Diverse hypocrites

69 comments on “Diverse hypocrites ”

• Comments are now closed

1. travellerev 1

   7 September 2011 at 7:42 am

   Middle aged well to do white guys with their scared middle aged white wives (and mistresses of course) that’s who’s voting for this horrible ban of bullies and male chauvinists!
   • Tigger 1.1

     7 September 2011 at 10:34 am

     Mistresses, boyfriends, call boys…
2. Sanctuary 2

   7 September 2011 at 7:50 am

   “…Some commentators who really should know better think that’s an interesting piece…”

   The thing to always bear in mind about Bryce Edwards is he is a academic leftie who loathes Labour more than he hates National. In other words, your classic badly burned ex-Alliance supporter. Hope that once burned briefly, albeit fiercely, in his Marxist breast has been extinguished and replaced by a large dose of disillusioned bitterness. Once you understand that and use it to filter what he says he makes a lot interesting points.
3. alex 3

   7 September 2011 at 8:04 am

   Out of all the parties, it is obvious that the Greens give most representation to women, with Labour coming a close 2nd. National doesn’t even come close. Perhaps this reflects a policy gap though, the Greens want to lift children out of poverty, Labour has always fought for struggling families and single mums and National wants to cut spending on vital social services, cuts which in Britain have been shown to disproportionately affect women.
   • Pete George 3.1

     7 September 2011 at 8:43 am

     Out of all the parties, it is obvious that the Greens give most representation to women, with Labour coming a close 2nd.

     Don’t get too obsessd with paper diversity. Having diversity in opposition is not as effective as having less but in government.

     It’s possible for men to represent the interests of women – I’m a member of NARK which I manage to represent alongside mostly women. If I was an MP I would repreent women’s interests at least as strongly as I represented men’s interests.
     • mickysavage 3.1.1

       7 September 2011 at 8:52 am

       Oh Pete you are such a SNAG.
        
       And your actions are not motivated in the slightest by the thought of gaining political support.
       • Pete George 3.1.1.1

         7 September 2011 at 9:00 am

         I have been connected to NARK longer than I have been committed to what I’m doing in politics. Working for a better society is what drives me, politics is just one means of achieving something. Dedicated party ideologues may not understand that.
         • The Voice of Reason 3.1.1.1.1

           7 September 2011 at 6:20 pm

           “I have been connected to NARK longer than I have been committed to what I’m doing in politics”
            
           So you’ve been in NARK at least a fortnight then?
     • rosy 3.1.2

       7 September 2011 at 9:28 am

       NARK is representing children’s interests, is it not? Shouldn’t that matter equally to men and women?

       How about before saying you’ll represent women’s interests you say what those interests (that are different those of men) are?
       • Pete George 3.1.2.1

         7 September 2011 at 9:44 am

         You’re right Rosy, most things done by government are not gender specific, they apply to all genders and ages.

         NARK represents children’s interests, yes, but they are closely associated with parent’s interests. And violence is inflicted more by men against women and children so there is a definite gender bias there.
         • rosy 3.1.2.1.1

           7 September 2011 at 6:06 pm

           So the interests of women that you’ll represent are those that are the same as for men and children, with the exception of family violence? No others?
           • Pete George 3.1.2.1.1.1

             7 September 2011 at 6:14 pm

             Not at all. I’ll represent based on any factors that are pertinent to any issue.
             • rosy …

               7 September 2011 at 6:29 pm

               Such as?
         • Deadly_NZ 3.1.2.1.2

           7 September 2011 at 9:34 pm

           Then you, by all rights should be royally pissed at what the government is doing to our most vulnerable. But are you????
           • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.1.2.1

             7 September 2011 at 9:50 pm

             PG is as royally pissed off about that as is needed to win him votes.
4. vto 4

   7 September 2011 at 8:14 am

   Maybe they should just be open and up front about it. Be proud of who they are and represent – those horrible white middle classes (my god, imagine being on of them). And not pretend they represent a wider group in NZ.

   After all, other parties do that, confine themselves to just one race or type, and don’t even pretend at diversity.
   • Puddleglum 4.1

     7 September 2011 at 9:15 pm

     I’m not sure that National does represent the “white middle classes”. I think it pitches its campaign rhetoric to that group but its main policy planks essentially serve (i.e., ‘represent’) the interests of a fairly small proportion of the population, especially those involved in major business and banking concerns.

     Those policies get dressed up to look like they represent the “white middle classes” – possibly – but the necessary and sufficient condition for them being major National Party policies is that they advance the interests of that small group of New Zealanders (and sometimes those outside New Zealand).

     I’m thinking here of policies such as privatisation of assets, ‘competition’ in ACC accounts, privatisation of aspects of education, privatisation of infrastructure development, etc..

     I think you’d have to provide a reasonably stretched argument to claim that such policies serve the interests of the “white middle classes” and an even more stretched argument to say that National would still propound them if, assuming that they in fact did serve the interests of the “white middle classes”, they went against the interests of the small group just mentioned.
5. Tangled up in blue 5

   7 September 2011 at 8:28 am

   naked hypocrisy from Farrar given the number of times he has himself done such analyses of Labour’s list and Labour’s diversity. And now when National is exposed as the blandest of the bland, suddenly the diversity of the list doesn’t really matter eh?

   I don’t know how anyone with even a minor sense of dignity can take that dishonest clown seriously.
   • Dv 5.1

     7 September 2011 at 9:03 am

     Farrar does!
6. Puddleglum 6

   7 September 2011 at 9:09 am

   National claims to be a ‘broad church’, ‘centrist’ party that appeals to all.

   Well, either they don’t have many women wanting to be involved in their political machine or they don’t select those women who do want to be involved on a ‘randomly’ equal basis as they select men.

   Whatever the claims about the ability of men or women to represent the interests of women or men, they should cancel each other out. That would still leave an unexplained discrepancy in the proportions of men and women on their list/electorate selections (and ethnic minorities).

   The simplest explanation for this distorted representation is that, in fact, the National party does not represent a ‘broad church’ of interests. 
   • Tom Gould 6.1

     7 September 2011 at 9:24 am

     The only folks who seem to be obsessing over a percentage point or two in the list gender balance numbers are a narrow bunch running the Labour and Green parties. The rest of the country seems to have more important things on their minds. Perhaps in this instance arch-tory DPF actually has a point?
     • Julie Fairey 6.1.1

       7 September 2011 at 4:02 pm

       We are talking about FIFTEEN percentage points. Labour’s clearly and deliberately aiming for 40% representation for women in their caucus, and increasing their proportion when opportunities arise, Greens have a clear process to promote representation for women, which is paying off, and National can only manage 25% (less than current National caucus), even on an increased caucus and with 5 safe National seats without incumbent MPs to select. That’s shameful.
   • freedom 6.2

     7 September 2011 at 12:00 pm

     using ‘ broad church’ to describe the interests they pander to,
     only highlights how much of society they ignore by doing so.
7. Afewknowthetruth 7

   7 September 2011 at 10:33 am

   Pete George

   Well you really have put your foot in it this time.

   You go on about how wonderful you are because you belong to an organisation that supposedly protects the rights of children.

   So my question to you are these:

   What are you doing to ensure that children living in NZ today don’t starve to death a few years hence because the industrial food has collapsed? (as it most certainly will, due to the peaking of the oil supply in 2005-2006 and its subsequent decline -bearing in mind that all industrially produced food is totally dependent on oil).

   What are you doing, as this person who supposedly cares so much about kids, to prevent the Earth becoming largely uninhabitable due to runaway emissions? (as will most certainly happen due to the abject failure of governments to act on the matter because all governments are controlled by fossil fuel behemoths)

   I think I can already answer those questions: you are denying that peak oil and severe/abrupt climate change are even issues to be dealt with. In other words hypocrisy rules, as is the case with all people like you.

   But please prove me wrong if I am.

   In the meantime, I’d say you are full if shit, which is the theme of this item.

   ‘Working for a better society is what drives me’

   Don’t worry about working for a better society, Pete. We wonl’t have a society a few years from now [due to petro-collapse] or a planet to live on a few decades from now [due to acidification of the ocaens and abrupt climate change] if the corporations and right wing politicians you favour so much have their way. ‘Dedicated party ideologues may not understand that.’
8. queenstfarmer 8

   7 September 2011 at 10:44 am

   Where is the hypocrisy? I don’t see Farrar saying anything in what you’ve quoted that is different to what (you say) he said before:

   Paragraph 1 simply states a fact
   Paragraph 2 simply makes an accurate point – 20 on greens list isn’t as great as 20 on nats.
   Paragraph 3 simply asks some questions

   Where in the article does he say anything like your assertion that “suddenly the diversity of the list doesn’t really matter eh?“
   • Luxated 8.1

     7 September 2011 at 1:55 pm

     Read more, comment less.

     Accusing critics of National’s list of “the same fatal mistake” is pretty naked hypocrisy from Farrar given the number of times he has himself done such analyses of Labour’s list and Labour’s diversity.

     Straight from the very post you are commenting on.

     Also Farrar is incorrect to state:

     A number of blogs have done their own analysis of the different party lists, but they have all made the same fatal mistake. They have looked only at the party list, and not at what electorates a party will win.

     Because Julie from THM wrote this piece several days before Farrar published his piece.
     • queenstfarmer 8.1.1

       7 September 2011 at 3:26 pm

       Read that, comment stands. All of the Farrar posts linked to above expressly mention the party vote requirement.

       Because Julie from THM wrote this piece several days before Farrar published his piece

       Good for Julie. However this doesn’t mean Farrar is incorrect as you state. All he said as “A number of blogs have done their own analysis…“. He’s not claiming to refer to every blog on the internet.

       So I suggest you read more, comment more wisely.
       • Julie Fairey 8.1.1.1

         7 September 2011 at 4:00 pm

         I felt it was very dishonest of David not to mention that there was an analysis, on a blog he links to in the very few he links on his front-page blogroll, that did exactly as he said no one was doing except him, and clearly showed the lack of diversity in the projected National caucus (not just the List).

         I’ve been around political blogging for three elections now, and I did this analysis last election too, for all the party lists plus the electorates for National and Maori last time (and I’ve included Labour’s electorates this time too) and David is well aware of that. He could have acknowledged it, he chose not to, and in fact he chose to give the impression that he was the only person who did the calculations the correct way.

         I don’t imagine David reads every post at THM. Probably he just dips in and out, like I do with Kiwiblog. But he copied an entire blog post from THM and posted it up at Kiwiblog on Sept 5th at 2.54pm. (I should note he didn’t ask beforehand, although he did link, so I suppose we should just be grateful for the traffic and that Luddite Journo’s excellent post on the comedian sex abuse case were getting a wider audience). My (first) post on analysing the National list and electorates went up on Sept 4th around noon, only an hour and a half after Luddite Journo’s post which was copied. I don’t think it’s credible for Farrar to claim he was unaware of an analysis doing precisely what he said no one had, especially as it got linked from lots of places before his Stuff piece went up.

         We can disagree about the diversity stuff, that’s fine, but to lie about it really disappointed me. He has repeatedly misrepresented the projected caucus numbers for National and omitted to compare future representation (probably 25%) even with current representation (28%).

         Now I suspect David will get v steamed up about saying he lied. Unparliamentary language and all that. But he did, and he should be called on it. I have made a (milder) comment to this effect on the post at Kiwiblog about the Stuff piece, so I’m not entirely a chicken 😉
         • queenstfarmer 8.1.1.1.1

           7 September 2011 at 4:28 pm

           … that did exactly as he said no one was doing except him… I don’t think it’s credible for Farrar to claim he was unaware of an analysis doing precisely what he said no one had…

           But he didn’t say that. Exactly as I quoted above he said, “A number of blogs have done their own analysis …”

           How can you construe that any other way? He was simply pointing out a common flaw in “a number of” other analyses. He was not even implying that he was the only one who did it his way.
           • Julie Fairey 8.1.1.1.1.1

             7 September 2011 at 4:42 pm

             Which would work except David wrote that “they have all made the same fatal mistake.”

             I’ve pointed out that it’s not credible for David to claim he didn’t know about my analysis. So then the question is why didn’t he acknowledge it? I can only assume because he didn’t want people to see it. And it’s then dishonest to claim that no one else has taken into account the electorate seats (that “all” again) when someone did.

             David gave the impression that he was the only one who had yet done a diversity (in my case gender) analysis of the National caucus correctly, therefore people could just dismiss out of hand all the other analyses (which clearly showed a decrease in women for National) and rely on his, because all those other ones were fatally flawed.

             That wasn’t true.

             And anyway National actually selected even less women to new safe electorate seats (20%) than the percentage of women ranked on their list, only giving a safe National candidacy to ONE woman in the five spots available. So the electorate seats don’t save them from a hideously skewed male-dominated caucus anyway.
             • Pascal's bookie …

               7 September 2011 at 5:02 pm

               Your bang to rights here Julie, qf’s partial quote is as dishonest as Farrar’s post.

               If I was to say that:

               A number of NZers support the National Party and they are all idiots

               I would be saying that all NZers that support the National Party are idiots, and people who support the National Party for other reasons would be right to feel aggrieved about it.

               Farrar quite clearly said that all the blogs that addressed this made the same error. There is no other way to construe it.
             • queenstfarmer …

               7 September 2011 at 5:10 pm

               Julie, David wrote:

               “A number of blogs have done their own analysis of the different party lists, but they have all made the same fatal mistake. ”

               Now you are obviously a very good writer, with a very good command of the English language. So tell me, who do you think “they” refers to in the above sentence?
               • McFlock …

                 7 September 2011 at 5:27 pm

                 I’ll bite: those blogs that have analysed party lists?
                 • queenstfarmer …

                   7 September 2011 at 5:37 pm

                   Wrong. A number of blogs, not all. Believe it or not, saying “a number of blogs” is not the same as saying “all blogs on the internet”.
                   • The Voice of Reason …

                     7 September 2011 at 6:13 pm

                     Nope, Farrar is referring to those blogs that did write list analyses, in the first part of the sentence. A defined group, in toto. And in the second part, he says they all got it wrong. If he meant otherwise he would said “some of them have all made”, not “they have all made”.
                      
                      
                   • Pascal's bookie …

                     7 September 2011 at 6:33 pm

                     Believe it or not, saying “a number of blogs” is not the same as saying “all blogs on the internet”

                     Correct, he was talking aboout a subset of the set “all blogs on the internet”.

                     The particular subset ‘the blogs analysed the lists’.

                     There were a number of blogs in this subset, and they all, according to Farrar, made the same mistake.

                     You want him to have said:

                     “Some of the blogs that analysed the list made the following error.”

                     But that’s not what he said.
                   • Luxated …

                     7 September 2011 at 6:33 pm

                     Brush up on your set theory and reading comprehension qsf.

                     A number of blogs have done their own analysis of the different party lists…

                     Set A: ‘blogs’

                     There are several million (probably) of these on the internet of which THM is one.

                     Set B: ‘blogs (that) have done their own analysis of the different party lists’

                     The subject is just a refinement of the subject of set A, Γ B ⊆ A.

                     Set size perhaps a dozen, again THM is a part of this set. All ‘a number’ refers to is the size of set B.

                     Where you are (most likely deliberately) failing is that you are conflating set A and set B. IMPORTANT: All ducks are birds but not all birds are ducks.

                     The subject of the sentence is clearly set B and Farrar states that all the members of the subject (set B, remember?) failed to include electorates in their calculations. BUT Julie did exactly that making THM ∈ B and not THM ∈ (A\B), ∴ Farrar was wrong as are you.
                   • queenstfarmer …

                     7 September 2011 at 8:59 pm

                     Perhaps that’s what you wanted him to say. Perhaps that’s what he meant. And if he had read a post that made the same analysis as he said, perhaps he should have mentioned it. Perhaps he will clarify that. I’m just happy to go by his actual words.
                   • Luxated …

                     7 September 2011 at 10:32 pm

                     Firstly, what Farrar meant or not doesn’t matter a damn, what has been said is the issue as that is all we can actually verify. Farrar can claim he meant your point of view at some point in the future if he wants or he can claim he meant to call for a llama uprising but it still isn’t relevant.

                     Secondly an analogy.

                     Imagine someone sitting on a park bench between two paths, one in front of the bench, one behind. The bench is angled and designed such that the path behind it is not at all visible to someone seated on the bench.

                     The person on the bench makes the following statement:

                     A number of ducks walked past me at the same time and all of them quacked.

                     You’ll notice that this statement is equivalent to Farrar’s, ‘A number of blogs’ becomes ‘A number of ducks’, ‘have done their own analysis of the different party lists’ becomes ‘walked past me at the same time’ and ‘but they all made the same fatal mistake’ becomes ‘and all of them quacked’.

                     Consider two cases, the first a number of ducks walks in front of the bench, the second when a number of ducks walks in front of the bench while at the same time a different (or the same, it doesn’t matter) number of ducks walks behind.

                     In both cases the statement does not claim that any ducks that did not walk past the bench quacked or did not quack, on this I believe we are agreed.

                     The statement is incorrect in the first case if even a single duck in the group of ducks that walk past does not quack. If five out of six ducks quack you can’t arbitrarily separate the one that didn’t out and still claim they all did. If you wanted to do that you would have to explicit say ‘all but one’ or words to that effect.

                     In the second case the same conditions still apply but lets add an extra condition, all the ducks that walked in front of the bench quacked all the ducks that walked behind it didn’t. This is analogous to blog posts Farrar read and those he didn’t. So the the perspective of the person sitting on the bench it might appear that the statement was correct however as another group of ducks also walked past at the same time and did not quack then the statement is incorrect, the perspective of the observer doesn’t change the veracity of the statement except perhaps if the ducks in question were quantum. The way to make the statement correct would be to say “I saw a number of ducks that walked past me at the same time and all of them quacked.” but that is a fundamentally different statement.

                     I think that is all that needs to be said on the matter. All this talk of ducks has left me with one final word though, QUACK!
                   • McFlock …

                     8 September 2011 at 1:00 pm

                     “Wrong. A number of blogs, not all. ”
                     So your position is that rather than disingenuosly being obtuse about the contents of the THM list analysis, Farrar was in fact disingenuosly choosing only those blogs that did not include diversity in their list analyses? It makes the “all” a bit redundant, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. 

                      
                     Farrar was, to use an analogy, claiming to be the smartest man on the planet, but restricting the definition of “man” to “every male human dumber than me, plus me”. Glad you cleared that up for me. I might have thought he was a self-inflated lying prick otherwise.
                   • queenstfarmer …

                     8 September 2011 at 2:29 pm

                     Firstly, what Farrar meant or not doesn’t matter a damn

                     If that’s your starting point, then there’s no reasoning with you on that very subject, is there?

                     Re whether he was being disingenuous in this instance, I have no idea. However there is no basis to think he was.
                   • McFlock …

                     8 September 2011 at 3:36 pm

                     Straw-man conflation, much?
                   • McFlock …

                     8 September 2011 at 3:48 pm

                     Of course, if he was accidentally excluding those blogs which did in fact already solve the issue he was seeking to analyse, it just makes him an incompetent buffoon (given that he’d already linked to the blog which solved his “issue”).

                     Liar or buffoon seem to be the most likely options.
                   • queenstfarmer …

                     8 September 2011 at 4:13 pm

                     Straw-man conflation, much?

                     Sorry, I didn’t make clear that I was quoting luxated @ 10.32pm.
                   • Luxated …

                     8 September 2011 at 4:31 pm

                     ‘Firstly, what Farrar meant or not doesn’t matter a damn‘

                     If that’s your starting point, then there’s no reasoning with you on that very subject, is there?

                     Err, qsf we are debating what was said. If you go into court, publish a scientific paper or an article in a newspaper and state “The sky is red” it doesn’t matter whether you meant to say “The sky is blue” or not you made a statement that was not correct and as such you need to retract and correct that statement.

                     Or is it too much to ask Farrar to be held to the same standard as proper journalists when writing in a very public medium?

                     Let me reiterate, what is said is important because it is a matter of public record, what Farrar intended to say is not, although I do believe his intent was exactly as written.

                     Do you understand now, or do I have to use smaller words?
       • tc 8.1.1.2

         7 September 2011 at 4:09 pm

         Looking forward to your comments in the ‘Nats clueless on privatisation consequences’ post ….now’s good.
         • queenstfarmer 8.1.1.2.1

           7 September 2011 at 4:33 pm

           I skimmed it but it doesn’t seem to add anything new. I don’t know if Parata has much of clue.
           • Puddleglum 8.1.1.2.1.1

             7 September 2011 at 10:42 pm

             “I skimmed it but it doesn’t seem to add anything new.”

             True, we’ve all known for a long time now that the National Party’s position on privatisation of state assets is contradictory and internally incoherent.

             That post simply notes that it has been put up in huge flashing lights on top of a hill (well, in Parliament) – just where it should be.
             • queenstfarmer …

               8 September 2011 at 2:37 pm

               How is the party’s position contradictory? To my knowledge, their policy on partial privatisation is very well documented, regardless of whether you agree with it. They said nothing would happen during the first term, and they would seek a mandate for anything in a second term.

               Contrast that with say Labour’s position, which was all for unmandated asset sales (Phil Goff was involved in fully selling off far more than anything National will partially do), now is currently against it, and who knows what it will be down the track.
     • Julie Fairey 8.1.2

       7 September 2011 at 4:03 pm

       And thank you Luxated for noticing 🙂 Women’s voices aren’t just marginalised in parliamentary politics it seems!
       • Pete George 8.1.2.1

         7 September 2011 at 4:12 pm

         Julie, have you (or anyone) ever had a good look at why women don’t put themselves forward to stand in greater numbers? Or do you think they disadvantaged in the selction process?

         Becoming an MP is really putting yourself out there, and women may be more reluctant ro put themselves forward for close scrutiny and comments on appearance, hair, how they dress etc. The political spotlight can be quite ruthless. Good willing candidates are hard to find, good willing women candidates may be simply harder to find.
         • Julie Fairey 8.1.2.1.1

           7 September 2011 at 4:34 pm

           Oh I agree Pete. There are a range of barriers to women becoming MPs, but when you boil pretty much all of them down it comes back, sooner or later, to sexism.

           Why are women more concerned than men about criticism of their appearance? Because women are more judged on their bodies, and are considered more “decorative” than men.

           In terms of the selection process itself, I think there probably is a bias as well. In my own political history I have been told various things along the lines of “you can’t do that, you’re just a girl” or “you shouldn’t stand, you’ve got young children” or “a woman shouldn’t be in a leadership role like that, it’s just wrong” (the latter about Helen Clark actually, and from another woman).

           There was a study done about five years ago, iirc, about how Boards of Trustees pick primary principals, and whether there is a gender bias. At the time the gender split was roughly 75% male principals, but 75% female teachers. Not too dissimilar from the National caucus! And the study found a clear bias towards picking men over women, for a variety of reasons, all of which came back to pervasive sexist attitudes that we all struggle to shift in ourselves and in others.

           I’m not arguing that we can all be perfect non-sexist sunbeams all the time. We are a product of the environment we were raised and live in. I personally struggle to put either of my sons in pink clothes, for example. But I think we at least have the ability to notice when gender balance is way out of whack and start asking why.
           • Pete George 8.1.2.1.1.1

             7 September 2011 at 4:43 pm

             I have been told various things along the lines of “you can’t do that, you’re just a girl” or “you shouldn’t stand, you’ve got young children” or “a woman shouldn’t be in a leadership role like that, it’s just wrong

             I’m not sure how much is sexism and how much is resistance to changing the staus quo. I’ve been told various things about what I’m trying to do not on the basis of my sex but on the basis that it’s different to what has been done previously.

             There seems to be a natural and strong resistance from media and political pundits to give any coverage or consideration to anything different to their idea of how things shouls be done. Women often have different ways of ealing with things, so it may be resistance to change more than sexism.

             The “old boys club” is not just sexist, it excludes anyone judged to be not one of their status quo.
             • Julie Fairey …

               7 September 2011 at 4:53 pm

               I’m sitting here boggling at your ability to strip the sexism out of the kind of comments I mentioned.

               “You can’t do that, you’re just a girl” – maybe maybe could be ageist rather than (just) sexist.

               “You shouldn’t stand, you’ve got young children” – when does anyone ever say that to a man? Seriously, Phil Goff had three children while he was an MP, Simon Bridges had very young kids when he went in, yet I have NEVER heard anyone say anything of the kind about a male politician. And when this criticism was levelled at me my partner (a man) was standing in the same election, for the same position, on the same ticket, and also put on his campaign material that he had two young kids, and there was not a whisper.

               “A woman shouldn’t be in a leadership role like that…” about Helen Clark. At the time this comment was made Clark had been PM for at least two terms. And before that there had been a female PM too (Shipley). So the status quo, at that time, was a woman in that leadership role.
               • Pete George …

                 7 September 2011 at 5:04 pm

                 I didn’t mean to imply there is no sexism, I know there is sexism – from some men – but that it can be more than just sexism and barriers other than sexism are put up too.

                 Some people are resistant to change to how they perceive things should be, that sometimes manifests as sexism.
                 • Julie Fairey …

                   7 September 2011 at 5:08 pm

                   Resistance to change can definitely operate in a manner that is commensurate with sexism, I think that’s a fair point. When the change that is being resisted is seeking to address sexism then the resistance becomes sexist I reckon. Interesting discussion, thanks.
         • McFlock 8.1.2.1.2

           7 September 2011 at 4:40 pm

           Pete, why did you frame one possibility as fact (“women don’t put themselves forward to stand in greater numbers”) but another as opinion to be discussed (“Or do you think they disadvantaged in the selction process?”)?
               
           I’m not usually into language deconstruction, but found that quite interesting.
           • Pete George 8.1.2.1.2.1

             7 September 2011 at 4:52 pm

             What I said was “why women don’t put themselves forward to stand in greater numbers?” The “why” word and the ? make a difference, it was a question, not a statement of fact.

             My presumption is that if more women put themselves forward then greater proportions of women may be selected. I know of competent men who won’t put themselves forward for selection because they don’t like our culture of politics.

             I know one women who was encouraged recently to put herself forward, she dipped her toes into Wellington and decided it wasn’t for her.
             • McFlock …

               7 September 2011 at 5:03 pm

               The question was “why”, the statement of fact was “women don’t put themselves forward to stand in greater numbers”.   
                 
                 
               Given you’re talking aggregate numbers, what figures are you referring to?
               You know of men and women who haven’t put themselves forward. Great. What ratios of applicants to selected candidates are you referring to? Is National party membership c75% male, thus being 
               gender neutral in their candidate selection (assuming equal percentages of members by gender wish to become candidates)? If so, what are your sources? Are women less likely to be politically active? Where’s your source for that?
                  
                 
               Or was that assertion just as much of an opinion as whether candidate selection is biased?
       • Luxated 8.1.2.2

         7 September 2011 at 7:07 pm

         You’re welcome Julie.

         At least with parliament we can do something about it in the immediate future! With any luck we’ll have a more proportional house after the election although I’m not going to hold my breath.

         Society as a whole on the other hand might take a bit longer. From my perspective we’ve largely removed most of the overt sexism in society although there are still some holdouts. The problem is that that leaves the subconscious judgements which can then plausibly deny, at least to themselves.
9. Pete George 9

   7 September 2011 at 10:49 am

   I think I can already answer those questions: you are denying that peak oil and severe/abrupt climate change are even issues to be dealt with. In other words hypocrisy rules, as is the case with all people like you.

   You seem to have made a humongous guess based on nothing.

   I’ve never denied peak oil and climate change. On Kiwiblog I’ve debated strongly against the “see nothing, do nothing” brigade until I realised it’s pointless, they either have their heads in cement or have a mission. I’ve also debated on the need to deal with our reliance on oil.

   Who put their foot in it?

   right wing politicians you favour so much

   Which ones? That sounds like another assumption based on nothing. If you want to label me I’m much closer to a centre lefty who despairs at how inept the centre left is doing here right now.
   • Afewknwothetruth 9.1

     7 September 2011 at 2:42 pm

     My mistake.

     Not having visited Kiwiblog I based my perception on what I have read on TS over the months.

     Are you now saying that the two most crucial issues to be dealt with immediately are Peak Oil and Abrupt Climate Change? -issues that don’t even feature in either of the major party’s manifestoes!
   • tc 9.2

     7 September 2011 at 4:10 pm

     never mind this PG how about some of your wisdom on the ‘Nats clueless on privatisation consequences’ post.
10. Brett 10

    7 September 2011 at 6:34 pm

    Who the fuck cares.
    Apart from the old ducks who post here, most women have moved on from this 50/50 bullshit.
    Gender and race is irrelevant, it’s more about the best available person for the job.
    • Puddleglum 10.1

      7 September 2011 at 8:59 pm

      “Who the fuck cares.”

      Apparently, David Farrar. See my comment below.
    • Colonial Viper 10.2

      7 September 2011 at 9:09 pm

      Gender and race is irrelevant, it’s more about the best available person for the job.

      Quite right. In the National Party the best available person for the job is generally white, male and over 45.
11. just saying 11

    7 September 2011 at 6:59 pm

    And you’d be just as happy if any other special interest minority, other than rich, old, het, white men, dominated all positions of power, and would feel just as represented by, say, 70 percent young polynesian women.?

    Yeah right.

    And rich, old, het, white men are overwhelmingly the best available people to lead us, (no discrimination there)?

    Again yeah right.

    Gender and race are only “irrelevant” if your’s are running the show.
12. Puddleglum 12

    7 September 2011 at 8:56 pm

    It’s interesting to note that, in his commentary on the Labour Party list of 2008 and his analysis of who may or may not make it into parliament, David Farrar seemed quite concerned about diversity:

     “So what will Labour’s Caucus look like? Well on the current public polling scenario giving them 45 MPs, it would be:

    Only 8 MPs or 18% from the South Island
    38% female, which isn’t bad at all
    49% would be aged in their 50s though
    They would have only six Maori MPs – the same number as National! They would be Horomia, Mahuta, Jones, Ririnui, Mackey, and Davis
    Four Pacific Island MPs – Laban, Sio, Chauvel and Sepuloni
    Three Asian MPs – Choudary, Prasad, and Huo”

    So, it would seem that diversity does (or at least did) matter to Farrar. To that extent, he seems to be out of step with some on the right (and left) who seem to think that diversity doesn’t/shouldn’t matter. 

    But, I don’t get why he focuses on the composition of a caucus that, on the basis of polls, would make it into parliament. Percentages for parties go up and down and, more importantly, it’s diversity at the ‘top’ that matters most. If National had a 50/50 gender split that wouldn’t look quite so impressive if the top 30 were all male and the bottom 30 all female

    Surely, a better way of ‘testing’ diversity in a political party’s candidates would be to look at, say, each group of ten (1-10, 11-20, 21-30) and give them some weighting so that, for example, if there was a marked imbalance in the top ten (or twenty) that would count against diversity more than a marked imbalance from 21-30 (or 21-40). That approach would flush out possible tokenism and also would be a measure of diversity as it relates to power within a party, which, surely, is the point?
    • Puddleglum 12.1

      7 September 2011 at 8:57 pm

      Sorry, the link to Farrar’s 2008 post on Labour’s List is here.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS