For anyone that may be interested – in some political discussion.  I’m a Committee/Board Member for ALba – I have been organising with my Committee, various events for 2008.

We have just organised for MP Lousisa Wall – to come and speak to the group (in August), she will sharing about her journey to becoming MP, etc…

 I’ve been interested in some politcial debates.  I love political discussions!!!  My Committee are organising (October) for various members of the different Parties, to come and have a discussion.  Sue Bradford, has just confirmed her attendence, as well as two from the Maori Party.  We are yet to finalise details, and this will be up-dated on our website.

 Alba is an Auckland (women’s only group).  I’m a heterosexual women…..but this group, are predominately lesbian women.  However, not inclusive of this – as I’m on the Committee.  Gay-friendly attitude is vital.  ALba support a strong networking of business enterprise and encouraging women in various professions, to reach their full-potential.  I’m involved with ALba, as I believe in its vision and find that hearing the various women political speakers (and other successful women speakers), are encouraging – from a feminist point of view.  We can learn key points, from hearing about (ie) their journey into Parliament and experiences.  Or the sacrifices made along the way, in achievement of their goals.  I look forward to hearing Sue Bradford speak.

 Cost is $5 for members or $10 for non-members.  This just covers our costs with payment to speakers, advertising, venue expenses and catering, etc…. 

Cheers,

Cherie (student)

I have been wondering a lot lately, on the issue, of why critical issues affecting women and children, are not (in my opinion) being addressed.  May 7 2008, the www.feminstpeacenetwork.com reported that the medias use of passive voice on decribing gender-motivated violence is evident and the only way to end gendered violence, is to report the facts.  I think too often, we don’t report the facts clearly.  When I worked in Journalism, because I like to be analytical – my Manager told me that I needed to change my writing style more, to suit the ‘fluffy’ journalism…they wanted, that made people laugh.   I, have since left the organisation…but, I enjoy keeping up-to-date with current world issues. 

The United Nations in their focus on addressing violence against women, are currently calling for applications for the 13th grant cycle (2008) from Government Authorities, and Women’s and Community based organisations.  The www.sayNotoviolence.org is a global internet-based advocacy initiative by UNIFEM, (the United Nations Development Fund for Women), and it will run until 25 November 2008.  We have in NZ, ‘no to violence campaigns’  But, are real issues being addressed?  I don’t think they are!  This same point was raised, in an article I read recently, ‘Get Rid Of the Ministry Of Women’s Affairs’ NZ (April 13, 2008), www.uthink.co.nz/politics, and I’d have to agree with the opinion of the feminist writer.  She raises the questions, what is the point of the Ministry for Women’s Affairs?  Do they actually do anything at all?  She believes that fundamentally, there should be women in Government dedicated to continuing the legacy of Women’s Liberation.  I would have to agree with her, as I know (from speaking to someone involved in Government Public Policy) that Public Policy changes for Civil Unions – to become Marriage, are furtively on the agenda currently.  If you place Political Leaders in Government with a passion for legislative changes (in certain areas), then they will push it through (like ‘Road Runner’), full-steam ahead!!!  Sometimes without an ‘insiders’ guide/look, in a Direct Democracy – its a matter of waiting untill it happens. 

 The author also states that we needed a Women’s Ministry when Women were struggling, and there’s still a FIGHT today…..that the WMA is not even involved in.  I wonder, WHY????  Such as, where do they stand on funding for Women’s Refuges?  Or our appalling record of domestic violence against women?  I thinks its surprising that the WMA are ‘invisible’ on some issues…..why did we not hear from them during the Police Rape Case?  You’d think that, this would be of interest to them. 

Last year, I read a Law Report – into VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, commissed by the WMA.  This Report outlined current inadequacies in the treatment of battered women by the Courts, and Government Agencies and coupled with amendments to the laws designed to protect women and children.  Which research has shown….has not effectively done so…..CHANGE IS NEEDED!  The Report stated serious inadequacies in how the Domestic Violence Act is implemented by the Judiciary and listed 47 recommendations for improvement.  Once again, I’m astonished, that in reviewing these recommendations (out of interest), alarmingly they have NOT been implemented.  No wonder why the statistics of violence against women has NOT perceptibly declined.  So, why Is the Ministry of Women’s Affairs remaining silent, on the Report they Commissioned?  I never read anything in the News, from a  MWA Spokesperson – commenting on the long-awaited Report.  Why?  Why do they not push through change?  If we can amend many Acts, to accommodate Civil Unions….then why – can we not amend the Domestic Violence Act and Care of Children Act, which is critical? 

Sometimes public policy changes seem protracted in nature, in the ‘real’ concerns that face the future of our Country.  The Ministry Statements and Speeches (March 2008) – NZ Foreign Affairs, was interesting reading.  On a different Report concerning violence against women, its causes and consequences.  The Ministry confirms that violence against women, is the most serious, wide-spread violations of human rights around the world and it breeds a culture of silence….it is the duty (they state), of the council to break that silence.  Which again, I contemplate, why?…..’okay, you say you focus on international effort to promote and eradicate violence against women and that NZ welcomes International Reports which indicate how the state can respond to eliminating this violence.  But when your own Women’s Ministry, Commissions a Report, you state nothing on their findings.  You also state that this is urgent, and that we can build effective policies and practices to prevent and eliminate violence.  But, then why are the 47 recommendations, not implemented?  It feels to me….that change is not really on the agenda.  Is marriage for gays/lesbians, more important than protection for women and children?, if I dare ask.

For political correctness (I believe), we acknowledge international UN focus on women’s rights….but we remain passive….when it really counts.  When, the facts are clear before us….like the News Media – we have a passive voice and remain silent.  Maybe if we had an insiders view to the horrific crimes affecting women….we’d be more passionate about pushing for change.  Its interesting how sometimes….its only in our real ‘visual’ knowledge of an issue, that we are sparked to see change, that moves beyond the sake, of it being – FOR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

In the past decade, feminist activism has majorly impacted on many areas of law – including rape, self-defence, and sexual harrassment.  Just recently (April 6, 2008), three women won $42 million legal settlements that will compensate thousands of underpaid females and marks another step in the fight against sexism and unequal pay.  In this case, women working at New York branch of business alleged a macho culture ruled over by a bullying boss cultivated a fraternity house environment and subject females to lewd pranks……THE WOMEN FOUGHT & WON!!!!

 I believe this macho culture of sexism and discrimination doesn’t merely creep into workplaces, but its merged even into workplace policies.  Sometimes though we seek comfort in the fact that the law shall protect against discrimination, sometimes the law itself shows no partiality.  Rather, the law affirms that we ‘sex-up’ and ‘dumb-down’ women, in the workforce.  Therefore, what we need – ‘is more action and less talk’, from Government Speeches.

 The Ministry Statements and Speeches (March 13, 2008) stated that New Zealand would pay special priority to working with international community to uphold women’s rights and gender equality.  They strongly support a dedicated debate on the rights of women at the Council’s next session and hope that such debate can become a regular feature of the Council’s programme of work.  I would love to be sitting in the middle of their debating team.  I’m wondering what topics of debate they will present?  I wonder if they will action any recommendations for improvement, based on the common knowledge placed before them?  Properly not!

I read the (March 2008) release of ‘FEMALE LABOUR MARKET OUTCOMES’, which was published and can be downloaded from www.dol.govt.nz/publications.  Their findings found that females are somewhat more likely than males to be employed in high skilled occupations – but less likely in skilled.  A large proportion of females work in semi or lower skilled jobs, leading to a lower skill level occupational profile for females overall.  In addition, 41% of new employment for females over the last five years has been in semi or low skilled jobs, while only 19% of new employment for males has been in semi or lower skilled jobs.  I don’t know about anyone else…but those figures alarm me and I think that we need to do more about changing this…..than debating – THE FACTS ARE CLEAR!  I wait with antisipation that the Council’s next meeting may converse on the issues & the Government may set new quota’s like in corporate management, law, and other more ‘male’ dominant professions.

 Its known fact, that in some careers – being a women and climbing high in the corporate business world, or law – is a difficult climb to the top.  Talk about climbing Mount Everest, without any aid.  Skip the job training and mentoring – dig in your high heels & climb!!!!  Not all professions, will render a gold plater in front of us – sometimes though you wear the hallmark of ‘gold’ – although your achievement & accomplishments can be like endless ‘stepping’ stones, that should ‘readily’ be smooth climbing to the top.  Sometimes its a challenge…..sexism has never made it easy.  As I read Law Journals for my two years law – I decided for this reason – to switch to politics….I realised a lot, and please let me sign up to feminism any day.

You know, I read recently (April 2008) in Bell Gully Law Firm Publications, that if you want to see a really good example of sexual stereotyping in New Zealand Workplaces (for women), then have a look at the Movie ‘Miss Congeniality’.  I’ve never seen this movie, but apparently the essence of the story was about a successful policewomen, who was required to undercover and participate in a beauty pageant.  The purpose of the movie was to show sterotypes that we apportion to two different female roles.  How could we expect a police women to be delicate or femine?  In the same manner, how can a beauty contestant have the guile and skill to be a police women?  Mmm, well….I use to be an aerobics instructor last year (while studying law)….I had no difficulty being able to fit into different career roles – from instructing 6am cycling classes, running 5pm boot camps (in the rain & mud), working in Community Law Centre and then throwing on a suit, to go to my office job.  I don’t believe you can differentuate!!!!!

However, the relevance of this movie was played out in a United States Court, in the Case of Jespersen V Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc. (2006 decision of US Court of Appeals).  In the case before the US Court, Harrah’s which operates a chain of casino’s – on the basis of recommendations of an image consultant adopted standards for employees that included ‘gender specific’ requirements for hairstyling, make-up use and nail grooming.  A few months later, standards were raised even higher.  Females had to all wear face powder, blush, mascara and lipstick.  A long standing employee brought a law suit against Harrah’s on the basis that they had discriminated against her, based on ‘gender’.  The Court Of Appeal affirmed previous rationale that the grooming policy, was different – but equal to either ‘man’ or ‘women’ so therefore, different treatment could not be substantiated on the basis of gender.  Mmm, I wonder……So, did the Judges in the Court of Appeal really think that any ‘male’ that worked in a ‘casino’ would therefore have to be ‘transgender’, and if not – then wouldn’t that be suitable ground for damages in Contract/tort for loss and humiliation – that a fine/outstanding heterosexual ‘male’/employee was made to endure workplace bullying, for adherance to workplace policies, that are ‘unreasonable’ by standards of ‘common practice’, in the hospitality industy.  I find that rather obtuse.

The Court further stated that the appellant would have to prove that intentional sex sterotyping would have occured.  Which, is clearly difficult to prove.  It seems obsebed to me – how could a policy outside of Employment Relations Act (not directly a requirement of ‘job description’), be a measure of a women’s competence?  Not to mention, Top Law Firms accept and identify this, as being grounds for unfair treatment, under ER Act.  Emposing unrealistic expectations – are what Legal Critics point out happen in NZ in a number of workplaces.  This Case (above), is not rare!  Expect we don’t call it ‘GENDER INEQUALITY’, dare not say that name – instead lets call it for what it is…..’SEXING UP AND DUMBING DOWN OF WOMEN’S WORK!’

Dianne Avery from the University of San Francisco states that any dress code which mandates that a female employee wear SEXY revealing tops/short skirts and/or high heels could make for ‘EASY’ case of discrimination.  Which makes me wonder…..’Okay then, so if the law protects against discrimination & its easy to prove the opinion that women in the workplace are ‘sexed up & their work dumbdowned’, then whats the statistics of Case Law 2007, of these types of cases before the NZ Courts?  Well….if you did a search like I did on NZ Case Law…..you’ll find it a difficult task.  My question remains unanswered.

Dianne Avery also states that this type of ‘SEXUALISATION’ is not unknown in New Zealand and although difficult to establish, workplace policy which deliberately requires females to exploit their sexuality could be hold in breach of the human rights legislation.  Which highlighted the concern for me, – as should you be a women faced with this problem and decide to make a complaint through the Human Rights Commission, instead of through the Employment Court (as you can’t do both), then its a long process.  I undertook such a process (last year) and ended up realising my fight for ‘justice’ (so to speak) was not worth the time and expenses involved. 

 Although the LAW must be the basis of protection against discrimination…..we cannot always expect that the law will treat women equally in term of ‘gender’ equality.  This fact, was made aware to me last year during my law studies, before changing to politics.  I lived with two, first class honors Law students (males).  Who said to me, a number of times – ‘Cherie, you want to be a Lawyer….if you want to be successful & advance in a male dominated field….then how are you going to do so?  You must be aware that its a male dominated profession – all the Big Law Firms in Auckland prefer males…we know’.  I use to laugh of their remarks….but, it made me consider the fact.  Sometimes ‘inbred’ social beliefs will formulate as opposition to ‘equality’.  Sometimes the culture of a place, or people’s belief systems….you can not simply change.  We find comfort that the law will protect against discrimination, that Government will implement Employment Legislation Changes and workplaces will ensure compliance.  However, its not always the LAW-POLITICS & COMPLIANCE RATIO, that we must trust in.  Social reform and womens equality has come out of hard work & Labour.  Progressive feminism has brought about INCREDIBLE change – that has been the result of persistence.  As we persist more in seeing the rights of women in the workplace equal to men, then no doubt change will occur – with, PERSISTANCE-HARD WORK & PATIENCE.  Although I’d have to strongly disagree with my former flatmates views, on women in legal positions.  I’m grateful that my experiences inbred in me a passion to see women’s equality in all career professions.  I’d sign up for feminism anyday….sometimes its in the fight for equality that we find….WE ALWAYS COME OUT WINNERS IN THE END!!!!!

Journalist and writer, Ian Wishard’s new book, ‘Absolute Power’ – advances his 2005 writing that began on the eve of a Major Feminist Conference.  At the heart of ever increasing social reforms, Wishard’s 15th chapter (focus on feminism) raises reservations, as to his conservative political views.  Chapters 12-16 cover interesting discussion on gender and sexuality, while the remainder of his writing focuses on Clark’s administration and how they have conducted businesss.  I wonder, why focus so much on feminism?  As you read his earlier book ‘Eve’s Bite’, it becomes obvious why.  I compared his writing.  As a Christian, Wishart believes that the feminist wing of the labour party, if it nurtured any notion of the ‘religious’ belief, would be closely allied to New Ageism and witchcraft.  He also states, in (Eve’s Bite), that he has shown that Labours core network of feminists and gay leaders have infiltrated the upper echolons of public service and Clark’s core networks dominate canadate selection and policy development.  He likens their actions, to SOCIAL ENGINEERING – that we are (in some ways) part of a conspiracy – that Government Social Service Divisions will end up owning our children….’the devils own’?  These are distorted and strong views.  However, he uncovers what most journalists would not have the courage to publically publish, and I think he’s a talented writer.  The question again for me, is why blame feminism for social reform?  Are we really that backward?  And yes….of course we need political transparency and freedom of speech.  We must call into accountability those in leadership.  But, where a direct democracy does not exist and Government is Supreme, in a representative democracy….how much political debate should be accept, in matters of personal privacy?  And really…is the real issue not so much the personal integrity of the Prime Minister, but sexism?….as everyone knows that politics can be ‘dirty’.  In some ways – its far more acceptable to be ‘male’ and be a ‘dominator’ in the political field.  But, when a ‘women’ takes a position of Government Leadership – we go digging a bit deeper to find ‘dirt’.  I find that rather erroneous!  Or, we state that her ‘assertive manner’ makes her ‘cold’ and calculated, not to mention if she chooses not to marry and have children, she must of course be a lesbian.  Clark’s faced disparagement, on a number of ‘sexist’ points of view.  With my experience in journalism, I’d love to write a book ‘Absolute Power: A Feminist View’, that interviews main women in politics and systematically reports on positive changes, and their achievements since 1999.  Without feminist input, we would not have today, the Public Policy Development, which has reformed our Country.  Does that mean – as many conservatives believe, that we are becoming a One World Government?, or social engineering ‘robots’ (in figurative terms). No.  I think that good journalism should report the facts, but not add speculation.    What remains out-standing, is that Helen Clark has proven in her 4th term to be a colossus, to the insults of many.  Some remarks from Mr Wishard’s book are:

“For all Clark’s readings on ‘sexual’ politics….Clark showed no sign of financial independence”.

“In Peter Davis, Clark struck the ideal man: one who would say ‘yes’.

 “Clark’s opinion of men are seen in 1984 disclosure – ‘there are collegues to whom I really speak….Rogers very intense and sexist…part of me being overlooked for office was beause I am a women”.

In the 1999 Women’s Conference, midst 2,000 women – the vision of Clark, Margaret Wilson and Marilyn Waring (attendee’s) was to change the face of NZ society.  Is it as Mr Wishart believes – social engineering of feminists likened to New Ageism? No!  And, if so – then wouldn’t the Christain Organisations Mr Wishart is affiliated to (in the same token) be likened to (how should I term it?) ‘A New Dictativeship’?  His writing mentions that four women use to only be in politics (mid-1970’s) and the Women’s Movement complained that existance of males and Old Boys Networks did not choose BEST person for job, only best man for job.  He believes that MEN are now making similar complaints in reverse.  I wonder if Mr Wishart has read the whole 2008 Report on ‘NZ Census of Women’s Participation’ by Human Rights Commission, as I think that would present us with a factual basis.  The only area where NZ outperformed other Countries was in POLITICS (with twice as many females Parliamentarians)…now that – I find exciting.  Which makes me wonder, could the negative view on feminism, be more insecurity of the ‘playing field’ in more ‘male dominant’ positions – that men may fear that equal pay and opportunities, may render some out of work?

Mr Wishart also states: –

“Historically the Patrichal Family…women were not equal to men economically…there was no complusion to remain with one sexual partner…the PM’s hostility towards modern nucluer family is seen in the way she regards Mothers….the radical feminist agenda was to take Marxism further than even Marx envisioned – to re-educate women and through them, change the world: an iron fist inside a velvet glove revolution.  A very female coup”.

 I find those statements rather extreme.  I wonder if Mr Wishard has considered the 2007 ‘Resolution on the Status of Women, Equality and Work’, in formulating his views.  As the UN Principles of Good Governance highlights that Government must develop strategies to increase participation of women in leadership and decision making in all sectors of society.  That’s not feminism ‘harsh domination’, thats ‘strategic leadership’….we don’t need re-education, we just require an equal ‘playing field’ were gender, does not result in ‘sexism’.

 The lastest publication of the Investigate Magazine May 2008 (I read), had an article by Melody Towns ‘The Father Crisis’, which raised the question of what role does a Father play in a child’s life and the life of a functioning society?  Research found in this article, stated that only 80% of men stated that the have involvement in their children’s lives…their too busy with work.  82% of respondents said their paid work negatively affected amount of time that could be spent with children.  52% said it affected their quality of time.  So when Clark is critized for her stance on believing marriage is not necessary and not wanting children, to advance her political career.  I think, if that was a male, saying – ‘I don’t have time to spend with my children’, – as they do strongly – thats highly acceptable.  Although research has stated – WE HAVE A FATHER CRISIS!!!  So, its okay to be the bread winner and leave the kids at home with Mum, if your ‘male’.  But be a women and its viewed that a successful political career and family life is not possible.  IT IS!  Why not have it all….lets break the sterotypical views and push forward for gender equality….we’ve come so far!