- Date published:
6:00 am, September 1st, 2022 - 71 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
In light of Marama Davidson’s bollocking over a chocolate brand, who recalls one John Phillip “sirkey” and his relationship with Steinlager?
There was a time when Mr Key haunted the All Black changing rooms, rarely without a Steinie in hand or far from Ritchie–and the Rugby News cover photo directly before the 2014 General Election had him wearing an All Black jersey!…and standing in front of team members as if he were Captain.
The Natzos got away with it on a technicality to do with the periodical nature of Rugby News, though the beer product placement always grated.
The difference is Key was specifically bigging up the product. Given the fact he was in the All Black's dressing room and Steinlager was the sponsors of the team the fact he photographed with a bottle of Steinlager was incidental to his purpose of being there. He was also photographed wearing an All Black's jersey on occassion that doesn't mean he promoted Adidas or AIG.
Key was specifically bigging up the product?
Your saying Marama prefers the Maori language to the chocolate?
Sorry, that should have been "Key wasn't specifically bigging up the product".
While Davidson actually stated she disliked the taste she still focused on the product (indeed she held up a selection of it) and highlighted that she thought it was a good buy.
Oh, I see what your saying.
Its about who/what has the better public image. Marama lends her high public image to chocolate (tut-tut), while Key looks good when hes socialising with beer (hoo-raa).
"University students are circulating a petition asking the Government to censure the Minister of Finance (Mr Muldoon) for appearing in an advertisement for gin."
[The Press, 22 May 1971]
Andrew Bayly, admittedly not the sharpest tack in the tool box, has gone full Trump in his complete disregard for historical fact and truth with this tweet:
Lying for votes – The National Party since….. forever
To be fair promising 100000 Kiwibuild affordable homes was pretty close to a lie… albeit an aspirational one
Who should a Labour supporter vote for in the QueenstownLakes election?
Can't figure them out.
There was a website for the last local body elections that analysed candidates for political orientation – the blatant National Party candidates all say that they will keep rate rises low, but that does not catch all of them. Labour has endorsed candidates on their website. The website https://policy.nz/2022 lists candidates, but quite a few (including some Labour candidates) have not given details of policies. For the last local body elections there were some other websites that gave more considered analysis – are there any this time?
Here's my profile, for your amusement, but you could explore their site from this link:
Lovely but I don't need a website.
I need actual recommendations.
Jon Mitchell-not hard really at all.
Olivia has ACT tendencies and is backed by Rod Drury. There are rumours, which I could not possibly support of course, that she has already overspent the $30k limit permitted.
Glyn Lewers has probably been anointed by Boult which says it all.
The other mayoral candidates are no-hopers.
mmm I may be wrong…Neeta Shetty may be polling quite well…in fact the two women, her and Olivia Wensley are frontrunners according to a local poll though such polls are dubious.
Going to be an interesting race, three main contenders, Olivia Wensely, Jon Mitchell and Glyn Lewers.
Lewers is a sitting councillor who got on a coin toss last election. An engineer, very community focused, doesn't make a fuss and gets things done. Not much profile outside Frankton (which is the commercial and community heart of the Whakatipu now) which might hamper him in Wanaka. Some say he's Boult's appointment, but think it's more he has the confidence of the current council, most of which will be returned.
Jon Mitchell was Labour candidate in Clutha Southland last year and did quite well, especially in Whakatipu. Born in Queenstown at what's now Bungi Backpackers. Family had a photographic business in town and motels in Glenorchy. Has a background in emergency management and is a very capable guy with a future in politics, either local or national. Could be accused of being a carpetbagger as he lives in Garston and has been working mainly in Wellington lately, but a Mayor who's a little bit removed from this cliquey incestuous place wouldn't be a bad thing.
Olivia Wensly is the daughter of a failed property developer who went tits up in 2008 leaving a huge leaky mess for the Council, and ratepayers to pick up tab. Looks the part and very well presented with lots of expensive signs and patsy video interviews about how great she is. Electoral expense return could be interesting. Doesn't like Three Waters and development contributions, but really likes Council funded development agencies and lots of cheap housing. Also like to use the phrase 'having the debate', often after she's been shot down in flames. She will go down very well with people who have been here 3 – 5 years and really aren't doing that well, which is a sizeable constituency. Could get elected if her campaign doesn't blow up in her face, which is very likely given her family history in town. If elected can see it turning to custard fairly quickly.
Neeta Shetty will mobilise the South Asian vote but not much else, ex Council employee / contractor.
Al Angus is a regular, not a serious contender but asks the right questions and has some very pointed one liners. Usually accounts for at least one candidate's campaign each election.
Trashy Kainga Ora Tenants Strike Again
At least the racist on my street only yells insults, not paints them. Same psychological damage though. Same breaking of other tenants Right To Quiet Enjoyment.
How many thousands of lives are Kainga Ora continuing to subject to chronic abuse in order to virtue signal they're 'protecting the most vulnerable' or 'catering for complex needs'.
Who is the government that let all the mental health people back into the community? Were our institutions so utterly evil they were irredeemable. In that case you clean out the people, not the patients.
Green Party doing green politics things
Forest & Bird outlines the reality (my bold):
Jacinda promised to clean up the rivers too, but that comment was made before a general election so naturally it shouldn't be taken seriously.
Luxon has now done what everyone with any sense knew he would/should do: rule out Brian Tamaki.
Link provided, but it's Hosking so … you click, your choice.
It's the same stupid thought process as Labour and Kiwisaver GST. Why do politicians so often fail to ask themselves (and answer) the obvious question: where will this story go? How will it play out?
There are always 2 options:
1) Get out in front of the story and defend your choice. Take the flak, don't be surprised by the entirely predictable. If you believe it matters, then be committed, but don't be committed for a week or month and then be un-committed. (At least it was only a day for Parker). That's a double defeat.
2) Don't create the problem in the first place.
You don't need to be any kind of political genius to anticipate the questions when Luxon opens the door to Tamaki, and Labour open the door to an opposition attack on tax. In both cases the leader/party backed down. As they were always going to do.
Yes, I know these are two totally different issues but the problem is the same. Incompetence.
Does nobody have a Comms Dept anymore with at least 1 person in it who can look at a policy or an announcement and think "what is the worst way that some lying scumbag with a complete disregard for the truth can twist this for their political advantage – and how do we prevent that?"
Probably there are too many comms staff wouldnt be suprised if they tie themselves in knots.
Labour are bad at this. I think its a combination of some arrogance and an assumption they don't have to' dot the eyes and cross the tees' because the general public will work it out for themselves. The general public can't or don't want to work it out for themselves. You have to do it for them otherwise your opponents will do it and smash your 'story' in the process.
As for Luxon:
Luxon will get kudos for this statement despite his dilly dallying around. He is using the language of ordinary everyday people. He comes out and says what most people think – they're crazy. (my bold)
I know people who get irritated with Jacinda Ardern's 'politically correct' language. They dislike her because of it. John Key was a master at the game. He called a spade a spade (even when it wasn't a spade) and the working man and woman loved it. Hence his longevity as PM.
Jacinda needs to the same. As an example, call the VFF/Destiny church crack-pots out for what they are and people should start to approve of her again.
During the Wednesday miscellaneous business debate, Robertson gave Luxon a real serve about his inability to call out Tamaki et al. especially when Tamaki blamed natural phenomena upon the gay community.
"Now, it's probably in the Labour Party's interest for Christopher Luxon to go on deciding that he does not want to rule out Brian Tamaki. I am pleading with Mr Luxon to do the right thing. Do not say to young, gay New Zealanders that they don't matter. Do not say to the women of New Zealand that they don't have a place in leadership. Because, Mr Luxon, you will be judged by the company you keep. You have a chance and you have an opportunity to stand up for New Zealanders' values. Do the right thing, Mr Luxon, rule out working with Brian Tamaki, or else New Zealanders will continue to believe you stand for extremism, you stand for bigotry. Rule out Brian Tamaki."
Very probably why he decided to take a side!
Not from any moral conviction – he is a fundy after all!
It seems to be true of all politicians – when their personal moral convictions collide with the 'politically acceptable' attitudes which make you electable.
Right, or Left. Ethics don't hold a candle when it comes to electibility.
Here's an overview of Luxon, Mahuta and Efeso Collins – all doing the same thing – publicly walking back what is clearly a deeply held ethical opinion, when it becomes politically advisable to do so
That rubbish link of yours trawling through it for what ?
If you can't be bothered reading, that's your problem.
If you don't like the message, then that's also your problem.
The point – labouring the issue for the terminally dense – is that politicians from *all* parties walk back their personal ethics when it conflicts with their electability.
If you want to accuse Luxon of doing this – then you should be prepared to also accuse Mahuta & Efeso Collins of doing the same.
If you actually have a perspective to share – I'd be interested to read it.
But, spray and walk away accusations really don't impress.
Do you need help ? clearly your becoming unhinged,have no interest in debating with the likes of you,just pointing out a poor link.If you had an article in mind,link to it!
Gosh, I had no idea that you were commenting on a link not working. Not being a mind reader (yuck – what a nasty thought).
Perhaps you could practice using sentences to communicate.
Because you frequently verge on incoherence – and clearly crossed the line this time.
Try this link
It seems as though the final 'l' was missing off the original – however, a simple google search of the keywords would have found it.
Or, a simple comment that the link wasn't working would have prompted me to check and correct.
How many other people do you treat like this,stay on your med's.
"Robertson gave Luxon a real serve about his inability to call out Tamaki et al…"
Good for Grant.
Trouble is Mac1, the vast majority of people do not listen to parliament. And those that do are better informed than most. That is why it is so important to speak frankly outside of parliament and to call the NActs out in language that your every day Joe Bloggs and his missus readily understand.
Fair enough, Anne. I expect that the plain speaking will increase as first, the need to react to the mind-boggling stupidity increases as the examination of their behaviour and beliefs increases, (such as Fire and Fury, and the media's focus on loopy local election candidates), and second, the election in 2023 gets closer and the opportunity and style of debate changes.
Yes. Watched whatsername, Nicola Willis(?) trying to give Grant a serve today. Belligerence is her middle name. Labour needs to start the plain speaking imo, and that includes the dipsticks and crackpots currently running riot over NZ's green and pleasant land.
The only honest politician, on the opposition side, seems to have been David Seymour, who at least acknowledged that the move was reasonable if one wished to have GST consistency. The National Party seem to be dishonestly attempting to make political capital out of the affair.
This move by Labour may have been unwise for political reasons, but having made it I think they should have pressed ahead with it. Backing down just makes them look as though they've been caught out doing something naughty.
Yes – it lends undeserved credibility to National.
US life expectancy drop largest 2 year fall in a century.Fall is due to both covid and opioids.
Australia sees excess deaths at 12% for first 5 months of 2022,with around half due to covid,and forecasts for rest of year suggest 9% for Covid alone.As Australia relaxes rules on masks on planes,and isolation rules.
NZ has a similar slope with excess deaths,(an absolute figure that is undeniable )
Will the government Greenlight a higher excess death rate for the future? The minister for covid is struggling,Is it a good time to start shorting the aged care providers?
It is Blue September – prostate cancer awareness month. Look out for all the advertisements aimed at "prostate havers", "penis owners", " ejaculators" etc. Just kidding – so far it is 'blokes", "men" and "he/him" all the way. Advertising naming the people they actually know will be effected by this disease, and the people who love and support them actually works! Remember this next time you see "person with a cervix".
Yes, just like that. Still taking about men – (but with the obligatory kiss up to gender ideology). On a specialised page and doing its best to identify exactly who is likely to be affected.
Oh my, how terrible.
can you honestly not see the sexism? Women's health messaging is remove the word woman, men's isn't removing the word man. There are a myriad of examples of this now, including on major health websites where women are referred to as body parts and men are called men.
There is a discrepancy there for sure but in my experience the messaging that is coming from official sources (not companies) is 'women and …' rather than the removal of the word entirely.
Sexism imbues all aspects of our society as we are still a patriarchal society, one that privileges straight men above all others and that includes in health messaging in particular. Masculinity, as our society defines it, is fragile; insecure about and fearful of perceived frailness or weakness, read: femininity (as our patriarchal system defines it), and so don't look after their health, avoid seeking diagnosis or advice and ignore messaging that they perceive to not apply to them. This is certainly a consideration of those who write this type of messaging.
All this said, my concern is that we must work to dismantle the patriarchy together and people who are queer, gender-diverse, trans etc are helping to do just that. I just feel the focus is wrong.
Sexism is based on expectations of behaviour, presentation, competence and achievement based on the material reality of biological sex.
It has nothing to do with the performative stereotypes adopted by those who want to appropriate a fascimile of oppression by declaration.
As pointed out many times, medical treatment and protocols based on male bodies, have bee detrimental to women's outcomes, and this disparity has only recently been acknowledged.
Biological sex is not the same as gender identity. Gender ideology requires this distinction to exist, YET, it also demands the removal of that distinction in all language use. Even in cases where the topic is only about biological sex – such as in medicine and health.
Women/woman is sufficient and accurate.
The reassurances about no impact on women from the 'Be Kind' and inclusive crowd, are constantly shown to be lies, but instead of being changed – continue to be repeated.
This is precisely what I meant by a patriarchal definition of gender roles; fixed in stone by 'material realities', unchanging, inflexible and deliberately ignorant and dismissive of the innumerable exceptions to these supposed 'realities' that have always existed.
You also said this:
"All this said, my concern is that we must work to dismantle the patriarchy together and people who are queer, gender-diverse, trans etc are helping to do just that. I just feel the focus is wrong."
Which has nothing to do with sexism based on material reality.
By treating gender stereotypes as fixed and immutable, and denying the reality of material sex differences, the excuse of "dismantling the patriachy", is further diminishing of women's sex based realities and a distortion of both cause and effect of sexism.
To say that transgender concerns can be expressed separately, and are distinct is accurate, but seemingly not permitted.
The concerns of women in respect to sexism and patriachy are not the same of those of men. They should not be conflated, and therefore adjusted to accommodate an inclusion of males.
It is the view of the patriarchy that gender stereotypes are fixed and immutable.
Is physical strength exclusive to men? Is compassion exclusive to women? Aren’t women already logical, analytical, or rebellious or uncompromising or doctors or engineers or farmers or whatever else is seen by our patriarchal society as the realm of men?
Are men incapable of gentleness, of caring or supporting or nursing or teaching or child-rearing and household labour or whatever else is seen by our patriarchal society as women’s role?
Are you saying the reality of material sex differences means these stereotypes should be maintained and enforced?
I will reiterate that I believe that people who are queer, gender-diverse, trans etc. just by existing, are helping to undermine those patriarchal stereotypes, and that is a positive step towards achieving social, political and economic equality of the sexes. They are, at the very least, allies of feminism surely.
Don't understand the point you are making in your first two paragraphs, or your definition of 'patriachy'. However, can reply to the remainder.
"Are you saying the reality of material sex differences means these stereotypes should be maintained and enforced?"
No, the majority gender critical view is diametrically opposed to this premise. It is gender ideology that connects gender stereotypes to definitive expressions of sex.
"I will reiterate that I believe that people who are queer, gender-diverse, trans etc. just by existing, are helping to undermine those patriarchal stereotypes, and that is a positive step towards achieving social, political and economic equality of the sexes. They are, at the very least, allies of feminism surely."
You can reiterate this opinion all you like.
To persuade or convince, it is helpful for you to explain how.
1. What is your definition of 'patriarchy'?
2. How does it impact on the groups you identify?
3. Do those impacts overlap, or are they discrete or a combination of the two?
4. What is this magical component or effect associated with "just by existing"?
5. As an final question about language, what are your definitions of the terms you have used:
a)queer, b]gender-diverse, c)trans
"They are, at the very least, allies of feminism surely."
Not necessarily, examples that contradict that assumption are easily found.
Eg. Here's an example of a prominent, feted gender ideology activist's take on misogyny. (Jeffrey Marsh – website and links).
If you take time to research, you will find multiple instances of gender activists telling women how they are doing feminism wrong, how their insistence on biological sex realities supports the patriarchy, sexism, is self-inflicted etc.
I'm interested to see how you come to your position.
I feel I have defined the terms suitably enough throughout this thread but I am also keenly aware that definitions do not always provide us with strict rules or boundaries, in fact they very rarely do, the story of Plato and Diogenes is a good example: Plato was asked to define a man and said; “A featherless biped.” Later Diogenes burst in, brandishing a plucked chicken, exclaiming; “Behold, a man!”
As a thought experiment, are you able come up with a succint definition of a chair, that includes all chairs while also excluding all things that are not chairs?
So, the chair analogy….Let's park that word game with the prevalence of left-handedness ho-hum and move on.
As is often the case, when provided with the opportunity to be succinct and provide clarity, words and language is treated as a movable feast in explanations rather than an effective tool for clear communication.
"I feel I have defined the terms suitably enough throughout this thread "
Yes. I am assured you feel that way. However, the reality is you haven't defined them at all.
You are not only failing to convince me of the common ground between women and other demographics. I remain critical of your coherence in what you believe to be the effects of patriachy, or indeed of those groups you have named but not defined in any meaningful way.
(No comment on the example of Jeffrey Marsh as women's rights ally? Oh, well. )
What you call a ho-hum word game is very much essential to effective and clear communication, in that we cannot rely on definitions alone to be accurate about the meaning of words; we more often understand things by what Wittgenstein called family resemblances; similarities, affinities and correspondences. One particular affinity, relevant to this discussion is that our patriarchy disempowers all those who are not straight cis white men, so all those demographics that do not have those qualities are largely prevented from exerting social, political or economic power and thus are allies in the struggle for equality.
I appreciate you taking time to reply.
Unfortunately, I find within your answers nothing to engage with on this issue. I'm not interested in tossing word salads.
That is a shame, despite the barbed vulgarity.
I, likewise, am uninterested in dueling definitions with those unwilling to engage in a simple demonstration of the limitations of language.
@arkie "Barbed vulgarity?" (where?) and "dueling definitions" (interesting concept when you have provided none to query…).
Bah humbug indeed.
Clutch that pearl necklace.
One constant, I've noticed, is that men who are particularly vehement about the acceptance on the slogan 'Trabswomen are Women', are usually also quick to draw on particularly sexist dismissive terms to negate or refute women's concerns.
Very few women would wear pearls nowadays, Sacha. It is possibly, more likely they will be found on the necks of those men who enjoy cross-dressing like fifties housewives, rather than the grown women of today.
However that is by the by.
The other suspicion I have about men who so emphatic about other men being accepted as women, is this:
For all their talk about acceptance, inclusion and kindness, and let's admit it – complete ignorance about being female, a girl or a woman – their insistence that transvestitites, autogynophiles, men who just declare themselves as women MUST BE accepted in all ways as women, is because they are both unable and unwilling to accommodate such men alongside themselves as 'men'.
That is why, they choose to abuse women who say they accept that diversity of trans people, but not the lie of biological sex change. They are unable to accept transwomen as men, because their idea of men is limited, so any variation must belong in the non-men category. Is this descriptive of you?
(In other words, contribute something better than snide sexist dismissals. Pearl clutching…?)
there are no limitations of language Arkie. Women -= adult human female. End of. Men are free to identify as women all they like. But they can never be women. You can't change biological reality.
You have a bloody nerve talking about breaking down the patriarchy. In all my years I have never felt so patronized and gas lit as I have by the trans rights activists. Listen to you. The prioritizing of the rights of male bodied people over women to enter their change rooms, sports competitions prisons etc etc, is a f…g outrage and the most sexist thing I have ever experienced in my lifetime.
Well, Anker. I find your language to be clear and to the point, without equivocation, so find myself agreeing.
It always interests me when people are unable to provide definitions for words they themselves introduce to conversations, particularly on this topic. When provided with opportunities to clarify themselves, they divert off into discussions about how language is fluid and needs to be observed out of context. (Taking the piss, is the more abbreviated term I associate with this approach.) Because THEY are unable to be clear, they assume the problem lies within language, not their misuse of language, or lack of coherent thought.
(I've never before come across the idea of magical influence on women's oppression by "just existing" before. I imagine it is similar to a unicorn manifestation which grateful women should welcome with open arms. I wonder why so many women wasted time on consciousness raising, protesting and activism in the past. All we needed was a coterie of magical gender identities…)
Yep, we had a nice billbord about cancer and blokes. It was actually quite well done, and it was quite clear at whom it was aimed.
And no one gives a fuck about the well being of the domesticated mental support providing therapy animal that used to have a name but can't be named anymore lest some people who like to appear non male or people who like to appear male but are non male pack a sad.
Talk Peach, a charity focused on women's gynaecological cancers actually does have two hit's for the word "women" when doing a site search:
site: https://www.talkpeach.org.nz/ women
Fear not. Those hits are outdated. The dreaded word has now almost been edited out entirely. but still remains in the "Our Story' precis. Give it time.
I think this is the group that advertised for donations to beat that mythical cancer that some people who can not be named have. So i emailed them to inquire about the mythical human being that would get gynecological cancers . I have yet to receive an answer.
I did receive an answer.
Along the lines of "Meanie. Why are you being mean when I'm just trying to be kind? Also, I have cancer, and you're mean."
Not wishing to engage in any form of one-upmanship in terms of kindness, meanness or sickness, I repeated my concern and wished her well.
It seems the word 'women' was a step too far when discussing gynaecological cancers.
Brilliant Molly and Sabine as always
Good God. Someone better tell them what a woman is as soon as possible.
Apparently, there is some confusion that may result in a long waiting list for healthcare for chairs…. Stool samples may take on a completely different meaning.
Probably just working out how to protect all people.
Hard to know because you gave fuck all context and zero links.
The context Muttonbird is of a public service captured by gender ideology.
I said it was a rumour/. Would it bother you if it were true?