Paula Bennett, Trump, Men’s Rights and Feminism

By   /   December 22, 2016  /   13 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

I wish I had recorded the long conversation I had this morning with an old acquaintance in the performance industry who was following my thread on face-book about feminism, and felt moved to give me a call. He is a comedian.

we-cannot-all-succeed-when-half-of-us-are-held-back1

I wish I had recorded the long conversation I had this morning with an old acquaintance in the performance industry who was following my thread on face-book about feminism, and felt moved to give me a call.  He is a comedian.

He seemed to be making a concerted effort to be congenial, and he tells me that he has a degree in politics and that he gets a lot of flak from people who attack him when he talks about issues like this.  He wants to talk about the need to start again, – to refresh and for me to not be an angry left extremist.

The first time I met this person, he understood that I was a poet.  It was in the bar Bodega in the 90’s once.  “I’ll tell you a poem he said, and you tell me a joke”.  

“Alright”, I said swigging on a beer, “fair deal”.  

So he put his hand on the underneath part of my inner thigh and held it there, and looked at me and said: “Now”.  

Without flinching, I leaned closer to his ear and said:   “Gag”.

He removed his hand and we never really got matey after that.   For many of my relationships with guys, sadly that is as good as it’s going to get.  Because the impetus to forge a relationship of any kind in the first instance had to subjugate a power of some kind that was outside of my intention.  In plain speak, because he felt that I might not like him, he thought he’d do something invasive, thus confirming that I wouldn’t like him.   I am always open though to bettering communication with our tane, and I have always had loads of excellent men friends who are astute communicators and feminists, and have political nouse.  But there are always those ones who put up the divide. That all operates on a spectrum.

Cut to twenty years later, and this person has rung me for a phone conversation.  He is part of a flurry of men friends and acquaintances who are contacting me online and on the phone, to talk about feminism.   Because I said I am a feminist.  On facebook. Because I mocked Paula Bennet for sometimes being a feminist, and Bill English for saying he didn’t really know what that means.  Most of the men and women contacting me are saying that they are also feminists.  

That’s basically the gist of it, and this guy on the phone seems to be congenial but his words do not follow a very thorough logic.  “Extreme lefties are nutcases” He spills over, “They’re mentally ill” “They just want to attack attack attack without listening.  I think what has happened, is that Trump has allowed men to finally feel empowered enough to actually talk about this kind of thing.  You know I think that if I was in America, I would have voted for Trump, weird aye?” and  “I would prefer a word like humanism.  To Feminism.  Because it’s not divisive…”  and so he went on.  

“Women want equality? -they’ve got it. They’ve already got it.”

The most important response to this is that, well, we are feminists in a universal sense.  Within feminism there are factions, and differing ideologies, but we are still feminists under a simple term with a definition. There might be a greater level of fiscal equality in some parts of society, but not in others.  There may be a great progress in some facets of life in this country, but not in another country.  The ignorance or rather resilience against learning in this regard is astounding.  We have horrifying abuse stats let alone fiscal inequality.  I have seen a young Polynesian girl in Queen street giving prices to a prospective client aged about 13, I’ve seen that myself.  I have seen women broken by expectations that they should be able to cope on a benefit and manage a court case while working full time and try to win their infant child back that has been taken from them on false grounds.  YES I HEAR YOU MENS RIGHTS GROUPS.  There are stories of abuse of men as well, but at the moment we are talking about women, and the point I am making is that as women we are experiencing it beyond and inside the stats. I have intervened in assault, rape and helped women who are suffering financial entrapment.  This is not because I have some kind of women-in-trouble magnet, this is the truth of the women I know, unless they come from quite cloistered backgrounds.  My flatmate was attacked last year, another friend is escaping a violent marriage, this just touches the surface, and these are just the recent ones that have touched on my life unexpectedly.

“I’m a stats man” he says.  

Yes the stats.  Yes you can collect data and reform it and manipulate it, and like politics there is not one simple gradient by which you can measure the abuse stats of men against women, it fluxes and shifts according to data by which you measure it.  But instead there is a gender gradient for different contexts, and there are many threads to the political gradients also in different contexts.  Also feminism applies to enabling minority groups and enforcing rational egalitarian politics around infrastructure so the stats are rather ‘us and them’ for want of a better term to describe it.  

Extremism can apply to fiscal matters; education; the workplace; the military, so you can exist with a whole bunch of different left to right wing positions on a gradient you see? Same for gender.  It’s about the context and the issues that are in question.

Quantifiable data, all rotates around abuse.  Abuse is also existent in unquantifiable forms.  Waging a battle about whether men are abused or not is a very real interest, but it’s not feminism.  Feminism does not negate the interests of men who are abused and hurt by women or men or the state.

When we say we are feminist, we are thinking of others not only ourselves.  We are thinking of men, women, children abusers and abused.  We are thinking of human-trafficking, murder and solo parenting, sexual abuse and structural abuse, and wealth inequality and warfare and we are fully aware that in having all these discussions that there is something dreadfully wrong with this picture.  

Abuse is not selective, but it relates to power structures, and power structures relate to gender discrepancies.  We are all in this together, and we are trying to change the world for the better.  So we must be always looking to learn more around complexities of language.  I believe that we must dedicate ourselves to learning, and as adults to protecting learning.  Children need to learn to work consistently with a critical approach.  They need to learn to reason.  I personally believe that teaching about prejudice belongs in year 5 and 6 education.  It’s not about taking sides.  It’s about reasoned inquiry.

The word feminism is fine.  There is nothing wrong with it.  There’s no reason for anyone to try to sway language and change the word because they think feminism hasn’t worked.  The arrogance of simply deciding that the word should be put out of use is astounding!  

Yes, feminism may carry quite different connotations to different people. Feminists may disagree with each other and they may even vehemently deny others the title, like ‘Democrats’ or ‘Christians’ or ‘Journalists’, these umbrella terms will always hold factions within.  It doesn’t mean that we should get rid of the word democracy, because it’s “not working”!

The language that another face-book friend has used in response to my status update gives a perfect insight to the mentality of some people who are layering and associating feminism with other fear related meanings, (albeit usually hidden, or suppressed). The meaning of the word feminism is to do with equal rights. That women should be paid the same, respected the same, and afforded the same other rights as men under the same circumstances. 

I quote my friend here, who seems to think feminism represents an “evil” threat that “demonizes good men” and the espousing of feminism akin to “forc(ing) someone else to be on your platform” which is “a form of rape” believing that you are “a gender” and “not a soul” and please note my friend otherwise agrees with me that we need to move forward progressively without division.  

Unbelievably this language is suggestive of some of the religious devilish accusations cast against witches hunted and burned in the 17th century. That the simple mention of the word feminist should trigger these accusations and hysterical descriptions is astonishing and a little alarming to me.

We are not in the 17th century. The sirens and succubae are in the art gallery and history books, and women are not trying to hurt men by declaring feminism.  They really are not.  So we must attend to that simple thing…  where is the division coming from. Where?  Who?  Are we in agreeance that we should operate by focusing on context and issues, with less division? well yes.  If we have a social conscience, yes.

At first I was suspicious of Bill English throwing this word out to the dogs to let them have a really good divisive worry about it.  But now that I am recognizing a contemporary milieu in which men are feeling loudly able to talk about their feelings (possibly thanks to Trump as was suggested), I think I would like to congratulate Bill English for being honest.  For bravely giving a very honest answer. (It’s not to do with finances after all).   And it turns out that many people like him did not, (at least a couple of days ago) actually know what feminism means.  It turns out that the prime minister and his deputy may be representing thousands upon thousands of New Zealanders who also didn’t know what it meant, and were too afraid to ask a dictionary.  Like Professor Lupin’s Boggart that becomes your deepest fear when it is released from its box, English may have thought Feminism was an apparition in hob nail boots and flourishing a bill of rights with a ballpoint and unpresidented glee.  Now however, with love, and a great desire to foster better and less fractious communication between all genders and all political parties and all countries and cultures and especially in time for Christmas between all the members of my own family, we can all know what feminism is, by eliminating all that it is not, and just looking at its definition:  

The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Sure, you should still have lots of conversations about what to do about it, and how best to further a humanist interest in advancing personal learning international diplomacy and in navigating the media, but as all the men who are so quick to contact me all strongly point out, they want to be advocate to women’s wellbeing and don’t want to be divisive and aggressive, and they don’t want to hold an extremist view without a substantial rational philosophy, and to just attack attack attack…

So I think I can conclude that we’re all in agreeance.  Of course I would love to hear some of our very public people saying so.   

Happy Christmas.    

***
Want to support this work? Donate today
***
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
***

13 Comments

  1. Michal says:

    Thank you for your great post. Personally I find it hard to believe that a man who is married to a woman, and has a daughter and who now just happens to be our prime minister can say ‘I don’t know what feminism means’ pretty bloody extraordinary. Not that he has said it, but that he truly doesn’t know. Wow what rock has he been living under all these years! I thought he was meant to be intelligent. Perhaps his wife and his daughter can now explain to him the struggles that woman have had and continue to have. As for Paula she is dumb, ‘sometimes I am a feminist and sometimes I am not’. But then this is the woman who was a solo mum living on a benefit who was helped to get a degree and who has since screwed solo mums and many others.

  2. Corokia says:

    “The arrogance of simply deciding that the word should be put out of use is astounding! ”

    I agree. I was trying to argue that point over on the Dimpost blog. But apparently we shouldn’t use it anymore because its going to put off all these people who would otherwise support equality for women- if only we didn’t use it’s actual name. WTF??

  3. Andrew says:

    In New Zealand, in what way do women not have equal opportunity to men ?

      • Andrew says:

        No they’re not.

        On average women earn 12% less than men because they make different life choices:

        They chose less lucrative professions
        They have more time off
        They work less overtime
        They put their careers on pause to have babies

        • Derek says:

          Andrew, read the link page:

          “The gender pay gap compares the median hourly earnings of women and men in full and part-time work” and “measures the gender pay gap using the median hourly earnings of women and men in full and part-time work.”

          So time off, overtime, not working are all excluded. Women get paid less.

          • Andrew says:

            Quoting that page:

            Occupational segregation: (the clustering of female and male workers in particular occupations e.g. nursing, and similarly at the industry level e.g. health care and social assistance). And have you considered that the people who won’t work the overtime don’t the promotions?

            In fact – Just as I said!

            This will even out over time. Typically half our graduate intake is female these days, just because these are the candidates on offer. As these kids develop more women will assume managerial roles and things will at least partly even out. That said, they’re still ‘pregnancy time bombs’ and are less willing to travel and work outside the office. So some differences will likely remain.

            Either way, it’s a non-existent problem and I would close the Ministry or Wimmins Affairs and do something more productive with the money.

            • And have you considered that the people who won’t work the overtime don’t the promotions?

              Gawd, you really do indulge in fantasy-generalisations don’t you, Andrew?

              That said, they’re still ‘pregnancy time bombs’

              You do realise where you came from, don’t you, Andrew?

        • Blake says:

          Andrew – It is your kind of bias and logic and defenses that keeps the totally unequal status in the work place perpetuating.

          There are no excuses for woman earning 12 % less than men in the same positions- doing the same jobs. Often it is a higher percentage.
          To deny this obvious lack of equality is about as childish as assuming that being a feminist is out of date and irrelevant.

          Sexual bias is alive and well in New Zealand as well as elsewhere.
          What rock do some dwell under who can not see the obvious ?
          No wonder FEMINISM is just as important and valued now as it was many years ago.

          Thanks Genevieve for a very nice piece here and your continued work towards equality and contributing towards making the term FEMINISM more alive and understood. It is a good word and it remains a healthy movement even if the
          BILL AND PAULA PUPPET SHOW have not much of a clue.

          • LibbyS says:

            “There are no excuses for woman earning 12 % less than men in the same positions- doing the same jobs.”

            They don’t – that is a common misconception and the reason people refer to it a the “gender pay gap myth”.

        • Andrea says:

          “They chose less lucrative professions” – well yes and no. As the numbers of women rise in the old lucrative professions eg accounting and legal, the more hoops to leap through are wheeled out by terrified scheming blokes.

          “They work less overtime” – because they have another job to hold down – family care. Or the second or third job to earn enough to meet the basics.

          And, back at you: given the pathetic results/returns from blokes doing all this overtime, plus kowtowing to gormless bosses with ridiculous demands to ‘take one for the team’ and other head trash, twiddling around until the boss finally leaves for the day – that’s simply sick!

          “They put their careers on pause to have babies”. How reprehensible of them! How dare they?! Why? Why would any womean do that?

          Because she’s the only one who can – and if those intellectual giants aka blokes cannot structure matters to give women the experience opportunities to ‘catch up’ in their careers, as if they’d taken a sabbatical – then blokes aren’t as efficacious as they’d like us to believe.

          But, if you truly believe all these myths and fairytales, and karoshi is your aspiration/expiration, then you may be stuck in herd think and in desperate need of rescue.

          • Andrew says:

            Andrea:

            I wasn’t judging anyone, or criticizing women for making these life style decision.

            Hell No! We need caring mothers who put their kids first.

            That said, biology is just what it is and there’s no fighting it. Life aint fair!

    • malcolm says:

      They do not have the same opportunities to live their lives with little or know fear.



Authorised by Martyn Bradbury, The Editor, TheDailyBlog, 5 Victoria St East/Queen St, CBD, Auckland, New Zealand.