(For a larger copy of the cartoon, click here.)

Today is the 34th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, and also blog for choice day.* The topic is supposed to be ‘why am I pro-choice’. It seems a little trite, I’m pro-choice because I believe women are people, I’m pro-choice because I want to decide when I have a child, I’m pro-choice because I have two younger sisters, I’m pro-choice because I trust other women to make choices about their own lives, I’m pro-choice because sex should be awesome, I’m pro-choice because of all the women who have died and are dying from illegal abortions, I’m pro-choice because of all the women who have died and are dying because they couldn’t get an illegal abortion, I’m pro-choice because parenting is a hard important job and must be voluntary, I’m pro-choice because I know how hard women fought in New Zealand to ensure women would have access to abortion.

It probably says a lot about my life that, for me, those things go without saying. I have met with people who oppose abortion and regarded them as slightly quaint (or hated them passionately depending on the circumstances).** I got over a guy I’d had a crush on for way too long when I discovered he wasn’t pro-choice enough for me.

What I want to say about abortion isn’t anything to do with what I think the laws should be.*** There have been two things I’ve written about frequently on this blog the first that access is as important as rights and that the right to choose has to also include the right to continue the pregnancy.

Brownfemipower has some great posts about the US National Advocates for Pregnant Women conference (which she’s at at the moment). What they really made me think about is how much abortion is normally treated as a stand-alone issue, and how counter-productive that is.

It’s all pretty irrelevant in New Zealand; I’d guess we have more women fighting other reproductive issues (social welfare, medical care, women in prisons, violence against women) than abortion. But if I wanted to change that, if I had the energy to start fighting back then I would try and work with people who didn’t just want to focus on abortion laws (although our abortion laws are a piece of shit and I will not rest till I have danced on the grave of every man who voted for them), but saw that almost all issues that effect women’s lives, effect reproduction. We won’t be able to make meaningful choices until we create a very different world.

*I must confess to finding this a tad annoying - abortion rights don’t begin and end in the US, but you get used to it.

**I once had a half hour argument about abortion on a peace vigil with an ex-nun.

*** Although for the record I’m really hard case about abortion law and don’t accept any legal restrictions for any reason, don’t ever think it’s anyone’s business but the woman whose making the decision, and think that if you don’t like decisions people are making to terminate their pregnancies you should change the conditions under which they make the decision, rather than tut-tut about the decision itself.

I’ve just finished Women Workers and the Trade Union Movement, by Sara Boston. It covers women in the trade unions (I know, what a surprise) in Britain in the late 19th century, and most of the 20th.

I really enjoyed reading it - it is so amazing to discover what people had been able to achieve by working together - these huge strikes and victories.

But my main feeling while reading the book was anger - over and over again women workers were being sold out by their male comrades. Men would complain that having women workers on a lower rate undercut their wages, and instead of getting pay equity and a rate for the job they’d try and keep women out. Sexism and misogyny was so deeply ingrained that male workers and trade unionists would act against their own best interests as workers in order to maintain their power over women.

Don’t get me wrong there were some really great examples of solidarity, and strength across gender lines, but not enough.

On the left, one of the most annoying arguments you hear is that if women (or anyone else) organize separately then it’ll ‘divide the working class’. If people paid any attention to history they’d realize it wasn’t the women organizing against sexism that were dividing the working class - it was the sexism and misogyny of men.

*She had the audacity to suggest equal pay at a National Union of Women Teachers conference.

Note for Comments: This is a pro-union thread. Please do not post right-wing criticisms of unions in this thread.

My Planning and Assement Module¹
appeared to be going well; I really liked the guy who was running our first session he was giving us all this information about entitlements that I didn’t expect (non-beneficiary accomodation supplement, recoverable and non-recoverable grants, targetted assistance - he covered it all). I noticed a sign advertising courses WINZ²

So we went and sat down, it seemed relatively easy, until we got to the job-seeker part of the deal.

I think it is time for a little diversion. Once upon a time a man named Peter McCardle was working as a work-broker (or possible at Social Welfare it doesn’t really matter), he would see people looking for work (or possibly applying for the benefit) and think ‘why can’t there be a one stop shop where people can apply for the benefit and look for work’. Now this story wouldn’t matter that much if he didn’t end up on the NZ First Party List³ at the 1996 election, when the New Zealand public, showing a well-placed cynicism in all politicians (with unfortunate results), gave NZ First the balance of power. So National⁴ , who at this stage were prepared to raise the minimum wage to keep in power - they certainly weren’t going to object to some restructuring of the public service, announced that Soical Welfare was going to merge with the employment office, just like Peter McCardle wanted.

I swear that one of the pieces of paper had “Thank you for choosing WINZ for part of your work search” - obviously a new use of the term ‘choice’ previously only used by anti-abortion nut-jobs.

From my experience there are three really important reasons why having WINZ also offer employment services is a bad idea. One is straight incompetence, the case-managers are badly trained, and there’s extremely high turnover. The benefit side of WINZ is largely mechanical, job-matching less so - so job-matching looses out. My case-manager didn’t know what to do when ‘union organiser’ wasn’t in any of the databases. He couldn’t load that in either as the jobs I was looking for, or (more disturbingly) the last job I had. We spent a good ten minutes trying to find any job in there that in anyway matched ‘union organiser’ (Him: “What about HR Manager” Me: “Not so much”).

The other problem is that it makes it easier for social welfare to use the job-search as part of the ways it sanctions beneficiaries. Most people would argue that this was the point of loading WINZ up with employment in the first place (and that’s entirely possible), and I wouldn’t disagree, but I suspect it’s counter-productive.

One of the most ridiculous activities was looking at a list of fifteen skills and number my top ten. Several of them I had no idea what they meant (and I picked reading comprehension as one of my skills). “Co-ordination Adjusting actions in relation to other’s actions” - whether or not I’m good at that really does depend on the actions that are being talked about. Based on the ten I chose I had to be put into a talent pool (their words). The talent pools were a standard array of low-wage jobs. Many of the talent pools such as caregiver, retail and customer service are casualised industries that have little chance of delivering anyone full-time hours (which is supposed to be the goal of all this).

I want to make it really clear that I’m not arguing that caregiving, customer service, and retail are beneath me because I’m a middle-class white girl with an MA, and a professional job. That work is not beneath me, or anyone else - but the conditions that those jobs are done in: the part time casualised nature of the industries, with your hours of work at the whim of the employer - those conditions are bad for the vast majority of workers. It’s also not a solution to unemployment, because people cycle in and out of jobs and the dole, one week they earn enough the next they don’t. Taking the attitude that an on-call job (where you don’t actually get called) is better than nothing, does not keep people off the unemployment benefit long term. What does (apart from changing the monetary policy so that workers’ lives aren’t used to fight inflation) is making sure people are in jobs that will give them a livelihood. For most people pushing them into insecure employment makes secure employment further away, not closer.

The third reason why social welfare and employment should be two seperate areas was made clear to me during my session. My case manager wanted me to go on a course. Since my only goal of the entire session was ‘no WINZ courses’, I put up a strong case why that would be a bad idea.⁵ When he agreed not to send me on the course he said “I was just testing you, I wanted to see what you would say, I can see that your confident, and you know what to do so you don’t have to go.”

Now I’ve no idea if he really was, or whether he was trying to save face. But what he said was true, confidence is hugely important when you’re looking for jobs. It’s a completely confidence destroying business putting yourself out there for rejection. The more confidence you have in yourself, the more likely you are to be able to keep on going, the less likely you are to be depressed by the job hunt and unemployment.

WINZ does not give people confidence, because case-managers tend to treat every person who come through their doors as if they’ve done something wrong.⁶ This destroys people’s confidence and makes them feel like shit (not to mention the power WINZ has over people’s livihood). I think fighting this attitude towards beneficiaries is a very important project, but it’s a long term project. If Social Welfare and Employment had never merged, then the work search could be happening in . I think that’d be much more likely to get people into jobs with secure hours that match their skills and experience (putting people in other sorts of jobs as a stop-gap measure makes unemployment levels look good, but if anythign it adds to government costs as people are less likely to stay in their jobs, and getting people on the benefit is a long process).

1. That’s WINZ speak for applying for a benefit, it as euphamistically named as you might expect, there was little assessment and less planning. (back)
2. New Zealand social welfare system) provided that were run by privately owned companies - I made a little note to myself - thinking that I could write a nice little blog post about privatisation through sub-contracting.

   Then my casemanager came in. It was the guy who had run the previous seminar. The only consolation I had was that he was as worried about seeing me as I was at seeing him. As we walked over he told me that I wasn’t to interupt him to talk about the inaccuracies of his hypotheticals. ((I’ve realised since that he probably felt that I had shown him up at the previous seminar (I’d pointed out inaccuracies and argued, and other people had joined in). He appeared to be quite new and struggle a bit with the software and the forms. I’m worried that this is going to end badly. I suspect the combination of not knowing what to do, and not wanting to lose face is why he sent me home before the interview was finished. (back)

3. New Zealand First is a political party, the list is one of the ways we elect our representatives - all that really matters as that he ended up in parliament, and he was one of a block that had the balance of power (back)
4. the more right-wing of the two parties (back)
5. Unfortunately I missed the main argument, which was that he couldn’t send me on a course until my benefit started. I’m not entitled till the twelth, and the course he wanted me to go on started on the eighth. (back)
6. I’m going to meet with my case manager in six weeks if I haven’t find a job to, in his words, ‘find out what you’re doing wrong’. Maybe not finding a job in six weeks over the Christmas break isn’t anything that I’ve done wrong. (back)

You get a lot of forms after your WR4U seminar, all in a pretty orange folder. In fact that’s the reason you go to WRK4U seminars, because they won’t give you the form to apply for the unemployment benefit unless you go to a WRK4U seminar. Apparently they are currently on very dodgy legal ground in doing this, but the government is going to change the law to increase WINZ’s¹ surveillance of people with the audacity to want government support very soon. I knew I could probably get out of the seminar before I went, but I decided it wasn’t worth the effort, plus I wanted to write a blog post about it.²

About half the forms and random bits of paper they give you are about applying for the benefit, the other half are about looking for work.

My favourite form of the whole lot is the self-assessment form. In this form they give you a set of questions and you have to circle 1-5 depending on whether they apply ‘Not At All’ or ‘Always’. Some of the statements are really inane “I am a positive person” is the silliest. Although my personal favourite was: “I know y rights and obligations as an employee” after 4 years of being a union organiser I wanted to make a new category 6 or - ‘more than WINZ form-writers’.

You have to be careful with these evaluations though, because if you’re not you might come across as the sort of people who needs to go on a WINZ course. WINZ courses are boredom vortexes from which you may never recover, and while Straight2Work - Retail sounds bad, I’m sure it’s nothing compared to what they’ve got from someone who doesn’t know that they must circle at least 4 on every question about job interviews and CVs.

The forms about work are funny, and relatively easily ignored (although they expect you to keep a job lead diary of all the job-leads that you’ve gone after and followed up, isn’t surveillance fun). The bigger problem is the application form itself. Here’s what you need, besides the form:

Verification of bank account details (easy enough for me, harder for people who don’t have a bank account).

Original of birth certificate or passport (I have my birth certificate filed under ‘D’ for documents in my filing box - people with a bad relationship with their parents might find it harder to get hold of, and it costs time and money to get a replacement - even more so if you were born overseas).

Another form of identification such as driver’s licence (which is problematic if you don’t have a driver’s licence)

A letter from Inland Revenue showing your tax number (I saved one of these under ‘T’ - otherwise I’d have had to make a special trip down to inland revenue. Not that big a deal for someone with a car and without a child).

Gross income details for the last year (I did this by getting my ex-employer to fill out a form. It was easy enough to do, because we have a really good relationship. But an ex-employer could really screw you over, particularly if they hadn’t provided pay-slips. It would also be that much harder if you had two jobs, casual or part-time work).

Verification of accomodation costs (filed under ‘F’ for flat - and relatively easy for most people although harder if you don’t have a tenancy agreement).

Verification of assets (just a trip to the bank away - although the bank will probably charge you).

There’s a whole bunch of other things you may have to verify, names changes, evidence of citizenship/residency status and children’s birth certificates Then if you were silly enough to admit you were in a relationship in the nature of marriage you have to provide all the same information for your partner. For any supplementary allowances there’s more documentation; if you want a disability allowance you have to go to the doctor (at your own expense) and provide receipts of everything you’ve ever bought.

If you know what you need in advance it may not be that hard making sure you have all this stuff when the time comes. But if you don’t, then it’s a lot of time and expense, when you’re probably least able to provide it.

Which comes back to the theme of these posts - it’s not the ones who need help least who are kept out by bureaucracy - it’s those who need it most.

1. New Zealand’s social welfare department (back)
2. I’m 28, the fact that I can treat dealing with WINZ as a strange venture into a foreign land is both weird and a sign of my priviledge. (back)

An interesting, short (12 pages) .pdf paper , from a liberal think tank, argues that there would be significant environmental benefits if Americans lowered our work hours to match that of the wealthy European countries. From the paper’s conclusion:

If Americans chose to take advantage of their high level of productivity by shortening the workweek or taking longer vacations rather than producing more, there would follow a number of benefits.

Specifically, if the U.S. followed the EU-15 in terms of work hours, then:

• Employed workers would find themselves with seven additional weeks of time off.
• The United States would consume some 20 percent less energy.
• If a 20 percent energy savings had been directly translated into lower carbon emissions, then the U.S. would have emitted 3 percent less carbon dioxide in 2002 than it did in 1990.9 This level of emissions is only 4 percent above the negotiated target of the Kyoto Protocol.

On the flip side, there is political pressure within European countries to adopt a more American labor model. If Europeans did in fact give up their shorter workweeks and longer vacations, they would consume some additional 25 percent more energy. Translated into carbon emissions, this would have enormous consequences….

Shorter hours and fewer emmissions sounds like a good deal to me. No one is suggesting that shorter work hours are a stand-alone solution to the need to reduce negative impacts on the environment, but it could be part of a larger package of approaches.

Curtsy to MaxSpeak.

Bean and I went to see “The Pursuit of Happyness,” a new movie starring Will Smith as real-life stock broker Chris Gardner. Set in the 80s, the movie tells the story of how Gardner — black, poor, a single father with only a high-school education — became a stock broker using only intelligence, hard work, and a seemingly inexhaustible will to succeed.

The movie was entertaining but not fantastic. What struck me most about it is how differently liberals and conservatives will interpret the movie’s message. To conservatives, like Michael at InternetMonk, the message is that hard work wins the day:

Will Smith’s “The Pursuit of Happyness” [is] a stunningly positive, pro-individual, pro-America film that may go to the top of every economic conservative’s “must see” list. “Pursuit” is a stereotype breaker in every scene, and it’s not an accident. This is a film with the unashamed message that America is a place where individuals aren’t rewarded via pity, but through initiative, sacrifice and hard work. Chris Gardner’s success came by taking the gifts God gave him, motivating himself with love for his son, and persevering in a superhuman effort to outdo people with racial, social and educational advantage. […]

And when he achieves his goal- a genuinely emotional breakthrough that will be hard for any man who loves his family to resist- it is not because of affirmative action, but because Chris Gardner was the best man for the job. You can look in the eyes of all those corporate types and know that they have only been dimly aware that this is a man who has been sleeping in restrooms and at homeless shelters, but they are treating him completely in line with the content of his character and not in pity. At a moment when he is nearly starving, his boss- a millionaire many times over- asks him for five dollars for cab fare. Gardner gives it to him because that is who he is and will always be.¹

I saw the same movie, but I got a different message. Because the effort Gardner puts forth in the movie really does seem (as Michael says) superhuman. In the movie², Gardner had no real friends, no support network, no savings, no home, and a child to take care of. He was pretty much in the situation Hilzoy discusses here — no margin for error, no margin for bad luck.

There are thousands of Americans in that situation. What makes Gardner’s story so unusual — and a good subject for a major Hollywood movie — is that Gardner ended up a millionairre. The far more common story of people who don’t make it, isn’t the story of which major movies are made. Artist and blogger Marc Vallen (who created a 1980s protest poster used as set dressing in the movie) writes:

The Pursuit of Happyness has as its actual star the mythic American dream story, where anyone can become financially successful through dedication and hard work. While it’s said “everyone loves a winner” and “a happy ending”, I’d still like to see Hollywood tackle the stories of those real-life people who’ve struggled and worked hard all of their lives but never even came close to achieving their dreams. Odds are that describes a huge number of people, and as yet, their stories haven’t appeared on the silver screen. I also find it ironic that a poster once considered controversial, and used by activists who were willing to be beaten, arrested, and jailed for a cause - has became set dressing for a popular “feel good” movie.

For me, the lesson to take away from “The Pursuit of Happyness” isn’t that anyone can make it in America. Gardner wasn’t “anyone.” He was broke, but he had a natural endowment of intelligence, charm and drive that made him one in ten thousand, or maybe one in a million.
I’s ludicrous to think that “Pursuit of Happyness” shows that anyone can make it; on the contrary, “Pursuit of Happyness” shows that for someone starting with nothing in America, it take a ludicrous amount of talent and drive to pull oneself up.

I think it’s possible to become a better society — one in which no one is every that utterly lacking help and resources, and in which it doesn’t require Chris-Gardner levels of talent and drive for someone on the bottom to make the system work.

The San Francisco Gate has a story with more information about The Real-Life Chris Gardner; there are interesting contrasts between his life and the movie version. (For example, in the movie he was homeless while doing an unpaid apprenticeship; in real life I doubt he was homeless while he was an apprentence, since the apprenticeship program paid $1000 a month.) And CNN has an article about Gardner’s current activities – he’s hoping to become the next Oprah.

Also, Czerna has a related post.

1. Contrary to Michael’s interpretation, I think it was clear that Gardner gave him the five bucks because he was an intern who had no choice but to suck up to his bosses, and who couldn’t let them know how close to the edge he was living. (back)
2. and in real life, for all I know (back)

I’m soon finishing up working at the union, which means I’m going to have to deal with WINZ.¹ I’ve decided that the best way to deal with this is to re-tell all contact with WINZ as an epic adventure on my blog.

The first step in this story is the WRK4U seminar. Before you can apply for a benefit (at least in Wellington) in New Zealand you must go on a WRK4U seminar. The main goal of a WRK4U seminar is to kill people with boredom before they get the chance to apply for the dole.

My seminar was very much what you’d expect at a Wellington seminar at this time of year: mostly pakeha², mostly young, mostly men. There were five women, including me, and all the other women were students, as was the only Maori guy there.

The first thing the guy running the seminar asked us was if we had a partner. I was very pleased to see that everyone said no. While I’m not suggesting any specific person was lying (and in case there are any WINZ employees reading this I’m not in a relationship in the nature of marriage) - lying to WINZ about the nature of your relationships is an important rite of passage in this country.³

Relationships in the nature of marriage have a funny history. Women on the DPB⁴ were one of Muldoon’s many targets, and in the late 1970s (the DPB only became a statutory benefit in 1972) there was a real campaign against women on the DPB who knew any men. One cabinet member was explaining what a relationship in the nature of marriage meant, and he said that the woman didn’t necessarily have to be having sex with a man for the man to be financially responsible for her, because he knew lots of married people who never had sex. At the time they tried to get a woman to sign an agreement that specified that she wouldn’t have dinner with the same man more often than three times a week, or have sex with him more than once a fortnight. Whether their ideas of relationships in the nature of marriage are weird or accurate probably depends on whose marriage they were using as a basis.

The rest of the seminar involved a WINZ employee showing us over-head projector slides and explaining them to us and, as time went by, people arguing with him. The guy asked us who the major employers were in Wellington, of course everyone said the government. He agreed but then said restaurants, and then mentioned McDonalds and KFC by name (which is complete rubbish, I know the person who organises for fast-food outlets in Wellington, and they’re not that big in terms of total hours). Just in case we were thinking we should be looking for actual jobs, with fixed hours.

Then he put up a chart showing how much money we’d get on the benfit compared with how much money we’d get in a full-time job. He explained further that if you got into a job the employer would see how well you were doing, and give you a pay rise (I looked sceptical and giggled a bit at this, since this cheery picture doesn’t match either my personal, or union experience of employers’ attitudes towards pay rises). Then he said that the benefit would stay the same amount forever, and ever and you’d never get any pay increases. When I said “surely the benefit gets inflation adjusted” - he wouldn’t even answer my question and say ‘yes the benefit is inflation adjusted.’

I think the idea of the seminar was supposed to be that you sit there and listen to the WINZ guy talk. It should come as no surprise to readers (and certainly not to anyone who knows me), that I wasn’t very good at that. I can’t remember where I started butting in, but I do know that by the time he got to the working for families package entitlements I was explaining it (after that he said he thought I should get a job working for WINZ, which shut me right up).

The really good thing is that once I started, everyone else started putting their two cents in. One of the guys there didn’t have the two forms of ID they claimed to need, and another woman said ‘it’s just another stupid hurdle to try and persuade us not to apply.’

After this we had to go away again, make another call to the 0800 number and set up another time wasting appointment. Apparently you used to make the second appointment at the end of the first appointment, but they don’t do that anymore. Presumably because if just 1 in 20 people don’t have a phone and find it just too hard to ring the 0800 number, that’s many benefits they don’t have to pay each year.

The whole thing was in essence creating opportunities to shove people down the cracks. What makes me so angry is that it won’t be the people who need the benefit least who don’t get the benefit under this system, it’ll be the people who need it most. I’m fairly certain that I’ll get the benefit, and I’m also fairly certain that the woman sitting next to me, who’d been on the student allowance and was wearing a Gucci bracelet, will too. But the guy who’d been on the independent youth benefit and didn’t have a passport or a birth certificate, he probably won’t.

What bothered me most is how any form of paid work was again and again portrayed as the solution to everyone’s problems. There were posters on the wall with photos of happy workers and inane quotes such as “I love my job so I always give 100%.”

Even in a half hour seminar (well it was supposed to be half an hour), the guy took the bosses side against the workers on a number of different occasions. He used the example of someone who bought a stereo on installments one week, and the employer put him off the next. This implies that bosses can just get rid of people at will.⁵

I’m not saying that having a job can’t be good for someone’s life, of course it can. But they’re not necessarily; employers have a very real power over workers, and particularly in an unorganised workplace, where employees have absolutely no power, that power can make someone’s life much worse.

Just this month I’ve talked to workers who were trying to fight back against really awful sexual and racial harassment, another worker who was made to work so many hours that she fell ill, and someone else who was driven out of her job. A few weeks ago I walked past an accident on the street - someone had been crushed to death at work.

There is more to this life than having our labour exploited.

1. Normal people would call it the social welfare department, but not in New Zealand (back)
2. New Zealand European (back)
3. If you’re in a relationship in the nature of marriage - usually sleeping with someone more than three times a week - then they’re financially responsible for you and their income is tested before you get any help from WINZ (back)
4. solo parent benefit (back)
5. which they can’t in New Zealand (back)

I’ve been looking through the UN’s “State Of The World’s Children 2007″ report (pdf link), which seems to concentrate mostly on children in the developing world. The entire report is well worth reading, or at least skimming the summaries included at the start of each chapter.

It’s clear the authors believe it’s impossible to discuss improving the state of the world’s children, without also discussing the state of the world’s mothers. The rest of this post is quoted from the summary of chapter two:

• A growing body of evidence indicates that household decisions are often made through a bargaining process that is more likely to favour men than women. Factors underlying women’s influence in decision-making processes include control of income and assets, age at marriage and level of education.
• According to data from the Demographic and Health Surveys, in only 10 out of the 30 developing countries surveyed did half or more of women participate in all household decisions, including those regarding major household spending, their own health care and their visits with friends or relatives outside the home.
• The consequences of women’s exclusion from household decisions can be as dire for children as they are for women themselves. According to a study conducted by the International Food Policy Research Institute, if men and women had equal influence in decision-making, the incidence of underweight children under three years old in South Asia would fall by up to 13 percentage points, resulting in 13.4 million fewer undernourished children in the region; in sub-Saharan Africa, an additional 1.7 million children would be adequately nourished.
• A woman’s empowerment within the household increases the likelihood that her children, particularly girls, will attend school. A UNICEF survey of selected countries across the developing world found that, on average, children with uneducated mothers are at least twice as likely to be out of school than children whose mothers attended primary school.
• Men play a vital role in promoting egalitarian decision-making. Through simple and direct strategies, such as sharing responsibility for household chores and childcare, men can help combat gender discrimination in households and communities.
• Women themselves are the most important catalysts for change. By challenging and defying discriminatory attitudes in their communities, women’s groups can advance the rights of girls and women for generations to come.

[Crossposted at Creative Destruction. If your comments aren’t being approved here, try there.]

The model minority myth is foundational to the way many Americans see race in this country. The model minority myth postulates that Asians (broadly defined) are all doing wonderfully here in the US. Many people believe that Asians are more intelligent and have a better work ethic. People who believe in this myth cite stats showing a high level of education, high median family incomes, and a large number of Asian Americans in the most prestigious schools. In this post, I want to talk about just a few reasons why the model minority myth misrepresents the experiences of Asian Americans.

Not all of the statistics of Asian Americans paint a rosy picture. This is not to diminish the accomplishments of Asian Americans, but it is important to understand that statistics can be used selectively. By only citing the statistics where Asians do well, we miss the bigger picture. One of the biggest problems with how Asians are viewed is the tendency to lump all Asian ethnic groups together. When groups are subdivided a more complex portrait of Asian Americans emerges.

Asian Americans and Poverty

It may surprise many model minority proponents to know that Asian Americans have higher poverty rates than whites. Census poverty statistics for 2000 indicate that 9% of whites live in poverty, 24% of blacks live in poverty, 11% of native born (NB) Asian Americans live in poverty, and 13% of foreign born (FB) Asians live in poverty¹. The poverty rate for various sub-groups within the category Asian also varies. For example, Filipinos have lower poverty rates among both the native born (7%) and the foreign born (6%). Japanese Americans (NB=5%, FB=16%) have lower poverty rates than whites if the are native born and higher if they are foreign born. How do other groups fair:

1. Chinese (NB=11, FB=14%)
2. Koreans (NB=12%, FB=15%)
3. Asian Indians (NB=10%, FB=10%)
4. Vietnamese (NB=18%, FB=15%)

In their analysis Sakamoto and Xie (2006) create a category “Other Asians” which includes all groups not mentioned above such as Hmong, Laotian, Cambodians, Indonesians, and some others. Collectively, these groups have very high poverty rates NB=26% and FB=22%, which puts their poverty rates at the same level as African Americans. So the overall lesson here is that poverty is slightly higher for Asians than it is for whites, and poverty levels vary dramatically among Asian subgroups.

Asian Americans and High School Completion

While Asian Americans as a collective are overrepresented among the highly educated, many are also overrepresented in among those who do not complete high school. In 2000 87% of whites and 77% of blacks in the 25-64 year old range had completed high school. For Asians, however, the numbers are complex. Among the native born the overall number is 93% and among the foreign born it is 82% (Sakamoto and Xie 2006). Native born Asians tend to do better than whites and foreign born Asians tend to do worse. Once again there is great variation among the various Asian subgroups that follows a somewhat similar pattern to the one above–Japanese, Filipinos, Indians, and Koreans do relatively well (They are all 89% or higher for both foreign and native born.). Chinese (NB=96%, FB=80%) are in the middle, and Vietnamese (NB=74% and FB=65%) and “other” Asians (NB=81, FB=67%) do poorly.

Conclusion

I have not taken the time to examine labor force statistics or higher education statistics in this particular post, but they do have some some similar patterns. I think it is important to understand the complexities of the experiences of Asian Americans outside the model minority stereotype, while many Asians are doing fairly well economically, thanks to immigration policies that recruited highly skilled workers from the east. Others are not doing so well. Several Asian subgroups like Hmong, Laotians, or Vietnamese consistently have poverty and drop out rates that are on par with or higher than African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. These groups often came as refugees rather than skilled workers. Moreover, the poverty rates tend to be higher than whites for most Asian subgroups. There are no doubt an Asian American working class and an underclass, which we very rarely hear about. (This post will also connect with the second immigration series post.)

This is part of the reason I argued for affirmative action in higher education for Asian Americans. Beyond the fact that I think schools should promote diversity, I also think a good case can be made that many Asian American subgroups are underrepresented in higher education.

1. Sakamoto, Arthur and Yu Xie. 2006. “The Socioeconomic Attainments of Asian Americans.” PP 54-67 in Pyong Min Gap (ed.) Asian Americans: Contemporary Trends and Issues, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. (back)

This past Thursday, Maia blogged about the labor struggle in Houston. It’s still tentative, but right now things look good:

What a difference a day makes! We have reached a tentative agreement for a 3 year contract for janitors.

Wages: $1.15 increase the first year, $1.00 the second year, and $.50 the third year.

Health Care: The third year is when single payer health insurance will kick in and janitors will pay $20 per month into that plan. It is a plan designed and managed by SEIU and we are hoping to get all of our members nationwide on this plan.

Vacation: Two weeks paid vacation per year

Holidays: 6 paid Holidays

Hours: 1st year everyone must work a minimum of 4 hours a day, 2nd year everyone must work a minimum of 5 hours per day, 3rd year everyone must work a minimum of 6 hours per day.

Protection: We have a grievance procedure in place. We have protection for all of the striking workers to get their jobs back with no discipline, We have a disciplinary proceedure in place so that no one can be illegally fired for no reason any more.

Curtsy: Ezra.

The New Zealand government has sent troops to Tonga to prop up the Monarchy, and help squash pro-democracy protests. Agitation against the current situation in Tonga has been growing, there was a huge public service strike last year, and the pro-democracy movement is getting bigger and more organised. The monarchy control the economy of Tonga as well as its political life, the royal family own many of the companies that control essential industries.

The Tongan parliament planned to stop sitting for the year without debating proposals for reform, so they would have to wait until next year. There were huge protests against this and they were ignored. As people realised that they were being ignored pro-democracy supporters started destroying the property of the government and the royal family. The government has declared martial law, and Australia and New Zealand have sent troops to Tonga to support the current government.

I don’t know enough about the situation right this second to make informed comment, but I wanted to make it clear that I support the pro-democracy movement in Tonga, and the riots doesn’t change that at all.

The Sunday Star Times has a really good article:

Dr Sitiveni Halapua, co-author of an official report on political change in the kingdom, warned in January that the kingdom was slipping into violence. In Auckland yesterday he told the Sunday Star-Times “very serious problems lie ahead”, and called for Prime Minister Fred Sevele to stand down.

A joint contingent of New Zealand and Australian troops flew into Tonga yesterday at Sevele’s request. It includes 62 New Zealand Defence Force personnel plus police and other government staff.

Halapua said Tonga was proud of never having been colonised, and that Sevele, who is royally appointed, had made a serious mistake by inviting foreign forces in.

“That says a lot about him and his government. He knows very well that people don’t have confidence in him any more. In other different governments, they would step down,” he said.

“If Australia and New Zealand police and army are there to prop up the government, they are propping the government up against everybody else. It’s not just the pro-democracy (protesters).”

Halapua said there was a belief among some some people in Nuku’alofa that the New Zealand and Australian forces were coming “to make people afraid and to support the government”.

New Zealand indymedia is also doing really good coverage - I’d recommend their latest feature - which also links to some important back story.

More than three weeks ago now, cleaners in Houston went on strike, in an attempt to get the big cleaning companies to negotiate a union contract. Most cleaners are paid on, or close to, minimum wage and don’t get sick-leave, paid vacations or health insurance.

you should Read these women’s stories

I’m going to quote from Idalverta Vega, not because her story is the most dramatic, but because it is one of the least.

“The children had Medicaid but they no longer qualify,” says Idalverta. She was told her husband’s income is too high, but says the money they make is not enough to pay for a health plan. “When my kids get sick I don’t take them to the doctor and I can’t take them to a dentist either. According to them we’re making ‘too much’ but it’s not true, the money is not enough–we can barely make ends meet.”

Idalverta and her husband are doing their best to make sure their kids have a brighter future. “All of my kids go to school. Sometimes they’re missing some supplies but we do what we can to provide them with what they need.”

Idalverta’s 18-year-old son would like to go to university, but the family can’t afford to send him. Like many other young men and women growing up in working-class neighborhoods, he felt he had few options. “He signed up for the Army so that he can study. But they’re saying he’ll be shipped off to war–it makes me very nervous,” she says.

Winning a good contract would mean many things for Idalverta’s family. “We’d be able to live better. Someday we’d be able to buy a house. That’s one of my dreams-being able to own our home.”

“Everyone comes to this country searching for a better life. Many never make it — they die on the way in the desert,” says Idalverta. “We will go out and march again if it’s necessary. We have to continue the struggle.”

This is a vital feminist struggle, and the cleaners of Houston need your support. Houston Jantiors page has suggestions about how to Get Involved and Labourstart has an e-mail campaign.

Ezra Klein asks, “What single piece of legislation would you most like to see enacted?”

Ezra’s answer:

I’ll go with Employee Free Choice Act, a bill restoring the right to organize, which is current de facto absent from the polity. It institutes card check, provides new avenues for mediation, and heavily stiffens penalties for illegal unionbusting. As I think all progressive legislation flows from a vibrant union movement, such a bill looks like the first step towards a restoration of progressive governance from which my other policy priorities could be achieved.

Bradford Plumer agrees with Ezra, and expands the argument a bit.

I’m tempted to agree with Brad and Ezra, because Ezra’s right — without a vital union movement, it’s hard to see how any progressive movement can be sustained in the US. I’d also be tempted to advocate a complete overhaul of the US’s electoral system — starting with the elimination of first-past-the-post elections, but also campaign finance — but I’m not sure that can properly be called a “single piece of legislation,” because it would probably require at least two Constitutional amendments.

However, if I had to choose one and only one, I think that I’d instead endorse directing billions of dollars a year towards non-carbon-based energy - meaning wind power, solar power, and nuclear power. It is plausible that we’re very near a point of no return on global warming - we may have only fifteen years to reverse course. There is no single issue that’s more urgent. And I’m not sure that unions — which, understandably, might not be interested in stopping global warming if it means the loss of some current manufacturing jobs¹ — are always going to be in the right place on this issue.

So that’s me. You?

[Crossposted at Creative Destruction. If your comments aren’t being approved here, try there.]

1. I think that in the long run, investments in sustainable technology will create jobs. But unions are more concerned with existing jobs than with potential future jobs. (back)

First of all, please don’t comment on this post by saying you don’t the title of one of my favorite TV shows, “Ugly Betty,” because lead actress America Ferrera is actually quite dishy. Yes, she is - in fact, it would be hard to name a sexier actress on TV nowadays - but that objection misses the point, and it’s getting old.

A review in Salon by Rebecca Traister gets it:

But those who have taken the title’s bait and examined only the aesthetics of the show have missed the point. “Ugly Betty” is not about being unattractive, or at least not simply about being unattractive. It’s about class. And ethnicity. Its smart take on cultural and economic differences, enmeshed as it is in a fresh, funny package, makes it positively subversive television.

Betty Suarez is the 22-year-old daughter of Mexican immigrants. She lives in Queens with her widowed father; older sister, Hilda; and Hilda’s son, Justin, a fashion-obsessed preteen. But when we first meet Betty, it’s in the marble lobby of Meade Publications, where she’s awaiting a job interview with an H.R.-bot who needs only an eyeful of her metal-mouthed grin to shut the door in her face. […]

“Ugly Betty” is the American adaptation of the Colombian telenovela “Yo soy Betty, la fea,” which began airing in 1999 and has since been translated and remade around the world. […] “Betty la fea’s” creator, Fernando Gaitán, who is also a producer on “Ugly Betty,” told the Guardian in 2000 that telenovelas “are all about the class struggle. They’re made for poor people in countries where it’s hard to get ahead in life. Usually the characters succeed through love. In mine, they get ahead through work.” The U.S. version of “Betty” offers a bracing look at how those class struggles are further fraught by cultural diversity and intolerance, thanks to “Betty” producers Salma Hayek and Silvio Horta, who insisted that it retain a Latina heroine.

The scorn with which Betty is treated at Mode has less to do with her looks than with her place of economic and cultural origin. “Are you DE-LIV-ER-ING something?” enunciates receptionist Amanda when Betty first arrives, assuming that a brown girl in a bad outfit could only be a messenger. “Sale at the 99-cent store?” she later remarks when Betty misses a party. When Daniel frets because Betty has taken the “book” home to Queens, Amanda purrs, “You’re going to get it back and there’s going to be chimichurri sauce all over it.”

“Ugly Betty” is an unabashed soap opera, with all the silliness and melodrama you’d expect. It’s just that this soap is situated in a world in which classism and racism are subtexts lurking behind almost everything.

Although the Salon article doesn’t comment on it, sexism also lurks in “Betty’s” reality. Betty’s boss is a good guy within the show’s plot, but his constant sleeping around - and his objectification of and indifference to his many sexual partners - is treated harshly by the show’s writers. Betty’s boyfriend, Walter, is cute (in a totally non-mainstream-media way) and sweet, but he’s also petulant and whiny whenever Betty makes her career a higher priority than being Walter’s always-on-call girlfriend.

Still, the show’s critique of sexism is soft compared to its razor-sharp depiction of classism and racism. From the Salon review:

But the show again escapes the too-good-to-be-true trap by making clear that Betty is not above wanting to belong or look good. In Episode 3, at Hilda’s urging, she undergoes a makeover. “You want to fit in with these people? They’re not going to change. You have to,” says her sister. “The hair, the face, the clothes. You gotta look it to be it.” She whisks Betty to Choli, a local beauty technician who works her magic on Betty’s hair, nails and wardrobe.

Betty’s transformation is dramatic. With hair piled on top of her head, an outfit of jangling jewelry, a tight skirt and heels, Betty becomes a goddess to the men who catcall her (”She’s hot!” exclaims one) as she walks to the subway the next morning. But the look doesn’t translate in Manhattan, and it provokes the most scathing round of jeering she’s yet received. The other assistants photograph her as if she’s a zoo animal, and Wilhelmina scoffs, “It looks like Queens threw up.” The message is clear: Queens pretty is not Manhattan pretty. Poor pretty is not rich pretty. Latina pretty is not white pretty.

Switching into total fanboy mode, one more thing I love about “Ugly Betty” is that as the show has gone on, the villains who mock and torment Betty have become increasingly humanized. My favorite such moment so far is a brief encounter between Betty’s nephew Justin, an effeminate 13-year-old who loves fashion, and Mark, a flamboyantly gay co-worker who constantly mocks Betty (on Halloween, he comes to the office dressed in cruel Betty drag). After Justin admits that his schoolmates don’t like him very much, Mark sympathetically advises Justin to “Be who you are; wear what you want. Just learn to run real fast.”

Sometimes, “Ugly Betty’s” fish-out-of-water story seems like a metaphor for “Ugly Betty” itself. Like its title character, “Ugly Betty” is optimistic, sincere, and smart, which because of these traits sticks out among the cynical, mean-spirited, and clueless TV shows / co-workers surrounding it. I’m an addict.

(Hat tip: Racialicious).

I saw this study a few week ago, and at the time I didn’t have much time to write about it. The study has important ramifications for women’s rights and the prevention of sexually transmitted infections.

The general findings indicate that at the national level (not the individual level) westerners have more sex partners and fewer sexually transmitted infections (STIs). This challenges some common myths about HIV in Africa, and it seems to me that this study furthers the case for condom distribution and comprehensive health care. Here is a quote:

“We did have some of our preconceptions dashed,” she said, explaining that they had expected to find the most promiscuous behaviour in regions like Africa, with the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases.

That was not the case, as multiple partners were more commonly reported in industrialised countries where the incidence of such diseases were relatively low.

“There’s a misperception that there’s a great deal of promiscuity in Africa, which is one of the potential reasons for HIV/AIDS spreading so rapidly,” said Dr Paul van Look, director of Reproductive Health and Research at the World Health Organisation, who was unconnected to the study. “But that view is not supported by the evidence.”

Professor Wellings said that implied promiscuity may be less important than factors such as poverty and education – especially in the encouragement of condom use – in the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.

The study’s findings don’t bode well for people who advocate marriage as a way to lower STI transmission, and they show a connection between the status of women and the spread of STIs. Specifically they found that gender equality seems to be correlated with fewer STIs.

Researchers also found that married people have the most sex, and that there has been a gradual shift to delay marriage. While that has meant a predictable rise in the rates of premarital sex, experts believe this doesn’t necessarily translate into more dangerous behaviour.

In some instances, married women may be at more risk than single women.

“A single woman is more able to negotiate safe sex in certain circumstances than a married woman,” said Dr van Look, who pointed out that married women in Africa and Asia are often threatened by unfaithful husbands who frequent prostitutes.

There is much greater equality between women and men with regard to the number of sexual partners in rich countries than in poor countries, the study found.

For example, men and women in Australia, Britain, France and the US tend to have an almost equal number of sexual partners.

By contrast, in Cameroon, Haiti and Kenya, men tend to have multiple partners while women tend only to have one.

So my sense is the more sexual freedom for women, the better the economic and education opportunities for everyone, and the better the health education system, the fewer STIs are spread.

The Labour government is obviously committed to doing something about the wage-gap between men and women - they’ve released a study. This study compares the wages in male dominated industries, such a building and painting, with wages in female dominated areas, like hairdressers and caregivers. This research does show that wages in male dominated industries and female dominated industries tend to have similar start rates, but after five years workers in male dominated industries earn over 45% more. However, the conclusion the Minister of Women’s Affairs comes to is ridiculous:

I have a theory that if women knew more about the potential earnings and career opportunities in some of these trades more traditionally occupied by men, their choices might be different. We quickly realised however that there was a dearth of information about what young people earn in different trades and occupations. So the Ministry commissioned a piece of research on ‘Wages & Training Costs in Male- and Female-dominated Trade-related Occupations’ and I thought this was a good opportunity to release the findings, because I think they are relevant to any young woman making decisions about her career, something that has always been a priority for the YWCA.

If only women had realised there was a wage gape earlier sooner then we would have solved it long ago!

There are some structural reasons women don’t go into male dominated industries. It’s not like girls and boys emerge fully formed at 18 to decide what to do with their life. My all-girls school did not have a wood-work department or a metal-work department - there was nowhere within the school was there anywhere where you could learn these sorts of skills.

Being the only women in a male dominated situation is often an extremely unpleasant experience. One of the way men have continued to dominate the male dominated trades is to act in a hostile way to any woman who enters. I haven’t personally organised in male dominated trades, but I know women who have, and women who know the female apprentices. Not everyone has a hard time of it - not every male-dominated worksite has a misogynist atmosphere, but enough do that it’s not easy - and for many women the risk may not be worth the pay-out.

Knowledge is the last problem that needs to be solved. But even asking the question “why aren’t more women painters?” ignores the more pressing question “why aren’t caregivers paid more?” If we’re going to look at the wage-gap we have to look at the low-wages.

For the government to tut-tut about women only being 8% of the modern apprentices is hypocritical. When they set up the modern apprenticeship scheme it didn’t cover hair-dressing, or any other traditional female trade. They could have included female trades in modern apprenticeships, but they didn’t - that’s the reason this scheme is male dominated.

But the bit about that speech that most enraged me is that they studied caregivers. The government is probably the funder for at least 80% of caregivers employed in this country. If they wanted to do something about the wage gap, then getting pay-equity for caregivers would actually be a really good start.

The wage-gap is complicated, I’m aware that I’ve only covered a few of the many ways in which sexism, misogyny, and capitalism work together to screw women over, but I’m fairly sure I’ve got a better grasp on it than Lianne Dalziel does.

Note on comments: I’d like the comments to focus on the reasons we don’t have pay-equity and how to achieve it.

The minimum wage was a winner in last night’s election. In the six states (Montana, Ohio, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Nevada) with ballot measures to raise the minimum wage, the ballot measures passed. Even better, all six laws are indexed to inflation - meaning that the MW in those states will automatically go up over time, rather than having to be fought for again and again.

Here’s a summary table, from this Economic Policy Institute page:

If trends in these six states mirror national trends, then about 60% of the 1.5 million workers getting the raise will be women. A disproportionate number of the 1.5 million will be people of color.

Interestingly, this is the first time in US history that the majority of states have state-level minimum wages which are higher than the Federal minimum wage. That’s a reflection of how much the Federal government has allowed the real value of the minimum wage to drop, forcing the states to step in:

(Curtsy: Angry Bear).

Plus, new overlord Pelosi has said that raising the minimum wage will be at the top of the Democrats’ national agenda (one of a bunch of items at the top, admittedly). Fresh from a electorial beating, Republicans won’t have much stomach for fighting a minimum wage increase - polls show that raising the minimum wage is popular with voters of both parties.

A couple of links:

Dean Baker points out that when restaurant owners say that raising the minimum wage would hurt them, and anyway waiters may a ton in tips, the numbers don’t add up.

This Economic Policy Institute brief from 1999 — “The Minimum Wage Increase: A Working Woman’s Issue” — is, sadly, still current today. EPI has a bunch of good articles about the minimum wage, by the way.

[Crossposted at Creative Destruction. If your comments aren’t being approved here, try there.]

I was travelling last week, and I didn’t get to write about a whole lot of stuff I meant to write about. So I thought I’d put together my first link post. It’s not a link farm, because I don’t have that many links. Think of it more as a link lifestyle block, without the hard work of an actual farm link lifetyle blocks are in privileged areas (no this metahpor doesn’t work).

First of all you should just go and read brownfemipower. She has written some amazing stuff recently, and I want to quote whole posts. But I will just content myself with two snippets, from a poem in there somewhere

a thing i’ve noticed as i’ve been shifting through pictures of oaxaca and palestine is how many women bring their purses to rallies and protests. and not just a little purse they can hook over their head and forget about, but huge ass mama purses that you know the kitchen sink is in.

and every time i see a picture of some fierce mama facing down a tank or running away from bullets, clinging to her big ass purse, i want to cry. what is in that purse? did she pack extra tylenol in case somebody needed it? are their baby wipes (cuz they come in so handy, even when the kids aren’t around!)? is there a couple of extra bottles of water (in case one of the children lost their’s?)?

Also from Why feminists must stand against government repression in Mexico:

All feminists MUST pay attention to what is happening in Oaxaca. Indigenous women are leading the way to female liberation–which means that just as their demands for access to birth control carry the same weight in their actions that their demands for access to community radio do, they are also taking the brunt of the violence liberation often brings. But thier entire community recognizes that they will never have liberation (aka community health, freedom from poverty, clean air to breath, workers rights, sexual freedom, control of the land etc) as long as the nation/state has ultimate control over what happens to their bodies and souls–or as long as violence against women is acceptable in any form.

To some good news

PARIS, Nov 3, 2006 (AFP) - Unions at Paris’s main airport said Friday they plan to call for a strike over the withdrawal of security badges from scores of airport workers, mostly Muslims, denouncing it as discrimination.

This is an awesome display of solidarity from France’s airport. All credit to the workers involved, but there’s also a lot to be said for the constitutional right to strike.

While I was away Sophia from At the Bay wrote an excellent post about an article written by Anjum Rahman, a member of the Islamic Women’s Council. The article isn’t on-line so I’m quoting Sophia’s transcript:

Yet that seems to me to be a circular argument. It again relates sexual violence to women’s behaviour (ie their clothing - too much or too little) rather than men’s behaviour. It’s the same as the argument that covering up allows men to beat women without the results being visible. If that were the case, then women who dress scantily would suffer much less from domestic violence.

[…] To put hijab (covering) in the context of rape prevention is to negate its power. In reality, that is why the sheik’s comments are so destructive and harmful, and why they make me so angry. For me, hijab is a position of strength, but he turns it into a position of weakness and oppression. For me, it’s a personal statement of my relationship with God, but he makes it a statement about my relationship to man.”

BitchPhD has an excellent post about feminism, the division of labour, and a whole bunch of other things:

The second story is smaller, but bigger. In my Spanish class, there was an older woman who was returning to school. Over the course of the semester, we found things out about her: her husband was a doctor and she’d been a homemaker. He’d agreed to “let” her go to college as long as–she emphasized this–nothing changed at home. She was to continue to do all the housework and all the childcare (if memory serves, they had two school-age children) and could take classes and do homework in her spare time. I thought, of course, that this was fucking horrible, and although it was clear to me that her husband was a jerk, there was part of me that wondered why the hell she’d married him, and why she stayed married to him.

I don’t remember what prompted her outburst one afternoon, but I do remember her saying, passionately and seemingly on the verge of tears, “you young girls look at me and you all think you can have it all. You think that you won’t end up like me. But I’m telling you, you can’t have it all. Just wait. You’ll get married, and you’ll think you’re marrying someone who loves and supports and respects you, but that’s not how it works. I know you look at me and you think I’m crazy, or you feel sorry for me, but I’m telling you: look at me and realize that this is where you’ll be in twenty years.”

My Mum has said that she didn’t understand feminism until she had me (see I have magic powers). Although I have no children myself my feminist analysis is centred around reproduction, as much as it’s centred aroun