Political monogamy

43 comments on “Political monogamy ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Mikey 1

   13 June 2008 at 2:19 pm

   Awful, truly awful. Partisanship gone mad. There’s nothing wrong with having a partner who holds a different political viewpoint. In fact the whole ‘opposites attract’ thing sometimes makes the relationship stronger.
2. Tane 2

   13 June 2008 at 2:22 pm

   Mikey, I think they’re taking the piss for dramatic effect.
3. Steve Pierson 3

   13 June 2008 at 2:40 pm

   I love the idea that a person would have a badge that says ‘I only sleep with X-type of person’. I mean, if you’re bothering to have a badge about it, that implies a large amount of sleeping with different people, or at least a propensity to sleep with a lot of different people if it weren’t for the fact that some of them aren’t type-X. And it’s so much more on the nose than the Greens’ ‘I only date Green guys/girls’.

   I also like that the clumsy, dorky guy at the bar gets the girl (initially), it makes me think there’s hope for Tane yet.
4. T-rex 4

   13 June 2008 at 2:59 pm

   I love the touch of his straightening out his shoes at the door.

   What a GOOD wittle tory boy! His mummy would be so proud.

   This is classic.

   Mikey, take a deep breath!
5. T-rex 5

   13 June 2008 at 3:01 pm

   Steve – yup, and the fact that it’s the ONLY badge she’s got implies it’s her leading concern…

   ‘You can be ugly, stupid, boring, etc, but if you’re not a democrat then I’m not interested’ – Actually, now I say it, perhaps she’s just drawn a few venn diagrams… ;-P
6. Anita 6

   13 June 2008 at 3:08 pm

   That usefully serves to remind that what the wealthy right-wing white men of the democrats might think is funny shows how little attention they pay to women, or what women may think, or value.

   I think that not even the Nats would manage something that appalling, which says something positive about NZ.

   ayb, you might want to rethink your second paragraph – I assume you were being “funny” but I think you risk driving away the small number of women who come here.

   Anita

   P.S. I expect the comments that follow this will show exactly why so few women engage in the political blogs.
7. James Kearney 7

   13 June 2008 at 3:15 pm

   Anita.

   The “I only sleep with Democrats” brand is for both men and women.

   http://truththroughaction.org/shop/
8. NX 8

   13 June 2008 at 3:20 pm

   Heh, started to wonder whether it was work safe.

   I felt sorry for the dude.

   What was the message.. support John McCain?
9. Anita 9

   13 June 2008 at 3:21 pm

   James,

   Yep, and as a brand it makes me laugh. It’s the vid ayb linked to that offends me (and all of the small sample of leftish women I showed it to before responding).

   Oh, and a majority thought ayb’s second para was off even if it was meant as a joke.

   Anita

   P.S. What’s with recaptcha today? I keep getting sequences of letters which just aren’t English words.
10. Steve Pierson 10

    13 June 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Anita.

    See I’m not sure that it shows the woman in a negative light at all. She’s the one with the power in the relationship shown; he’s pathetic. She’s got strong political beliefs and sees the Democrats as the best vehicle for them and in the US, unfortunately, that’s true. Remember, in the US abortion is still a very live topic, the majority of Republican congressmen and senators are opposed to it, as they are to other social reforms that we regard as by and large settled. The Democrats are the only potent political force standing for those rights… and all that is portrayed in a humourous way, with only the tory’s feelings getting hurt.

    I hope you won’t take my disagreeing with you as a reason not to engage. I’m not saying your points are legitimate but people differ, as long as they have substantive points to offer and debate on topic, not the person, that’s good and healthy.

    Just as a side note, how do you know a_y_b isn’t a woman?
11. T-rex 11

    13 June 2008 at 3:29 pm

    Anita – why does it offend you? Do you think the woman is portrayed in a negative light?
12. all_your_base 12

    13 June 2008 at 3:37 pm

    Hey Anita, I’m happy to be schooled, perhaps you could be a bit more specific about what you found distasteful? Incidentally, the video was passed on via Huffington Post where opinion in the comments is also divided, but seemingly not by gender on my quick reading…

    BTW, as you probably know, the recaptcha is helping to digitise books from the Internet Archive. I suppose it’s possible that some are non-English, and others may well just be word portions due to errors in the initial OCR process.
13. NX 13

    13 June 2008 at 3:37 pm

    But on a political note, all_your_base is showing disconnect with reality; it’s not younger woman Labour have to win back, it’s us young men who’ve stopped supporting Labour in our droves.

    So with that in mind, the video should be man running out on a young woman who has a picture of John Key in her draw ;).

    And the right-wing version would be a woman running out on a man who has a picture of Helen Clark in his draw – I can’t imagine any self-respecting bloke with a signed picture of HC.
14. all_your_base 14

    13 June 2008 at 3:39 pm

    Steve, it’ll be my photo –>

    Though the lighting wasn’t good, I’m clearly male.
15. higherstandard 15

    13 June 2008 at 3:41 pm

    Now if the picture had been of the Obama/Clinton homogenation that would’ve been scary !
16. Steve Pierson 16

    13 June 2008 at 3:46 pm

    a_y_b, you stole that pic from the wikipedia article relating to the source of your name. You can’t fool me.
17. Anita 17

    13 June 2008 at 3:48 pm

    I agree that she’s not portrayed in a negative light, that’s not my problem with it.

    If, for example, there was an ad in which the part of the point was that the woman only baked for democrats, or only cleaned for democrats, or only washed for democrats the women would also be portrayed in a positive light.

    The thing that bugs me is the message it has about how women can contribute to the democrat effort, what they bring to the table, and what they are valued for.

    Recaptcha: “Bargeyd MacAdoo” wtf?! 🙂
18. outofbed 18

    13 June 2008 at 3:51 pm

    The National party certainly does not practise monogamy,
    They will fuck the whole country if given the chance 🙂
19. Tane 19

    13 June 2008 at 3:56 pm

    Anita: I think “sleeping with democrats” implies a joint and mutually beneficial activity, like having a picnic or playing football.

    What you’re suggesting is a subservient power relationship. An analogy to your examples of “baking for” or “cleaning for” would be “I only let myself be used for sex by democrats”, and that’s clearly not expressed in the video.
20. T-rex 20

    13 June 2008 at 4:00 pm

    Ok – so you’re working on the theory that she was going to sleep with the guy as her duty to democracy.

    I figured she was going to sleep with the guy because she felt like it, but will only sleep with people who’s values she respects.

    You see what you want to see I guess.
21. Aurora 21

    13 June 2008 at 4:02 pm

    Anita…does it have to be gendered? As is pointed out they also have one where the shoe (or the taking off of the shoes) is on the other foot.

    After seeing the delightful photos of the glassy eyed women at JK’s 40 below event I took ayb’s comment as slightly tongue in cheek.

    This ad is more about youth than gender and one way of appealing to youth is by speaking a universal language. The language of attraction and excitement with someone you fancy (or what used to be the language of luurve). A lot of effort has gone in to National trying to appeal to the youngins with parties were they can be all glamorous and drink cocktails…and maybe go home with someone of a similar political persuasion. Perhaps ayb was just painting the amusing difference between these events and the casual “drink and think” sessions the lefties have been running.

    Largely I would argue this is an age thang not a gender thang…
22. Aurora 22

    13 June 2008 at 4:06 pm

    Overall though I thought it was rather lame…the sex appeal/humour aspect has been used already much more wittily.

    Who remembers that fabulous waking up next to the conservatives ad that they had in the UK? The morning after voting for John Key…now that would be an ad worth making 🙂
23. Steve Pierson 23

    13 June 2008 at 4:14 pm

    Aurora. Yeah, that’s a great ad. British humour really does have it over American most of the time. a bit more subtle in some ways (the ‘sex haha’ thing that Americans have isn’t there) and a better sense of the absurd too.
24. T-rex 24

    13 June 2008 at 4:17 pm

    Surely it was TRYING to be lame…

    Hopefully. Although I guess this is the country that brings us Sex in the City and Desperate Housewives.
25. Aurora 25

    13 June 2008 at 4:21 pm

    oh come on, Sex and the City is not something to criticise!
26. T-rex 26

    13 June 2008 at 4:32 pm

    (shudder)

    I would honestly rather get stung by a bee than watch an episode of Sex and the City.

    I’m not allergic or anything (to bees at least!) but that’s the rough equivalent in terms of intensity and persistence of pain.
27. John 27

    13 June 2008 at 4:34 pm

    To test Anita’s comments, I just sent the vid around my office and the young left leaning women love it. They thought it was hilarious.

    I don’t think it is aimed at women though. It is aimed at young tory type guys. The shoe thing at the door and the Johnny Walker Red, is something they would identify with.

    And, it is more about the guy losing the girl due to his politics then about her. Afterall, he is the one left alone and drinking himself to sleep.
28. Aurora 28

    13 June 2008 at 4:37 pm

    well lucky the target market is not yourself then! I hear they are slightly popular with the intended target market (fabulous, gorgeous, intelligent women..oh and their well dressed gay friends).
29. Anita 29

    13 June 2008 at 4:38 pm

    Steve.

    Re a_y_b’s gender – I have absolutely no idea. I think the second para was off (or at least confused), women are just as good at writing unfortunate things as men 🙂

    Incidentally, my problem with the second paragraph is – what do you mean?! 🙂 Do you mean liberal women shouldn’t go to Nat things because they might get turned down by people who’ll only have sex with not-liberal women? Or that they shouldn’t have sex with anyone they meet there? Or that they should go the Drinking Liberally so they can find liberal me to have sex with? Or so that the Liberal men have women to have sex with? Or what?

    Either way, it seems to be saying that women should be choosing their political involvement on the basis of who they would get to have sex with.

    As I said, possibly “funny”, possibly confusing, possible offensive – depends on your mood and the way you’re holding your head 🙂
30. Edosan 30

    13 June 2008 at 4:40 pm

    Aurora; maybe not, but it is something which can easily be criticised should someone choose to do so.

    The film also had a subtler ‘bringing democrats together’ theme. The guy had a democrat badge rather than an Obama one.
31. Aurora 31

    13 June 2008 at 4:41 pm

    Anita…judging by the frequency of females commenting on here I would pick this one “Or so that the Liberal men have women to have sex with?” 🙂
32. Anita 32

    13 June 2008 at 4:46 pm

    John,

    Hm… my lot were mid-30s, yours?

    I think there’s a subtle generation shift even within “post feminist” women. (Hate that phrase tho! 🙂

    But yes, I totally agree it looks targetted to a male audience not a female one.
33. Anita 33

    13 June 2008 at 4:57 pm

    Tane,

    I don’t think baking and cleaning are subservient tasks. I bake for my colleagues, my family and my friends – because I enjoy it, because they enjoy it, because it shows caring, because it is something I can do for them. I clean for friends and family (just as they clean for me) because we share our lives, because it needs doing, because I love them.

    I think they are reflective of a traditional gender separation of roles, and that and perception of lesser value or subservience is borrowed from the gender split.

    To take another example which has the same traditional gender split but perhaps doesn’t push the “subservience” button for you as hard; “I only cook dinner for democrat friends”.

    It would be easy to (perhaps unthinkingly) run that with a woman cooking dinner for her mixed friends. Or a het couple cooking for other couples, but where the woman is shown cooking and the man pouring drinks and playing host.
34. IrishBill 34

    13 June 2008 at 4:58 pm

    I may not be the target demographic but I found the whole thing rather trite.
35. Emma 35

    13 June 2008 at 4:59 pm

    “And, it is more about the guy losing the girl due to his politics then about her.”

    That’s the troubling part of it for me. As if “hot” women are somehow the prize for being a liberal.
36. Tane 36

    13 June 2008 at 5:07 pm

    Anita, I think I get where you’re coming from now. I guess my point is that the slogan’s not about doing something “for” democrats, it’s about doing something “with” democrats.

    I’m not convinced there’s a sexist narrative in saying “I only sleep with democrats”, especially given the campaign the video is part of features both men and women wearing the slogan.

    I also agree with IB that the video was kinda trite, but meh.
37. Steve Pierson 37

    13 June 2008 at 5:09 pm

    Aurora, I reckon Drinking Liberally was about 50:50 on gender split the first couple of times.

    And, apart from poor Tane, I think the standardistas are set in the liberal partner regard. cheers. 😉

    Edosan. Well picked.
38. lprent 38

    13 June 2008 at 5:10 pm

    NX:

    I can’t imagine any self-respecting bloke with a signed picture of HC.

    Well I have one (and I have self-respect).

    Old election poster from 1981, (? very early anyway) signed by HC, picked up at a fundraiser auction for the NZLP as a way of contributing cash to the party. Now I’d I respect myself (and around here others should as well). So I’d say that you’re wrong.

    Hey perhaps I should auction that off on trademe to pay for The Standard. The rabid right could pay an excessive price for a antique political darts board perhaps?
39. Tane 39

    13 June 2008 at 5:17 pm

    Steve bro, you’re just brusing for a fight today aren’t you?
40. Aurora 40

    13 June 2008 at 5:18 pm

    Withdraw and apologise Steve.
41. Steve Pierson 41

    13 June 2008 at 5:23 pm

    Oh, OK. Come along to DL, Tane, we’ll find you someone.

    Getting back to the original question about the second para. I took it to mean: women who want to avoid the disappointment suffered by the woman in the video when she finds out the fella she’s chosen for some fun is a tory should come to Drinking Liberally, where the liberal gentlemen are in good supply.

    [lprent: Bloody hell – the personal ad’s column has arrived.
    Now is that advertising?
    Besides it is in somewhere in the provinces beyond the ken of any Jafa.]
42. John 42

    13 June 2008 at 9:21 pm

    Anita

    My crew were 20s 30s, but I think what they found funny was the target audience – the silly tory guys. They saw who it was aimed at and thought how lame is that guy?
43. Rex Widerstrom 43

    15 June 2008 at 4:17 pm

    I think the subliminal message here is that the blokes on this blog wish they were as suave and good looking as the “Democrat” who gets the girl ;-P

    *waits for all the ‘you should talk, you ugly bastard’ rejoinders*

    Actually it was truly striking the resemblance the guy at the finish bore to those other hunky liberals – you know, Michael Moore, Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy…

    Actually, aside from the “Greens girls” there’s no NZ political party that’s really made an effort to capture the “desperate to be hip and probably really a virgin” young male demographic… clearly a major tactical error considering just about every bar I visit seems to be packed with the buggers.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS