another of the "i'm too tired to writing anything decent" posts, wherein i link to some interesting stuff (or at least interesting to me). i've spent another chunk of my day dealing with media issues, as well as getting a GST return done for a voluntary organisation and attending an afterwork meeting. the pile of stuff to get done never seems to get any smaller, and i'm feeling a little overwhelmed by it all.
so, some interesting links i've been directed to: first a report concluding that pakeha child abuse is ignored in the media:
Almost 9000 children were victims of physical abuse between 2000 and 2008, yet only 21 became "household names"' in the media, she said.
Just one-third of child deaths were reported in the press, and they were predominantly Maori cases...
Merchant found physical child abuse was largely related to poverty, poor housing, inter-generational abuse, poor parenting and drugs and alcohol abuse.
also from the same piece, the minister for social development asks:
The example you could use is that mental health services be prioritised to mothers and fathers with small children.
"Does that mean other people wait longer?
"Should they be able to jump the queue because they have young children?"
really, minister? does it not occur to you that we should fund services to the level that there is need, rather than make people jump queues? but that would mean raising more income, which might mean reversing personal tax cuts, or making polluters (rather than the taxpayer) pay for their pollution, or making companies a pay fairer share of tax. these are possibilites our minister couldn't possibly contemplate, so better to make people compete against each other for very limited services, thereby pitting one group against another to the extent they forget there's a third option. it's typical divisive politics and disgusting to watch.
on another topic, there's this piece about the policing of women's reproduction as part of anti-immigrant policies:
... how women become framed as reproducers of a nation, fertile bodies that mark distinct nationalities from one another. Thus, a citizen woman may be valued for her ability to reproduce; likewise, a “foreign” woman’s body is a threat, a possible breeding ground for more “foreign invaders.”
...As Susana Sánchez wrote in a recent critique, “there are racial prejudices central to a political campaign aimed primarily at vilifying the reproduction of immigrant women, who are for the most part women of color.”
Citizenship is still one of the clearest markers of recognition and belonging in today’s world. Rejecting citizenship for a woman’s child, no matter her legal status, is refusing to acknowledge the mother’s right and legitimacy to reproduce. Moreover, it implies that her offspring are in some way detrimental to the society where she resides, an implication that dangerously invites and supports anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalist sentiment.
some good news from the british advertising standards authority:
Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson has run a long campaign against unrealistic images of women in advertising.
Her recent complaints to the British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) alleged magazine spreads for L'Oréal-owned brands Lancôme and Maybelline featuring Roberts and Turlington were misleading and fake, the Guardian reported.
She complained that images of both celebrities had been digitally manipulated and were "not representative of the results the product could achieve", it reported.
The ASA backed her allegations - ruling both ads breached advertising standards and banning them from future publication in recently released decisions.
and finally, a must read post from shakesville on income disparities in america. here's a picture that speaks volumes:
i wonder what a similar picture for nz would look like.