-mate driving home drunk - because he believed that was wrong.  Yet he didn't stop his other team-mates raping.

"It wasn't violent," explained teammate Evan Westlake when asked why he didn't stop the two defendants as they abused a non-moving girl that Westlake knew to be highly intoxicated. "I always pictured it as forcing yourself on someone."

The opportunities here for cultural change are enormous.  What if ideas of sexuality required enthusiastic participation, mutual checking in that everything happening was fun for everyone concerned?

This rape would not have been possible.

What if young men didn't let other young men rape?  What if stopping your team-mate raping was as culturally supported as stopping your team-mate driving drunk?

This rape would not have been possible.

What if when we saw someone who was comatose we helped them get home and made sure they were ok, regardless of whether our hopes for earlier in the night included sexy time?

This rape would not have been possible.

What if young men were brought up to believe women's desires and longings were just as important as their own?  What if masculinity was de-entwined from power over?

This rape would not have been possible.

If Steubenville is a learning moment - and my heart goes out to the young woman at the centre of this, and I hope she is surrounded by loving friends and specialist support - then the learning isn't over.  Because there are new charges being brought - against the man who publically released the tweets and images from the football team, which joked about the rape and ridiculed the victim.  He has been charged with hacking in connection with the Steubenville rape case.  And the potential penalty is 10 years in prison - 9 and 8 years more than the rapists.

How to make sense of this?  I'm not sure I can.  Deric Lostutter's actions helped bring rapists to justice.  Would those young men have raped again if this hadn't happened?  Almost without doubt, I'd say.  Would other team-mates?  Again, it's hard to see why not.

He is an anti-rape hero in my opinion, a view which seems to be shared by people donating to his defence fund.  As for the FBI, looks to me like they are punishing someone for challenging rape culture.

It's Time to Change Your (Facebook) Gender

Feminists were pretty pleased when Facebook bowed to user – well, OK, advertiser – pressure last month and promised it would do more to keep violent and misogynistic ads off its pages. According to The New York Times, activists sent more than 5,000 emails to FB’s advertisers and sparked more than 60,000 Tweets. (Or “posts on Twitter” as the NYT calls them). Of course, it’s early days and we’ll have to see what action is taken and how effective it will be.

Now, with that campaign checked off, I have a suggestion for another one. This one takes aim at something possibly just as pernicious, but definitely way more insidious.

Those of you FB users out who are either “FB-Female” or “FB-Male” will almost certainly have noticed it. (NB. I’m treating FB genders as just that, FB genders, not real-world genders; and, yes, FB only offers the binary, but wait up, I'll get to that -- and how to get around it -- at the end.) What I'm talking about are those targeted ads that, once you start paying attention, reinforce some of the most noxious  stereotypes around.

This all started back in May, when one add in particularly really started to bug me.
  

I bitched about it on FB, of course, and was advised to instal an ad blocker, which I did. But that only blocks (most not all) ads in your News Feed, and does nothing about the sponsored ads down the right-panel. Still, I didn’t mind those so much; they’re easier to avert the eyes from and occasionally even slightly relevant. Skinny Spotlight Woman, on the other hand, was always there, front, centre and right at the very top, her torso looking suspiciously like it's about to spawn an alien. Is it supposed to be a rib? (And no, I never ever click, so I did not bring this on myself!)

After Skinny Spotlight Woman disappeared from my Feed, though, I started to pay more attention to the right-hand panel. Yes, there she was again. Just smaller this time. As were myriad other ads telling me what I could do to make myself thinner, sexier, leaner, better dressed. I started tracking them by taking screen shots, and one day, it hit me: wow targeted stereotyping is really quite nasty and insidious. Out in the real world, we might be doing all we can to challenge all those restrictive -isms, we might be turning our eyes from the celebrity diet gossip mag covers at the checkout stand (to the candy), but on FB and elsewhere, the tide is pushing relentlessly in the other direction. 

I got to wondering what kind of crap the “male” version of me might be told to be, to buy, to look like, to aspire to; what kind of things "he" would be gently advised should inspire self-loathing?  And I decided it might be interesting to find out. There are, I know, myriad other things that factor into what kind of person FB’s ads think I am and should be: age, education, location, other stuff I’ve "liked", crap my friends "like" (you know who you are), relationship status and so on. The list is endless and endlessly spooky, and the people who keep warning us about cyber-Big Brother know way more about it than I do. But just so you know: for the purposes of my research, I’m in my early 30s and live in the Bay of Plenty and obviously tend politically feminist/progressive. (Because FB’s terms and conditions state that “you will not provide any false personal information on Facebook”, I’ll neither confirm nor deny any of this, particularly the age part, but I'll just say this: “you are only as old as you feel”. When I signed up, I only gave FB the info I had to give it, so my profile is free of everything that's not mandatory, like "religion", "political views", education, and so on. )

Bottom line, nothing changed for the purposes of this experiment but my "FB gender". (Oh, and I did remove the ad blocker). So, if you're interested, here are the illustrated results of my research, followed at the end by a conclusion with some recommendations.

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.

Comfortable colonisation

I've been noticing recolonising pressures on indigenous peoples to assimilate lately.

On the other side of the world a secondary school student has been fined $1000 and denied her high school diploma for daring to wear an eagle feather, the symbol of her belonging to the Poarch Band of Creek Indians.

Meanwhile here in Aotearoa just recently - same root of colonial values, different venue of cultural attack - we've had the Air NZ approach to Māori art and images - "if it's on someone's arm, it makes you unemployable, if it's on our plane, it's a brand."

These things are kinda shocking, right?  Indigenous people not being allowed to go about daily business, in the place they are from, their tūrangawaewae, wearing symbols of their belonging without penalties. 

It's not new of course.  Which is precisely why, when it happens, again, it should be immediately recognisable as cultural imperialism. 

Air New Zealand HQ in Auckland

But here is Aotearoa it's possible for mainstream newspapers to publish brutally racist cartoons and describe that as "making people think."  And our poor old Prime Minister finds it difficult to work out what racism is, a position he no doubt finds comfortable. 

So in some ways such cultural imperialism is unsurprising.  Even when Air New Zealand, from planes to their offices, is literally swimming in appropriated Māori imagery.  Plastic tiki, anyone?  Brand new tiki teeshirt?

If the ongoing cultural imperialism is unsurprising in a country where most of us are still all too ignorant of the harms colonisation has caused, so too is the response.  Clare Nathan, the woman seeking employment while wearing tā moko, is fighting for her rights like hundreds of thousands of other indigenous peoples before her.  From me, tautoko.  It will be interesting to see how the Human Rights Commission responds.

Refuge needs you in 2013

It's that time of year again, when services that literally save lives have to stand on street corners asking for money, because they do not have enough to pay their staff.  It's all about priorities, you know.

While I can't wait for the day we don't have to do this, the two Refuges in Wellington (Te Whare Rokiroki Maori Women's Refuge and Wellington Women's Refuge) need help collecting.  Every year the Wellington public gives very generously to us - and part of that relies on us having lots of collectors out.

If you can give an hour or two on Friday 19th July or Saturday 20th July, email wwrcollectors@gmail.com or call (04) 9390455 to book a time.  

If you're not in Wellington and want to support your local Refuge, get in touch.  Many other Refuges around the country also organise Annual Appeal events including street collections.

'Attack on Obesity Starts Before Life': (At Least) 5 Problems

This is a guest post by George Parker:

5 quick-fire reasons why I have a problem with the public health approach reported in the New Zealand Herald today under the headline: ‘Attack on obesity starts before life’:

1.     The studies were based on animal experimentation (sheep) and there are still many questions about how or whether the findings of these studies translate to humans and human environments.  It is therefore way too early to use these studies as a basis for public health policy (this is leaving aside the ethics of animal experimentation that involves starving and/or force-feeding pregnant animals).

2.     The relationship between obesity and health is highly contested and we should question the very idea of public health interventions aimed at obesity prevention.  The study of obesity, the findings of those studies, their representation in the media, and their application into public health policies are all influenced by anti-fat bias – the socially constructed notion that fat is bad and that fat people are ‘lazy’, ‘greedy’, ‘stupid’, ‘out of control’ and ‘unproductive’. Anti-fat bias results in stigma and discrimination for fat people which is itself a health risk. For example, fat people report frequent dieting with both physical and psychological effects, avoiding recreation in public spaces, and forgoing health care because of the attitudes of health providers towards their fatness.  Variations in body weight should be understood as part of natural human diversity, and identifying and addressing anti-fat phobia should be a public health priority.

3.     Public health policies specifically targeting women as reproducers and mothers to improve population health are discriminatory on the basis of gender.  Such policies are a continuation of a long history of reproductive injustice that has resulted from the reduction of women to their reproductive organs, the elevation of the interests of fetuses over pregnant women, and the responsbilisation of women, particularly mothers, for social and health problems.  This in turn has justified, and continues to justify, the surveillance, regulation and control of women’s reproductive bodies including for example restrictive access to contraception and abortion, and policies and prosecutions aimed at foetal protection.  

4.     Public health policy focused on changing individual behaviour is influenced by neoliberal ideology that seeks to justify reduced state involvement in and responsibility for the population’s health and wellbeing by responsibilising the individual for health.  This is unjust - it masks and maintains vast and persistent social and health inequalities and other relations of power eg. racism, poverty and gendered social roles, that create the conditions for and determine poor health. It is no coincidence that the ‘attack on obesity’ by targeting women’s dietary choices before and during pregnancy is our dominant public health strategy at a time when solo parents welfare entitlements are being reduced; when affordable, safe, warm housing is difficult to secure; and when many families are experiencing food insecurity.

5.     Public health interventions targeting individual behaviours frequently translate, not into increased social support, but rather blame, guilt and punitive sanctions on those who fail to improve their health regardless of their material realities and social contexts. Not only is this unjust, it also fails as a public health strategy because it risks disengaging people from health and social services.  Women are especially vulnerable to anti-fat bias in health services and are already subject to increased surveillance and intervention because of their role in reproduction, particularly women marginalised by their socio-economic circumstances and due to racist systems of oppression.  The potential to disengage those women who could most benefit from health and social services is thus high and poses a significant threat to women’s and their children’s health.

(Related reading: Werewolf article: Policing Pregnancy, by Alison McCulloch)

C.L.I.T.festing

I've spent a big chunk of the weekend at CLITfest in Wellington, and now I feel fed, not just by the incredible presentations - though I didn't go to one session which didn't stretch my thinking in one way or another - but by the time and space to explore ideas between sessions with other people interested in talking and thinking about oppression and social change.

It's been a long time since I've been to a conference so thought-provoking.  The organisers did a wonderful job of creating a safe place to explore complex, difficult issues, which no doubt were uncomfortable at times for many/most/all of us attending, without that feeling, in my experience at least, overwhelming.  I want to give them a huge thank you, because I know how much work it is to try and create that kind of space.

So this is kinda going to function as a review as well as a pat on the back, for those of you who couldn't get there and were interested.  Bearing in mind I missed some sessions because of other life stuff, so there are holes.

Indigenous feminisms and social movements featured Marama Davidson, Shasha Ali, and Erina Okeroa.  Erina spoke first, examining Māori women's connections to Black feminisms internationally, through kaupapa Māori research and interviews.  Marama presented on the centrality of Māori women to caring for the Earth and kaitiakitanga, given how poor a job we're doing now.  Shasha talked about connecting indigenous struggles from different places, and the disconnect this created when you were not indigenous to where you were living, but identified as indigenous in another colonised land.

Takataapui, Pasifika ways and beyond queer theory included Fetu-ole-moana Tamapeau of BOX events, Maihi Makiha from NZAF and Kim Mcbreen of He Hoaka.  It's hard for me to give a favourite, but if I absolutely had to, it would be this one.  Fetu and Kim focussed on the disruptions colonisation created for Pasifika and Tangata Whenua understandings of sexuality and gender, and why queer theory cannot undo colonisation because it still comes from western understandings.  I've thought a bit before about how good English is at categorising - so lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex - and judging differences.  Disconnecting, some might call it.  And I've noticed that takataapui appears to do the opposite, appears just to connect non-heterosexual people, but Fetu's metaphor of queer being the island, and Pasifika understandings of sexuality being of the ocean is still rocking my wee Pākeha brain.  Work in progress.

Intimate partner violence in queer and gender diverse relationships, hosted by Te Whare Rokiroki Māori Women's Refuge and Wellington Women's Refuge with support from the extraordinary Mani Mitchell was something I was involved in, so can't really "review".  It was amazing to see between 40 and 50 people in the room, and important to think about how this work can progress, given international research is showing lesbians and gay men are experiencing rates of intimate partner and sexual violence comparable to straight women and men; bisexual people are experiencing much higher rates; and intersex and trans* peeps rates, from early indications, are much higher still.

Body politics: food, health, fat, disability, class and moral virtue featured Cat Pause, Ali Nissenbaum, Robyn Kenealy, Esther Woodbury and Grace Millar.  Between them, they took apart body politics and put them back together again, dismantling neo-liberal pushes for individualising responsibility for bodies while they pointed out some of the things the western world at least holds dear just may not be true.  Probably the comment that made me saddest was about needing to not be around women when recovering from anorexia, because of the extraordinary amount of social time women spend policing one another's - and our own - food intake and bodies.  It just rings very true to me, and is something I struggle, constantly, to know how to respond to respectfully.  I'm slimmish, and love food, and constantly deal with people telling me how "lucky" I am I can eat so much.  I haven't yet found a way through that misogynist mess.

The Underclass panel was incredible, Nic Dorward, Ruth Amato, and Hana Plant sharing their own personal experiences of class and marginalisation, tied in with colonisation and racism, gender inequalities, class oppression making us unwell, and social institutions responsible for "caring" for vulnerable people being both inadequate and chock-full of classist assumptions about families and people. 

And finally (for me) desire as social currency and how desire is constructed around stigmatised and non-normative bodies focusing on trans* experiences. Dee Dewitt and Wai Ho talked about how difficult it might be to separate personal preferences from socially constructed desires, and the painful fetishising that creates for non-normative bodies.  Beautiful and brave.

Hoping there's another CLITfest on the horizon. And a nod too, to the beautiful artwork on the flier, which is now decorating my room.

The DISLIKE button

Content warning: features explicit naming of violent misogyny and rape culture.

Anyone who's spent any time on Facebook knows it's both a great tool for organising and home to revolting displays of rape culture, racism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, disability hate speech....you name the kind of discrimination, Facebook will have it.

Women, Action and Media, the Everyday Sexism Project and author Soraya Chemaly led a coalition which took this on last week, specifically around violence against women and girls, in an open letter to Facebook which encouraged advertisers to pull their content.

Specifically, we are referring to groups, pages and images that explicitly condone or encourage rape or domestic violence or suggest that they are something to laugh or boast about. Pages currently appearing on Facebook include Fly Kicking Sluts in the Uterus, Kicking your Girlfriend in the Fanny because she won’t make you a Sandwich, Violently Raping Your Friend Just for Laughs, Raping your Girlfriend and many, many more.  Images appearing on Facebook include photographs of women beaten, bruised, tied up, drugged, and bleeding, with captions such as “This bitch didn’t know when to shut up” and “Next time don’t get pregnant."

Within a week, 15 companies had taken up the challenge and fled Facebook. Now Facebook has responded in what looks like a considerable shift from their earlier stance:

In recent days, it has become clear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate. In some cases, content is not being removed as quickly as we want.  In other cases, content that should be removed has not been or has been evaluated using outdated criteria. We have been working over the past several months to improve our systems to respond to reports of violations, but the guidelines used by these systems have failed to capture all the content that violates our standards. We need to do better – and we will.

The proof will be, as always, in the implementation.  Facebook seem to be saying they will privilege engaging with the large feminist groups in the US around this, which makes me wonder about gender-based hate coming out of other places.  Of course it's all online, but it seems to me that we need good process around reporting and removing any kind of gender-based hate (and other kinds of oppressive hate) for anyone who wants to raise concerns.

Nonetheless, it's a huge coup from the groups involved, and I'd personally love not to feel physically sick at some of the revolting rape culture up on Facebook.  

LIKE.

Killing us softly, so softly

Suicide.  Frightening, complex, social phenomena which merits sound, evidence based, community responses.

So when this Government announces they have a new plan, it should be great news.  The Plan aims to:

• address the impact of suicide on families, whānau and communities by strengthening support for family, whānau and communities
• build the evidence base, specifically around what works for Māori and Pasifika
• extend existing services, specifically addressing geographical gaps in the coverage of services
• strengthen suicide prevention targeted to high risk populations who are in contact with agencies.

The problem is, every single one of those aims is applicable to the queer* community, and we are not mentioned once.

We are not mentioned once, even though just last year as part of the last suicide prevention plan, the Ministry of Health released a needs assessment of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people, to provide the Ministry with "information to develop an appropriate policy and funding framework" for mental health promotion. 


Queer* people are much more prone to mental health struggles, much more likely to self-harm, and much more likely to try to or actually kill ourselves.  The reasons are simple - homophobia, biphobia and transphobia teach us to hate ourselves, and the world around us tells us how we live and love is not ok.  Or, as the policy wonks put it:

"It is readily acknowledged in the literature that the mental health of GLBT people is impacted by repeated exposure to a wide range of psychosocial stressors associated with anti-GLBT attitudes and behaviours, which include stigmatisation, discrimination and violence."

Yet we are not mentioned once in the brand spanking new Suicide Prevention Plan.

Young people are mentioned - but not same or both-sex attracted young people, half of whom self-harm, and a fifth of whom will try to kill themselves. 

Māori and Pasifika are mentioned - but not takataapui or fa'afafine.

Addressing gaps is mentioned - but not the lack of queer* support groups, queer* specific mental health services, or training for generic mental health services in the needs of queer* people.  Not the lack of research into the needs of trans* folk, even though international research points to terrifyingly high rates of suicidality which surely merit trans* specific responses.

This silencing, this invisibilisation will literally kill us.  This tangible example of heterosexism and cisgender normativity will literally kill us.  I'm not sure what more there is to say. 

Mother and Baby Support: A Long Time Coming

It’s been a long time coming, but finally the North Island is to get a unit geared toward helping new mothers who face post-natal depression or distress.

Health Minister Tony Ryall announced today an $18.2 million commitment to providing both acute in-patient beds as well as residential beds where the mother and baby can remain together, and Martin Johnston in the Herald did some good reporting on the news in today’s paper.

Lynda Williams, the coordinator of the Maternity Services Consumer Council, told me this commitment is something she and myriad consumer, health and even official organisations have been championing for many many years. She heartily welcomed the news, with a caution: “It’s not enough,” she said, “but let’s start with what we’ve been waiting 20 years for.” Williams emphasises that the new services must be set up in consultation with the consumer groups that have been fighting for it. “We have some clear ideas about how this needs to be done. Preferably it would be better to have a stand-alone unit with other support groups and services around it.”

Despite numerous well-attended meetings, support from experts, lobbying and campaigning, she suspects a crucial impetus for the move were the reports of the Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committees, which in recent years have shown suicide to be the No. 1 cause of maternal death in New Zealand.

As a (this links to a PDF) recent article in O & G Magazine (the magazine of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists) points out, these maternal reviews were only reinstated six years ago, and they show that in the five years to 2010, there were 57 maternal deaths, with the three leading causes listed as suicide (13), pre-existing medical condition (11) and amniotic fluid embolism (9).

The figures and the O&G article also show that overall Māori and Pacific mothers are more likely than NZ European mothers to die in pregnancy or in the first six weeks postpartum. 

The O&G piece notes that there were four deaths by suicide not included in the review figures because they took place more than 42 days (the cut-off to be counted) – though less than a year – after the women gave birth. Those 13 maternal deaths by suicide that were counted break down a bit further like this: 7 occurred during pregnancy and 6 postpartum or post-termination of pregnancy. (O&G reported that: "Eleven of the 13 deaths from suicide were by violent means.")

As well as the proposed new and much-needed mother and baby services for the North Island (there’s already a unit in the South Island), the figures clearly point to the need for support and options for all aspects of reproductive and maternal health care.