Man ban – Geddis on DPF

Written By: - Date published: 4:09 pm, July 4th, 2013 - 108 comments
Categories: dpf, feminism, labour, spin - Tags: ,

Andrew Geddis has indecent fun as he schools DPF – extracts below but go read the whole thing on Pundit:

NZ Labour – as crazy as the UK Tories

According to the NZ Herald, which has sourced its story from goodness knows where, the Labour Party is to consider at its annual conference a rule change that will mandate an element of gender equality in its candidate selection processes.

Over on Kiwiblog, DPF is having a right old chortle about this proposed “man ban”. (Get it? “Man” rhymes with “ban”! It’s a (snortle, chuckle) “Man (giggle, shnuffle) ban”!!!).  …

… in 2010, Cameron strengthened his position even further, announcing that because not enough women candidates were being chosen, he would impose all-women shortlists for the 2015 election.

Asked why the system should not be left as a “meritocracy,” he said: “It doesn’t work.
“I have a lot of sympathy with that view but, and it’s a really big but, we tried that for years and rate of change was too slow.

“If you just open the door and say ‘you’re welcome, come in,’ and all they see is a wave of white [male] faces, it’s not very welcoming.

“Changing a political party and getting things done is never easy. I had had to change the way we select and promote women. I have given the party a big shock on this issue.

“We have to recognise that the rate of change wasn’t fast enough. We weren’t going to be representative enough as a party, so I took the view that we had to give things a big shift and a big shake-up.

“The end result at this coming election is a party that is much more balanced.”

So there you go. NZ Labour – shifting so far to the left and so blinded by ideological fervour that they are doing the same thing as the UK Conservative Party is doing!

Oh – as for why Labour might want to do this? Well, as of the end of 2012, there were 2,254,200 women in New Zealand, compared to 2,181,500 men. Yet only 13 of Labour’s 33 MPs were women. See the difference there? …

And perhaps, whisper it softly, that is why DPF has reacted so strongly to Labour’s proposed rule change. After all, better to shriekingly decry your enemy than to look at your own side and ask “why?”

108 comments on “Man ban – Geddis on DPF ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BM 1
    4 July 2013 at 4:20 pm

    Actually it just goes to show you how pathetic the conservative party is.

    Another thing, it’s England, we’re not English.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.1
      4 July 2013 at 4:22 pm

      You’re not a Labour voter either.

      PS: We? You and someone else you represent? How many people have you got in there?

      • BM 1.1.1
        4 July 2013 at 4:24 pm

        How do you know that, have you been spying on me?

        Edit:
        I’ve noticed that many of the Poms living in NZ can’t seem to get past the fact that NZ is no longer part of the empire or that we no longer look at England for direction and advice.
        When I write we, I mean the people of NZ.

        • the pigman 1.1.1.1
          4 July 2013 at 4:29 pm

          🙄

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.1.1.2
          4 July 2013 at 4:36 pm

          😆 way to miss the point BM, which is that in your dreams, and only in your dreams you speak for us.

        • fender 1.1.1.3
          4 July 2013 at 4:38 pm

          “How do you know that, have you been spying on me?”

          You forgotten what you spat yesterday ?

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.4
          4 July 2013 at 5:00 pm

          I’ve noticed that many of the Poms living in NZ can’t seem to get past the fact that NZ is no longer part of the empire or that we no longer look at England for direction and advice.

          Really, Amazing. Especially considering that National brought back in the Queens honours system and we still hear whinges from the National party about dropping having to go to England to settle our legal disputes.

          It seems that National think that we are still part of the Empire.

          • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.4.1
            4 July 2013 at 5:02 pm

            We are: US, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ.

          • Boadicea 1.1.1.4.2
            4 July 2013 at 5:54 pm

            TV One News has a Colonial Cringe streak running through it. Very many 6pm buletins have a English royal family or similar story. Peter Williams (Paul Henry’s side man) usualy fronts.
            Radio NZ’s Mora “show” fills its gaps with content from the Torygraph.
            The hiring of English Civil Servants, often dud, is another sign of the Colonial Cringe that is pervasive in Wellington, IMHO.
            Both Labour people and Natz often promote an idea or solution on the simple basis that it is used in England. Cringe worthy.
            The sooner Kiwi’s go and declare the country a Republic the better for its self-esteem.

            • Populuxe1 1.1.1.4.2.1
              4 July 2013 at 6:26 pm

              What an ironic thing to say given your nom de plume, but still a crock of shit. I have yet to see any evidence that the self-esteem of Australia and Canada in today in any way influenced by sharing a monarch with Great Britain.

        • Rogue Trooper 1.1.1.5
          4 July 2013 at 5:24 pm

          so, you concede that ‘english’ attitudes persist, particularly among the influential conservative lobby.

  2. karol 2
    4 July 2013 at 4:28 pm

    Hmmm. So, if the men are the majority of Labour MPs, how many of the neoliberal old guard would be gone if the Labour candidates for 2014 are 45% female?

  3. mickysavage 3
    4 July 2013 at 4:31 pm

    It is a proposal at this stage. This means that it will need to be discussed at various levels of the party and voted on eventually at Annual Conference.

    The issue is a proper one to raise. Labour should be representative of the community at large and right now it is male dominated.

    The proposed rule change may or may not be the best way to achieve the end goal which I am sure no one in the party opposes but this is why the discussion and debate are important.

    Meanwhile Slater’s and Farrar’s spin is frankly disingenuous in the extreme.

    And it is not really a leak. The proposed rule has been circulated as far as I can see amongst all members and no doubt will appear on Labour’s website soon. It is as much a leak and the slightly early release of the Kitteridge Report.

    • Brett Dale 3.1
      4 July 2013 at 4:42 pm

      So micky if you wanted to stand as a labour party candidate and not move from
      where you are now living, but were told you couldnt because you were a man, would
      you be happy?

      Man lucky for the late David Lange, that labour didnt have this policy.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.1.1
        4 July 2013 at 4:45 pm

        It’s all about you and your privilege. How could it not be?

      • BM 3.1.2
        4 July 2013 at 4:46 pm

        Or Big Norm.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.1.2.1
          4 July 2013 at 4:51 pm

          Or all the brilliant female candidates we actually missed out on.

      • Lanthanide 3.1.3
        4 July 2013 at 5:50 pm

        Pretty sure you don’t have to live in an electorate in order to stand for it.

        • McFlock 3.1.3.1
          4 July 2013 at 5:51 pm

          Look at blinglish 🙂

        • weka 3.1.3.2
          4 July 2013 at 9:51 pm

          “Pretty sure you don’t have to live in an electorate in order to stand for it.”

          Yeah you do. But the definition of ‘live in’ is pretty loose. You have to have a home there that you stay in sometimes.

          • karol 3.1.3.2.1
            4 July 2013 at 9:56 pm

            And yet, some MPs don’t seem to stay in their electorates long enough to know of the existence there of the country’s most prominent German entrepreneur.

          • Bunji 3.1.3.2.2
            5 July 2013 at 10:19 am

            No you don’t. You have to be nominated by people who live in the electorate, you don’t have to live there yourself. (Just ask Maggie Barry or any number of others who promise to move into the electorate if the good burghers vote for them)

            That said, it’s a good look if you want to get in.

    • weka 3.2
      4 July 2013 at 4:57 pm

      “Meanwhile Slater’s and Farrar’s spin is frankly disingenuous in the extreme.”

      Would be nice to see a slew of posts in the leftwing blogosphere about how the rightwing doesn’t want women in parliament. I’m sure there’d be some good subject lines.

      • chris73 3.2.1
        4 July 2013 at 5:09 pm

        oh but we do, I especially would like to see Judith Collins running the country…

        • weka 3.2.1.1
          4 July 2013 at 5:17 pm

          Collins doesn’t count as women you idiot.

          • chris73 3.2.1.1.1
            4 July 2013 at 5:25 pm

            Shes all women as far as I’m concerned but I guess in comparison with Labours offerings… 🙂

          • Rogue Trooper 3.2.1.1.2
            4 July 2013 at 5:27 pm

            barely counts as a … oh wait, …behave. (moment of weakness, not at the knees).

        • Suitably Clueless 3.2.1.2
          4 July 2013 at 5:49 pm

          I just threw up in my mouth a little at that thought.

      • BM 3.2.2
        4 July 2013 at 5:10 pm

        Why do the right wing not want women in parliament.?
        I don’t care if some one has an inny or an outy, it’s if you’ve got the skillz that matters.

        Like Chris said I’d love to see Judith take over from Key, she’s really got what it takes.

        • weka 3.2.2.1
          4 July 2013 at 5:19 pm

          “Why do the right wing not want women in parliament.?”

          Yes, why do the rightwing not want women in parliament. I’d like to know. Because today you are all arguing something that prevents more women in parliament.

          • chris73 3.2.2.1.1
            4 July 2013 at 5:26 pm

            No, we’re arguing against discrimination

            • weka 3.2.2.1.1.1
              4 July 2013 at 6:03 pm

              No. You’re arguing FOR discrimination, you’re just too stupid to see it or too disingenuous to admit it.

              The system is stacked against women. Labour want to set that right, so that we get a balance of genders in parliament to reflect the population. YOU don’t want that to happen, you prefer to stick with the system that promotes men above women. That’s discriminatory.

              • chris73 …
                4 July 2013 at 6:21 pm

                “YOU don’t want that to happen, you prefer to stick with the system that promotes men above women. That’s discriminatory.”

                – Don’t blame me for Labours discriminatory treatment of women 🙂

          • BM 3.2.2.1.2
            4 July 2013 at 5:40 pm

            Maybe I have a bit more of a respect of the skills women have than what you obviously do.

            I’ve met a few women business owners, very impressive and confident individuals.

            If I told them that I think we should change way things are done because they’re women and there’s not as many women business owners therefore the rules need changing because obviously women can’t cut it in this environment otherwise there would be a even split of male/female business owners they’d kick me in the balls and stamp on my face

            And I’d deserve it.

            • McFlock 3.2.2.1.2.1
              4 July 2013 at 5:49 pm

              I’ve met a few women business owners

              My emphasis added.
              If society were a meritocracy, you would have met more than “a few”.

            • weka 3.2.2.1.2.2
              4 July 2013 at 6:09 pm

              “If I told them that I think we should change way things are done because they’re women…”

              But see here you are completely missing the point. The change isn’t needed because there is something wrong with women. It’s needed because there is something wrong with men. Or, to put it more kindly, there is something wrong with the system that men set up to their own advantage. You want to pretend that the system is gender neutral, but it’s not, and women voters know that.

              Of course if you present the concept to women in the patronising way you have, then of course they won’t like it. But if you demonstrate how teh system is unfair, many women will recognise this because they’ve lived with it their whole lives.

              • BM …
                4 July 2013 at 6:23 pm

                Yes, it’s all the fault of Men.

                Why, why, why is the Earth cursed with this cancerous race, oh the pain and hardship these creatures have caused.

                Evil, through and through

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  4 July 2013 at 6:30 pm

                  Childish, empty, pointless, worthless gimps like you don’t speak for men. That’s just the way things are, get used to it.

                  • BM …
                    4 July 2013 at 6:53 pm

                    I recommend you put on a coarser hair shirt and up the self flagellation to at least 4 times daily.

                    You’ll feel a lot better.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      5 July 2013 at 7:11 am

                      😆 Do you think I feel guilty by association with people like you? 😆

                • weka …
                  4 July 2013 at 6:36 pm

                  “Yes, it’s all the fault of Men.”

                  So you agree there is a problem then.

                  I assume you can’t respond to my actual points so you have to create false hyperbole around them. Gee, a feminist being called a man-hater for pointing out sexism in society.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  4 July 2013 at 6:37 pm

                  Why are there so few women MPs in National?

                  • BM …
                    4 July 2013 at 6:44 pm

                    They’re not good enough or not interested.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      4 July 2013 at 7:01 pm

                      What is it about being a woman that might make them not good enough?

                    • BM …
                      4 July 2013 at 7:13 pm

                      Nothing about being a women, might be more to do that there weren’t as many women applying to be ministers, might also be the guys were better suited or had better skills.

                      Hypothetically speaking
                      Just say only 10 women put their names forward to be mps, 9 were selected, would you still accuse National of being a sexist woman hating party ?

                    • weka …
                      4 July 2013 at 7:45 pm

                      “might also be the guys were better suited or had better skills.”

                      Continuously for twenty years? Why would that be? Because more men are better than women?

                    • RedBaronCV …
                      4 July 2013 at 8:21 pm

                      Actually it’s lack of socipaths

                    • felix …
                      4 July 2013 at 9:14 pm

                      Come on weka, that’s not fair.

                      You know right-wing philosophies collapse as soon as you factor in time.

                    • QoT …
                      4 July 2013 at 11:15 pm

                      might also be the guys were better suited or had better skills.

                      Like Aaron Gilmore, for example.

    • Colonial Viper 3.3
      4 July 2013 at 8:11 pm

      The issue is a proper one to raise. Labour should be representative of the community at large and right now it is male dominated.

      I would tend to disagree strongly. If you seriously want the Labour caucus to “be representative of the community at large”, then half of them need to be earning less than $41,000 pa, the median full time wage.

      Because currently all MPs in Parliament are earning in the top 1%. And that’s not at all representative, is it.

      • weka 3.3.1
        4 July 2013 at 8:19 pm

        That argument only works if you think that gender is something that is constructed by society (like low incomes) and can be changed. Ah well I supposed the Labour Party could endorse gender reassignment surgery instead.

        I think in fact you would agree that the situation of MPs being out of touch with low income earners should change, right? Rather than not changing it, and not changing gender equity.

  4. mickysavage 4
    4 July 2013 at 4:38 pm

    If I can make one further comment on this issue it shows that the Labour party does not handle social media well.

    It puts this out with no thought about how it should be presented. It is a clean hit to Slater and Farrar who then get in first and add their spin onto it.

    Imagine if Julie Fairley or QOT or Karol had a chance to be the first to comment on it how different the debate could be.

    • Brett Dale 4.1
      4 July 2013 at 4:44 pm

      I would say Julie would be against it, QOT would be for it, Karol would think its the
      greatest policy in all humanity.

    • fender 4.2
      4 July 2013 at 4:46 pm

      So very true.

      “Imagine if Julie Fairley or QOT or Karol had a chance to be the first to comment on it how different the debate could be.”

      Yes PLEASE.

      • weka 4.2.1
        4 July 2013 at 5:15 pm

        +1 Great point micky. Of course that would mean Labour acknowledging that people who read blogs do in fact vote.

      • karol 4.2.2
        4 July 2013 at 8:33 pm

        Hmmm. I guess I am at a disadvantage in commenting on this as I am not familiar with how the Laboour Party selection processes work in practice. if I was going to post on it, I would look at the evidence for and against such quota systems in other countries, as here.

        It’s list of pros and cons of quotas is useful. And this kind of discussion:

        From this website it is possible to see how many countries have adopted reserved seats quotas, legislated candidate quotas and political party quotas. However, from the figures of women’s actual political representation, the website does illustrate that quota requirements are not actually always implemented. The web site reveals discrepancies between quota requirements and actual representation. Since the website only gives information about quotas rules that have been adopted, and not about the compliance in practice in individual parties, it is not possible to make conclusions about the connection between types of quota provisions and women’s representation — other than that many quota provisions are not properly implemented. And yet, women’s representation might increase as a result of the very debate about introducing quotas. But further research is needed about the implementation of quotas.

    • Ant 4.3
      4 July 2013 at 4:47 pm

      It’s like 1 step back, 2 steps back at the moment.

      It would be funny if this kind of stuff wasn’t contributing to a NACT 3rd term. 😐

    • Ad 4.4
      4 July 2013 at 5:17 pm

      You are so right.

      This is the first major “policy” since the Kiwipower thing, and it’s all in how it lands in the first 2 hours. That’s the turn of the debate.

      There’s stuff all men over 35 that vote Labour anyway, so it’s not like it can do too much more damage to increasing their male vote.

      A hesitation I have is that we have seen the party President strive and fail to give local electorates more say in how the Party runs things- so far to little practical effect. When New Lynn for example complained about how their MP was treated under freshly minted rules, New Lynn electorate got its head caved in. Which makes it hard to trust that another instrument will not be used as simply a disciplinary mechanism to get rid of those who don’t toe the Leaders’ line.

      I sincerely hope Shearer has a major knockout policy in the wings to supercede this debate, or we will see this gender thing echo through Leighton Smith and the rest for weeks.

      • Colonial Viper 4.4.1
        4 July 2013 at 8:01 pm

        There’s stuff all men over 35 that vote Labour anyway

        What the frak?

    • The Fan Club 4.5
      4 July 2013 at 5:20 pm

      None of those mentioned are particularly Labour friendly (& in fact range from “willing to live with Labour” through to “unable to shake obsession with supposed neolib boogeyman” to “hates current party with vemon”. It’s probably worth realizing that there just aren’t any reliably labour friendly bloggers with any pull.

      (also, really, this is kinda an inevitable side of effect of a democratic party, and could have happened at any point since a few months before regional conferences. Not much you can do about that.)

    • AmaKiwi 4.6
      4 July 2013 at 6:05 pm

      Another Labour public relations disaster to distract the public from the Nat’s fiascoes.

    • QoT 4.7
      4 July 2013 at 11:22 pm

      I wasn’t aware Labour had actually put this out, mickey (as opposed to maybe DPF or Slater getting their hands on a copy of someone’s conference papers?) – but if so, I completely agree. Hell, get a Labour MP like Sue Moroney or better yet some savvy Young Labourite to front the issue, put it in plain “it’s just a procedural tweak which gives party members more of a say if they want to promote talented women to caucus” language, boom.

      Now we’re stuck with fucking “manban” and the neckbeards of Twitter whinging because someone somewhere might do something which slightly erodes their manprivilege.

      • karol 4.7.1
        5 July 2013 at 7:35 am

        Or the likes of Josie Pagani reinforcing the narrative that’s already taken off in the MSM, because, god forbid that Labour do anything that might upset the status quo.

        Agree with Micky. The problem now is not only that women are under-represented in Labour’s caucus, but that there is now all this re-active hysteria about Labour attempting to do anything to make the caucus more gender-balanced.

  5. Brett Dale 5
    4 July 2013 at 4:58 pm

    If tvnz covers this, and doesnt put labour’s spin on it, next poll they will be below 30%

  6. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 6
    4 July 2013 at 5:05 pm

    9% of the population is incontinent. Who represents them?

  7. tracey 7
    4 July 2013 at 5:17 pm

    Why is it such a big deal that a party wants to encourage 50% of their representatives to be women? I’ve seen candidate processes in the National party (from a family member who once stood against Doug Graham) and they were viscious spiteful and very personal affairs.

    • weka 7.1
      4 July 2013 at 5:21 pm

      Because the rich white men’s club stops functioning properly once you get too many women around.

      • Rogue Trooper 7.1.1
        4 July 2013 at 5:29 pm

        struck with the c-spanner in the waterworks.

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.2
        4 July 2013 at 5:52 pm

        Because the rich white men’s club stops functioning properly once you get too many women around.

        That’s why you call Shipley, Gattung, Wong, Rankin and Rebstock in. No shortage of women around who know how to work with the rich white mens clubs.

        • weka 7.1.2.1
          4 July 2013 at 6:12 pm

          Precisely, and don’t forget Collins. And no shortage because the number of positions available is relatively small.

    • infused 7.2
      4 July 2013 at 9:03 pm

      It’s not encouraging, that’s why. It’s enforcing.

  8. gobsmacked 8
    4 July 2013 at 5:35 pm

    Hmm. On the one hand, there’s a “here we go again” element to this – as Mickey Savage says, Labour social media acting like snail mail.

    On t’other hand, Labour – and leftish parties generally – have always had internal debates and remits that can create an easy headline in talkbackland (voting age 16, decriminalise weed, etc). Always have, and (IMO) always should.

    I don’t think that’s Labour’s real problem. Far worse *facepalm* comes from senior MPs constantly screwing up, not ordinary party members discussing internal stuff. Self-discipline in caucus is way more important that regimenting the conference. For starters, the MPs are in the spotlight every day, not once a year.

    So yeah, not bothered about all-women shortlists, more bothered about the blokes currently in charge.

  9. burt 9
    4 July 2013 at 5:54 pm

    Social engineering…

    Well, as of the end of 2012, there were 2,254,200 women in New Zealand, compared to 2,181,500 men.

    OK woman, you are in a ballot to see if you are allowed to vote this year, 72,700 of you are going to miss out because it’s simply wrong that more woman vote than men. !!!!!!

    • weka 9.1
      4 July 2013 at 6:14 pm

      You got the argument round the wrong way burt. Those extra 72,700 women mean we should have MORE female MPs than male (not less voters). But because we’re talking about gender equity we’re willing to do a 50/50 split.

      • The Fan Club 9.1.1
        4 July 2013 at 6:17 pm

        Er, no, we’re not willing to do a fifty-fifty split (at least, not in the nzlp.) 50% is a floor, not a ceiling, for women’s representation.

        • weka 9.1.1.1
          4 July 2013 at 6:20 pm

          ‘we’ – I was talking about women, not the Labour party.

          • The Fan Club 9.1.1.1.1
            4 July 2013 at 6:23 pm

            And I was pointing out that a fifty-fifty split isn’t the goal for the nzlp, which is, after all, the party taking a tone of flack for standing up for feminist principles.

  10. AmaKiwi 10
    4 July 2013 at 6:16 pm

    There are fewer women in politics because we are wise enough to see the fruitlessness of trying to work within this dysfunctional, dictatorial system.

    I would never stand for office. It’s an exercise in futility. I post here on the recommendation of my therapist. It works! I’ve cut my medication in half.

  11. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 11
    4 July 2013 at 6:18 pm

    It’s every man’s right to have babies:

  12. Simeon 12
    4 July 2013 at 6:33 pm

    We will only see how serious they are with this if a woman is chosen to be the candidate for Mt Eden or Mt Roskill.

    • gobsmacked 12.1
      4 July 2013 at 6:38 pm

      I assume you mean Mt Albert.

      There was at least one strong female contender for the Labour nomination there. She lost out to a less capable man, who happened to be the leader’s mate.

  13. vto 13
    4 July 2013 at 8:29 pm

    who’s the author of this man ban spam?

    • Mary 13.1
      4 July 2013 at 8:42 pm

      Farrar followed closely by Slater. Looking forward to shrill from Odgers next.

  14. infused 14
    4 July 2013 at 9:02 pm

    Good old Labour, actively helping National win 2014.

    • karol 14.1
      5 July 2013 at 7:38 am

      I’d say it’s more the MSM, picking up on some misogynist whalespew, that is actively contributing to National’s election campaign.

Links to post