Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts

Sunday, 3 March 2019

All hail the gentle revolution! #MeToo

This one is for you Anon.

Lets start this post by getting the elephant in the room out of the way by making it clear that I am a man.

Shock and horror I know but being a man does not mean that I have not supported the #MeToo moment, in NZ or worldwide, but have in fact been down with it.

Also, in the past some on this blog have called me a "sexist" for comments made about Paula Bennett but the extent of their arguments extended to calling me a "sexist' and that was it, no actual evidence or discussion but just labeling me as if that was enough to do.

And I raise this here because being critical of a person (a single individual), be it their dress sense, their politics, their lifestyle, religion or whatever does not mean that its appropriate to attach some sort of "ism" or "ist" based label as a badge denoting that that view can be expanded to cover an entire sex, race or species when its just comments about a single individual.

Whats that got to do with the price of milk in Mongolia? Well a lot actually.

See, the #MeToo movement is part of the longer running struggle for women's rights and equality  as well as a larger shift in the ability of the public to discuss things like sexual abuse without feeling shame or being pressured into silence and the very visible outpouring in the wake of #MeToo in NZ has shown that behind the wall of silence the pressure had been building up because for all the legal enactment of women's rights (and for LGBTQ community as well) the social follow through has been slow in coming.

Its been nearly 50 years since the Stonewall riots in New York in 1969, which are generally considered as the start of the modern fight for Gay rights and over 120 years since women got the right to vote in NZ yet its been clear that despite having had several female PMs, many female MPs and business leaders (and its great to see criminal and traitor Jenny Shipley breaking though the glass ceiling by showing that women can be held just as liable as men for extremely dodgy criminal dealings) and so on and so forth men still seem to be ruling the roost, or more correctly the framework is in place for "equality between the sexes and genders" but the culture has not shifted fully and hence why #MeToo flared up in late 2016 and became a widespread rallying call to shift that culture.

And I call this the "gentle revolution" not in reference to the female sex or anything like that but because as revolutions go its been completely bloodless (well almost bloodless).

Most revolutions will see at least someone put up against the wall and shot (usually literally but occasionally metaphorically) but this revolution has occurred without any of that happening.

Yes some careers have been flushed down the gurgler but in an age where the Catholic Church now appears to be organized and run purely for the benefit of pedophiles and  sexual abuse is still a major issue it was clear that having a law was not enough and that some actual change at ground level (read an actual revolution) was still needed.

And its a revolution that was predicted almost 50 years ago by Germaine Greer in the Female Eunch and hoped for Simone De Beauviour 70 years ago in her book The Second Sex (and with Naomi's Woolf's The Beauty Myth in the 90s) but sadly not able to metamorph at the time but finally kicked off with the #MeToo movement and the ongoing social agitation of what has been called Third Wave Feminism.

However that does not mean that I am down with all that has gone on in this "revolution" and I maintain a stance similar to that of Camille Paglia (in her book Sexual Personae and her general thought and theory) in that just because you are a feminist does not put you above criticism, give you an invincible moral shield (based on your sex/gender) which protects you from all criticism or that sex and sexuality is not just an abstract social construct but something also rooted in biology and as such there are some immutable aspects of sex and sexuality which cant just be ignored or overridden by blind ideology and group chanting.

One of the m ore valid criticism often leveled at feminism is that it seems to have been enacted and empowered mostly for and by rich white women (and I get the irony of the four feminist authors cited above being such) and that the spoils of the revolution have not been shared equally which is why the legal enactments of the past have not been matched by the broader cultural shift.

The counter argument is that the current beneficiaries of Feminism (the rich, the white and academic) have merely been the revolutionary vanguard and that such benefits will "trickle down" in time to the rest as such things just take time, so stop moaning about it.

I'm not so convinced about that as that argument has been used before in the often blind and monolithic theories about class, used by socialists (also often rich, white and academic, as well as male), which always just seem to say that they are leading the debate and only they have the knowledge and foresight to lead people to the glorious revolutionary utopia that awaits just around the corner if only they would buy a copy of their book.

And we have seen that in NZ with the most prominent aspect of #MeToo being in the legal profession. Strange that this bastion of wealthy, well paid individuals should be the only area of NZ where sexism is so rampant that they had to organize protests while other heavily female professions* (such as teachers and midwives) are striking for better pay and working conditions.

Which is not to say that there is not sexism in those professions (I used to be a teacher) but that the priority for the profession is elsewhere and while sexism does exist I have seen it go both ways, (because women can be sexist too) but fixing the problem of overwork and underpay takes precedence.

But without the theory there is no practice, at least no with any direction, so the need for the above female theorists is there but it does expose the oft uncomfortable dynamic at work.

Still it took a twitter hashtag to kick off what I think has been the best thing for sexual relationships since sliced bread in that without the cultural shift all that legislation and law was going to be nothing more than words with a few elite individuals benefiting while change elsewhere was not enacted.

And the revolution has benefited not just women but men and others also as its part of a larger culture of openness and acknowledgement (via things like Alison Mau's #MeTooNZ or Mike King and John Kirwin talking about mental health) which is all part of shining the light of openness and transparency on what were once dark areas of humanity which dare not be discussed.

Have I liked all of whats gone on, as I said before, no I have not but you cant make an omelette without breaking some eggs and you cant have a sexual revolution without some revolutionary justice being dished up piping hot because revolutions occur exactly because the normal means of justice and law have broken down so once the new norms are bedded in they will get drawn into normal legal practice.

For now expect more peoples tribunals via public accusation and more than a tinge of unsubstantiated hot scandal because all law is based on the authority of violence and while the threat of violence being waved about here is less physical than emotional and reputational its still going to be the violence of having ones life and career exploded in the media and social media for all and sundry to see.

Still there are some fish hooks with this because there is a reason why we have courts, juries and the idea of innocent until proven guilty and the frenzy of accusation around #MeToo is not always been used for altruistic purposes and without actual evidence there is always going to be ambiguity, doubt and a mob mentality.

Which leads us to identity politics and victim culture which has ridden in on the coat tails of #MeToo and feminism and is in part a reflection of the break down of the institution of the nation state and traditional politics in the age of globalization , as well a christian based western culture (for both the good and bad its done), and introduced micro societies and techno savagery (both my own terms) as a world where social relations are atomized into groupings of race, sex, gender, identity and a host of classifications like games, comics, music and subculture and where people have access to advanced technology like digital media, the internet and mobile (and always on) devices yet do not have the slightest idea of how this technology actually works (in essence making it the same as magic).

And that's probably where I draw the line because while #MeToo promises to level the playing field identity politics and victim culture intend to chop it up, fence it off and create a space that fosters permanent revolution and not an inclusive society of tolerance and understanding but one where revenge and utu are part of the plan, if not all of the plan!

An example of this is the breakdown of the Auckland Pride Parade over issues which, on the face of it, looked like a shift away from wanting to be part of the community to wanting to have their own community (enacting their own micro-community) and where extremism is an acceptable behavior set and justified no matter what**.

And I get the arguments made by those that voted to end the parade in its current form but was it worth destroying the whole parade over Police involvement, yet only to be subject to the irony or having a march protected by Police and where the ideological blinkers go on to the reality that yes fighting for tolerance is a good thing but that when you fight intolerance with MORE intolerance you don't get a better situation, you boil it down to a numbers game and in the end they have more numbers than you!

But again, in the main, #MeToo has been a good thing and as with all omelettes some eggs etc etc etc.

New Zealand, overal is rather tolerant society, but with some rather dark streaks running through it to be sure but the push for change in the underlying culture brought about by #MeToo has be for the most a good thing but that remains to be qualified by the new, and better, society that will emerge as the cultural shift is enacted.

Also more than a few of those riding on the coattails of #MeToo have the stench of those who have never lived outside of their own cultural context (ie never lived overseas or in a country which is a lot less tolerant of things like gender roles, sexuality and such) and as such have more in common with those feminists in the ivory tower than those women outside.

If #MeToo is the harbinger of nothing more than reversing the sexual polarity (ie women on top***) then its doomed to fail if not be beaten back by a counter revolution which is currently just the beleaguered and minor extremism found in the rearguard of toxic masculinity but if that label is hijacked to be used as the new label for all men and masculinity by extremists with revenge on their agenda then expect more than just men to oppose its imposition, expect society as a whole.

The dynamic here is simple, if you create a moral economy of "being offended" and "cultural repression" as your currency then expect those positions to be used by everyone and anyone as a moral position based on "being offended" has little substance and having an Actus Rea without the Mens Rea is a subjective hell from which few can escape because, like any good meme, you cant control it once its been released into the wilds of public discourse or general culture.

But, on the other hand, if #MeToo is a long over due cleansing of the cultural pallet without the the decent into messy but necessary revolutionary anarchy being enshrined as the new and "permanent" revolution for the sake of revolution then the long hoped for equality among the sexes, and yes genders, can and will be achieved, in a future where its everyone wears those unisex jump suits like in all 70s Science fiction TV shows.

But maybe that's just me (the jumpsuit thing I mean).

As a male I am in support of #MeToo but that does not mean I am in support of scrapping the good things about being a male because there are masculine values which are good and I reject the idea that opening a door for a women is just the gateway to a whole swamp of toxic masculinity, especially when there are still plenty of women that both like and expect such behavior and when civility and kindness are still common virtues.

However, by saying that the general argument runs that I am showing "unconscious bias" and am in fact harboring all sorts of bias based on my actions, behaviors and values. Its a tempting and delicious argument to be sure, and it does exists but using it as some sort of test to benchmark how tolerant one is, is fraught with more problems than solutions.

Still that has not stopped people using it but more than some of those people are using it as a trojan horse stuffed full to bursting point with their own agendas rather than using it to address the actual issues. And while not an indicative example, I once had a "debate" (I put the little squiggles around it because politeness is a virtue) with an ardent feminist who was basing her position on the point that science and rationality were male constructs and therefore served no purpose for women or general society. Not a norm I know but a fair indicator of how far out some of the positions can get.

Nor am I against the idea of women as leaders or being in charge, If I take issue with our current female PM its not due to her sex but her politics and her behavior etc, and the same goes for my disdain for MPs like Paula Bennett.

As an individual I was raised by my Grandmother until the age of five (who was a stern but fair women who gave me much of my values and ideals and who also taught me to read before I started school) and who I have an un-payable debt to for looking after me when no one else would.

I have also had female bosses and leaders/managers and some were good and some were not but my opinion of them never had to do with the fact that they had ovaries but whether they were actually competent or not at their jobs which might just be more of that "male orientated construct" talking but who if so #myrealityisstrongerthanyours.

In some situations I prefer male company to that of female and sometimes vice versa but I think that the generational shift is further along than people think as I found out a few years back when my downstairs neighbors got a new female flatmate who was as much a geek as I was, had the same interest in comics and video games as I and showed that the shift of these areas from being once male only preserves was shifting so that ones gender no longer mattered and what did matter was the fact that there was a common language and interest. And I was down with that*4.

But, and there is always a "but" with me, that does not prevent me from saying that I think all plans the revolution are making are the best (back to Camille Paglia's position) or that I will go along with the current vogue for cheap ideology, chanting slogans or the now fashionable rush to be offended by anything which does not toe the increasingly strict sexual/gender/whatever party line espoused by extremists who get off on nothing more than revolution as a moral crutch for their intellectual, social and emotional failings (ie joker-politics or just wanting to watch the world burn).

Revolutions (like jihads and fashion trends) have their own energy, and like fires tend to only burn out when they run out of fuel, sometimes to be sparked back into life again but eventually ceasing and leaving behind the ashes from which something new (and hopefully beautiful) may grow.

So all hail the Gentle Revolution, long may it last.



*-because female lawyers are the majority in NZ now.
**-because such an argument has been made before that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice etc etc and look how well that always works out
***-Yes, pun fully intended
*4-What I was not down with was that she could beat me at every and any drinking game ever conceived and lead to one particularly bad night where I got thrashed at cards, drank an entire bottle of cheap Irish Cream, half a dozen beers and one bottle of wine and passed out dead drunk on my kitchen floor with my feet resting in the open, and now rapidly warming refrigerator.

Tuesday, 12 June 2018

You don’t care about the Northcote by-election so let’s review these books instead


I spent my weekend NOT thinking about the Northcote by-election and instead caught up with friends for a birthday in Wellington along with some time for coffee (it is Wellington), poker and record shopping. I was definitely not trying to think about Northcote, the inhabitants of Northcote or any pending elections that Northcote might be having.

So instead of talking about the Northcote by-election lets instead review some books.

First up is The Road to Ruin: How Tony Abbot and Peta Credlin destroyed their own government by journalist Nikki Saava. It’s the kind of book which makes great reading if you like detail heavy, blow by blow accounts of semi scandalous political events; which is fortunate because I do.

Ever wondered how Tony Abbot helped keep up the current tradition of revolving door Ozzie Prime Ministers when in decades past Australian politics operated at the same level of stability as New Zealand?

Or how Abbot, as opposition leader, criticised the circus clown level of behaviour during the Rudd, Gillard, Rudd governments but then ended up to mangling it infinitely worse when he got into the hot seat?

So if you have ever looked across the Tasman at our Ozzie cousins and the shambolic mess politics in that country* has become then this book is for you.

Saava, a long term political correspondent in Australia, has all the dirt and details, puts names to faces and paints a vivid picture of a PM (Abbot) so dependent on his Chief of Staff (Credlin) that when he was unable to rein Credlin’s increasingly brutal and bullying behaviours inside his office it spilled over into the party and eventually Australian politics in general.

And as I read this woeful tale I did start to get the feeling that Saava was taking catty to a whole new level with her descriptions of Credlin, who she paints as an emotionally unhinged control freak, who was possibly having an affair with Abbot (which in the age of the Barnaby Joyce scandal does not sound so mind-blowing), that she overwhelmed Abbot and in the process ended up nearly running the country.

Meanwhile Abbot is depicted as a good guy with his heart in the right place who just seemed to melt under Credlin’s insane levels of dictatorial frenzy into a namby-pamby mummy’s boy who would meekly follow Credlin out of the office when she was having one of her numerous “emotional tantrums” with office staff to comfort her before coming back in and making staff apologise to her for their behaviour! Imagine Jacinda Ardern being bossed around by Labours top advisor Heather Simpson** like that.

That aside, what’s fascinating about all of this is that it played out right at the highest level of power in Australian politics and in such a manner that it completely destroyed Tony Abbot’s political career in the process.

Before he became PM Abbot was Leader of the Liberal Party, ex Rhodes Scholar and all round conservative top prospect but once in office he fumbled the ball on almost every occasion it was passed to him.

Also, much like Bill English, Abbot was blinded by his religious beliefs in regards to same sex marriage and women (as evidenced in his evisceration by Julia Gillard in 2012) which in the end doomed his office and made his party seem like a bunch of intolerant religious bigots even more than they had before.

But, as some people who have reviewed the book have also noted, by the end, the tale seems more than a little one sided and bordering on either partisan propaganda or some sort of political hit piece by a jilted lover (which I am sure Saava is not but that is how it reads in places) where both the main parties (Abbot and Credlin) have not been given any right of reply (either directly or via the more usual “sources” close to them) and the continual barrage of gossipy details just turns the book into something akin to entries in some teenagers diary about the trials and tribulations of high school rather than an in depth analysis of Abbot and Credlin’s relationship and how that dynamic so effected Australian politics.

Finally it’s worth noting that such a book would not even exist in Aotearoa as mainstream political journalism in NZ is far too sycophantic to write such a thing. The closest NZ has ever gotten to such a book is either The Spin (written in the 90s by an anonymous source) or The Hollow Men by Nicki Harger (by a political outsider) so while sometimes over the top and hysterical in tone and portrayal The Road to Ruin makes for a gripping read of what brought down the Abbot Government and helped make Australian politics into the mess it has become.

Rating: three out of five on the John Howard scale

Other reviews of the book herehere and here but not this one.

Meanwhile in the Northcote by-election both Labour and National have been trying to claim victory (of sorts). National simply by having its candidate, Dan Bidos, win the actual vote but with Labour saying that it reduced the majority that Jonathan Coleman had previously had.

The reality is that the turnout for the election was low (by then turnouts for by-elections are always low), neither candidate had anything to really give (hence why both main parties ran faceless unknowns) and if the electorate is a bellwether for the rest of NZ (something I think is a crock of s**t but what do I know) then the mood of the nation could be summed up as “meh” because only 37% of the electorate voted and that means that Nationals “mandate” hinges on  18.5% of the “people”. Meh indeed!

But you still don't care so on to the next review.

The other book on review today is The New Zealand Project by Max Harris.

From the start this was a book in which I entirely agreed with its opening premise, that being that something is wrong with this country, and found much in sync in his depiction of the issues facing NZ (the usual list of environment, social, health etc) but when it came to propose solutions Harris falls into the beginners trap, as noted by Dimitri Orlov in his book The Five Stages of Collapse, of saying things like “unless we” or “we must” but without providing any rational or coherent motive to do so other than vague appeals to doing what is right (as oppose to what is Right - geddit?).

To be fair, it’s clear that Mr Harris is a bit of rising star in the somewhat limited academic world of NZ (although he has a long way to go before he becomes the next Jane Kelsey or Nicky Hager) and his writing style and argument construction has that clean, logical flow that the best academic authors have.

But a book that spends it bulk carefully cataloging the problems gnawing away at NZ and then can’t even make the intellectual money shot in the final chapter because his ideas for a fix boil down to a list of vague liberal prescriptions which often have only tenuous connections to the problems he has spent the bulk of the book building up leaving the increasingly concerned and motivated reader saying "thats it?".

In short no clear policy prescription (ala Kelsey) or coherent rational for change based on the events (Hager) which then leaves the book little more than disaster porn for angst ridden liberals.

Want to read chapter after chapter of the degradation of NZ in all its forms but with little payoff for all the buildup; then The New Zealand Project has you covered.

As the Spinoff’s review of the book clearly notes “Now that we have it all set down in one place, maybe the Left can stop talking about What Must Be Done and start thinking about How To Actually Do It” which was pretty much the same feeling I had by the time I had finished the book. 

Harris clearly has his heart in the right place and I more than agree with many of his assessments of the issue but (as other reviews of the book have noted) the issues have been well known for a long time and repeatedly pointing them out comes down to just another angry gob of spit in a river of discontent.

Where this book starts to muck things up is that after a great opening chapter which mostly manages to avoid sliding too far into ideological propaganda the rest of the book (like many economic tracts) assumes its audience is down with the programme and just goes hell for leather into preaching to the quior but instead of economic pseudo-science masquerading as cold hard real politic we get liberal pseudo-science masquerading as warm fuzzy feel good politics.

It’s not that there are no facts to back Harris’s arguments up, there are plenty, but in places it’s clear that there has been some selective picking of data or simply pulling on one thread of what is often a many threaded argument.

Max Harris is young and the idealistic tone of the book is unmistakable and very catchy (specially for older jaded idealists like myself) and Harris might mature with time, and some actual real life experience, to write a work that is little more than a Masters level series of essays on the issues at hand.

Thus when you are going to title your work The New Zealand Project and then cast it in a clearly liberal vein and without any practical meat on its conceptual bones then the book is just another title in a long line of books which serve more as intellectual safety blankets for distressed liberals than serious attempts at fixing the issues at hand.

However, this is a book which is worth reading because while its liberal tone might jar some more conservative readers it has the strength to discuss its topics honestly and in a way that allows for discussion*** so that people can use this book as a jumping off point for any particular issue that might interest them.

Also few books out there have ever clearly cataloged the issues that do face NZ in one place (something that the more focused Kelsey and others usually avoid because of the depth of argument each topic can convey) so for that alone it’s worth reading to be able to get a feel for the scope of the issues facing Godzone.

But, in the end, the killer problem for me was that while the book clearly identifies the economic reforms of the past 30 years as a major driver for the problems New Zealand faces today, and has a wide enough scope to explore the effects of these problems (and their interrelationships) in the bigger picture it fails (as noted at the start) to come up with any real solutions and can’t even bring itself to clearly put names to faces when assigning blame so that Harris is like a detective at the scene of a crime where he has carefully cataloged the victim and the murder weapon, noted the possible motives but has no real suspects on which to pin the crime on.

I liked the New Zealand Project and I will definitely be keen to see what Max Harris will do next but there is nothing new in sounding the alarm and as such this book is just one of many dealing with issues facing NZ.

Rating: Two out of five Jane Kelseys

Other reviews of the book here and here.




*-ironically while Ozzie politics is now operating at the level of Italy, or worse, the level of political coverage and reporting is much better than NZ with regular and in depth articles in the media and a level of political consciousness in the public that NZ could only dream of. Perhaps it has something to do with the more diverse media space that the Land Down Under has when compared with NZs big two (and soon to be one if Fairfax and NZME get their way) mainstream media outlets.
**-Then again this is the woman credited with being the power behind Helen Clark and her nine years as PM, Hmmmmmmm ... I wonder?
***- supposedly the main focus of the book rather than proposing any actual solutions but I suspect that is more the panicked reaction of the books editor upon discovering that the manuscript was not delivering the goods and so sought to try and turn that weakness into a deliberate play. Nice try but not really covering up the gaps that Harris has left behind in his writing.