(no subject)
Jun. 11th, 2008 08:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
labellementeuseSo now that we've had some time to think about it (and I've calmed down a little): can we really gain anything from revisiting abortion rights in this country? As we know, abortion law in New Zealand does not accurately reflect the way we think about (or, indeed, practise) abortion. In practise abortion here leans towards (though is not close enough to) abortion on demand. In law, it's, well, dodgy.
I don't think it will come as a shock to anyone when I say that I think NZ abortion law needs reforming: it has to be more liberal and it really ought to reflect the way abortion is practised. Medical abortion should be made available more easily (it's currently available only in four centres, and I believe only in one in the whole South Island.) Doctors should not be able to refuse to provide abortion any more than they should be able to refuse to treat drunk drivers or murderers. And so forth. This is undeniably going to be controversial. In the last 24 hours posts have been popping up all over the NZ blogosphere bewailing this as an issue in election year. Nobody seems to think now is the right time.
But can we actually gain something from revisiting this issue? (Other than the obvious decriminalisation that no-one seems to think would be the result.) Look: National, as always, campaigns on being a party for "mainstream New Zealand," "hard working Kiwis." Obviously this is crap. But, you know: I think criminalised abortion does not represent the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders. I certainly don't think it represents the wishes of women. National this year are trying to present themselves as a new, younger, more relevant party. Are they really going to maintain this image by being anti-abortion? It's true that in 2004 most National MPs voted to make girls have to inform their parents if they were having an abortion (I wish I could find this voting record but all I can find is some of the debates - anyone recall how Katherine Rich voted?) But I think increasing parents' totalitarian control is a different issue to restricting the right of women (adults or teenagers) to have this procedure at all.
If they do end up on the so-called side of "life" - I think that'll lose them some votes. I think this is an important issue for women, REALLY important, and I think that young women actually realise that. Young men? That's another question. Would I say that most young men I know (including the ones who are likely to vote National) are pro-life? Nope. Do I think this is an issue that they will be in solidarity with women over - that is to say, do I think they will treat it as an important voting issue? Well... maybe not.
The party this could really be a test for is ACT, of course: they can talk the low-tax tough-on-crime libertarian talk, but can they walk the rights-over-our-own-bodies libertarian walk? (History says no. But ACT might always surprise me.)
Finally, and in a slightly different vein: there's an interesting article here covering a study which shows that the difference in boys' and girls' performance in maths is probably not determined biologically but is defined by socioeconomic factors. Briefly, the study (which is in Science here) surveyed hundreds of thousands of records of boys' and girls' maths and reading performance. Overall, girls outscored boys by 7% in reading and boys outscored girls by 2% in maths. However a country-by-country analysis determined that in poorer countries and countries where women's rights are worse off, the gap in maths is significant; in wealthier countries with good equality records the gap is minor. Meanwhile, the gap in reading skills appears to be consistent: although girls' advantage does decrease in the poorer countries they do appear to hold onto it in most of them.
Now, OK: none of that is going to come as a surprise to anyone here, so while I celebrate that I finally have a study to point to and say SEE HAHA, that's basically it. What DOES drive me crazy is the bit at the end: OOGA BOOGA THIS IS VERY SCARY FOR MEN WHAT IF IT TURNS OUT TEH WIMMINS IS SMARTER THAN US? Now, I am the last person to say that the degree to which boys are increasingly performing poorly relative to girls is a problem (although can I stand how ironic it is that the same people who complain about feminism are also the ones who, flip the pronoun, and you get sincere feminist concerns? right. In fact boys performing badly is a feminist concern anyway.) But the author of the article said something astoundingly stupid:
Well, first off, it would be nice if articles of this kind were EVER accompanied by a celebration of women's success in education, so I'm going to take ten seconds: girls, we rock. We're doing really well in education systems that are mostly designed for the ways boys learn. Of course, even with our better grades they're still paying us less and working us harder, but hey! Better give those boys some advantages.
But see here, mister author: what do you MEAN we can't ascribe it to social inequality? OF COURSE girls' outperformance of boys is ascribable to social inequality: it's a consequence of tthe fact that boys' learning is undervalued and increasingly boys who enjoy learning and education are pressured by their families and parents; the educated man is no longer a facet of the socially "ideal" man. This isn't some special social factor that isn't about equality: it's about the way we value the sexes differently, which is, hey - unequal.
I don't think it will come as a shock to anyone when I say that I think NZ abortion law needs reforming: it has to be more liberal and it really ought to reflect the way abortion is practised. Medical abortion should be made available more easily (it's currently available only in four centres, and I believe only in one in the whole South Island.) Doctors should not be able to refuse to provide abortion any more than they should be able to refuse to treat drunk drivers or murderers. And so forth. This is undeniably going to be controversial. In the last 24 hours posts have been popping up all over the NZ blogosphere bewailing this as an issue in election year. Nobody seems to think now is the right time.
But can we actually gain something from revisiting this issue? (Other than the obvious decriminalisation that no-one seems to think would be the result.) Look: National, as always, campaigns on being a party for "mainstream New Zealand," "hard working Kiwis." Obviously this is crap. But, you know: I think criminalised abortion does not represent the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders. I certainly don't think it represents the wishes of women. National this year are trying to present themselves as a new, younger, more relevant party. Are they really going to maintain this image by being anti-abortion? It's true that in 2004 most National MPs voted to make girls have to inform their parents if they were having an abortion (I wish I could find this voting record but all I can find is some of the debates - anyone recall how Katherine Rich voted?) But I think increasing parents' totalitarian control is a different issue to restricting the right of women (adults or teenagers) to have this procedure at all.
If they do end up on the so-called side of "life" - I think that'll lose them some votes. I think this is an important issue for women, REALLY important, and I think that young women actually realise that. Young men? That's another question. Would I say that most young men I know (including the ones who are likely to vote National) are pro-life? Nope. Do I think this is an issue that they will be in solidarity with women over - that is to say, do I think they will treat it as an important voting issue? Well... maybe not.
The party this could really be a test for is ACT, of course: they can talk the low-tax tough-on-crime libertarian talk, but can they walk the rights-over-our-own-bodies libertarian walk? (History says no. But ACT might always surprise me.)
Finally, and in a slightly different vein: there's an interesting article here covering a study which shows that the difference in boys' and girls' performance in maths is probably not determined biologically but is defined by socioeconomic factors. Briefly, the study (which is in Science here) surveyed hundreds of thousands of records of boys' and girls' maths and reading performance. Overall, girls outscored boys by 7% in reading and boys outscored girls by 2% in maths. However a country-by-country analysis determined that in poorer countries and countries where women's rights are worse off, the gap in maths is significant; in wealthier countries with good equality records the gap is minor. Meanwhile, the gap in reading skills appears to be consistent: although girls' advantage does decrease in the poorer countries they do appear to hold onto it in most of them.
Now, OK: none of that is going to come as a surprise to anyone here, so while I celebrate that I finally have a study to point to and say SEE HAHA, that's basically it. What DOES drive me crazy is the bit at the end: OOGA BOOGA THIS IS VERY SCARY FOR MEN WHAT IF IT TURNS OUT TEH WIMMINS IS SMARTER THAN US? Now, I am the last person to say that the degree to which boys are increasingly performing poorly relative to girls is a problem (although can I stand how ironic it is that the same people who complain about feminism are also the ones who, flip the pronoun, and you get sincere feminist concerns? right. In fact boys performing badly is a feminist concern anyway.) But the author of the article said something astoundingly stupid:
The study, however, leaves us with yet another question of this sort: why do boys appear to read so poorly? We clearly can't ascribe it to social inequality, but that doesn't mean it isn't due to some other social factor.
Well, first off, it would be nice if articles of this kind were EVER accompanied by a celebration of women's success in education, so I'm going to take ten seconds: girls, we rock. We're doing really well in education systems that are mostly designed for the ways boys learn. Of course, even with our better grades they're still paying us less and working us harder, but hey! Better give those boys some advantages.
But see here, mister author: what do you MEAN we can't ascribe it to social inequality? OF COURSE girls' outperformance of boys is ascribable to social inequality: it's a consequence of tthe fact that boys' learning is undervalued and increasingly boys who enjoy learning and education are pressured by their families and parents; the educated man is no longer a facet of the socially "ideal" man. This isn't some special social factor that isn't about equality: it's about the way we value the sexes differently, which is, hey - unequal.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-11 01:53 am (UTC)http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2004/11/votes.html
no subject
Date: 2008-06-11 02:08 am (UTC)The Maori Party voted against
The Greens voted against
United Future voted for it
Copeland - Independent List MP, voted for it
Field - Independent Mangere, voted for it
Stewart didn't vote party line for NZ First
Woolerton didn't vote party line for NZ First
The rest of NZ First voted for it
The majority of Labour were against
The majority of National were for.
Edit:I'll stop now, promise, I just kept realising I'd forgotten to add party names to this
Reasons to think ACT will be neocons
Date: 2008-06-11 02:25 am (UTC)http://www.act.org.nz/node/26152
http://www.act.org.nz/node/24457
And if you want to be exceptionally annoyed
Date: 2008-06-11 02:28 am (UTC)Well at least, it's what ACT thinks Liberal Feminism means. Does appear to condone availability of Abortion though, in contravention of all those later things it produced.
Re: And if you want to be exceptionally annoyed
Date: 2008-06-11 03:12 am (UTC)*gags*
Re: And if you want to be exceptionally annoyed
Date: 2008-06-12 06:01 am (UTC)Re: And if you want to be exceptionally annoyed
Date: 2008-06-12 06:28 am (UTC)Egad, why didn't I do any work today?
ARGH.