anjum has been writing about agency with respect to Muslim women in particular, but also in respect of all women in minority ethnic groups: We’re quite capable of speaking for ourselves, imperial feminism, dodging bullets. Apropos of that, here is a challenge I’ve given my students, something which seems to have rattled some of them a little, especially those of them who felt that we (whoever “we” is) ought to be very worried about the various forms of veiling that many Muslim women wear, and should be doing something about it.
Turn it around, I say to them. Imagine what a newcomer to Australia or New Zealand, or indeed any other Western nation, might say about the practices we force on women here. Women have to get the hair waxed off their legs, they must wear make-up and straighten their hair, when they’re at work they have to wear shoes that make their feet ache and can result in long term damage to their legs and hips, and there are some foods they’re not supposed to eat, so that they can keep their weight down. Sure, they can “choose” not to do these things, but if they don’t, then they will be criticised, sometimes quite severely. There are no formal rules about these practices, but all the women understand that this is what they must do, and if they don’t, they will pay the price.
Then I say to them, how would you feel if the newcomer decides that she will do her best to rescue Western women, to work hard to liberate Western women from these practices, because it’s clear that they need rescuing.
I’ve had a few stunned silences in my tutorials when I’ve put it that way. And in other places. Including in myself.
In a couple of places, I’ve said that women are banned from speaking on some marae. I was wrong. I’m sorry for having said this.
In a comment on my previous post, He Uri o Nanakia very gently pointed out that I was wrong, and took the time to explain some of the customs around who speaks when and where on marae. I’m very sorry to have been saying something that is wrong, and sorry that I didn’t take the time to get it right before leaping into print.
I’ve copied the comment here.
Under Māori tikanga, women are not banned from speaking on the marae.
Exactly what you mean when you say marae is possibly an issue here but I will take it that you mean the wharenui (‘meeting house’) itself or the marae ātea (the area in front of the wharenui where the whai kōrero happens in most areas). The term marae can and often does refer to the whole complex but I’m assuming that you don’t think that women are banned from speaking at all, anywhere on the marae complex.
On most (but by no means all) marae, women do not perform the whai kōrero (formal speeches) within the ceremony of the pōwhiri (ritual welcome). During a pōwhiri the whai kōrero is done either on the marae ātea or inside the wharenui. When there is no pōwhiri in progress, there is no restriction on who may speak on the marae in these areas. (That is to say, no default restriction, depending on what is happening there may be restrictions on who may speak based on a range of issues such as, specific expertise or professional role.)
Within the ceremony of the pōwhiri the role that is performed almost exclusively by women is the karanga. This is the call between the tangata whenua (hosts) and the manuhiri (guests). If there is no body who can perform the karanga the pōwhiri cannot go ahead. It is a crucial element of the ritual. In modern times the karanga is usually quite short but it is entirely possible for the karanga to be as long and have as much linguistic content as the whai kōrero. In addition to the karanga, women may interject to show support or disagreement during the whai kōrero of their speaker. They may also cut the speaker off entirely if they wish make a strong statement that they do not support the speech.
The way these customs are practiced varies from marae to marae.
Whether of not the customs of the pōwhiri are discriminatory or sexist is a complicated discussion and as you say, one to be had within Māoridom, not ‘about’ Māoridom.
However, stating that women are prohibited from speaking on the marare is incorrect and I speculate that this statement is likely to have offended and disappointed some people. Misconceptions like this one can make it difficult for some Māori women to engage with what as seen as the Pākehā feminist dialogue.
Thank you, He Uri o Nanakia, for your comment, and for the time you took to explain the matter to me.
Me te mihi nui
I visited the South Australian Migration Museum recently (a school holiday trip with the girls). There were some fascinating exhibits, including one about the 1903 Naturalisation Act in Australia, which of course, functioned to keep “undesirables” out of the great white nation.
The Act has some rules about who may, or may not, become naturalised citizens of Australia. The people who could become citizens included:
A person resident in the Commonwealth, not being a British subject, and not being an Aboriginal native of Asia, Africa, or the Islands of the Pacific, excepting New Zealand, who intends to settle in the Commonwealth…
So why were Maori acceptable? I had a dig around on google, and the Australian Federal parliament site, but I couldn’t find anything. It would be interesting to know the reasoning of the framers of the Act. I speculate that it may be because Maori were already sitting in the New Zealand parliament, but I don’t know. Does anyone have any idea?
A friend of mine wrote his doctoral thesis here in Australia. He made a promise to some of the people who talked to him and gave him their stories. When he was over here a few days ago, he kept that promise.
He has written a post about it, and it is heart breaking. Most of my New Zealand readers will already have seen his post – it’s up on one of the big group blogs there. It’s also on his own blog, and I’m hoping that some of my Australian readers will go and read the story there.
Benedict has issued some new mortal sins. Being a not so good convent girl, and regarding the seven deadly sins more as a list to be worked through than activities that would imperil my eternal soul (not that I think I have one, anyway), I was intrigued to see what he proposed to add. Could I have some more fun?
Alas, no. It’s no longer just lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, anger, envy and pride; now we have some new sins:
- environmental pollution
- genetic manipulation
- accumulating excessive wealth
- inflicting poverty
- drug trafficking and consumption
- morally debatable experiments
- violations of fundamental rights of human nature
Whatever. Personally, I’m only involved in a few of those, and then only because I happen to live in a wealthy Western liberal democracy, and through the machinations of a market society, I am inevitably complicit in at least some of them.
They’re just fundamentally incoherent. “Morally debatable” experiments? WTF does he mean by that? Just being morally debatable doesn’t make something morally wrong. Benedict, or his advisors, or his PR flunkeys, is engaging in a neat little dodge here. It’s clear that morally bad experiments are sinful (if you believe in sin, that is). That’s just what a sin is – something that is morally bad. And a morally good experiment is clearly not sinful. In between, we have to make judgements. These are not easy judgements to make – those in-between experiments are tricky. But according to the Vatican chief honcho, if something is dubious, it’s bad. No ifs, not buts, no maybes. If you can argue about its moral worth, it must be bad.
The clear message – DON’T THINK FOR YOURSELF! If you have to think for yourself, it must be dubious, and therefore it’s bad.
And a violation of the fundamental rights of human nature? Sure, that might be immoral, but what exactly are the fundamental rights of human nature? In order to commit this sin, I need to know what the fundamental rights of human nature are. Very poorly defined, Mr Pope. One (meaning me) would think that if you are to go about opining on how people should live their lives, then you should at least spell out exactly what you mean.
Push it all far enough, and it turns out that the fundamental rights of human nature are not to do with human rights, like freedom from oppression, but rights of human nature – a different beastie. Human nature is DNA – genetic manipulation is impermissible. Benedict slips into the naturalistic fallacy, beloved of environmentalists everywhere – if it’s “natural”, it must be good. (Quick- think of five counter examples before lunch!)
Nothing about real human rights, like freedom from oppression. That’s real sin, through action, or inaction, denying the fundamental equal moral worth of every human being. Of course, Benedict couldn’t consider adding sexism to his list of mortal sins – the Catholic Church is far too involved in oppressing women to consider that it might be sinful to deny them access to contraception. Nor could he consider that covering up paedophilia might be just as bad as engaging in paedophile rape of children. Far better to wuss around with weasel words about it being a stain which has “even infected the clergy itself” (see the Times online article).
But he might just have made a bit of an effort with racism. Unless of course, he thinks that the Church is racist too, so he better not name that as a sin.
I know, from the inside, that sexism is pervasive in contemporary Western societies. And so too is racism.
And there’s been a simply stunning example of it in Australia in the last few days. The Haven Backpackers Resort Hotel, in Alice Springs, asked a group of Aboriginal women and their children to leave, because of their skin colour.
They checked into the Haven Backpackers resort, but a short time later the manager told them that guests already staying there had complained of being scared.
The group included several young mothers and a three-month-old baby. Most were young leaders, chosen specially for their standing in the Yuendumu community.
The resort manager told Bethany Langdon from the Yuendumu Young Leaders program the group would have to leave.
That’s right. Aboriginal women and children were asked to leave a hotel because they were Aboriginal.
It’s shocking, and disheartening, and utterly banal. It’s the ordinary everyday racism that black people in Western liberal democracies face, everywhere and everyday. And it’s a sin.
The Hoydens have asked people to blog about this, so that in future, if tourists search or google the Haven Backpackers Resort Hotel in Alice Springs, they will find this story, and know that the Haven Backpackers Resort Hotel in Alice Springs is racist.
If you too have a blog, perhaps you might care to do the same.