When it comes to gender presentation I over-compensate - I have curves and breasts and I'm about 5'3 or 5'4 short, and I hate all of it. In an ideal world I'd probably identify more masculine than feminine anyway, but we're not an ideal world, so I get vehement about women's issues because whether I like it or not, they affect me to a great degree. But it bothers me that it's so damn hard to get people to notice that I'm explicitly trying to present as not-female. An mtf transgender person is recognised more easily (notwithstanding that it's also much more dangerous, since societal misogyny can't deal with the idea that a man would "try" to "look like" a woman, let alone with the idea that she is a woman), but someone who's female-bodied with short hair wearing men's business wear, carrying a completely non-feminine bag from the men's section of the luggage store, is still referred to as a lady and called ma'am.
At any rate, I've been trying to be aware of the unconscious things I do as a result of being socialised female. One example is trying to walk more confidently - head up, brisk pace - because somewhere along the line I picked up the idea that I should try not to draw attention to myself (see: street harassment). Something else, though, was about my messenger bag. I love it, it's very utilitarian, and I can just sling it over my shoulder. I've always had this strong feeling, though, from seeing countless women do the same, that holding onto the strap with my hand to my shoulder was a feminine thing to do - whether that's true or not - though I wasn't really aware of how or why. But today it came to me. I've always held onto my bag strap, whether it's a backpack or a single shoulder strap, because it's on the list of Things Women Should Do To Avoid Being Attacked. It's more geared towards muggings than sexual assault, but it's still tied into the idea that women should always be wary of something happening - even walking through an area full of offices, even at rush hour with witnesses everywhere. Not to mention that if something did happen, hanging onto the strap means you can swing the bag around, build up momentum, and use it to hit an attacker.
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Monday, 11 July 2011
Dear ACT party, help me out here
Why is rationality better than emotions?
For that matter, how do you know your rationality isn't a simple disguise for emotion itself? Because none of your arguments seem very logical to me.
For that matter, how do you know your rationality isn't a simple disguise for emotion itself? Because none of your arguments seem very logical to me.
Friday, 8 July 2011
Rabbit Feeding, completely gratuitous
This has nothing to do with politics, society, quakes or current events.
[description from YouTube:]
Dim as he is, my mini lop has learned what happens at dinner and gets really impatient. Unfortunately I didn't actually think ahead so occasionally I had problems holding the camera steady while trying to open the new bag of oats (he loves them) etc. It's also a bit dark, especially towards the end.
(Ignore the sirens in the background. That's quite normal here, I'm living in an earthquake zone.)
Incidentally, I got a response from Metroinfo about the problems with the website - they're going to fix the 12 route map but the comments about the uselessness of the timetables was basically "yeah, well, we'll get to it sometime." I also forgot one of the things I was going to put in that last post - sitting in a bus earlier this week, parked in the middle of the road outside Barringtons while the driver argued with a passenger about her not being able to hear his instructions because his radio was too loud.
[description from YouTube:]
Dim as he is, my mini lop has learned what happens at dinner and gets really impatient. Unfortunately I didn't actually think ahead so occasionally I had problems holding the camera steady while trying to open the new bag of oats (he loves them) etc. It's also a bit dark, especially towards the end.
(Ignore the sirens in the background. That's quite normal here, I'm living in an earthquake zone.)
Incidentally, I got a response from Metroinfo about the problems with the website - they're going to fix the 12 route map but the comments about the uselessness of the timetables was basically "yeah, well, we'll get to it sometime." I also forgot one of the things I was going to put in that last post - sitting in a bus earlier this week, parked in the middle of the road outside Barringtons while the driver argued with a passenger about her not being able to hear his instructions because his radio was too loud.
Thursday, 7 July 2011
Metro, a subsidiary of ECan't
It seems like most people in Ōtautahi have a story.
Not about the earthquakes - about buses. Up until last year and very early this year, I loved our bus system. It was a cheap, efficient way of getting around the city, with generally good service. Now, four and a half months after The Quake, things have changed. A friend's husband had two buses drive straight past him. My sister called me one evening after waiting two hours for a bus (the Orbiter, which should have been coming every ten minutes) asking me to cook dinner because she wouldn't be home in time. She eventually took a taxi. Route maps on the MetroInfo website change, but the actual route doesn't. Timetables seem to be merely suggestions.
This would be irritating enough as a simple matter of poor service from a company, but it's wider-reaching than that. Metro is a government-run piece of infrastructure with several goals: to provide transport for those unable to drive, to reduce road congestion, to reduce air pollution, to cut down on fossil fuel consumption. (At least, those should be the goals. Knowing the government, they might not be.) Considering how much we invest in the image of Clean Green New Zealand, the utter failure of Metro to adjust by now to conditions in post-quake Christchurch is unacceptable. If you want to persuade people to use cleaner methods of getting around, you need to have reliable cleaner methods of getting around. If people know that the bus system is basically a gamble, that your best bet is just to go to the bus stop and hope one will come past, it's going to stop being their first choice.
But then, given that permits have now been issued for fuel companies to look into lignites, I think we all know that this government has no commitment whatsoever to the environment - let alone alone to the young, old, poor or disabled that make up so much of Metro's customer base.
Not about the earthquakes - about buses. Up until last year and very early this year, I loved our bus system. It was a cheap, efficient way of getting around the city, with generally good service. Now, four and a half months after The Quake, things have changed. A friend's husband had two buses drive straight past him. My sister called me one evening after waiting two hours for a bus (the Orbiter, which should have been coming every ten minutes) asking me to cook dinner because she wouldn't be home in time. She eventually took a taxi. Route maps on the MetroInfo website change, but the actual route doesn't. Timetables seem to be merely suggestions.
This would be irritating enough as a simple matter of poor service from a company, but it's wider-reaching than that. Metro is a government-run piece of infrastructure with several goals: to provide transport for those unable to drive, to reduce road congestion, to reduce air pollution, to cut down on fossil fuel consumption. (At least, those should be the goals. Knowing the government, they might not be.) Considering how much we invest in the image of Clean Green New Zealand, the utter failure of Metro to adjust by now to conditions in post-quake Christchurch is unacceptable. If you want to persuade people to use cleaner methods of getting around, you need to have reliable cleaner methods of getting around. If people know that the bus system is basically a gamble, that your best bet is just to go to the bus stop and hope one will come past, it's going to stop being their first choice.
But then, given that permits have now been issued for fuel companies to look into lignites, I think we all know that this government has no commitment whatsoever to the environment - let alone alone to the young, old, poor or disabled that make up so much of Metro's customer base.
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Strange but true
* In 1898 Morgan Robertson published a book about the SS Titan's maiden voyage, in which the allegedly unsinkable ship sank after hitting an iceberg. In the story the Titan's 24 lifeboats were woefully inadequate for the three thousand passengers and crew aboard the ship, leading to great loss of life. Fourteen years later...
* The same bus company in Auckland employs two drivers with the same phobia of masks or face coverings (a genuine condition, let's be clear). Despite the season, which can be cold even in the north of the country, the passengers in each case who set off this phobia were not wearing scarves and hats, but instead were two of the extreme minority of religious Muslim Kiwi women who wear hijab or something similar.
* Back in 1914, a German mother photographed her baby boy on a film plate and took it to a shop to be developed. The outbreak of the war intervened and she was never able to pick it up. Two years later after the birth of her daughter, she bought another film plate to photograph the girl, and when it was developed she discovered that it was a double exposure - over the top of the photograph of the little girl's older brother.
* Anthony Hopkins co-starred in the 1974 'The Girl from Petrovka' as Kostya. The film was based on a novel that, the previous year when Hopkins had first signed the contract, proved extremely difficult to get hold of, until he spotted a copy sitting on a bench at a train station. The scribbles inside, and later confirmation from the author George Feifer himself, proved that the copy was Feifer's own, missing after having been lent to a friend.
* In PM John Key's office, the pay gap between genders is 27.5% - a fact which has nothing to do with gender.
Though, personally, I do wonder why no one is talking about the reasons for pay discrepancies that can be explained without pointing (directly) at pure sexism. Like that fewer women are in high ranking positions. (Even in "female dominated" fields like nursing, teaching and non-profits there is a disproportionately high number of men in management positions.) Or that women are more likely to take a sick day to deal with children. Or that women are, you know, more likely to be the primary caregiver of children. Or that women are more likely to live below the poverty line. Or that women are less aggressive in negotiating pay. Or that women are taken less seriously in positions of authority. Or that an atmosphere is more likely to be described as hostile to women than to men. Or that more women leave good jobs due to sexual harassment than men. Or that the work often done by women is considered less important. Or that women tend to seek work that offers more flexibility (because they're more likely to be the primary caregiver of children) for less pay. Or that women are more likely to take several years out of the employment market, sacrificing their career progress, despite maternity leave policies allowing them to keep their jobs when they have children. Or that women are less likely to take a promotion that requires them to move to a different city.
You know, little things like that.
* The same bus company in Auckland employs two drivers with the same phobia of masks or face coverings (a genuine condition, let's be clear). Despite the season, which can be cold even in the north of the country, the passengers in each case who set off this phobia were not wearing scarves and hats, but instead were two of the extreme minority of religious Muslim Kiwi women who wear hijab or something similar.
* Back in 1914, a German mother photographed her baby boy on a film plate and took it to a shop to be developed. The outbreak of the war intervened and she was never able to pick it up. Two years later after the birth of her daughter, she bought another film plate to photograph the girl, and when it was developed she discovered that it was a double exposure - over the top of the photograph of the little girl's older brother.
* Anthony Hopkins co-starred in the 1974 'The Girl from Petrovka' as Kostya. The film was based on a novel that, the previous year when Hopkins had first signed the contract, proved extremely difficult to get hold of, until he spotted a copy sitting on a bench at a train station. The scribbles inside, and later confirmation from the author George Feifer himself, proved that the copy was Feifer's own, missing after having been lent to a friend.
* In PM John Key's office, the pay gap between genders is 27.5% - a fact which has nothing to do with gender.
Though, personally, I do wonder why no one is talking about the reasons for pay discrepancies that can be explained without pointing (directly) at pure sexism. Like that fewer women are in high ranking positions. (Even in "female dominated" fields like nursing, teaching and non-profits there is a disproportionately high number of men in management positions.) Or that women are more likely to take a sick day to deal with children. Or that women are, you know, more likely to be the primary caregiver of children. Or that women are more likely to live below the poverty line. Or that women are less aggressive in negotiating pay. Or that women are taken less seriously in positions of authority. Or that an atmosphere is more likely to be described as hostile to women than to men. Or that more women leave good jobs due to sexual harassment than men. Or that the work often done by women is considered less important. Or that women tend to seek work that offers more flexibility (because they're more likely to be the primary caregiver of children) for less pay. Or that women are more likely to take several years out of the employment market, sacrificing their career progress, despite maternity leave policies allowing them to keep their jobs when they have children. Or that women are less likely to take a promotion that requires them to move to a different city.
You know, little things like that.
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
Not Charity
So, Auckland had a 2.9 quake, and then Melbourne had a 4.4 - sort of. An area 120km out of Melbourne had a 4.4, really. Now, these are pretty unusual, and obviously people were taken by surprise and startled. And then, obviously, some people from Christchurch expressed the sentiment that perhaps people who were genuinely upset about these quakes should "harden up". In response there came a rush of criticism, all of which invoked the spectre of financial donations towards earthquake recovery.
In essence, it boiled down to, "How dare you mock us - we gave you money!" or "Don't you dare mock us or we won't give you any more money."
That is possibly fair enough, except when you actually think about the Christchurch point of view - not just over the last few days, either. The quakes here have been devastating. Aside from losing possessions, this is a small city, and most people at the least probably know someone who knew someone who died, even with the high number of those being foreign students. Then there's the property loss and the security loss - fears of looting as well as the knowledge that your home (if it's still livable) isn't safe anymore. In fact, no where is safe, and you can't control it. The financial damage is huge, but so is the emotional damage. People here can technically be diagnosed with PTSD already (one of the diagnostic factors is the time since the traumatic event, and while it's still ongoing I'm fairly certain they'd measure that from February 22) and many of them are genuinely traumatised. While people react differently, I know from experience that one reaction involves irrational anger at those who aren't affected for being able to live normal lives without thinking, constantly, about the earthquakes, even at the same time as you're deliberately trying to do something to get away from the earthquakes. It's utterly illogical, but it's there. And when we see people reacting so much to something that happens every day here, of course some people are going to scoff a bit.
So at this point, it's a bit of a stalemate - it's understandable to react to the little wobbles when you're not used to them, and it's understandable for Cantabrians to think you're being completely stupid about it.
But what of this other part, the implied threat to funding? Let's not forget, also, that the rest of the country hasn't been entirely saints about that to start with. There have been many heated arguments over the last few months started over someone saying we should just abandon Christchurch, that they don't want their taxes going up over the cost to rebuild (let's not get into the cost of relocating an entire city, of course). I have not heard many, if any, Cantabrians saying that - they have all been from the North Island. Now they're responding to a completely understandable emotional reaction with more of the same.
Never mind that inequality hurts everyone (except the extremely rich). Never mind that we have a social responsibility towards those in need. To these people, it's all about their feelings. They feel good about giving to charity, but being told they're over-reacting ridiculously hurts their feelings and they don't feel good anymore, and because of that, we all deserve to suffer. Not just the few people on Twitter who told them to harden up, everyone. They, apparently, would be completely fine with people living in their damp, damaged houses, with power bills they can't afford if they try to actually stay warm over winter, with reduced incomes and increased costs, no money for doctors so health problems that start small quickly grow (which is why we have rheumatic fever in Northland, and I will continue to use that as evidence of the shocking poverty present in New Zealand), meaning productivity will be slashed, not just in the short term, but for years and years as young people's growth is badly affected. Eventually many people will end up getting emergency treatment, but in every case this will be more drastic and more expensive than the preventative care that would have prevented it. Some will qualify for benefits, and those whose health is damaged might end up on a permanent invalid's benefit, but they won't be working, and in the minds of most people working is the only way to contribute to society. And that's not even touching on the emotional affects those conditions have, emotional affects that can echo down through generations.
Apparently none of that is worth considering, because a few people from Christchurch were mean.
In essence, it boiled down to, "How dare you mock us - we gave you money!" or "Don't you dare mock us or we won't give you any more money."
That is possibly fair enough, except when you actually think about the Christchurch point of view - not just over the last few days, either. The quakes here have been devastating. Aside from losing possessions, this is a small city, and most people at the least probably know someone who knew someone who died, even with the high number of those being foreign students. Then there's the property loss and the security loss - fears of looting as well as the knowledge that your home (if it's still livable) isn't safe anymore. In fact, no where is safe, and you can't control it. The financial damage is huge, but so is the emotional damage. People here can technically be diagnosed with PTSD already (one of the diagnostic factors is the time since the traumatic event, and while it's still ongoing I'm fairly certain they'd measure that from February 22) and many of them are genuinely traumatised. While people react differently, I know from experience that one reaction involves irrational anger at those who aren't affected for being able to live normal lives without thinking, constantly, about the earthquakes, even at the same time as you're deliberately trying to do something to get away from the earthquakes. It's utterly illogical, but it's there. And when we see people reacting so much to something that happens every day here, of course some people are going to scoff a bit.
So at this point, it's a bit of a stalemate - it's understandable to react to the little wobbles when you're not used to them, and it's understandable for Cantabrians to think you're being completely stupid about it.
But what of this other part, the implied threat to funding? Let's not forget, also, that the rest of the country hasn't been entirely saints about that to start with. There have been many heated arguments over the last few months started over someone saying we should just abandon Christchurch, that they don't want their taxes going up over the cost to rebuild (let's not get into the cost of relocating an entire city, of course). I have not heard many, if any, Cantabrians saying that - they have all been from the North Island. Now they're responding to a completely understandable emotional reaction with more of the same.
Never mind that inequality hurts everyone (except the extremely rich). Never mind that we have a social responsibility towards those in need. To these people, it's all about their feelings. They feel good about giving to charity, but being told they're over-reacting ridiculously hurts their feelings and they don't feel good anymore, and because of that, we all deserve to suffer. Not just the few people on Twitter who told them to harden up, everyone. They, apparently, would be completely fine with people living in their damp, damaged houses, with power bills they can't afford if they try to actually stay warm over winter, with reduced incomes and increased costs, no money for doctors so health problems that start small quickly grow (which is why we have rheumatic fever in Northland, and I will continue to use that as evidence of the shocking poverty present in New Zealand), meaning productivity will be slashed, not just in the short term, but for years and years as young people's growth is badly affected. Eventually many people will end up getting emergency treatment, but in every case this will be more drastic and more expensive than the preventative care that would have prevented it. Some will qualify for benefits, and those whose health is damaged might end up on a permanent invalid's benefit, but they won't be working, and in the minds of most people working is the only way to contribute to society. And that's not even touching on the emotional affects those conditions have, emotional affects that can echo down through generations.
Apparently none of that is worth considering, because a few people from Christchurch were mean.
Monday, 4 July 2011
Te Manākitanga
It's that time of year again - Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Because every national language needs less than 2% of the year devoted to it! We're watching Te Kāea, which does mean that I need to actually watch the screen for the subtitles, but I'm starting to be able to pick out words more and more often.
That... isn't really enough though. We were building a place at Te Awa o Te Ora, but now that our kaiako harakeke has left the city we haven't been much, plus I've been working more. (I'm up to sixteen hours a week, which is awesome but exhausting.) As for at home, there's a reason we refer to Wednesday as Maori TV night - dad either has meetings or he and mum go to play bridge. He is... not the most Maori-friendly person, to say the least. In fact during Te Wiki last year I posted a rant about his scathing comments towards kupu pōriro like "hipi" for sheep and their authenticity. Because, you know, native languages are supposed to just freeze at the moment of contact, unlike other languages which are allowed to evolve.
At any rate, we watch Toku Reo at least once a week, more when we can, but we live in a very white world. They do say that Ōtautahi is the white supremacist capital of New Zealand. So it's difficult. But by the next census, I want to be able to tell them that I speak Te Reo. That's my goal.
I feel like I should write something eloquent, now, about the meaning behind Te Manākitanga, but honestly I kind of think "Te Manākitanga" is eloquent enough. We don't have a word that concise in English, which seems to be the way with a lot of Maori phrases. Hospitality is about the closest, but manākitanga goes both ways - respect for your hosts, being welcoming to your guests, and there is, I think, something to be said in there about the English (and bear in mind I'm using "English" as shorthand here) refer to this as something that the host does, but to Māori it's a mutual thing. We've failed that. As a collective, we have no respect for Māori, and we have to change before it's too late - because it will be. Te Reo is dying out and so are parts of the tikanga. A lot of knowledge has probably already been lost. And everything I've learned, at Te Awa o Te Ora and other places, tells me that we would be very much the worse for it.
That... isn't really enough though. We were building a place at Te Awa o Te Ora, but now that our kaiako harakeke has left the city we haven't been much, plus I've been working more. (I'm up to sixteen hours a week, which is awesome but exhausting.) As for at home, there's a reason we refer to Wednesday as Maori TV night - dad either has meetings or he and mum go to play bridge. He is... not the most Maori-friendly person, to say the least. In fact during Te Wiki last year I posted a rant about his scathing comments towards kupu pōriro like "hipi" for sheep and their authenticity. Because, you know, native languages are supposed to just freeze at the moment of contact, unlike other languages which are allowed to evolve.
At any rate, we watch Toku Reo at least once a week, more when we can, but we live in a very white world. They do say that Ōtautahi is the white supremacist capital of New Zealand. So it's difficult. But by the next census, I want to be able to tell them that I speak Te Reo. That's my goal.
I feel like I should write something eloquent, now, about the meaning behind Te Manākitanga, but honestly I kind of think "Te Manākitanga" is eloquent enough. We don't have a word that concise in English, which seems to be the way with a lot of Maori phrases. Hospitality is about the closest, but manākitanga goes both ways - respect for your hosts, being welcoming to your guests, and there is, I think, something to be said in there about the English (and bear in mind I'm using "English" as shorthand here) refer to this as something that the host does, but to Māori it's a mutual thing. We've failed that. As a collective, we have no respect for Māori, and we have to change before it's too late - because it will be. Te Reo is dying out and so are parts of the tikanga. A lot of knowledge has probably already been lost. And everything I've learned, at Te Awa o Te Ora and other places, tells me that we would be very much the worse for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)