Marriage equality did not end heterosexual privilege

This week is the first anniversary of the passing of Marriage Equality in New Zealand. Despite the fact that we have had civil unions for gay couples since 2004, this was an important step for our nation not only domestically but in our reputation in the international community. We showed ourselves to be a country that stood up for the civil rights of all people regardless of their sexual orientation. This is a big step because protection of equal rights under the law is important in changing society's perception and attitudes. Let me explain that further. I was at the Civil Rights Summit at the LBJ Presidential Library last week celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. One of the great leaders in the movement Representative John Lewis quoted Martin Luther King  who said "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."  Let me re-iterate it. The law is important. Government's role in protecting people is important. But how can you make a man love someone they hate?

We live in a world of heterosexual privilege.  I'm on the steering committee for the Harvey Milk Society at the LBJ School of Public Affairs and being part of this organization has made me realize the privileged position I am in every single day. My family has asked me why I would want to be part of a LGBTQA organization and have even gone as far as to say that people will assume I am gay. If that's the worst thing that could happen to me, I think I am pretty lucky. I will never have to 'come out' to anyone. In every conversation that I ever have about love, everyone will always assume I am talking about loving a man. I never have to awkwardly explain my sexual preference to anyone or be ashamed of who I love. Gay people have been beaten, made homeless, ostracized to their mental detriment, kept out of jobs, kept from participating in society, and killed for sole reason of being gay. Their civil rights have been denied to them because of an innate characteristic over which they have no control. (And before you scream 'lifestyle choice' to me, I also happen to believe that people have the right to choose their lifestyle. Why should another person tell me how I should live my life to the fullest? But that's another post.) Law is one way to correct that wrong, but there's more that needs to be done. 

If you think there is a gay agenda out there working to ensure equality, you better believe that it is going to keep doing that. Why? Because the only way to have equal rights is to not be the 'other'. The law is absolutely essential to that, but a change of attitude requires more than the law. It requires that media articles cover gay issues as life issues and TV shows/movies/magazines have to work hard to make sure that gay couples are represented. Their stories have to be told and shared. Gay rights have been accepted in the mainstream only in the last 10 years or so. Even when I was in high school, the conversation was at a very different place. The marginalization that they have faced leading up to this day has to be addressed. Gays are not underrepresented because they do not exist, they are underrepresented because we heterosexuals make sure of it. We created the culture of man-woman marriage, a concept that is actually relatively new in terms of human history. The narrative within which we live is a straight narrative. If you are a woman or a person of color, you know what that means. It means that you constantly have to fit your story into the white male story. Your story is in context of something that has already been there for thousands of years. Marriage equality did not end heterosexual privilege overnight just like the Civil Rights Act did not end white male privilege. We have to keep working towards inclusion and work against the heterosexual narrative if we want to live in an inclusive society where everyone is free to be who they are.  

A (slightly unrelated) recommended reading: 

-How the US President came to supporting marriage equality: This article details all the behind the scenes wrangling including the role that Vice President Biden played and the role of the First Lady Michelle Obama in getting the President to say it.  

Rounding to the nearest $30 Billion.

Labour has hit back at Key's speech yesterday with some hard numbers. Take a look at the revenue vs. expenses numbers under Labour and National. This should not be news to any journos out there especially those who have been around for a while. But it might be news to some voters who have decided that National are better 'economic managers'. They view Labour as 'spenders' all the while forgetting that under National the economy hasn't really grown and life hasn't really improved. I wonder where they get those ideas from?

How has our 'future' been brighter in the last 6 years? A few months ago I blogged about whether Labour was focusing on the 'wrong issue'. I didn't think they are before and I don't think they are now. I think the polling on Labour policies are generally very positive but John Key is a better messenger (read: politician). Politics is not as much about policy as it is about politics. (You thought I was going to say 'personality' didn't you?) No, I don't think it is about personality. Yes, John Key has the right personality that resonates with Kiwis so the National Party uses it to its advantage. I'd say that Helen Clark was as far apart from John Key as you can get but she was the Prime Minister for 9 years. Political parties need to identify their strengths and leverage it with the public. That's good politics. Harping on and on about John Key's personality or trying to mimic it futile. That's his strength, find your own.

As Mr. Parker points out, spending might have increased under Labour (but revenue was also high under Labour) and

"In the last five years of Labour we introduced Working for Families, interest free Student loans and Kiwi Saver – all paid for out of growth. None of which National has repealed."

This is the key point. National has not repealed any of the 'progressive' policies that require government funding. What they have done instead is curb down on our civil rights and our rights as employees. They have removed regulations to make it easier for large corporations and harder for the average working person. They have given Kiwis reasons to move overseas and oil industries to move in to our pristine country. They have done so with a 1 vote majority in Parliament. A 1 vote majority does not a mandate make. That's the actual poll of actual voters from the last election. I'm so tired of hearing about National shepherding us through the recession and earthquakes. In responses to these tough situations, I wanted some bold policies. I've spent most of my twenties waiting for the 'brighter future'. My generation wants a government that actually responds, creates, innovates, motivates - not just one that shepherds us through softly softly.

(Ain't nobody got time for that.)

DC has made some key mistakes in the media in recent months and Key has managed stay above the mistakes of Judith Collins and Amy Adams. The polls reflect that. Labour has some really hard working, interesting MPs. They need to stop reading from the 2005 script and start engaging in 2014 politics. They need to harness the strengths of the caucus - charisma of some, intelligence of others, communication capabilities of some, the ability to talk about bad news of others, the caring side of some, the tough-love side of others. Those 800k people are still looking for a party to vote for. Labour has interesting policies on housing, power prices, and child poverty that would be relevant to those 800k people.

While Key laughs it up, Labour should be talking numbers. The numbers are actually on their side.

Wealth and Citizenship Part II

Last week I blogged about the relationship between wealth and your ability to participate in governance. We all think that it is our vote that is getting people elected but in fact it is powerful business interests driven by the wealthiest of our society. This week we have the story of John Banks and Maurice Williamson (both with heavy interest in the sustainability of the National Party) advocating for citizenship of a person who then later donated quite a substantial amount to the National Party. I find this extremely repulsive. The House of Representatives is suppose to represent the people of New Zealand. By giving people citizenship which enables funding of the party, National has the appearance of trading citizenship for campaign funds. Now, I am positive that of course National Minister didn't explicitly ask Liu to make the donation - that's Ministerial Conduct 101 (although not sure Judith Collins took that class) - but it makes it look like if you are wealthy you can have special treatment from the government and that is repulsive.

We, the people, no longer really affect decision making. You can submit at select committee all you want but let's look at the Mixed Ownership Model Bill and the Paid Parental Leave Bill for example - overwhelming opposition or support really made no difference to the final vote. I bet you, maybe if we donated heavily to the National Party we could make some headway on that. Maybe that's an unfair assessment but I can't help feeling like voting is just a symbolic exercise of citizenship and unless we change some rules around political influence by the wealthy and the non-people entities like corporations - we face a very depressing state of affairs. Now I know someone will say what about Unions?? They are non-people entities with a lot of influence but my response to that is they represent people. Corporations represent profits and could care less about human welfare. There is a difference. Unions themselves don't get anything out of changes to worker's rights - workers do.

I have digressed... BUT... Once again to reiterate last week's post, it isn't just income inequality that is crippling us, it is inequality of access to decision-making.

Wealth and Citizenship

Over at No Right Turn, the price of honour has been revealed. It is $165,000. Tony Astle, ONZM donated heavily to the National Party and then received the honours - Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit, for services as a chef.  When we go to vote, all of us Kiwis have the same power. We get two votes. Two ticks and in that we are all equal. We can all sleep easy that our votes are the same as the rich and the famous. But votes do not equal influence. Sometimes I wonder if our votes are just a rubber stamp on a decision that has already been made. 

Much is made of campaign donations in the United States where the elections spending is higher than what’s budgeted for many public programmes. Top fundraisers even get to be Ambassadors in comfortable countries (the U.S. amabassador to New Zealand and Samoa raised $1.2 million for Obama and has NO Foreign Service experience) by-passing those who have dedicated their lives to public service. What an insult to those people. 

Income inequality is the issue of our time both in upcoming NZ elections and in the dialogue here in the US. But as many people have pointed out, it is not just income inequality. It is inequality of access – access to prime education, health services, and perhaps more importantly - the decision makers. Money buys you relationships with those who govern. What good are those two ticks when there are some who can have an actual conversation with the Prime Minister? Yesterday there was this tweet: 

Why do companies donate to political parties? If not for influence then for what? No corporate donations shld be rule number 1.
— Bounder (@DawgBelly) March 8, 2014

On New Zealand Herald, about a week ago, Liam Dann wrote about the importance getting the stamp of approval from the business community. Labour shouldn't do anything (public policy-wise) to scare off those pesky business leaders he says. What an astounding article. He says "Drop that economic experiment and convince the business community that your election wouldn't be an absolute disaster for the country". Because only business can innovate and solve problems. Government should do as they are told by businesses.

Let’s remind ourselves of one thing. Democracy is supposed to guarantee equal participation FOR CITIZENS. Elected representatives represent the votes of the people, the humans not the business entity. Corporate and individual campaign donations’ only aim is to by-pass the democratic “rule of the people”. Businesses cannot approve of public policy because business aims are to make profit and public policy aims are to serve the public. They are inherently at odds with each other. Governments cannot be run like a business. Governments make law and they regulate businesses to protect citizens. We have come to accept businesses at the superior beings of our society because they have the money and they create the jobs. But we continuously forget that they exploit and manipulate public resources and human capital to get there. The minimum wage and workplace safety standards would not be necessary if markets didn't fail people. The need for these public policies are because of markets’ failure to provide those protections for citizens.

By saying that certain professions (let’s say business owners) deserve more government attention, we are creating a new caste system in the western world where your career position determines your level of citizenship. Currently, if you are wealthy you can apply for a special residency like Kim Dotcom did. You can get have easier visa processing to come gamble your millions in New Zealand casinos. You can be appointed to the board of an agency because of close ties to a political party. You can even get special treatment and get laws changed for your business like the SkyCity deal. 

As I have heard so many times on the radio now – 'we’ll never be royals'. But that does not mean that we don’t deserve the same rights. I suppose I should be glad that Tony Astle wasn’t named ambassador. Yet.

Mathers doing her job - not ok. Royal visit - all good.

I think all that needs to be said about the Mojo Mathers travel expense has probably been said in the “twitterstorm” yesterday that saw Jordan Williams and David Farrar dig even bigger holes later in the day. Mojo Mathers is not above other MPs because she is deaf. She is neither better or above criticism. If she was raiding the minibar on taxpayer expense I don’t think she would deserve to be let off. But as a deaf MP, I do believe she represents more than the Green constituents. NZers really need to get out of the ‘electorate’ mindset where electorate MPs are seen as superior to others. I don’t want to denegrade the work they do; electorate work is extremely hard and time consuming but an MP like Mojo serves more than just area she is from. She is the first deaf MP we have ever had. It speaks volumes about our nation that you can serve in political office in our country as a person who is deaf but with that she carries the responsibility of highlighting all disability issues. As has been reiterated, if she has to travel to a community radio to give an interview on disability issues not only should she be able to do so but if she didn’t, I’d expect the political fallout to be worse.

Let’s juxtapose what happened this weekend with this little gem of a story on ZB this morning about the royal visit. No doubt that’s going to cause an arm and a leg but do we care about that? Evidently not. This quote from the chair of Monarch New Zealand really struck me about Prince George:

"I think a precedent was set with Prince William himself when he came to New Zealand at almost exactly the same age 37 years ago"

My response? Who cares? No really? Who gives a damn. I am no monarchist and I have very little respect for the institution. Actually I am lying. I have no respect for the institution. But there is no precedent. The Royals are on a PR campaign and if they bring George it will be for PR reasons. The Queen cares a lot about New Zealand? Well if she had any respect for the country she would push for Republicanism. The fact that our head of state is an unelected state dependent beneficiary is disrespectful to us as people.

Let’s go over what happened yesterday:

-Mojo Mathers was doing her job – representing and communicating with her constituents – it’s called DEMOCRACY

-This country is in dire need of education and awareness of disability issues starting perhaps with the folks over at Taxpayer ‘Union’ 

-Young, privileged, able bodied, white men don’t get to pick and choose issues when they don’t serve their corporate subsidization/welfare needs

 -We got a headline “Green MP's 800km taxpayer-funded trip questioned” and no idea who actually posed the initial question and more importantly why?

The reason why I put that Royal story in this article is because remember when John Key went to visit the Queen? How much did that cost? What was the point? Whose interests was he representing? Oh right the Queen invited him and he couldn’t say no because protocol. Well you know what? Screw protocol. More kids are in poverty, more elderly are in poverty, people with disability don’t have the same rights, and we are a low wage economy and who really cares about the Royal visit? I guess that 51% who are obsessed with John Key do... I guess we have to represent their needs.

Jordan Williams said that it’s not worth it for him for Mojo Mathers to "travel to a community radio that probably has as many listeners as you can count on your hand," and that “the only silver lining is that the time spent travelling to go on the station in the middle of nowhere is less time spent dreaming up new ways to spend tax payers money." I’d rather the 5 people get represented by their elected representatives, the 5 people who are unheard, unseen, and unrepresented than the zero people this so called ‘royal visit’ is going to materially help. 

[Update] Little Prince George will be coming. I'm sure it'll be great. 

Is Labour targeting the wrong issue?

John Key said today - "The big issues are the economy, law and order and health and education and our programme's working and the results are good." and he also said asset sales and Kim Dotcom weren't the big issues - what Labour was focusing on - explaining poll results.

Opposing asset sales was important. It was passed with a 1 vote majority and most people who submitted during the select committee hearings were against it. It has so far cost the country $440 million. This is a great policy for investors in the share market. Investors cycle their money in the capital markets and the housing market and all the foreign markets but never in the supermarkets. So Labour opposed asset sales – as they should have (so did the Greens). Some would say it’s why they were elected. I’m not as convinced about the referendum. And I wasn’t really convinced about the results either. I would have preferred to see it in the 80s. But I also think that the combination of the low election turnout and this shows that many many voters are not really engaged in NZ politics and somehow we need to get them engaged (We = left & right). New Zealand is one of those countries which is starting to get cited in academic articles about the privatization of public administration. Whether or not this is a good policy, there can be no doubt that this equates to transfer of wealth from the public to the select private. I do not believe this is good public policy and Governments are elected to administer PUBLIC policy not advance the interests of a select (but powerful) minority’s economic interests. These issues do matter. 

Labour has come up with a comprehensive 'baby bonus' policy to deal with the costs of having kids (benefiting society in general – we need kids to be born!). People might not like it but it addresses systematic inequalities in society that is preventing many families from moving ahead in life. Why do we need this? Because I don’t see businesses picking up the slack. They are happy to use the labour and brains of people, take in profits, pay them as less as possible by holding employment as hostage, enjoying many tax benefits and effective subsidization of their profits and the whole time bemoaning that people should take individual responsibility. I 100 percent believe that I think it is businesses’ job to make profits. Of course they should make (and keep) profits and I certainly am not going to dictate how much that profit should be but if the profit was at the cost of workplace safety, for example – we would think that was a pretty rubbish business model and would not endorse it. So, why is keeping workers in perpetual poverty any different? (2 in 5 children in poverty come from families where parents are working). Let’s also not forget successive reports that have shown Working For Families has kept us away from even worsening child poverty – a policy introduced by Labour. What has National done – a Ministerial committee on poverty that seems to make no policy changes, an expert advisory group’s recommendations that are cherry picked, employee rights slowly whittled away for business interests. Oh but wait! We do have oil and gas exploration that will create jobs and bring wealth (but of course without meeting any of the environmental security concerns).

The Kim Dotcom issue is a weird one for me. It’s an on-going legal issue which has already demonstrated some major failures by our law enforcement agencies, agencies who haven’t really been held accountable under this Government. If there is a brewing civil rights issue (KDC is a NZ resident) or breach of due process, the opposition should absolutely look into that. Maybe people don’t care. Maybe people don’t see this as affecting them but I think to a certain degree, we expect in a democracy that the Opposition will act as a check on the government and its actions.

Gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion affect people and National isn’t going to touch them with a 10 feet pole. Over and over again it’s Labour that has taken on the responsibility of dealing with these issues. It will never be right time for National. Even during a rock star economic boom, National focused on the flag and not the constitutional changes that the country desperately needs and not any of these issues that actually affect people’s lives. Why? Because it doesn't sound sexy. Someone has to take this responsibility of governance on behalf of the people and I don't think it will be National. So they may not seem like meaty issues but they are relevant. National doesn’t have any problems getting on the gay marriage, Mondayisation, PPL and drunk driving limit bandwagon because they know it’s something that has to be addressed, but they won’t introduce it themselves. National didn't like WFF - still here, interest free student loans - still here, kiwisaver - still here, anti-smacking - still here. All notable policies. All policies passed under the previous Government

I don't think Labour was in government for 9 years by focusing on the wrong issues. I think fundamentally they, like other parties in Parliament, want to govern in order to improve the lives of Kiwis. I do think they have the best interests at heart in all their policies. Yes, they tend to focus on the less glamorous parts of society. So instead of Peter Jackson its forestry workers. Instead of oil and gas, it's apprenticeships for the disaffected youths. Instead of the rights of the Motion Pictures Association of America, it's the civil rights of gay and lesbians. 

What will John Key's National government be remembered for? I’d like someone to do a poll where they ask New Zealanders what their favourite flagship policy of the last five years is without giving any prompting examples. May be Wallace Chapman will ask this question on the streets. I’ll be surprised if people can answer anything definite. But hey 51% of the country loves National so maybe I am completely wrong. Maybe Labour is focusing on the wrong issues.

Who needs a break?

So we have two very interesting articles in the papers today. Colin Espiner at Fairfax thinks our minimum wage should be $16 and Damien Grant at NZ Herald we should cut tax cheats some slack because they contribute to society. This divide created between the job creators and the job doers suggests that one is more superior to the others. When Elizabeth Warren in her famous quote said that the so-called job creators didn’t just do it on their own, she was telling the truth that those at the top and their advocates do not want to hear. From the day labourer to the PHD, everyone contributes to society. It’s off the backs of their hard work, their education, their brain, their hands, their words that we as society get to develop, we get to progress, we invent new things, we mass produce those inventions, we come up with new ideas, we get interesting novels, movies, tv shows and songs. Sure the marketplace has decided that laptops are more valuable than chocolate cake and maybe they are, but the marketplace has failed spectacularly when it comes to compensating for ‘hard work’ fairly. Maybe the 85 people who have the wealth of half the world’s population really work as hard as half the world’s population and had exactly the same opportunities as half the world’s population but somehow I really doubt it.

Last night I started reading Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness” where she suggests that society sees industrialists who make a fortune and bank robbers as equally immoral because they both seek wealth for “their own selfish benefit”. This is factually incorrect. We put bank robbers in jail and we give tax cuts to industrialists. The minimum wages is not designed to vilify business owners, it is designed to make sure that the power imbalance created by using wealth as the yardstick does not lead to exploitation of the wealth-vulnerable. When I graduated from University and made the choice to work in the public sector I had to take whatever that was offered to me. Otherwise I would be destitute and on the benefit. In fact, if I turned down a job because the pay wasn’t good enough in my opinion, I would be kicked off the benefit. But when it came to getting the Chief Executive for the Ministry of Education, we had to pay top dollar to someone from the UK to mess up their job on epic proportions and still get an amazing severance pay. This is something that would never happen to a lowly analyst working the same hours. Sure the responsibilities maybe ‘less’ but they actually do the grunt work that makes the CEs look good but when they get fired, they get nothing.

In our society, we have minimum wages but we do not have maximum wages. Profit margins are morally more important than paying someone a decent wage to feed their kids. Some of us are against raising the minimum wage because our muffins will go up by 10 cents (Remember the 2011 election?). We also live in a society where workers' breaks are actually being curbed away. You know who needs a break? Someone who is on their feet 12 hours a day not tax cheats. I personally do think that the state has a responsibility in protecting its citizens – not from just terrorists attacks and health scares and natural disasters but from poverty as well. But I do not believe that the state should be subsidizing employers to do so. A representative democracy represents its citizens not corporations. I do think business owners should construct their business plans according to market factors and one of those factors should be wages. If they cannot afford to pay their workers, they should re-think their business model. If they can afford to pay their workers they should re-think their profit margins. And maybe I have those beliefs precisely because I am selfish. I don’t want to live in a society where there is widespread poverty. I don’t want kids growing up in poverty that increases their chances of being part of the justice system. I do believe that most people who are on the benefit are there because of circumstances beyond their control. And please don’t lecture me about the one person who has been on the DPB for 20 years because that doesn’t really mean anything in the grand scheme. How astounding to say that beneficiary cheats contribute nothing to start with – assuming that everyone on the benefit is always on the benefit and always was!

The GFC was brought on by people at the top who made very deliberate bad decisions to game the system for their gain. It was not brought on by people on the minimum wage. Yet they are feeling the brunt of it. I don’t remember people in the lowest rungs losing their jobs getting government bailouts. No, what they got was austerity measures, benefit cuts, and services cuts. I remember CEOs going to spas and playing golf on their government bailout money – taxpayer subsidized party for causing one of the largest financial crises of our generation. The lost generation of people who tried to enter the work force between 2007 and now will pay the cost of this failure for the rest of their lives.

So no, I don’t think tax cheats should get a break. If you believe you deserve a greater pay for greater responsibilities, you have to take that responsibility when you mess up. 

A brief note on Thanksgiving and Waitangi Day

Thanksgiving is one of my favorite holidays. I love it mostly because of the abundance of food but also because it is secular and so it feels like everyone can take part in this celebration.  A lot of my friends message me and tell me they are thankful to have me in their life and I take the time to do the same and reflect on all the things that make my life a blessed one. It really is very great.

But one thing that is completely missing from the American Thanksgiving celebration is Native Americans. It is as if they never even existed. The extent to which Native American rights have been abused, the extent to which they are treated as second class citizens, the extent to which they are an invisible people is astounding.  When children dress up every year as pilgrims and Native Americans to re-enact the ‘first Thanksgiving’ in schools all over America, they ignore history. Many are beginning to celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day as an alternative to Columbus Day but this is not widely known let alone accepted. Native Americans are basically rarely in the public discourse and it is bizarre the way history is so easily forgotten by an entire nation.

As you all know from my brief profile on the side, I did not have the privilege of growing up in Aotearoa. A few years after I was born, my parents moved back to Bangladesh from Christchurch. And then they move to America and then I had to find my back to what I call my home. As a result, I’ve never been a super nationalistic or patriotic person. I never know who to swear my allegiance to. I’ll admit that I knew very little about Māori culture when I moved back to New Zealand as an adult. I took Treaty of Waitangi Law as an elective paper at Law School and that was the first time I was started to understand the legal status of the Treaty and the legal rights of our indigenous population. Working at OTS was life changing and I would go back there in a heartbeat not only because the incredible work that’s being done there but also how much I learnt about Māoridom from my negotiations meetings.

Maybe it is because of that or maybe it is because I view the Treaty as a legal document rather than a political document. Maybe it is because I spent all my time looking at the impact of our justice and welfare system on Māori. Maybe it is because I’m a minority and I’m forced occupy many uncomfortable spaces. But I do not find what happens on Waitangi Day uncomfortable or upsetting.

America has managed to put aside all the negative feelings that one should associate with how they have treated their indigenous population not just in the past but in modern history. There are a lot of people that believe that it would be better if Waitangi Day would be akin to Thanksgiving or Fourth of July as our national holiday. Many are disappointed by what happens at Waitangi especially what is directed at politicians. But I am not. Many would like to see that holiday turned into a civilised family gathering and a celebration of our nationhood. I don't think that we are there yet. Not until we accept Māori culture as part of our national identity. And it cannot be just limited to the Haka at All Blacks games. 

I like that politicians have to confront the pain that is in our society, the wounds that have not healed. I like that we as a nation are forced to watch the anger on the 6’ o clock news and know that we cannot just shove our people behind a day at the beach and a barbie with the family. I like that it forces us to ask questions about whether we are divided as a nation and how we can work to bridge that gap. At least I hope it does. The Māori Party was formed because Māori had a voice. A voice they used to stand up to legislation that would take away their rights. The fact that America’s indigenous population don’t have a meaningful voice should not be something we as a nation aspire to achieve. Perhaps we can ensure better means of dialogue on the day. Perhaps the dialogue shouldn't be limited to just one day. And yes, it would be nice if Waitangi Day was a family holiday of celebration and maybe one day it will be but we don’t deserve that day today.

Sexism

Scandal is one my favorite shows on television right now. And yes, it is because the lead is a black woman in a pseudo political show. And yes, it does make me feel like one day I could be someone like her. This week's episode tackled sexism in the political world. Particularly what it is like for female candidates. For those of you in New Zealand - spoiler alert.. but not really. I'm not giving away any crucial plot info. 

In New Zealand, there has been outrage from some quarters because the Labour Party has announced it would like 50% of its candidates to be female by 2017. There is outrage because it is assumed that the increase in female candidates will be at the cost of meritorious male candidates. Because as we all know, men only get to where they get to purely because of merit. None of us have ever seen an incompetent male in the workplace or a less-deserving male in any position. (Cue Tui billboard)

I was once told that women do not want quotas because they want to get in on their own merits. That is true. We do want to get in on our own merits. The problem is that even if you are qualified, institutional sexism prevents you from getting in. Thus far nobody, and I really mean NOBODY, has given me a solution for how you deal with the problem of women with merit being pushed aside for men with LESS MERIT because they are men. That is the crux of the problem. I think it was David Farrar who suggested that had the quota system been in place in the past, Michael Cullen wouldn’t have made it in. Maybe that’s true. Maybe it’s also true that the woman in his place would have been even better. Maybe. We will never know.

Anyway back to Scandal. In this episode, the female candidate for Presidential nomination (played by Lisa Kudrow) of her party is facing subtle sexist attacks from candidates of her own party. She responds in an all-out epic rant at the reporter addressing subtle sexism that we all know exist but cannot quite prove because it doesn’t have the word ‘woman’ in it. Here is an excerpt:

"There's something my grandmother used to do whenever I'd start dating someone. I would tell her his name and she would say, 'Oh, what part of town does he live in?' That was her way of asking if my boyfriend was white. Oh yeah, my grandmother was an out and out racist, so I know what prejudice looks like. It's not about experience, James, it's about gender. Reston's [her opponent] saying I don't have the balls to be president and he means that literally. It's offensive. It's offensive to me and to all the women and to all the women whose votes he's asking for."

"The only reason we're doing this interview in my house is because you requested it. This was your idea and yet here you are, thanking me for inviting you into my "lovely home." That's what you say to the neighbor lady who baked you chocolate chip cookies. This pitcher of iced tea isn't even mine, it's what your producer sent here. Why? Same reason you called me a "real-life Cinderella story," it reminds people that I'm a woman without using the word. For you it's an angle, I get that and I'm sure you think it's innocuous, but guess what? It's not."

In recent times, people have been posting about what comes up on Google’s autofill function when you search for “Woman want/need/should/shouldn’t/could/couldn’t…” and “Men want/need/should/shouldn’t/could/couldn’t…”. You can see a video on Upworthy here. And I also posted this photo previously  that my friend created using Malaysian Google.

I remember when I was a student and I was working in the restaurant service industry - I got a fairly large tip from a group of people and it was unusual because there is no tipping as such in NZ (for my American readers). My manager said to me that I would get even bigger tips if I wore something more lowcut. I very firmly told him that what he said amounted to sexual harassment and if he ever made a comment like that I would make sure he was fired. It never happened again. But not everyone is that lucky. 

I also once read an article on men’s needs in relationships vs. women’s needs. When women articulate their needs they are labelled as ‘needy’. So women have learnt to not have ‘the talk’ in relationship articulating what they want out of it because they don’t want to be seen as ‘needy’. However, men’s needs are presented as ‘needs that have to be met’.  It is an interesting theory and by no means true in every relationship. I also think that there has been a shift in my generation where we are more willing to walk away from a relationship if our needs are not being met. But that hasn’t stopped women from strategizing with their girlfriends on how to approach an issue in a relationship before bringing it up with their partners because of ‘you don’t want to be perceived in a certain way’ implications.

Switching back to politics, we all know that there is more focus on women’s image than men’s image. We know that women’s strengths are tested in different ways. If a candidate is a mother it is always highlighted. It is never the same way for candidates who are fathers. Women either have to 'soften' their image or 'toughen' their image. Because one cannot be too much like a man or too much like a women.

I want to see more men in cleaning, food and diaper commercials. I want our parental leave to give men the opportunity to be a stay at home dad. I want the number of hours that women spend doing unpaid household work to decrease. I want the pay gap to decrease. I want more women in leadership positions so we have a different perspective of governance to what we have had since the beginning of mankind. This not a fight against men because there are plenty of male allies in this struggle.

Equality isn’t just a piece of legislation or a declaration that says you are equal. Equality is a constant struggle. Equality is standing up for injustice. Equality is the ability to call out sexism but also provide solutions to minimize the inequality. Our society is not perfect. We all bring our biases to our roles. We all have views that someone ought to question. That is a good thing. It means we improve and we educate. 

Rape Culture

Yesterday I tweeted 4 things that I believe illustrate rape culture. Today I'm elaborating on those 4 things. There are many others but in the context of this story and the dialogue this week, this is what I have identified. 

Exhibit A: Victim's actions

There’s been a lot of focus on the victims’ actions. They were drunk. They haven’t come forward. They need to be brave. This is completely unacceptable. Just because a person is in a vulnerable state does not mean they are inviting you to sexually abuse them. A staggering number of people are sexually assaulted and raped in their life time. It terrifying to read the statistics and realize that there must be so many people around me who are suffering silently that I don’t even know about. I live in my bubble and only think about it when a news like what happened this week breaks. We should not have to live in a society where a 13 year old girl has to go through what she did in this situation and then BE BRAVE. The reason these girls cannot come forward is because we don’t have a safe society where they will receive the support – emotional, legal, financial etc. We have a society that doubts, blames, ostracizes, objectifies, and vilifies.

UPDATE: Now it turns out that someone did come forward and this happened to them. 

Exhibit B: NZ Police

I do not know what the hell they have been doing for the last two years but it is clearly not enough. And yes I am aware of the law. I understand its limitations in this situation but the police are not powerless. They were dealing with a guy who father apparently is a celebrity and the son of a cop. This should have been top priority. The whole community should have been made aware long ago so what continued to happen at parties could be prevented and monitored more closely. The police need to take responsibility and need to ask themselves why the public don’t want to come forward to them. Last year a survey found trust in police was at an all time low. What did they do in response? They blamed the survey. Police culture in NZ is toxic. Everybody knows this. Someone ought to take responsibility and make some sweeping changes. I am looking at the leadership and I’m looking at the Minister.

UPDATE: See above. A detective inspector claimed yesterday "None of the girls have been brave enough to make formal statements to us so we can take it to a prosecution stage or even consider a prosecution stage." Basically he lied or did not know what's going on in his department. If this is not gross incompetence, I'm not sure what is. 

Exhibit C: John Key and Judith Collins

I expected better from our elected officials. I expect better from my Prime Minister and my Justice Minister. The PM reacted by saying that that should just grow up. This is not immature behavior Mr. Key. This is sexual assault and rape. And in case you aren’t aware, grown ups rape too. Mr. Key’s comments were callous and dismissive. He showed a lack of empathy and there was no leadership. He could have said – we need to look at our laws and if there are loopholes – we should address them immediately. He should have said – this is unacceptable and we as a society need to examine how this is happening and work to make changes at the family, school, and community level. He should have been the Prime Minister. It is clear he doesn’t want to talk about this and he doesn’t want to acknowledge it as a societal issue because being part of a society requires you to take societal responsibility and Mr. Key is incapable of that. And what about our Justice Minister? She pointed to the cyber bullying laws. She knows full well those laws will not address this but it was once again – hey look over here, I’m doing something. Once again it was shirking responsibility.

UPDATE: I'm going to add the Minister of Police Anne Tolley to this list. After what we have found out in addition to the fact that one of the boys is related to a Police officer - this reeks of corruption and she should take responsibility. 

Exhibit D: Willie and JT

I don’t even know where to start. Apparently they have apologized for offence caused by the appalling segment where they questioned a friend of the girls about this. The appalling segment that RadioLive has taken down in response to the controversy. These guys are what’s wrong with our society. They blame drinking, the age a girl loses her virginity and the fact that the girls may have lied to their parents about partying as reasons why basically ‘they had it coming’. They didn’t say it. But it was in their tone - in their condescending tones. Amy (bless her soul), the subject of the interview, was trying to answer the questions with incredible dignity in the face of the most offensive questions I have ever heard. So in case you guys aren’t aware – here are some rules about rape.

•  Just because you consent once doesn’t mean a man can have sex with you subsequently without further consent. A girl can say no ANYTIME. Even half way through. DO YOU GET THAT?
• Just because you consent to one person doesn’t mean you will have sex with another person.
• Just because you lie to your parents about going to a party doesn’t mean you should be raped.
• Just because you are drunk does not mean you want to have sex.

Also what the hell was TV3 thinking last night? How could they run this segment? Where was the responsibility? When the girls said the boys were cool – why didn’t anyone ask why? How and why is gang raping cool? Did their parents know they were going to be on TV3? The media has a responsibility and in this TV3 like everyone else in this post totally shirked it. Shame on them.

If you are feeling disheartened and you want to help - Read this post.

Finally, let's look at these 4 things and let's fix them. Let's stop blaming the victims and let's stop thinking that laws will fix everything. We have a culture that enables this and we need to work together to fix it. We need better sexual education in schools. We need better role models. We need media responsibility. We need leadership from our elected officials. I don't want to beat up these guys and I don't want them to rot in jail forever. I want them to learn their lessons, be rehabilitated and I want justice for the girls.