Of Teachers and Tests

The Australian media is currently in a flurry about the refusal by some teachers to take part in the next round of National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) scheduled for May. Here is the situation in its greatest simplicity (by my understanding):

• All school children will take a standardised test
• Those results will be published
• Teachers of 'underperforming' schools will be punished accordingly, for failing our children!

Indeed, according to a commentator at the Gold Coast Bulletin, this will "empower parents," enabling them to judge how "teachers are teaching their children."

That's one take.

Another take is a little more cynical. While it is certain that these tests will highlight underperforming schools, the results shouldn't come as a suprise and won't necessarily demonstrate teaching standards. Here's my prediction: these tests will highlight what we should already know. The underperforming schools will be those situated in low socio-economic areas, and especially those areas with a high population of refugees. While, I would imagine that high scoring schools will be private educational facilities.

Why?
First and foremost, low socio-economic status does not equal dumb. It does, however mean that the children in these areas come from homes that are statistically more likely to not have a high level of parental education and a host of other societal problems. In areas with a high population of refugees, the students may also face cultural and language barriers - not to mention the post-traumatic nature of being a refugee; coming from a hell hole and, once being 'processed' being thrown into Australian society with what amounts to sweet FA government support. (Money doesn't count)

Oh, and lest we forget - these lower socio-economic schools receive less government funding than those fancy private institutions that upper middle classians pay $15,000 a year to attend.

And you know what - the government knows this.

However, by framing this issue as somehow the teachers fault it deflects the attention away from issues of say: government funding. Indeed, I find it convenient that before the results of testing are released the government has already framed the blame so to speak.

This way - when the results are in there will be no major impetus on the government to actually investigate the outcomes and perhaps divert funding and instigate programs where they are needed most. Rather - they will save themselves money by docking individual teachers pay.

How fucking cheap.

The 17th Down Under Feminists' Carnival

The 17th Down Under Feminists' Carnival is up and running over at Ideologically Impure. I'm thrilled to be in such good company and would like commend the Queen for all the hard work. Although I have not worked my way through all the posts - two highlights strike out:

• Full Rock Spider: A Six Step Guide, provides a scathing overview of paedophilia, celebrity and apologetics. Claire brilliantly links the current Roman Polanksi debacle to previous instances of celebrity paedophilia and notes the vast differences in societies reactions between that of sexy celebrity versus home grown kiddie fiddlers.
  
• 100 Sci-Fi Women: squee! Full of fabulous sci-fi women over at Godard's Letterbox. Go read it!

Family Guy and the Popularisation of Sexism

I have a confession to make: I watch Family Guy and for the most part enjoy it. It's shallow, cheap humour; easy to follow, no great philosophy - and to be honest, I put it on when I'm stressed and don't want want to think, get into bed and fall asleep.
Sure, I've always been aware that it is sexist, racist, fatist, ableist, homophobic - and whatever other form of bigotry that I have forgotten. However, in the past, I managed to compartmentalise those aspects.

As Seth McFalan has stated, the majority of the highly offensive shite dribbles out of Peter's mouth and it's meant to be derided and is often in stark contrast to Brian's position. However, the shows sexism has always been far more implicit and in becoming increasingly explicit. For this post, I am going to focus upon the implicit sexism presented by the characterisation of Lois.

Implicit Sexism: The Characterisation of Lois
At a very basic level, Lois is the loyal and beautiful (house)wife of an overweight, useless and unintelligent oaf. Pretty standard trope, but hey, if you let that rile you to the point of rage, your popular cultural pickings are few. Lois is built up as a dream wife, of sorts.

Beautiful
Lois' beauty is constantly reinforced. She was Miss Teen Rhode Island, had a brief stint as a model, is objectified by many of Peters friends and Brian is an inconsistent not so secret admirer. Lois' own children admire her beauty - often as a point to contrast Meg's unattractiveness.

She ain't a golddigger
Lois loves Peter unconditionally and through choosing to marry him, has divorced herself from a life of luxury through alienating her wealthy and 'landed' family. This 'good woman' stereotype works in contrast with the negative characterisation of women as gold diggers who pursue and marry men for their future financial security. Indeed, Lois must be perfectly happy with what she has; if she deviates from this she is firmly put back in her place with accepting only that which Peter can provide. In Breaking Out is Hard to Do, after shoplifting a ham, Lois becomes kleptomanic in her desire to acquire luxury items. Her frenzied theivery lands her in jail, throwing the familial bliss into chaotic disorder. The lesson here: women want, want, want and their consumeristic desire must be kurbed as it is dangerous, uncontrollable and destructive. Live with what your husband can provide and be happy with it! (Nevermind that he buys a horse, a rocket or whatever - with no obvious impact on the family - and it is his money anyway.)

Home is where a wife is: now don't get me wrong; I'm not bagging Lois for being a housewife - it's a hell of a lotta work, and heaven stop me before I ever volunteer myself to look after all of the unpaid drudgery. The problem aspect of Lois' portrayal is that any attempt to enter workforce is either misguided or dangerous to the family or Lois herself.
In FOX-y Lady, Lois accepts a role at Fox News, after the previous reporter is fired when a new type of television exposes her wrinkles (because news reporters must be beautiful and a wrinkled woman is hideous). Brian admonishes Lois for accepting the role on the basis that Fox is an incredibly bias network. Lois, demonstrating her typical naievity, passes off Brian and decides to give them a chance. The rest of the episode is devoted to essentially showing up Lois misguided trust and Fox news itself.
Even more concerning is Model Misbehaviour, in which Lois decides to follow her earlier ambitions to become a model that we thwarted by her father. At first, Lois' success is lauded - Peter is proud to be 'hitting that.' However, as the episode progresses - the danger presents itself. Lois loses weight, takes up smoking, hangs out a celebrity events and flaunts herself (much to Peter's alarm). It's interesting that Lois' 'dangerous behaviour' seems to be correlated in the episode with the fact that she is acting outside of Peter's control. Moral of the story - Lois must return to staying at home, covering herself up and devoting herself to the family.

In discussing this with my partner, I think the thing that bothers me most about Lois is that she is designed to appeal to wants and desires of young men. She is beautiful and yet controlled, devoted and doesn't demand anything of them; alot of her bad behaviour is related to when she isn't devoted to the family or when she wishes more for herself. To my mind, these are very male centered fears - what if my wife decides she wants more than I can provide? What if she overtakes me? She'll bleed me dry with her high maintenance ways if she is encouraged.
I realise that alot of these traits are mirrored by Marge in the Simpsons. However, personally, there is something much more disturbing in their presentation in Lois.

So tell me - I am off the mark here? What's your take on Lois as a feminist? Does she make you cringe?

Fear of Genital Mutilation Doesn't Warrant Refugee Status

Teresia Muturi and Grace Gichuh sexuality and lives are currently hanging in the balance of the Australian Immigration Department. Both women fled Kenya before they could be genitally mutilated and arrived in Australia for World Youth Day 2008.

Interviewed by Yuko Narushima for the Sydney Morning Herald, Grace reportedly sobbed while explaining the process,

"They use a knife. Just a knife, no medicine...10 men hold the woman down... while another brandishing the knife cuts off the clitoris.''

Grace had refused being mutilated in the same fashion that killed her mother prior to arriving here., resulting in threats to her life. Similarly, Teresia ran away after being sold to a 70 year old man for 10 cows.

The women have been told to pack and be ready for deportation, after their application for refugee status was denied and their appeal was dismissed by the Australian Immigration Minister, Chris Evans.

The women have launched another appeal, and Evans is being called to intervene on the basis that under pending legislation, the women would be covered by 'complementary protection.'

Typically, the Opposition couldn't restrain itself, with the Opposition Immigration spokeswoman, Sharman Stone stating she would oppose the bill, as it would "open the gates" to fabricated asylum claims:

"It could be an honour killing, it could be a genital mutilation like this, it could be a whole range of other quite complex and one-off situations where the person doesn't meet the refugee convention criteria."

However, Stone has supported the intervention of Evans within this case.

Legal Background: Australian Immigration Practice

The women have been refused refugee status as their situation is not covered by current law, which states that persecution must be based on:

• Race
• Religion
• Nationality
• Membership of a particular social group or political party.

Thus, women who fear genital mutilation are deported.

Clearly, the law as it currently stands is deeply problematic. As developing countries are increasingly threatened by globalisation, we are going to continue to see the emergence of social and religious customs that not only denigrate women, but threaten their lives. Further, isn't it arguable that women who are threatened by genital mutilation actually do form a particular social group?

Demonstrating the ineffectual nature of current immigration policy, it has been noted that women with similar cases have been granted refugee status. However, the outcomes of these cases have been dependent on the judgement of an individual Immigration Officer. So let's get this straight,

• The law is recognised to be disproportionately narrow by some Immigration Officers, who are judging cases contrary to the letter of the law.
• Resultingly, the lives of women are therefore dependent on the individual judgement of an Immigration Official, providing plenty of room for the entry of bigotry.

Clearly, the law is ineffective - if Immigration Officials aren't following it - and it allows for individual power over the fate of another; of which the entire point of bureaucratising the process is to prevent.

Which makes you wonder why the Liberal Party is opposing the introduction of a law that would make cases such as these so much more clear cut. Personally, this didn't come as a surprise. The Liberal Party have long latched onto the xenophobic fears that are attached to immigration in this country.

Cultural Background - The Mungiki

Judging by the media reports, both women face attack by their family members who are a part of the Mungiki tradition. Originating in the 1980s, the criminalised group is steadfastedly anti-modern and anti-western; seeking to return to the indigenous traditions untouched by colonialisms taint. As is typical with any group that steadfastedly rejects the present (fundamentalist Christians, anyone?) and aims for a return to the more innocent and pure past; shitty gender roles also come into play.*

So, get out your pens, pick up the phone and chat to your federal member about supporting this bill.

Credits

Image from United Nations Photos / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

__________________________________________________________________________________

*Please note: I believe that all cultures that diminish the status of women deserve relevant criticism. I do not agree with rampant cultural relativism that embraces any non-western cultural aspect and scorns criticism on the basis of it being ethnocentric. Further, the same traits that have led to the re-entrance of genital mutilation into Kenyan society, are also present in the western religious and cultural world - but that would be for another post.

"Think before you open your mouth*": An Australian Experiment in Redundant Reasoning

Gender has entered the national debate with a bang of misogny and irrationality with the announcement that the Government wishes to abolish rules that prevent women from applying for frontline roles. In essence, the Goverment wishes for women to be able to apply and face the same physical testing that their male counterparts must do, without lowering the bar in terms of requirements.

Cue entry of partriachialised hysteria.

Stuart Robert, backbencher for the opposition, was first to enter the stage. After calling the notion, öutrageous,"and telling Mr Combet (who introduced the topic) that he should, "think before you open your mouth," (an interesting charge considering what spewed forth from his), Robert exclaimed:

"My concern is that really only Israel and a handful of countries whose very existence is threatened have gone down this path - the rest of the Western world hasn't,"

Perhaps my feminine mentality prevents me from discerning the finer points to Roberts arguement, but, WTF? Isn't one of the most base reasons for maintaining an armed force is to prepare for the event in which a country's existence is threatened?   Also, am I catching a hint anti-semitism? Well, its alright for the Jews - but, their women are made of different metal.

Enter Neil James, executive director of the Australian Defence Association with this gem:

"It's a simple physicality thing. On the battlefield, academic gender equity theory doesn't apply. The laws of physics and biomechanics apply."

Ummmm... the laws of physics, huh?

Of course, there is nothing like the notion of women being involved in combat that brings out the construction of gender. Even supporters have framed their arguments around the notion that women are not naturally cut out for the job. As MP  Lynda Volz notes:

"You talk to any men who do triathlon and marathon running and ask them if there are not a few women out there that are freaks of nature that beat them home every time,"

That's right, freaks. Because it is unnatural for women to be as strong as men - as it is equally unnatural for them to wish to serve on the front line. But hey, I'm progressive and won't stop them....  gah!

This round of arguments that center around physical ability act to highlight the utter irrationality and redundancy of their bearers. Did they not hear the announcement correctly? Dudes, if women are not up to the physical standard, they won't get in. No ifs, no buts. Moaning on and on about how women aren't up to the standard is redundant. Because, if you are right, well, then, they won't get in.

Naturally, this topic has moved further into the morality of allowing women to serve. For a brilliant write up, visit Larvatus Prodeo.

Image by Dunechaser CC BY-NC-SA 2.0