ManBan!

Written By: - Date published: 10:00 am, July 6th, 2013 - 221 comments
Categories: democratic participation, dpf, feminism, labour, making shit up, sexism - Tags:

A great joke has been played on the mainstream media: they have bought, hook, line and sinker, into W****O**-type spin.  They have been exposed as a bunch of followers, desperate to land the next hilarious 140-character-one-liner, to prove their relevance … without really understanding just how much they’ve been played.

Here’s a few of the problems with the “man ban” narrative which anyone with half a fucking clue about the functioning of political parties and society in general might have cottoned on to.

We don’t have a meritocracy even if you ignore silly identity politics

A lot of people are having a fucking whinge because oh my goooooooooooood, if you only select womeeeeeeeeeeeeen then what about the meeeeeeeeeeeeen.  It should just be on merit!  Merit alone!

Here’s the problem – and again, this is if you completely ignore things like sexism (or insist despite the mountains of evidence that they don’t exist):

When there are five candidates running in your electorate – say, four party candidates from National, Labour, the Greens and ACT, and one independent – do you honestly believe that they are objectively the five best possible candidates for your electorate?

I’m certainly no National supporter.  I have significant issues with their policies, approaches, and general existence.  Even I cannot believe, however, that Aaron bloody Gilmore was the best National Party member to run for Christchurch East, nor that he was the 56th best National Party member overall.

There are many reasons people get to stand for parties, or even as independents, in our electorates.  There are many reasons people get placed on their party’s list.  You honestly want to sit there and say that ~the people get to decide~ when there’s bureaucracy, factionalism, and a shitload of money at stake?

And that’s ignoring the obvious disparities of gender, race and class between “who’s in Parliament” and “who’s in New Zealand”.  That’s ignoring the lifestyle constraints on MPs and other elected representatives – constraints which massively favour the privileged classes.

If you think “but merit” is an argument against gender-balancing strategies, you’re saying everything is already done on merit.  Trying taking that thought through to its logical conclusion.  Then look at yourself in the mirror and say “Wow, I’m a racist, misogynist piece of shit.”

There’s a difference between “making the grade” and “being the best”

Another illusion created by this argument is the idea that “the best” candidate should always win.  But that’s not really how it has to go.

Let’s assume there’s a basic standard for party candidates – a history of party involvement, good local knowledge,  basic electability (and see “not a fucking meritocracy” above for why this is more a wishlist than a reflection of the current situation in any party.)

If you have candidate A who’s lived in the area for ten years, owns the local fish’n’chip shop, has a great name for punning on and is pretty likeable, compared with candidate B who’s lived in the area for twelve years, runs a stall at the market selling organic salami, has a surname beginning with A and is pretty likeable … is the difference between victory and defeat going to be that significant?

Is it going to crush the hopes and dreams of your party to pick basically-electable Candidate A – who happens to be a woman, or a man of colour, or a person with a disability, or a woman of colour with a disability – over basically-electable Candidate B, who’s another white dude?

Sports metaphor:  in order to try out for swim team, you must complete [swimming task A] in under 3 minutes.  Kid 1 does it in 2:58.  Kid 2 does it in 2:53.  According to the “but merit!!!” arguers, you must choose Kid 2.  Even though Kid 1 might have a better attitude, or comes from a shitty home and needs the self esteem boost.

They both passed the mark.  Nothing wrong with taking other things into account after the fact.

(Of course, this raises a far broader, more complex issue of what constitutes “merit”.  In my books, ensuring a diverse range of viewpoints is about merit, because we know that more diverse groups make better decisions.  But that’s a whole book’s worth of discussion.)

Party conferences throw up ridiculous shit all the time

This is what got me.  Apparently for a few brief wonderful moments yesterday afternoon, TV3 had a story up on their website about the Labour Party introducing a Bill to change the law around candidate selection in every electorate.

I can see where the mistake comes from: when everyone’s squawking about something, you probably assume it’s serious.

But … it’s really not.

It’s a draft policy remit from a party committee which is going to the conference to be discussed and potentially included in the party’s rules, which would allow individual electorates to voluntarily request that only women be shortlisted if the party council agrees on a case-by-case basis.

fry

… fuck me, the fucking Amazons are storming the Bastille with fucking laser-cannons.  Hide your menfolk!

It’s not even a fucking quota, people

See above.

The painful/hilarious side of this is, of course, that the UK Conservatives are looking to introduce much the same process – but without the voluntary factor.  Yep, they’re going to mandate when winnable seats have to run women candidates.  But figuring this out would require Googling, paying attention to UK politics or following Andrew Geddis on Twitter.  Clearly, far to hard when you can just badger David Shearer into making stupid statements.

~

(Image from Hark, A Vagrant. No, not the Futurama one.)

~

ETA: Mod note:  There are literally four other posts on this issue at The Standard, with hundreds of comments on them.  You want to discuss sexism?  Go here.  Gender balance across other parties?  Here.  The proposal itself?  Here.  Other reactions?  Here.  I’m not interested in rehashing every single “Labour hates men” “this makes them unelectable” “lol sex changes” comment which has already been thrashed to death.  

This post is about the misconceptions being thrown around in a media which copy-pastes from rightwing blogs.  It’s not a place to propagate them.

221 comments on “ManBan! ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. jaymam 1
    6 July 2013 at 10:24 am

    All parties should have some kind of independent advisor that they can run ideas with, in case those ideas are stupid. Somehow, political parties seem blind to the effect certain stupid ideas will have and which will be quoted by their enemies for years. I did offer advice to Labour when I was a member but that was ignored, so I left. Is it the “can’t see the wood for the trees” effect?

    [QoT: This is not a “party idea”. Re-read the post and try again. There are already multiple posts debating the value of the proposal. If you want to comment on that you may do so there.]

    • chris73 1.1
      6 July 2013 at 10:30 am

      Thats quite a good idea

    • Te Reo Putake 1.2
      6 July 2013 at 10:38 am

      I’ll stick with democracy, ta Jayman. btw, have you spotted the contradiction between your idea for an ‘independent’ advisor and your toy chucking when your advice when you were a member was ignored? Or are you just suggesting you should be that independent adviser? They wouldn’t listen to me when I was a member, they really must listen to me when I’m not.

      Also interested to know why think discussing ways of advancing women within Labour is stupid.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.2.1
        6 July 2013 at 10:48 am

        The discussion isn’t stupid. The non-decision to wait for Cameron Slater to initiate the debate was though. Beyond stupid, in fact: the sort of blunder that only a complete tool would make.

        • weka 1.2.1.1
          6 July 2013 at 10:54 am

          a toolbox of complete tools in fact.

          • Bearded Git 1.2.1.1.1
            6 July 2013 at 8:51 pm

            The way it should have been handled was to throw back in the journalists faces the fact that National has 16 women and 43 men in it’s caucus.”I’m sorry Mr. Gower but it is National that has the problem here not Labour.” Shearer’s response-weak, woffly; what’s new?

      • saarbo 1.2.2
        6 July 2013 at 10:49 am

        Spot on!

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.3
      6 July 2013 at 1:07 pm

      Labour needs to put someone on Whale duty figuring out what Lusk’s lines will be and pre-empting them. Not a bad idea Jaymam. Kind of obvious though.

    • jaymam 1.4
      8 July 2013 at 4:55 pm

      QoT: This is not a “party idea”
      Clearly it IS a party idea. Sue Moroney said so, and I have not seen an official Labour Party contradiction of that.

      Sue Moroney said: We all agree in the Labour Party that we want 45% [women] in the next [election]
      ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjJZw54WRs8

  2. chris73 2
    6 July 2013 at 10:27 am

    Of course once again its everybody else who just doesn’t understand, if only the people and the media understood what Labour were doing they’d know its for their own good…

    It was handled badly and the response was poor, deal with it.

    [QoT: No, chris, you deal with reading my post. The last sentence acknowledges this was handled badly. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a non-story, at least compared to how it’s been portrayed by the media.]

    • BM 2.1
      6 July 2013 at 10:36 am

      Yep, everyone else is so fucking dumb and ill informed, that’s the problem

      Maybe QOT need to break out of her insular little sect and go talk and mingle with others who aren’t tofu eating anarcho lesbian feminists.

      This idea within your little group may be seen as the greatest thing since sliced bread but outside that wee cloistered environment it’s a totally different world and unfortunately for you every one thinks this idea is shit.

      [QoT: this is your only warning, and I’m only leaving it here as evidence of why the rest of your derailing, abusive, irrelevant comments will be summarily deleted.]

      • weka 2.1.1
        6 July 2013 at 10:49 am

        BM, if you don’t come across feminists in your day to day life, you might want to ask yourself why*. Because I certainly do, it’s normal in NZ for women to be feminist (even those that don’t use the term).

        *three guesses:

        One, you simply ignore women who talk feminism, or you are tone deaf to women talking about issues that are important to women.

        Two, the women around you avoid talking feminism in front of you because you are so unpleasant.

        Three, there are plenty of feminist women around you but they don’t use the word feminist because of bigots like you.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.2
      6 July 2013 at 10:42 am

      It was handled badly, which allowed the complete misrepresentation of the circumstances and substance of the proposal, so no wonder the response was poor.

      As for dealing with it, the Labour Party needs a leader first.

      • BM 2.2.1
        6 July 2013 at 10:59 am

        The only way this idea was ever going to fly is if people like Trevor Mallard, Damian O’Conner, David Shearer got in behind it and explained why it’s needed and how it’s going to improve parliament, blah, blah etc.

        If the individuals who are going to be most disadvantaged got up and supported it, people may then think, “Hmm this idea must have some merit, you wouldn’t have the guys agreeing with it if it wasn’t needed”.

        On the flip side it may also enforce the perception that the Men within Labour are a bunch of brow beaten individuals led around by the nose.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.2.1.1
          6 July 2013 at 11:06 am

          The “perception”? Looks more like an unsubstantiated smear from a partisan hack to me.

          The worst thing that can be said about them (in this context) is that they owe their positions to their gender, but the problem is far worse in National.

          Speaking of which, do you think that the fact that only sixteen out of fifty nine National MPs are women is a result of the endemic gender bullying in right-wing circles?

        • deemac 2.2.1.2
          6 July 2013 at 2:27 pm

          so we have to wait for the less progressive men to support any policy about women? And that’s not at all sexist…
          The NZLP website has over 60 pages of policy stuff but our journos are too lazy to read that.
          Should the party staff be able to anticipate which tiny bit of that Whale Oil is going to seize on? If you think you can anticipate that, you should apply for a media management job immediately!

          • handle 2.2.1.2.1
            6 July 2013 at 2:33 pm

            Labour needs to be ready to counter anything scumbags like Slater run with. It is not that hard to predict and be ready.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.2.1.2.1.1
              6 July 2013 at 4:00 pm

              No, it isn’t. “What will the enemy do” is a basic part of any policy debate.

  3. Toby 3
    6 July 2013 at 10:27 am

    We in the Labour Party look forward to Moira Coatsworth’s and Tim Barnett’s resignation. The latter, in particular is a disgrace to the Labour Party, he has only ever used the party to further his own agendas and people. Bring back Mike Williams and Mike Smith. They had credibility and good political instinct. Coatsworh and Barnett are fruit loops.

    [QoT: this is not relevant to the post.]

    • deemac 3.1
      6 July 2013 at 2:27 pm

      is that the royal “We”?

    • JK 3.2
      6 July 2013 at 5:33 pm

      Who is the “we in the Labour Party”, Toby ? It is certainly not I. Tim B is doing okay while Mike Smith in his former position was a muddler of the first degree with NO political instinct.

  4. Rogue Trooper 4
    6 July 2013 at 10:43 am

    it has been informative watching the MSM tele presenters / auto-cue writers repeat the schoolyard meme (boys aren’t allowed, not even to watch).

    and Mike Williams? – “it’s sexism”. hmmm.

    Quote of the yesterday : “poor old David Shearer, now there is a man whose a victim”.
    -Judith Collins (Winston Smith / chris73 woulda’ got there jollies with that one; Yes? ).

  5. Roflcopter 5
    6 July 2013 at 11:09 am

    The problem is more fundamental than what the media are saying.

    That Labour feels the need to propose rules to increase the number of women representatives in the party shows that they have essentially failed in their ability to seek out, encourage and support more women into the world of politics, at a core level. Doing so would have seen a natural increase in the number and quality of women, and negate the need for an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff proposal.

    This is what the media are banging on about… not the fact that there’s these new proposed rules floating about, but the fact that Labour, who purport to support huge diversity/equity within the party, feel the need to actually make rules to cover the fact they suck at practicing what they preach.

    • QoT 5.1
      6 July 2013 at 11:15 am

      Clearly you’ve been reading different media to me, Roflcopter, because all I’ve seen is a swathe of “but we had a woman Prime Minister so sexism doesn’t exist” and “David Shearer can’t control his party” (because Patrick Gower doesn’t understand how political parties work) and “PC gone mad”.

      If the media wanted to “bang on about” the lack of representation of women in politics, that would be, well, probably really terrible, but at least relevant to an existing issue. And they’d have to look at National too, and it’s complete lack of action on the even greater lack of gender balance.

      You are welcome to provide citations to the contrary, of course.

      • Roflcopter 5.1.1
        6 July 2013 at 11:46 am

        I’m probably not expressing this as well as I should, so apologies QoT.

        What I’m trying to get at is that fundamental gender balance issues should not need to be addressed by Labour proposing rules that force the balance. Labour (or any party for that matter) need to step back at a deeper level to develop themselves an environment where gender balance doesn’t need to be thought about, it happens naturally. What they are currently doing is proposing stuff that says they suck at doing that, and the media is calling them out on it.

        National are just as bad, they recognise it, and just like Labour, need to step back at a deeper level to develop appropriate environments where gender balance doesn’t need to be thought about, it happens naturally. Unlike Labour, what they won’t do is propose rules to cover their shortcomings.

        The media suck in general, but in this case, where they are clearly calling Labour out on their shortcomings, you would at least hope Labour would see that and step back to look at the deeper issues that puts them where they are currently.

        • QoT 5.1.1.1
          6 July 2013 at 12:06 pm

          You do have a point, Roflcopter, but the fact is that the two options which are now presented are:

          (a) do something small and tactical like introduced optional women-only lists;

          (b) destroy patriarchy.

          I am all in favour of B. But we don’t get to B without taking steps like A.

          • Roflcopter 5.1.1.1.1
            6 July 2013 at 12:35 pm

            I guess that’s where I sort of differ from your thinking.

            I’m more of the thinking that A delays, or even sets back, any moves necessary to achieve B.

            I’m more than happy for the media to continue to call out anyone on stuff like A, because the more people are held to account for thinking along the lines of A, the greater the chance the people will take a good long hard look at themselves and realise that B is where their heads needed to be at in the first place. This is the only way progress will be made.

            Blaming the media is a cop-out.

            • QoT 5.1.1.1.1.1
              6 July 2013 at 1:13 pm

              God, I’m over the “waaaaaah, cop-out” line. The media’s just slightly influential, you know.

              And if you think A is the reason no one makes “proper” moves towards B, I suggest you go do some homework.

              • Roflcopter …
                6 July 2013 at 1:23 pm

                Put it this way, if B was the norm, A wouldn’t have happened, there wouldn’t be a story, and you wouldn’t need to be writing this piece.

                A is not the way to get to B, it’s just something done to make people feel good.

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  6 July 2013 at 1:48 pm

                  Even if that were true, “feeling good” has a positive effect on confidence and therefore ability. Not to mention electability.

                  • Akldnut …
                    7 July 2013 at 11:02 am

                    Why couldn’t it have be an unwritten policy/guideline over the formal written one, then this discussion wouldn’t even need to take place and Labour would be scoring big on being the most inclusive party to choose from.

                • QoT …
                  7 July 2013 at 11:05 am

                  And you base this on what?

                  • Akldnut …
                    7 July 2013 at 11:27 am

                    Wishful thinking, if it was already being done then there wouldn’t be a need to make it a written rule, this would all be moot.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.2
          6 July 2013 at 4:14 pm

          That’s what they’ve been doing for quite some time and it’s not working.

          Here’s the thing: IMO, putting in place these policies will help bring about that natural balance while not doing so will help prevent that natural balance due to the momentum of the present imbalance.

    • deemac 5.2
      6 July 2013 at 2:30 pm

      er, no it isn’t. The media have been repeating Whale Oil’s meme and totally failing to report the facts. Pretty normal for them really.

      • Roflcopter 5.2.1
        6 July 2013 at 2:40 pm

        In headline only….

        The facts are clear: Labour feel the need to make rules to cover the fact they suck at practicing what they preach. They got called out on it.

  6. Descendant Of Sssmith 6
    6 July 2013 at 11:11 am

    Nah it wasn’t handled badly it was something completely misrepresented by the right.

    Their response to it is as stupid as yelling fire in a picture theatre when there isn’t one.

    If only the media got as worked up about real removals of liberties in this country such as removing voting rights from prisoners, illegally stopping them smoking, imprisoning people for using drugs, banning begging, increased powers of searching your homes without a warrant, the various bits of legislation re Chch, the abuse of urgency, and so on.

    The media have been unintelligent and Pavlovian in their responses.

    The desire to get any story out first on the net means they can be led by the nose when you tap into the writers own prejudices towards sensationalist shit.

    Slater and his co-writers tap into that.

    Shearers response was pretty crap as well. He doesn’t do the “nothing to see here move on” anywhere near as well as Key.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.1
      6 July 2013 at 11:16 am

      Of course it was handled badly: the media environment is what it is, Lusk and his sock-puppet should never have been in a position to break the story.

      • Descendant Of Sssmith 6.1.1
        6 July 2013 at 11:30 am

        Nah once you buy into “the perception is reality” bullshit you are doomed to chase your tail on everything.

        Whoever started using that phrase as a management meme should be sent to Pluto.

        The “perception” of the proposal and the reaction to that “perception” is miles out of kilter with the reality.

        If the media had any credibility they’d report on the reality.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.1.1.1
          6 July 2013 at 11:48 am

          Who’s buying into it? Question: did the publicity vacuum (prior to yesterday) serve the interests of the Labour Party?

      • Don't worry be happy 6.1.2
        6 July 2013 at 12:08 pm

        Maybe Labour have a ‘Plan Ban’ as well…seems to have kicked in about the time we had Goff foisted on us.

    • RedLogix 6.2
      6 July 2013 at 11:25 am

      Between QoT’s post and this comment more or less said everything that needed saying here.

      Everyone with half a brain cell needs to stop and think about this incident; the pig arrogant, deeply entrenched sexism it has revealed across the whole of this nation lies bare to be seen.

      It’s the same shit Clark and Gillard had to swim through, the same shit women everywhere have to fend off daily. The same shit any man who refuses to ape the staunch machismo manboy culture has to keep his mouth shut about … lest more shit get shovelled down it.

      Depressing and contemptible are the two words that describe how I feel about what has happened here. And my respect to those of you with the sheer energy and guts to fight back on it.

      Thanks.

      • deemac 6.2.1
        6 July 2013 at 2:31 pm

        +1

      • Draco T Bastard 6.2.2
        6 July 2013 at 4:18 pm

        +1

      • mickysavage 6.2.3
        6 July 2013 at 10:19 pm

        Agreed RL.

      • LynWiper 6.2.4
        7 July 2013 at 9:05 am

        +1 totally agree RL

      • farmboy 6.2.5
        7 July 2013 at 10:44 am

        dont forget to lift up your dress when you sit down to pee,ya pansy

        • Te Reo Putake 6.2.5.1
          7 July 2013 at 10:50 am

          Excellent riposte, farmboy. I too remember the sixties and the terrific fun to be had accusing people of being homosexual because you can’t outhink them. Reminds me of an old joke:

          Farmboy is in court, accused of molesting a sheep. The judge gives him a withering look and asks if the sheep was a ram or a ewe.

          “A ewe your Honour! Whaddya think I am, queer?”

          • farmboy 6.2.5.1.1
            7 July 2013 at 10:59 am

            haha not bad you must be gutted we the most successful farmers in the world.Funny how people on here get all up in arms about gay jokes,untill directed at farmers, kind of fucked up but keep it up im amused

            • weka 6.2.5.1.1.1
              7 July 2013 at 12:02 pm

              If by most successful farmers you mean leading the charge in completely fucking the environment while lining their pockets, then stand up and take a bow.

              (of course we also have some outstanding sustainabilty farmers here too, but I suspect that wasn’t what you mean).

            • Draco T Bastard 6.2.5.1.1.2
              7 July 2013 at 12:20 pm

              It’d be interesting to see just how successful if you were actually held to account (ie, had to actually look after the environment) and didn’t get any government subsidies. I suspect that you’d be whinging that it was all too hard.

              • farmboy …
                7 July 2013 at 8:17 pm

                [QoT: Bored now.]

                • RedLogix …
                  7 July 2013 at 8:36 pm

                  @ farmboy.

                  When I read your comments what I see is exactly the same behaviour as goes on in schoolyard bullying. You have made no argument of any sort, produced any evidence or tried to engage in conversation.

                  Of course this being the internet you can’t reach out and physically abuse us, but you are attempting to impose your emotional and psychological dreck upon us.

                  For the most part the people here simply shrug it off; we’ve lived through this kind of shit being dumped on us all our lives. We’ve learned that stooping to your level merely betrays our own values. There’s no satisfaction in that.

                  So feel free to troll away farmboy. It means little to us and if it somehow gives you a warm sticky feeling … then what’s the harm?

      • Macro 6.2.6
        7 July 2013 at 9:04 pm

        Excellent comment RL totally agree.
        Am very disappointed in some of the nonsense being spouted – would hope we were past that sort of crap – but obviously not.

      • Huginn 6.2.7
        8 July 2013 at 8:36 am

        +1, here too

    • David H 6.3
      6 July 2013 at 11:30 am

      But that’s just typical right wing media policy, find what the left is doing, and get slimebucket to write some crap that really has nothing to do with the original draft policy, Call their tame Journo and hey presto, no Shonkey vs Kim Dot Com. Instead all we have are these pathetic headlines.

  7. vto 7
    6 July 2013 at 11:17 am

    So QoT, how do you deal with this msm problem?

    Seems more smarts needed to ensure the correct picture is picked up and portrayed in the media.

    More smarts.

    • QoT 7.1
      6 July 2013 at 11:26 am

      Well, that’s where we can start discussing the response from the Labour Party itself. I think if you’ve failed to stop a story breaking and being misrepresented, like this, you have to be bloody quick and decisive in your response, and stop people like Josie fucking Pagani from making things worse.

      • vto 7.1.1
        6 July 2013 at 11:39 am

        One thought: It seems the problem stemmed from schemes hatched in the bowels of the Labour Party and then discussed and promoted among the party. Hair-brained schemes, good and wise schemes, forward-thinking schemes, backwards-looking schemes, all sorts of schemes. Perhaps it is right here that the brakes need to go on lest these schemes get out and tarnish the entire Labour Party, which is what they do.

        It is no good trying to explain to the public that these things are only discussion points / part of a regional concference thingy / caucus thingy. Those explanations don’t wash with the public – they have no idea what they are and all they hear is what is printed in the media. This is a reality.

        So, in light of that, perhaps some tighter control of schemes and ideas. Either ban them from open discussion or create a separate place within the party where new ideas are discussed and formed (which is confidential). Or some other mechanism to control this type of discussion.

        Personally, Labour is a mainstream party and as such should not be bothering itself with ideas and schemes that are more fringe. Let other fringe parties attend to them and let those fringe parties bring the discussions into the public arena.

        Here is another mechanism – plant a plant in the Nats and learn how they do it….

        • Descendant Of Sssmith 7.1.1.1
          6 July 2013 at 11:49 am

          It is no good trying to explain to the public that these things are only discussion points

          I think the reverse. That is what should happen. I can’t see any reason to treat the public as stupid or to not convey the truth.

          Style over substance just pisses me off.

          Just tell the truth – consistently and regularly and build a reputation for not bullshitting.

          • vto 7.1.1.1.1
            6 July 2013 at 12:01 pm

            I appreciate that DoS, and the public are surely not stupid I agree. And neither has any mention of bullshit been made.

            But the issue is, as QoT states, the manner in which the media operates. And the manner in which people consume news – quickly and briefly. Sure, they will understand about discussion points, if they have the time to read a whole lot, but they generally don’t have the time to read the detail. This manner of operation seems to work against the manner you describe and this man ban is a perfect illustration.

            I guess you can fight it if you want and continue as you wish, but don’t expect the results to be any different. Or, you can adjust the method of operation to suit this reality, and that should not involve treating people as stupid or bullshitting them either. Surely the intended result can still be arrived at.

        • weka 7.1.1.2
          6 July 2013 at 11:56 am

          Gender equity is not fringe, and it’s been on the agenda in society for a long time.

          By bowels of the Labour party I assume you mean the memberhip?

          I can sympathise to an extent with the desire to go secret (the GP ban on media at their last AGM for instance), but there are other ways to handle this. The fact that after a couple of days we have no idea who developed the proposed rule change, why it was a rule change and not some other kind of discussion, why it wasn’t alongside other gender equity proposals, how the process of development was managed particularly in relation to LECs and National Council and the PR dept of Labour… the fact that we don’t know those things tells me that Labour have pretty disfunctional internal systems. Do they even talk to each other? Did the person who put forward the final version of the rule change talk to the person who prepared teh document and did they discuss this with Labour party PR strategists?

          • vto 7.1.1.2.1
            6 July 2013 at 12:05 pm

            That seems to be the problem to me weka – a disfunctional operating system for the Labour Party. It needs to be sharpened up to a knife edge, not blundering around making great blunt hacks at things and leaving a worse mess.

            Sharp knife for sharp incisions.

            Blunt knife equals mess.

          • Rogue Trooper 7.1.1.2.2
            6 July 2013 at 1:07 pm

            well, Louisa Wall is publicly in support of the proposal weka
            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10895113

            • Alanz 7.1.1.2.2.1
              6 July 2013 at 4:32 pm

              As a man with balls and proud testosterone surging through my red hot blood veins, I support the proposal and thank Louisa.

              And thanks be given to so-called men like Shane Jones, in a party that would be better off without him, who demonstrate the value of ensuring such a policy does go through for the Labour Party.

              Next policy proposal please.

          • The Fan Club 7.1.1.2.3
            6 July 2013 at 6:05 pm

            Weka, look, the thing is, this is in fact stuff that’s in the public arena. Barnett’s presser details this.

            The fact that after a couple of days we have no idea who developed the proposed rule change,

            (A) inside baseball and no-one cares anyway, and (b) in fact, this has been put out.

            why it was a rule change and not some other kind of discussion, why it wasn’t alongside other gender equity proposals,

            It was. It really, really was tried up with so many other proposals. The media didn’t cover them! There’s not a lot Labour can do about that, because guess what? “Culture changes” and so-on are boring and not newsworthy material.

            how the process of development was managed particularly in relation to LECs and National Council and the PR dept of Labour…

            Yes, god knows bureaucratic details of internal constitutional changes are exactly what will get lapped up…; also am pretty sure that Coatsworth and Barnett were briefing on this from lunchtime the day it broke…

            If Labour were to manage it’s internal process even more with an eye to PR, we may as well give and go home as far as having an open, democratic membership goes.

      • weka 7.1.2
        6 July 2013 at 11:44 am

        This from Jan Logie at the Greens, in response to Women’s Affairs Minister Jo Goodhew criticising the quota, saying people should be selected on their merit

        There is a wealth of evidence that shows entrenched gender bias is a reality. This article demonstrates it in the sciences:

        “To test scientist’s reactions to men and women with precisely equal qualifications, the researchers did a randomized double-blind study in which academic scientists were given application materials from a student applying for a lab manager position. The substance of the applications were all identical, but sometimes a male name was attached, and sometimes a female name.

        Results: female applicants were rated lower than men on the measured scales of competence, hireability, and mentoring (whether the scientist would be willing to mentor this student). Both male and female scientists rated the female applicants lower.”

        If the Minister of Women’s Affairs doesn’t recognise gender bias then we really are in trouble.

        I’m not saying quotas are necessarily the answer but it makes sense that they should be considered as a response to bias let alone historical discrimination. They’ve worked really well for us in the Green party.

        http://www.greens.org.nz/node/31702

        See Labour, and MSM, it’s really not that hard.

      • Jimmie 7.1.3
        6 July 2013 at 12:03 pm

        [QoT: You will go much further in life (or, at least, in getting your comments through moderation) if you don’t use phrases like “feminist rants” as pejoratives and also don’t throw out ridiculous straw arguments.]

      • Sponge 7.1.4
        6 July 2013 at 10:04 pm

        Wasn’t Josie a Labour candidate?

    • vto 7.2
      6 July 2013 at 11:28 am

      Coatsworth showed no smarts. In fact the reverse, she showed negative smarts. She didn’t just do the right thing badly, she did the wrong thing correctly.

      Smart, accurate and detailed thinking and actions are required if you want to avoid this problem again.

      smart

      accurate

      detailed

    • David H 7.3
      6 July 2013 at 11:59 am

      For the last year we have had a sycophantic media, and Key could have eaten live babies on the 6pm news and still got away with it.
      However things are starting to change, and John Key the Teflon PM is now the Badly tarnished PM with a convenient case of amnesia. But the MSM, and TV MSM in particular are still kissing Keys arse. And with Gower around to make shit up, and stir the pot, and all the other Free to air channels are just as bad. And on the Nation this morning, the main story/joke was the Man ban. FFS No John Key getting his arse handed to him by KDC and looking like the school bully and acting like it as well.
      And the the story was supposed to run for the weekend, then along come Labour riding the light blue horse to save the NATS from a weekend of embarrassment. No wonder the voters are deserting them in droves

      • RedLogix 7.3.1
        6 July 2013 at 12:48 pm

        Key could have eaten live babies on the 6pm news and still got away with it.

        And pronounced them delicious. Our entire political scene at the moment alternates between boring, drearily incompetent and disgusting.

        • karol 7.3.1.1
          6 July 2013 at 5:27 pm

          This week I’ve heard some very anti-John Key stuff raised by people I don’t usually talk politics with. There’s obviously a few people out there who are not taken in by the dominant pro-Key MSM spin. Some people who just see him as a con man that doesn’t have the interests of the majority of Kiwis at heart.

          • handle 7.3.1.1.1
            6 July 2013 at 5:37 pm

            “Some people” does not win an election.

            • karol 7.3.1.1.1.1
              7 July 2013 at 6:55 am

              They may be “some people”, handle. But to me they seem to be pretty “ordinary”, or “everyday” kinds of people. I was surprised to hear them express such strong anti-Key views.

          • Mary 7.3.1.1.2
            6 July 2013 at 11:11 pm

            But can that stuff get through the teflon? The weakness of our opposition might suggest it can’t, in my humble opinion, of course.

  8. Descendant Of Sssmith 8
    6 July 2013 at 11:21 am

    I can also see no good reason why Shearer, Mallard, etc have to explain it.

    They didn’t propose it.

    It’s obviously much too difficult to talk to the actual person who proved it about why and clearly BM needs a man’s opinion on it to be able to consider it’s relevance. Not that he’s really interested of course.

    Sometimes explaining just feeds the trolls.

  9. Blue 9
    6 July 2013 at 11:39 am

    The media are idiots, and you can’t really expect them to be anything else. As soon as someone coins a catchy term like ‘manban’ which will get people frothing appropriately, you can give up on any attempt at rational, balanced coverage.

    The problem is that Labour doesn’t understand this, and therefore keep on handing their enemies sticks to beat them with. This proposal, no matter how well-intentioned, is electoral suicide no matter how it is spun, and should never have seen the light of day.

    It’s yet another symptom of the current Labour party malaise – incompetence, ill-discipline and a tin ear for political realities.

    • BM 9.1
      6 July 2013 at 11:46 am

      True, it’s gone the way of the fart tax.

      From this point on this policy will be nothing but an anvil around the neck of the labour party.
      For a start it’s completely destroyed the next labour conference any positive rah rah stuff will be totally drowned out and destroyed by the ‘manban’ vote.

      Starting to feel a bit sorry for o’l Dave.

  10. Matthew Hooton 10
    6 July 2013 at 11:42 am

    You make good points re meritocracy (or lack of it). My party is one where Clem Simich beat David Kirk for the Tamaki nomination in 1992. Whatever arguments can be made against the manban proposal, arguing the status quo is a meritocracy isn’t one of them.

  11. Dazzer 11
    6 July 2013 at 11:52 am

    [QoT: Please read the mod note at the bottom of the post, then take your comment to an appropriate thread.]

    • Dazzer 11.1
      6 July 2013 at 12:01 pm

      [QoT: Funnily enough, I’m more than happy to keep moderating people when they try to play the “you just hate disagreement” card. See the many disagreeing comments I let through which manage not to be rude and derailing.]

  12. Tigger 12
    6 July 2013 at 11:54 am

    Great post, Q.

    “And that’s ignoring the obvious disparities of gender, race and class between “who’s in Parliament”.

    Sexual orientation too. Notice the drop in Labourite out gay men? Carter, Chauvel – gone. I link it to the hate directed at them by O’Connor and others, the ‘gaggle of gays’ BS. Same will happen here. Now women will be blacklisted because choosing them looks PC. This was a hamfisted way to go about this. Policy is fine but did anyone think how this would read. It’s hurt, not helped this cause.

    I’d also like to see more Maori candidates in general electorates. And more disabled MPs. Question is – are policies like this the best way to make it happen?

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 12.1
      6 July 2013 at 11:59 am

      Of course they aren’t: quotas may have their place but they’re way down the list behind, for example, Spencer vs. MoH etc.

    • weka 12.2
      6 July 2013 at 11:59 am

      “Question is – are policies like this the best way to make it happen?”

      Discussion of proposed policies is one good thing to make it happen. And that’s what should be happening, both within Labour, and within the wider community via the media (if the media served democracy, rather than themselves).

    • QoT 12.3
      6 July 2013 at 11:59 am

      Well, Tigger, the merits of more proportional representation are being discussed in other posts – including the fact that there’s a lot of research to show that just saying “we want more women/POCs/PWDs” pretty much never achieves proportionality.

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 12.4
      6 July 2013 at 12:00 pm

      There’s never a best way. There’s only different ways.

      • Draco T Bastard 12.4.1
        6 July 2013 at 4:45 pm

        That would be incorrect, there is a best way but we just don’t know it as of this moment in time and thus will need to discuss it and try a few options until we do find it.

  13. unpcnzcougar 13
    6 July 2013 at 12:07 pm

    Apologise in advance if this isn’t the correct thread for this comment – as a female and mother I would like to see a quota system in place for men teaching at Primary/Intermediate/High School.

    I sense this is one of the reasons why boys are trailing behind girls at schools and the times I see this issue discussed privately or publically it is akin to talking about the elephant in the room.

    [QoT: Wow, you’re right, this isn’t the correct thread for this comment. What on earth would make you think it was? We have Open Mike posts for a reason.]

  14. One Anonymous Knucklehead 14
    6 July 2013 at 12:08 pm

    How best to approach the problem of media incompetence?

    1. Make better media and out-perform the existing lot with fact-checked well-written and resourced commentary.

    What does “better” media look like? Examples abound, pick your favourite.

    • infused 14.1
      6 July 2013 at 12:46 pm

      I thought you’d already know by now. News isn’t news, it’s entertainment. Hence why this shit all got blown up.

      Ain’t anybody got time for news.

      IMO, all could have got shut down very easily from shearer. But he let it go on for 24 hours.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 14.1.1
        6 July 2013 at 12:50 pm

        That must explain why the BBC makes so much money. No, wait…

        Well written fact-checked journalism is far more entertaining than partisan crap.

        • infused 14.1.1.1
          6 July 2013 at 12:52 pm

          [QoT: Deleted. infused wore out his welcome last time.]

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 14.1.1.1.1
            6 July 2013 at 1:01 pm

            Which probably accounts for sites like this getting so many hits per month, and the decline in newspaper sales.

            How has it come to this? A dull bean-counter approach to the news – too much “cost-cutting”, the result: under-resourced desk-bound journalists.

            Even neo-liberals rely on accurate information from time to time.

          • weka 14.1.1.1.2
            6 July 2013 at 3:49 pm

            Another brilliant and insightful contribution to the discussion there infused.

  15. Yes 15
    6 July 2013 at 12:13 pm

    It’s about handling your own press and PR. Labour failed at both of them

    • QoT 15.1
      6 July 2013 at 12:16 pm

      Nobody’s denying this. But it’s also about lazy media not even having the nous to ask basic questions – or alternatively, knowing full well they’re talking shit, but knowing they’ll get a headline or two and no one (outside of say leftwing blogs) will take them up on it.

      • infused 15.1.1
        6 July 2013 at 12:48 pm

        [QoT: infused, after the last time? I’m still not happy with you commenting on my posts.]

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 15.1.1.1
          6 July 2013 at 12:54 pm

          Two reasons they don’t need to are the lack of competition, and that partisan crap is cheaper to write.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 15.2
      6 July 2013 at 12:24 pm

      That’s part of it, but there’s another part. An illustration:

      “The Labour Party’s feet of clay stumbled again today, as they let a golden opportunity to lead the gender debate go begging.

      Instead, it was left to National Party boot-boy Cameron Slater to break his own version of the story, which he did with typical disregard for the facts.

      What this says about the state of our two main political parties – one unable to speak and the other unable to speak the truth, is another matter, but it has certainly done nothing for the gender debate.”

      You see? Balance. Not that hard is it?

  16. Pete 16
    6 July 2013 at 12:31 pm

    Railing against the media for simplifying a story down to the point of a two word sound bite is very much like King Canute trying to hold back the tide. We don’t live in a world where the media behaves as it should behave, instead the left needs to adapt and front-foot every message. And I don’t think that should be as hard as we might think. We’re not looking for the hearts and minds of the whole population. Just 50% + 1 of the people who show up to vote.

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      6 July 2013 at 6:16 pm

      And this is the reality. As opposed to the Left hypothesizing on remaking the world on some fantastic image.

      • QoT 16.1.1
        6 July 2013 at 6:27 pm

        Really, CV? You think that’s what’s going on here?

        Pete: my post doesn’t argue anything differently. I can, magically, be annoyed by the state of our media AND annoyed by Labour’s failure to deal with it at the same time!

  17. Jackal 17
    6 July 2013 at 12:43 pm

    If politicians were appointed on merit, there would likely be more female representatives than men. That’s because females are usually more qualified and are more likely to make a business succeed when they’re running things…at least that’s what the research shows. It’s a pity the mainstream media has chosen to rely on misogynistic based speculation instead of the facts.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 17.1
      6 July 2013 at 12:44 pm

      Given full equality (and as Chomsky said of Capitalism – “Show me some!”) I’m pretty sure that women can screw things up as badly as men. Exhibit a: Paula Bennett.

    • TheContrarian 17.2
      6 July 2013 at 2:04 pm

      “females are usually more qualified and are more likely to make a business succeed when they’re running things…at least that’s what the research shows”

      Got a link to this research?

    • Jimmie 17.3
      6 July 2013 at 7:11 pm

      Trouble is Labour is not exactly overflowing with successful business men or women.

      Plenty of academics and career politicians (and ex unionists) but as for successful ex business men/women apart from possibly Shane Jones it would be hard to name anyone else.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 17.3.1
        7 July 2013 at 7:42 am

        Hard for you perhaps, but then your lying Prime Minister has never run a business in his life either, and neither has your finance minister, who has lived off the public teat all his working life. Stephen Joyce’s claim to fame is the bankruptcy of everything he touches. Need I go on?

        It must be noted here that Labour are better economic managers than National too; higher gdp, balanced books etc.

        So not only do the so-called-but-actually-not “business friendly” National Party have less economic credibility, they are handicapped by the revolting culture of gender bullying that promotes dropkick incompetents like Aaron Gilmore (and Jimmie) over talented women. Shall we talk about David “receivership” Bennett?

        Most of them are only MPs because of their sex.

        • farmboy 17.3.1.1
          7 July 2013 at 10:51 am

          bill english owns farms mate case you dont know that is a business

          • Te Reo Putake 17.3.1.1.1
            7 July 2013 at 10:58 am

            Which he doesn’t personally run. He’s the owner, not the manager. Where is Dipton anyway? Does English know?

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 17.3.1.1.2
            7 July 2013 at 11:57 am

            “Owns farms”

            Well, I suppose when you’re so corrupt you tell lies about your accommodation for money, it makes sense to buy up assets with your ill-gotten gains, but as TRP said, best leave the running to someone else. Perhaps someone with personal integrity and good business sense, because if Bill English ran his farms the way he repeatedly crashes this economy he might as well change his name to Crafar.

  18. Bill 18
    6 July 2013 at 12:56 pm

    Given that parliament and msm, both reflect and are examples of the nature of power in society – ie, are patriarchal – then how could the msm be anything but critical of any idea (good or bad) designed to challenge the power structures that also run through their own organisations? It’s not that such a challenge would be ‘unthinkable’…but it sure as fuck wouldn’t come ‘naturally’. What comes ‘naturally’ are precisely the types of lines we are getting from them, and those lines require no spin to be generated.

    I’m not suggesting that makes what they are saying acceptable or wholly inevitable. Just that these lines are a consequence of their own culture and not a glitch or an example of stupidity that they themselves might remedy or not repeat in the future: that would require the msm being spun.

    • weka 18.1
      6 July 2013 at 2:21 pm

      Maybe, but I cant help but think that there have been times in the past when the issue of equity for women in parliament would have been handled better by the MSM. Think Kim Hill on Nine to Noon instead of Kathryn Ryan. I fear we have lost ground in the past few decades in terms of how we talk about gender issues publicly.

      • Colonial Viper 18.1.1
        6 July 2013 at 6:18 pm

        That probably goes for most issues of public and civil importance

  19. Rogue Trooper 19
    6 July 2013 at 1:27 pm

    you may have seen this Bryce Edwards summary Queen, lamenting the focus on “identity politics” generally;
    -60-80% of New Zealanders are ‘working- class’ , depending on the sociological definition one uses.
    -concern over the blindness to economics, inequality and power (which, ironically, are arguments for quota)
    -essentially “Pagani is asserting that class and economics are more important than gender and feminism”
    -Labour lacks representation from lower socio-economic groups (once again, societal sectors disproportionately containing females: single parents, low-wage earners etc).

    Moi? realpolitik.

    ps. The Standard et al; get a mention.

    • Pascal's bookie 19.1
      6 July 2013 at 1:50 pm

      Pagani et al have an argument that gets trotted (heh) out all the time around identity issues.

      They are sad and angry that the left attracts votes from the liberal middle class, and that it isn’t as strong among the working class as it ought to be.

      The argument goes that it is the middle class liberalism which has pulled Labour to the center and that it is driving out the working class conservatives. And to an extent, there may be some truth there ( a sliver). But we rarely get to see data.

      More to the point is that the Labour hasn’t moved to the center by adopting identity issues. That is grade A toxic bullshit. This is easily demonstrated by how the right reacts to identity politics.

      The left has moved to the center by abandoning things like redistribution as anything other than a band aid. That, surprise surprise, is what is hurting them in the working class. Labour abandoned the working class conservatives not by adopting identity politics, but by abandoning fighting for the working class.

      The only thing Pagani ( and Shane Jones and numerous others) seem to have to offer the working class, is conservatism on identity issues. Now how the fuck is that a left wing thing to do? Let alone a Labour party thing to do.

    • QoT 19.2
      6 July 2013 at 2:14 pm

      I’m seriously disappointed in Bryce’s column, to be honest. The argument only works if you presume that the “60-80% working class” group doesn’t include working-class Maaori, working-class women, working-class people with disabilities, working-class queer people.

      The only other thing I would add, besides +1-ing everything PB said, is that I also find it hilarious for people to say Labour should ditch identity politics for working-class politics. As though it’s only evil feminists and brown people who have been stopping Labour from giving a shit about economic disparity, and not the centre-right tendencies of many of its senior people.

      • handle 19.2.1
        6 July 2013 at 2:30 pm

        Yes, that ‘either-or’ argument has always been weak.

      • Rogue Trooper 19.2.2
        6 July 2013 at 2:38 pm

        + , now you know my thoughts on IP, yet, as handle identifies, it is ‘this’ and ‘that’. Still, there is the environment to consider.

      • weka 19.2.3
        6 July 2013 at 2:51 pm

        “The argument only works if you presume that the “60-80% working class” group doesn’t include working-class Maaori, working-class women, working-class people with disabilities, working-class queer people.”

        It also presuposes that working class people aren’t politicised around ethnicity, gender, disability etc. Which is a bloody patronising generalisation.

        This also from Bryce

        “The Maori Party’s major weakness appears to have been its core model of operating as an ethnicity-based party, independent of class and other political forces”

        He really hasn’t been paying attention has he. What does he think that split between the MP and Mana was about?

      • Mary 19.2.4
        6 July 2013 at 7:22 pm

        Why does the Labour Party think that women should want to be part of them, anyway? Those who think this must believe Labour’s got something to offer in the first place. Maybe Labour’s problem is simpler than they think?

    • weka 19.3
      6 July 2013 at 2:48 pm

      I’m still waiting for someone to explain why class politics aren’t identity politics too.

      • handle 19.3.1
        6 July 2013 at 2:49 pm

        Lack of imagination.

      • QoT 19.3.2
        6 July 2013 at 2:51 pm

        Because identity politics are bad and class politics are good. It’s simple, really.

        • weka 19.3.2.1
          6 July 2013 at 2:56 pm

          I assume it’s because class politics came early on when only men could vote and be MPs. So class got defined as proper politics, because that was the primary battle amongst white men. Not like that trendy lefty (oh dear) stuff that comes later (and can always be put aside until the time is right).

      • Rogue Trooper 19.3.3
        6 July 2013 at 4:00 pm

        nested hierarchies

      • Descendant Of Sssmith 19.3.4
        6 July 2013 at 5:17 pm

        Can’t explain wrong thinking so no explanation can be given.

        Simply by virtue of discrimination those who are disadvantaged via identity are more like to have lower earning opportunity and are more likely therefore to be working class.

      • Colonial Viper 19.3.5
        6 July 2013 at 6:57 pm

        “I’m still waiting for someone to explain why class politics aren’t identity politics too.”

        A: academically, class politics are certainly a kind of identity politics. In practice, issues of class often overrule, superceed or at least modify the considerations or experience of other forms of identity politics.

        As an example, old money class, wealthy, well educated business professional and gay.

        • QoT 19.3.5.1
          6 July 2013 at 7:00 pm

          Dude, seriously. Google “intersectionality” before you embarrass yourself further. All forms of privilege can mitigate other forms of oppression, all forms of oppression can interact to create extra levels/types of disadvantage.

          • Sosoo 19.3.5.1.1
            6 July 2013 at 11:33 pm

            I’m sure that poverty stricken children would love to spend their time contemplating concepts from the lightweight side of the social sciences (a fact which makes your patronising tone that much more amusing). Or perhaps they’ll spend their time thanking the identity politics brigade whose myopia, selfishness and egotism made it certain that they would live under another three years of a hostile National government.

            When people tell you to shut up, it isn’t always because they are the evil patriarchy. Sometimes it’s because you’re screwing it up for everyone, including yourselves.

            [QoT: Your wilful misreading of the post will be left unedited here so people can see exactly why any future comments of yours will be deleted. You think poverty-stricken children don’t feel the effects of racism, sexism, or ableism? It’s not “lightweight social sciences”, it’s their lived experience.

            Thanks for the early tip, though, it’s good to be forewarned that Labour’s inevitable fuckup at the next election will yet again be blamed on its critics and not its leaders.]

            • McFlock 19.3.5.1.1.1
              7 July 2013 at 12:00 am

              The kids wouldn’t be poverty-stricken if mum was paid as much as a man, and wasn’t limited to low-paid jobs with flexible working hours because kids finish school at 3.

            • karol 19.3.5.1.1.2
              7 July 2013 at 7:07 am

              And the Key government gets replaced with…. what?

              We currently have a very some fairly traditionally male-dominated government, which is prioritising masculine value: values that foreground a version of the economy that equates a strong economy with commercial activity. It includes the increasing marginalisation of community and public sector work that makes a significant contribution to the public good. And it is largely women, waged and on benefits, who are taking the brunt of this in Key’s “war on the poor”.

              Yet Team Shearer’s response is to be every bit as masculinist as Team Key, and to embrace a return to misogynistic dark ages as a way to court the (male?) working class vote. Shearer’s failure to comment of Shane Jones (blatantly offensive towards women), looks to me like a return to Shearer’s fiddler-on-the-roof style. (Referring to Jones labeling women politicians as “geldings”).

              I find Team Shearer’s inadequacies on so many fronts, to be thoroughly depressing.

              • Rogue Trooper …
                7 July 2013 at 11:36 am

                regarding the ‘public sector’, man, are they laying back and takin’ it with the widespread utilization of personality tests ; they are even being used to screen for casualties of downsizing (redundancies).

              • weka …
                7 July 2013 at 11:44 am

                I’d have to reread it, but I thought Jones was calling Labour men geldings for letting wimmin try and run the show again (geldings being castrated male animals). Either ways its deeply misogynistic and offensive.

          • Colonial Viper 19.3.5.1.2
            7 July 2013 at 12:18 am

            Intersectionality, you planning to win many votes with that?

            • McFlock 19.3.5.1.2.1
              7 July 2013 at 12:25 am

              not the Waitakere Man vote (well, maybe some of the gay ones).

            • QoT 19.3.5.1.2.2
              7 July 2013 at 11:13 am

              You mean, would I, if I were in a political campaign, try to understand the many different types of power and oppression which affect people’s lives in order to relate my policies to their needs, and assume this would endear me to them?

              Why don’t you have three guesses at the answer.

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 July 2013 at 1:55 am

                So now you’re going to campaign to the wider electorate through analysing their needs as people based on concepts of intersectionality and other related approaches, in order to change for the better the conditions of power and oppression that they live under.

                Very cool.

            • weka 19.3.5.1.2.3
              7 July 2013 at 11:49 am

              BAU with the patriarchy, you planning to win many votes with that CV? How’s it going so far for Labour?

              And then what happens if by some fluke Labour manage to get enough votes to form a govt? After the election won’t be the time to look at all the non-rich, white, male people’s needs, because Labout will need time to get settled in. A year later won’t be the right time either, because they’ll have had a leadership coup and need time to recover (all that nasty media coverage). Two years later, still no, because now they need time to cement the Real policies they were elected on. Two and half years, nope, because now there is an election. See how this works?

              But thanks for the scraps thrown from the table in the meantime.

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 July 2013 at 2:03 am

                “See how this works”

                We both recognise that things are not working for Labour and have not been for a long time.

                If you think “patriarchy” is a major cause of that, I hope you can help get rid of it asap so Labour can start smashing National in the polls.

                At 50% female MPs instead of 41%, Labour would have 3 more women MPs today out of 34. Should make a big difference to how the electorate views how ready Labour is to govern, and hence bring a win in 2014 into grasp.

  20. QoT 20
    6 July 2013 at 3:02 pm

    Yep. Kinda proves my point.

  21. Populuxe1 21
    6 July 2013 at 4:22 pm

    If Labour is as dedicated to gender equality among it’s MPs as it claims to be and should be, they should have been able to handle it within the list of their own accord, and by making a special effort in recruitment and candidate training. That would have caused far less of a confused furore than this tin-eared presentation of the idea in question. Labour’s primary and overriding concrn right now should be galvinising support, not scaring the horses, and getting the scumlords of NACT out of power if there is any part of the country left worth saving.

    [QoT: Yet again we’re characterising this draft remit as though it’s official Labour Party leadership-endorsed policy. And we’re going to stop doing that.]

    • Populuxe1 21.1
      6 July 2013 at 5:16 pm

      Even not treating it as Labour Party leadership-endorsed policy (which obviously it isn’t because Mumblefuck has clucked), why not offer a remit that tackles things at the culture level using the perfectly adequate tools already in place in the party and isn’t going to play directly into the hands of the right wing? How did it get out there in the first place? And to rephrase, the primary and overriding concern of all cliques and interest groups within Labour right now should be galvinising support, not scaring the horses, and getting the scumlords of NACT out of power if there is any part of the country left worth saving.

    • The Fan Club 21.2
      6 July 2013 at 5:55 pm

      Poppy, what makes you think we haven’t tried that, darling?

      It isn’t the list either. It’s the electorates. Do try and keep up…

      • Populuxe1 21.2.1
        7 July 2013 at 11:58 am

        The electorates might just possibly want a say before something that dramatic is imposed on them, whereas you can pretty much put anyone anywhere you like on the list. Don’t fuck with the electorates or they might just not vote for you. Do you even do politics, darling?

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 21.2.1.1
          7 July 2013 at 12:02 pm

          Such an imposition, this new voluntary power would be. So onerous. Ow my back!

        • Macro 21.2.1.2
          7 July 2013 at 12:15 pm

          Do you even understand the proposal? Or are you just mouthing from empty space again? I realise you are coming from behind because as QoT has succinctly put it The Media have got their grundies (masculine underpants) in a twist in a clear attempt to kibosh the thing. But do try to keep up – the electorates will have their say in due time. And remember that > 50% of the population is female.

  22. Brett Dale 22
    6 July 2013 at 4:40 pm

    [QoT: Fuck off, Brett. You’ve ruined enough interesting threads this week.]

  23. Herodotus 23
    6 July 2013 at 5:22 pm

    How will achieving this proposed quota benefit nz and or women within nz?
    So in a few years time the gender split within labour caucus will be 50:50. What will change or what are the expectations and how do these expectations differ than without any quota ?
    Will as is current a 40% representation weaken any perspective or decision making ability by a government or parkiamnet than a 50% rep would allow?
    I have not read how this proposal other than for appearances sake will delivery anything different.

    [QoT: IT’S. NOT. A. FUCKING. QUOTA. There is also a quota proposed – which isn’t even new, as I understand, it’s changing a target which already exists. But that is not what got everyone panicky.]

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 23.1
      6 July 2013 at 5:32 pm

      You haven’t read anything. Is that because you can’t find anything or because you haven’t looked?

      • Herodotus 23.1.1
        6 July 2013 at 7:28 pm

        If you are so well informed how about a link or 2 as to what will be achieved ? I have taken a day or 2 reading the posts and not knee jerked into responding , I have not read what this will achieve by this.
        And qot how will this achieve any seismic changes in outcomes or new outcomes that would not have occurred without such a change. Ie what difference will we see ?? Will maternity leave benefits be increase due to this, will professions dominated by women ( eg teachers, nurses) be rewarded or benchmarked against similar professions that men dominate eg police? I doubt it. So what changes ?

        • McFlock 23.1.1.1
          6 July 2013 at 7:36 pm

          What difference do we see because of the Maori seats?
          I’m sorry, my scrying glass is broken – all I know is that there will probably be a difference, and for the better.

          • Herodotus 23.1.1.1.1
            6 July 2013 at 8:02 pm

            How will it be for the better ? some detail would be appreciated.
            Will there be new policy introduced that wold not have been given the status quo, will by having ( should labour be able to govern on here own) better decision making ?

            • weka 23.1.1.1.1.1
              6 July 2013 at 8:06 pm

              Do you honestly not think that having more women in parliament will have any positive affect on how parliament deals with issues important to women?

              • Herodotus …
                6 July 2013 at 8:24 pm

                Are you saying that those currently in parliament have been lacking in putting forward issues that are not important to women ( using your phrasing) and that the male colleagues are unable to see these issues and not be supportive.
                I am sure in many cases male mp’s understand issues that are perceived important to women. They are not the racing, rugby and beer types. Good policy should be acknowledged by all.

                • McFlock …
                  6 July 2013 at 8:41 pm

                  I am sure in many cases male mp’s understand issues that are perceived important to women

                  Well, when you exclude the Jones/O’Conner types, the number of male MPs that this would apply to seems to shrink dramatically.

        • karol 23.1.1.2
          6 July 2013 at 7:56 pm

          The idea of quotas was actually something raised by Judy McGregor in her speech to the NZ Labour Party last year – it was one of at least 3 suggestions.

          It’s a pity journalists have such short term memories, and/or failed to pay attention to anything much at the conference beyond looking to see if Cunliffe was leading a rebellion.

          Damn, looking at what I posted on this last year, it’d be tempting to re-post it….. if only I knew how.

          Because, it’s pretty much in keeping with what I have been thinking about the quota issue now.

        • karol 23.1.1.3
          6 July 2013 at 7:59 pm

          Oh, and this is the actual remit proposed this year, as linked to by a Labour Party Press statement.

  24. Clive Bixby 24
    6 July 2013 at 5:24 pm

    [QoT: Fuck off, troll.]

  25. karol 25
    6 July 2013 at 5:46 pm

    Excellent post, QOT.

    I’ve been close to banging my head against the wall in frustration at the way the MSM and many others have dutifully followed the whalespew on this.

    Also I am unimpressed with Mike Williams – he needs to learn a bit about how sexism works. And Josie Pagani. And disappointed in Bryce Edwards.

    This morning I saw a front page blurb on the NZ Herald for Fran O’Sullivan’s take on it. I mistakenly thought I wouldn’t be able to stomach her addition to the outflow of misunderstanding. Actually, on reading her piece, for once I agree with some of Fran O’Sullivan’s opining. Her opening paragraph had me a bit worried as to where she was going:

    Congratulations to Party Central for putting gender equality ahead of diversity when it comes to the ranking criteria for selecting the next crop of Labour MPs.

    But then she continues:

    Quaintly, the notion that a 21st century political party might opt to use its selection process to try to make sure that as many women as men represent us in Parliament has been met with howls of derision and barely disguised outrage.

    That’s just on the Labour side of politics. Let’s point out here that the most vocal MP opponents (Yes, I am talking about you, Shane Jones and you, Clayton Cosgrove) are only there themselves by virtue of their list rankings.

    You see, not enough of those blue-collar men which these obviously middle-class male MPs now put on pedestals and consider Labour’s voting base, voted for this pair in 2011 so they could win electorate seats. Maybe a spirited woman could have done the trick?

    There is also a too-obvious presumption that the women who might come into Parliament after a bit of list manoeuvring will be unqualified for the role.

    Frankly, that is absurd. There is no reason why Labour (or any other political party – like National if it ever gets with the programme) should not seek out well-qualified female candidates and (hopefully) from a broader pool than the unionist/teacher/public servant range which has enabled Labour to become stereotyped in recent years.

    Surely, such candidates can stay focused on the major issues facing New Zealand. This is hardly a zero sum game.

    And on it goes….

    I’m not so keen on her reasoning around including gender plus ethnic and other diversity – she seems to kind of pit them against each other. But, she does seem to agree that something extra needs to be done to get a broader representation of all sections of society, including gender, ethnicity etc.

  26. karol 26
    6 July 2013 at 5:49 pm

    Is it just me, or has something strange happened to the numbering and positioning of comments?

  27. karol 27
    6 July 2013 at 6:46 pm

    I’m also disappointed in Selwyn Manning’s post on this over at the Daily Blog. Manning usually does excellent stuff, but this time….

    For instance, he says this:

    The true test of whether a policy is right or wrong is to turn it on its head. For example, would it be right to exclude women from selection? Would it be right to exclude candidates on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation? No, of course not. Just as it is wrong for any entity to exclude people from employment or opportunity based on their gender.

    I haven’t seen the Nation slot, but, spot the problem with this for a discussion on the importance of gender balance:

    The Nation’s host Duncan Garner had a fabulous line up to debate all the angles: Chris Trotter, Martyn Bomber Bradbury, Jordan Williams and Labour’s own Sue Moroney.

    I guess gendering of politics (and political commentariate) runs deep.

    • karol 27.1
      6 July 2013 at 6:46 pm

      PS: On the first quote from Manning: Maori seats?

    • Rogue Trooper 27.2
      6 July 2013 at 6:47 pm

      hope to watch on the ‘morrow

    • QoT 27.3
      6 July 2013 at 6:54 pm

      AAAAAAAAARGH.

      You know what? If we had a Parliament of 80 women MPs and 40 men MPs, and women MPs were routinely placed in safe, winnable seats and high-ranking Cabinet positions and all the other systemic advantages men are currently given? It WOULD be fucking appropriate to start talking about men-only lists. But this would involve us living in a parallel fucking universe.

      Aaaaaaaaaaaaargh I’m so fucking angryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

      • Rogue Trooper 27.3.1
        6 July 2013 at 7:12 pm

        Here’s Everybody Loves Chris taking the low road (footpath).

        • QoT 27.3.1.1
          7 July 2013 at 11:15 am

          I’m sorry, RT. I already took a sacred vow not to read his thoughts on the matter, for the sake of my brain.

          • Rogue Trooper 27.3.1.1.1
            7 July 2013 at 12:01 pm

            was thinking, as you do, these intersections,
            -there are some people of difference in the current Labour caucus
            -the issues around political representation of identities in addition to traditional gender may be more salient to younger left voters, which has the potential to grow, or renew the Labour constituency in electorates, particularly in the significant large urban electorates.
            -However, there is a lot of suggestion in political prediction, that conservative values will have a greater influence on voting behaviour in the coming years.
            -there has been verifiable commentary in the media that older women may not be as supportive of positive discrimination as their younger, or more politicized counterparts.
            -definitely intersections of income (therefore socio-economic class) with minority identity status, along with minority identity intersecting with other social disadvantage.
            -Generation X, and older, unless personally concerned with issues of identity, may not be as motivated by the politicization of such as younger generations.
            -Successful Generation Y and older may be more concerned with the material status that has characterized the history and political influences of their cohorts, along with,say, national security and law and order.
            -There has been an obvious backlash against (even the publication of ) these proposals by both men and women representing the Left.

            Still, if the proposals are sensible enough for Colin James, I believe you can rest your case, and your moderation whip (OK, keep it cracking) 😎

      • weka 27.3.2
        6 July 2013 at 7:54 pm

        Yeah I’m gobsmacked.

        And fuck Selwyn Manning’s inane and demeaning poll at the bottom of his post. All I can take from what he has done is that he is some how offended as a man at the idea that all is not fair in the world and we might have to take some actual steps to make men share power with women.

        Someone should put Louisa Wall in charge of Labour.

        • Mary 27.3.2.1
          6 July 2013 at 9:17 pm

          She will be in charge of Labour one day…in the not-so-distant future, I hope. Not quite now, but at some point not too far away. The current problem is what to do now. Maybe we could could entice Steve Maharey into taking a sabbatical leading Labour til it’s Lousia’s time?

        • QoT 27.3.2.2
          7 July 2013 at 11:16 am

          Someone should put Louisa Wall in charge of Labour.

          SERIOUSLY.

      • karol 27.3.3
        6 July 2013 at 8:09 pm

        Good statement in the comments.

        And Selwyn’s response?

        This issue has really exposed just how deeply the masculine dominance of politics runs (as much an issue of attitude and approach as of numbers).

        I’m staggered.

        It’s not as if we also aren’t fully aware of the struggles people are dealing with in a day-to-day basis, because of poverty and the ruthlessness of our current government.

    • Mary 27.4
      6 July 2013 at 8:48 pm

      Why do some people think Jordan Williams’ views are worth reporting?

    • rosy 27.5
      6 July 2013 at 9:18 pm

      “The true test of whether a policy is right or wrong is to turn it on its head.”

      Hmm, how about we turn the current selection processes on their heads and see what happens. If it appears that one group has been favoured then maybe work out a policy to fix the process.

      Hang on….

  28. BeeDee 28
    6 July 2013 at 7:19 pm

    The present game is “Flick Chick”. and aren’t we over that!

  29. Sanctuary 29
    7 July 2013 at 12:10 pm

    I don’t much to add – these two quotes pretty much sum up my views:

    “…It’s a draft policy remit from a party committee which is going to the conference to be discussed and potentially included in the party’s rules, which would allow individual electorates to voluntarily request that only women be shortlisted if the party council agrees on a case-by-case basis…”

    And

    “…The discussion isn’t stupid. The non-decision to wait for Cameron Slater to initiate the debate was though. Beyond stupid, in fact: the sort of blunder that only a complete tool would make…”

    However, I would like to thank QoT for the time taken to moderate this comments thread. It has been a breath of fresh air to see the serial trolls dealt to in such a comprehensive way.

    The trolling of this site is so comprehensive that it wouldn’t surprise me if it was revealed to be organised and deliberate – especially as the way this story was “broken” and then repeated by the traditional media reveals the power of blogs in a world where corporate media journalists are now just tabloid keyboard jockeys who are nothing more than lazy, reactionary, repeaters of what they read on the internet.

    I guess to moderate ever thread this way would just be way, way to intensive – but it would improve the impact of this site on the credulous useful idiots who interview the internet for their tabloid fodder for the talkback Taliban, Daily Mail lite newspapers and 6pm news.

    • QoT 29.1
      7 July 2013 at 12:17 pm

      Thanks, Sanc. As you say, it’s hard work moderating threads (we all have to sleep, and most of us at TS only moderate our own stuff.) Doing it full-time would be, well, a full-time job. Hence why I maintain my own much-quieter corner of the internet for the bulk of my posts.

      • handle 29.1.1
        7 July 2013 at 12:23 pm

        I also appreciate the firmer moderation you have shown is possible here with this post, Queen. Wading through acres of trolling to read the useful stuff is often not worth the effort.

    • weka 29.2
      7 July 2013 at 12:35 pm

      I agree Sanctuary, it changes the debate hugely when that dumb shit just gets taken out.

  30. fender 30
    7 July 2013 at 8:34 pm

    Growth off the back of a natural disaster “farmboy”, people died for that growth you insensitive gas cloud.

Links to post