New blog

To whom it may concern,

I've decided to use my Ruby Reflections blog from now on. GBBW was supposed to be about how the world works, while RR was supposed to be more personal rants and reflections. However, I find that the two merge so much, that I'd rather form one narrative than two.

The address is rubyreflections.blogspot.com

Read it and pray for me... everything's feeling a bit fucked right now. But the other side of that is that things can only get better. I hope.

Cherry Ripe.

Hiatus

Just wanted to do a quick post to explain my absence from the start of the year... I'm expecting our second baby, had to take an extra day at work and we've just bought our first house back in the city. So not a lot of time for blogging! I hope to return to the blogosphere soon...it's been fun so far.

Cherry.

Did you hear the one about the atheist and the Jew on Christmas day...?

Well we've just recovered from Christmas holidays, which was supposed to be a recovery from Christmas, which was a week-long affair in our fragmented family.

Leaving that aside, just before Christmas, an interesting situation arose between some good friends of mine - twin brother and sister - which troubled me. Let's call them Joe and Josephine. They are the offspring of a devout atheist and a lapsed Jewish woman.

Josephine, in her late teens, reclaimed her Jewishness, studied judaism and found her way towards a fairly strict Jewish lifestyle. She met a nice Jewish boy, had a gorgeous wedding at a Synagogue, moved to Elsternwick and had a beautiful son. Everyone was happy for her - the twins' parents were over the moon with grandparenthood.

This year was the little one's first Hannukah, and also his first Christmas. Or it was to be... but Dad said no. This little boy is not to celebrate Christmas, as he is a Jew.

Eventually Josephine negotiated that she would be there with her family, but hubby went for a day out with the little one. This child did not celebrate Christmas with his family, and his mother could not celebrate her first Christmas with her baby.

Joe, a committed and well-versed atheist like his father, was ropable. Christmas in this family has never been about Christianity! It is a time for gathering, exchanging presents and sharing a meal. But no - this child will not be at Christmas. The twins' parents (the little one's grandparents) were heartbroken, and tried not to be angry. Joe became an even more evangelical atheist.

Both sides were deeply troubled by the situation - all except Josephine's husband, who was convinced that this was his duty as the father of a Jewish child. I thought about his point of view, as I am not Jewish. I would like to point out that I am thoroughly committed to racial and religious tolerance and understanding. I also know that every situation has multiple meanings to different people, depending on what they bring to it. So I don't wish to judge these friends of mine, but I do want to explore the issue.

With that in mind, here's an attempt at a sympathetic explanation - the Jews for thousands of years have been a stateless culture. Its strength has been in the devotion to the practices of the culture and religion, which have become one. Jewishness is not just a religion, it is a practice and an identity. It needed to be in order to survive so many troubles and challenges for so long. Millions of lives have been sacrificed now, for the sake of Jewishness. This is serious and important, these devotions must be taken very seriously, as they stand for anyone who believes in rituals, cultures and practices.

So no Christmas. This culture cannot be diluted, but must be protected.

On the other hand, this child has another family with its own history and rituals. No-one is seeking to take his Jewish rituals away, so why take away Christmas with his family? Surely - at a minimum - this is creating a situation where the child will rebel. But it's also denying the meaningful ceremonies of his family - a happy, loving, nurturing and understanding family (I know them well, and I often marvel at how startingly well-adjusted they all are). Is this extremism at its worst?

It makes me think of the case of Edgardo Mortara ,the Jewish boy who was taken away by the Inquisition because his nanny had surreptitiously baptised him. The argument was that this boy is now, in spirit and essence, catholic, and would be steeped in the catholic culture and way of life, in spite of his family. The case still inflames outrage in the Jewish community, and derailed Pope John Paul II's campaign to have Pope Pius IX beatified.

So is this little boy's family doing the same thing? Perhaps it's his father's belief in the sacrilege of celebrating other religion's rituals that drives this. But this I also don't understand - I would be honoured to celebrate any form of religious or secular holiday with my married family.

This kind of fearfulness and extremism is surely counter-productive for Jews and those who wish to understand Jewishness. As I say, I am not Jewish, so perhaps I don't understand the depth of commitment and the need for exclusivity of the Jewish faith and culture, but I don't think it can possibly help Judaism thrive in the modern world. Any religion - any discipline for that matter - needs to be challenged to remain alive. Perhaps I'm wrong - perhaps blind devotion and removing children from their heritage is necessary for cultures under threat. But I would argue that, in that case, the culture is not one which deserves respect or devotion.

Is there something I'm missing here?

A certain Mr Hall...

I would like to say thank you to anyone who comments through this blog. I appreciate all comments, and don't want to put anyone off at all. But I thought that I should respond to one or two recent comments about one of my regular readers, Iain Hall.

I've looked at Mr Hall's blogs, and while I disagree with many of the views he puts, I don't find that he explains them offensively, nor that he is abusive or even particularly arrogant. This puts him outside many conservative commentators that I have read! I usually simply find that he is interested in putting forward challenging views. All of us need to be able to justify the views that we hold, and so I am always happy to have a solid, fact-based debate on issues that interest me.

In the interests of avoiding a flame war, or alternatively in the interests of diversity and debate, Mr Hall is welcome to comment on my blog, in the spirit of good bloggers, as is anyone else.

I, as before, reserve my right to moderate comments that I think are irrelevant, or unhelpful, or repetitive, or just that I don't think fit within the spirit of the debate (same goes for anyone else - I'm not interested in simply preaching to the converted).

cheers dears

What is it about feminism?

I have been reading an interesting, "robust exchange of ideas" on the OzConservative blog, about domestic violence. In reading this, I was struck by the vitriol against feminists, being labelled "feminazis" and "feministas". These people seemed comfortable in mutually reassuring themselves that feminism is equal to extremism and irrationality. I was extremely disappointed. These are clearly educated young men, yet they play the (wo)man and not the ball. When my friend Legal Eagle - more conservatively inclined than I, but equally committed to rational thought - engaged in debate, she was received as a raving lunatic.

I comfortably call myself a feminist. After teaching criminal law, having a baby and attempting to re-enter the workforce, I am proudly entrenched in that position. The label is a purely historical one in some ways: I am proud of the women who have called themselves "feminists" and what that meant. I can now vote, I can work for money, and I can own property. Second wave feminism meant I can work part-time, I can refuse to spend all my time serving my husband's career, and I could get decent help if I found myself in a violent relationship. This is why I call myself a feminist, and I think that's fair enough. Just like others call themselves Aussies or Gypsies or Jews.

What it means, however is as much a question of individual beliefs as any culture or religion. I base these beliefs on my perceptions of people's behaviour, my readings of experiences, and on research. I am a feminist because I believe in a right to a good life, which takes into account the realities, and disregarding unnecessary unrealities, of "gender".

It seems that the mere concept of feminism is unacceptable to these people. My feeling is that this aggressive view belies an inability to recognise women's truths: like their need for meaningful work and meaningful parenthood, the fact of violence against them and the physical and political dominance of men. I think it is hard for a man to imagine what it feels like to be a woman in this context.

Perhaps this one example might help: I did an exercise once, in a workshop that was thinking about relations between the sexes. The background was that one woman identified that there was a man who wouldn't leave her alone when she was sunbathing and swimming by a river one day, despite her efforts at communicating that she was not interested in talking to anyone.

So we did an exercise, where the men stood in a line at one end of the room, and the women stood in line at the other. Then the men had to walk towards the women, and the women had to look a men in the eye and say "stop" when they reached the woman's personal space.

The results were interesting. Many women couldn't do it the first time, they would stop and giggle or feel uncomfortable. The men found this extraordinary - why couldn't you assert your personal space? The second time, all the women did it at the same point - about double arm's length. Interesting that this means that as the men entered touching distance, this was considered within a woman's personal space for this exercise.

On a personal level, I found it confronting to do this, even as a strong young woman. What right did I have to tell a young man not to come near me? How would he feel about that? I don't want to upset him, do I? Especially if he'd been perfectly nice to me during the day? It was very powerful and it clarified a lot of gender relations questions that I'd had up to that point. It certainly had a big impact on the men in the room. These are probably the sort of men who will go away and support White Ribbon Day.

White Ribbon Day is a way of saying to women: yes, we have listened. We don’t deny that there’s a problem. You’ve been screaming at us for a long time to get our attention: you have it now. Let's talk about this: how can we help?

I find WRD extremely reassuring, for exactly that reason.

AIC "white ribbon day" special website

From the Australian Institute of Criminology - a dedicated website for white ribbon day. Just the facts, please sir...

http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/women/hot-topic_white_ribbon.html

Tie a big old white ribbon up, boys!

Legal Eagle posted an interesting piece on domestic violence recently. And the Daily Flute has had a hot debate over white ribbon day, which I've contributed to. So I feel it's my time to put something together on this, having had some experience in the area of domestic violence and criminal law.

Regular correspondent with Legal Eagle, Iain, wrote on his blog that:

Women who goad, nag and belittle their partners must accept some responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Perhaps, for the sake of argument, you have something of a point Iain - if you're talking about conventional relationships, which can indeed become emotionally toxic, some of which become violent, usually superficially and briefly (a chair through a window, a high-heeled shoe thrown, etc). Most of these battles, however, are fought in and out of family courts, or in gossip circles. (at the same time, men are bigger and stronger than women, so there's still no excuse... but *sigh* anyway...read on...)

In my experience prosecuting (not extensive but very in-depth), and in teaching criminal law, cases of domestic violence are not conventional relationships, but ones of malignant violence and entrapment.

Sometimes the woman in the relationship has been beaten by a father or brother in childhood, so she already knows what violence means and how impossible it is to escape from. Either that, or she has been "caught" in the situation, by a man who promised everything and then began to frighten and terrorise the woman until she is completely unable to escape out of fear for her life. (Indeed, this fear is genuine - most of the women we studied were killed when they were trying to leave. This is why I don't believe in the learned helplessness of early battered women syndrome theories)

Often - almost always - the man in question is heavily into a cocktail of drugs and/or is an alcoholic, and the beatings happen during those sessions. Either that or they are seriously troubled and insanely stressed individuals. Often these men carry illegal weapons in the house, just to refer to occasionally, if the woman threatens to leave.

Women in these situations are not "nags". They are usually asking for common needs - to know when the man will be home, for money for the kids' excursions, etc. The man feels overwhelmingly ashamed of his incapacity to care for his family, but uses rage to deflect this "criticism", as he sees it... and takes it out on his partner. Beatings are usually accompanied by rapes. As the woman becomes more terrified, the welfare of her children become her primary focus. So she sets herself up between the child and her partner and gets pummeled.

Usually she tries to leave at least once, and is found. Some of the cases show men who travel all over the country, waiting outside parents' houses, cruising streets, looking for her. Just to "show her who's boss".

This isn't being a nag, Iain. Have a look at the AIC website for the statistics, and have a look at some of the cases. Tell some of my victims when I was prosecuting that they "have to take some responsibility" for this.

Heather Osland's history was a good example of what can happen - the facts of the case are compelling. Unfortunately, her case was argued badly (the High Court - mainly McHugh J - acknowledged this), and she ended up in jail for what she did, with the real legal points left behind.

I think ordinary, gentle men try to relate to these other men, but they can't. So they try to imagine what would make them so enraged to become that violent - and they imagine that the woman must have been extremely provocative. Sorry guys, but there's other stuff going on here. This is what White Ribbon Day is all about - telling men that this is not on. That they don't actually relate to their experience. That it's F*CKED UP to treat another human being like that.

Men who do this persistently defend themselves, way beyond comprehension. None of it was their fault, it was all her fault, it was because of the kids, it was because a job fell through, you know what it's like, etc, etc. It's the same with most violent criminals. So standing up and saying "no - you're the one at fault here" could be very powerful. I support it.

On the legal points (having taught crim I hope I've got a couple of accurate observations here) - yes, the provocation cases do have a couple of female ones, but they are all examples of self-defence as provocation, not overwhelming anger. The self-defence cases were about 50/50 successful. The anger cases are all men, and all but one that we studied were successful. And they all stemmed from an inability to cope with the independence of a woman from them, be they a woman who they stalked and hardly knew, or a woman they were married to for many years (eg the Ramage case).

The true tragedy of provocation is that the evidence of the accused that he was provoked simply cannot be contested. Usually the confrontations leading up to the killing happened in private, so there were no direct witnesses. And any other evidence to suggest that the man himself was frightening the victim is generally hearsay and inadmissible. It's one of those serious imbalances in the interaction of evidence law and criminal law. Julie Ramage's sister, Vicki Ramage, wrote about this devastating principle of law, and how the facts as accepted by the court were totally contrary to what her sister had told her, about her fears for her life.

Somebody give me that hammer

I have to say, I've hit the glass ceiling recently, as a part-time worker and mother of young child. It's not pleasant at 30.

Luckily I'm in the public service. Luckily in some ways... I received 13 weeks maternity leave, and I work part-time. But I've been back for a year now, after nearly 4 years of service, and despite the fact that I increased my skills while I was away by doing sessional teaching at uni (a better paid alternative to a masters), and the fact that I wrote the manuals that my colleagues, happily leapfrogging me, use for their work, I can't get ahead.

a) there are no part-time professional positions. none. You'd think the entire workplace hadn't heard of job-sharing. Lawyers in firms reckon part-time is 4 days per week.

b) You've got to be 5 times better than anyone else to be considered for a full-time position on a part-time basis.

c) There are few chances to improve your skills (and become the said 5 times better) because the quality work always goes to the full-timers.

I've been told "you'll mark time until your children are in school", I've watched equally worthy colleagues promoted again and again beyond their capability and I've seen my boss fight for their retention. But when it comes to me, he is confounded by the idea that I'm asking for a better deal, validly based on my experience.

This in the public service...

It wouldn't be so bad if the cost of living wasn't so insanely high for young families, mainly because of super-inflated housing prices (something for which I hope we will hold our governments criminally responsible one of these days). But at this stage, we can barely afford a bare block in the country. But that's for another post...

If I could coast, or "mark time", I probably would. But for me and my family, the stakes are way too high.

Lawyers, Pessimism and Depression

I've been thinking a lot about my career lately, as one does at the end of each year (no, not the financial year!), so Legal Eagle's recent postings on the issue have been particularly poignant according to my poignometer.

I was in a meeting recently with a non-government organisation which I assist in running. We had a proposal brought to us to jointly run a music festival. Unfortunately, it had more holes than my best painting jeans, and a short time frame in which to plug them. The people in question were certainly well-intentioned and reasonably thorough, but I saw a number of risks. I put on my best lawyer hat and pointed out the lack of planning approval, contract drafting and provisions for insurance and security. I saw liability everywhere.

We made the right decision - to postpone the idea - but I felt like a pariah afterwards. Everyone wanted to join in and create goodwill, but I could only see the "what-ifs". For a long time afterwards I struggled with my reaction. Am I too risk-averse? What is my role here? Why do I sound so negative? Did I do the right thing?

It didn't help that the person putting the idea forward was a close friend.

The experience tapped into a whole lot of other concerns about my career choice. What is worthy about what I do? I don't save lives, I don't facilitate good and amicable dispute resolution, I don't help people feel better about themselves, and I'm not solving the hunger crisis in the world. Why do I do this? I didn't need the weight of others' perceptions of lawyers to reinforce that I felt like a bottom-feeder.

Lawyers, when practising, are dedicated pessimists - it's their job. But this can feel less than worthy, especially for those of us who feel the pain of the world heavily at times.