by frog
It seems that Catherine Delahunty may have hit a sore point within the National Party caucus, as Women’s Affairs Minister Pansy Wong has finally responded to our calls for proper input from women at the jobs summit. Who would have thought they had a spokesperson for Women’s Affairs, given the appalling state of their policy in that area?
It was a good effort by the Hon Pansy Wong, but it just isn’t good enough. In her press release this afternoon, she writes:
Thirty-five influential women and representatives from small, medium and large businesses and unions met to debate a range of solutions, ideas and initiatives on how to deal with the challenging economic situation at the Women in Business Workshop on Tuesday.
The discussions from the workshop will be fed into Friday’s job summit.
I am sure that it was a wonderful luncheon where real issues were discussed in earnest. So why couldn’t this happen at the jobs summit, where presumably the crusty old boys will be making all the real decisions?
It reminds me of an old newspaper cartoon that I often recall with affection. It pictures a boardroom table with all the executives being male except one. The chairman asks “That was an excellent suggestion, would one of the gentlemen care to make it?”
Isn’t it time that influential women’s organisations got invited back in from the drawing room? I’m sure that we can all have tea together and maybe even solve a problem or two…
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by frog on Wed, February 25th, 2009
Tags: Catherine Delahunty, jobs summit, pansy wong, politics, women's affairs
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Now I saw a program on TV where a woman with hair dyed black was arguing with a Pakeha women about why women in Moaridom (at the thingy) should sit behind the men. Which side would Catherine be on?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Meanwhile, the Teleban are going all stone age on women again, and no-one on the left says boo.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5780438.ece
Pure evil.
Let’s do it properly this time. These guys need to be crushed. For good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter Says:
February 25th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
> Meanwhile, the Teleban are going all stone age on women again, and no-one on the left says boo.
the only thing the invasion of Afghanistan ever achieved was the removal of the Taleban, and it looks like even that was only temporary. Eight years of war, in return for eight years without the Taleban. Was it really worth it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Used to be a British territory. Been sh**e ever since they pulled out.
Back Pakistan to occupy permanently.
On condition they slam the Taliban.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh Says:
February 25th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
>Which side would Catherine be on?
Whichever her husband tells her to, eh jh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# BluePeter Says:
February 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
> Back Pakistan to occupy permanently.
> On condition they slam the Taliban.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the Pakistani government haven’t been very successful in ‘slamming’ taleban-type groups in their own territory (I’m referring specifically to the North-West Frontier and Federally Administered Areas – the parts of Pakistan that are most like Afghanistan)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They’d need to be backed by the cavalry. Shame the US & the UK don’t have the cash, or the will.
It needs to become Pakistan. Only a permanent occupation will do it, as these nutbars play the long game.
Meanwhile, girls are barred from schools, and stoned to death. And will be forever more…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good luck trying to crush them BP Its going to cost too much money.
The cost is too high to help those women in Pakistan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’re right. Sadly.
But I wonder what the economics would look like for Pakistan? And the security advantages for the US/Europe?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Women sit behind men in Maori Culture as a sign of respect. Meaning that in the event of attack, the men there are stationed as servants, to protect their women whom they value more highly – who’d a thunk it ay?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
- trolling. This post is not about you, or your militaristic fantasies, it’s about women in the House.
Frog
- I have to admit to feeling sorry for the Hon Pansy Wong, who is in the invidious position of having to represent a portfolio which was roundly denigrated by the leadership of her party in the run-up to the open campaigning period, and who has no actual brief to create a policy to empower women, rather is expected to oversee a scale-down of resources for (at least) the MWA and the Gender Analysis desks at MSD (which already run on dedication & the smell of an oily rag).
She also has the heavy burden of being one of only two women Ministers in the House of asian extraction, thus bearing the weight of expectation of a large chunk of Auckland’s immigrant population on her diminutive shoulders.
[the Hon Melissa Lee being the other, of Korean extraction]
Our House of Parliament is reknown, at least within the Commonwealth, for the high proportion of women elected. It’s time that all parties acknowledged the insights that may be achieved if all elected Members are given the opportunity to contribute, and to realise that all women want, is for men to stop standing in their sunshine.
(one of those catch-phrases from the 1890′s suffrage campaign, re-surfaced in the 1993 centenary of women’s suffrage celebrations as the title to Sandra Coney’s excellent history of the suffrage movement.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>This post is not about you, or your militaristic fantasies, it’s about women in the House.
My post is about women who are really suffering. Puts into to perspective some of the baseless, uninformed, paranoid whining that goes on around here.
>>is for men to stop standing in their sunshine.
Oh for crying out loud….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Women sit behind men in Maori Culture as a sign of respect. Meaning that in the event of attack, the men there are stationed as servants, to protect their women whom they value more highly – who’d a thunk it ay?”
Really?, yet if you hold the door open for somebody like Delahunty you would cop an earful for being a sexist pig!.
It never ceases to amaze me the way the Greens fall over themselves to make excuses for outdated Maori culture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro – you got an earful from Delahunty when you held the door open for her! Is THAT the source of your bitterness toward her?? You poor fellow – your gallantry rejected. I’m with you BB. That was an unforgivable act. No wonder you can’t forgive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is one of the reasons I switched to the right after years of being left: the anti-intellectualism of political correctness.
Goes like this:
White males hold all power and are responsible for all oppression. The less like a white male you are, the more oppressed you are. If you’re oppressed, all you actions are completely justified, because you’re fighting oppression. The opinions of white males count for nothing, and are safely ignored.
Leads to the type of wooly non-thinking that ends up quoting various studies which, under scrutiny, back the opinions put fourth by the white male!
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/02/21/why-the-national-party-killed-the-pay-equity-inquiries/#comment-71696
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
heehee Yep about fourth’d be where they rank too (and I’m one).
Bro; – that particular Tangi the seating arrangement was explained to us lent the whole ceremony a great feeling of unity.
Things don’t become outmoded just because you don’ like Feminists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly
No, as far as I am aware I have never had an “earful” from Delahunty nor have I thankfully had the dubious pleasure of meeting her.
My “bitterness” comes from her outdated sexist and racist attitudes and her hard left socialist agenda.
Now how about you answer the question?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Taliban is terrible for sure, but the fact is that they are beating the US for the same reason the US always loses. They have more support among the population. The only way to beat them is to destroy the country and most of the people in it, just as was famously said should be done to Viet Nam to save it. Two problems with this approach. First is that such a thing is not really feasible. You just can’t use massive force to change the will of a population. And the US doesn’t have the money as has been pointed out, nor the will to attempt such a thing. Second, as evil as the Taliban are, it should be obvious that this total solution is more evil still. If you care about those women, this is the last thing you would do. Sometimes there’s just nothing the international community can do, at least directly, to lessen the total suffering going on. So often we only increase it, usually predictably. In such cases we can only hope to be wise enough to take a step back. (Of course there’s also the environmental devastation that such wars bring, but if I mention that peace is an absolute pre-requisite for environmental sustainability on this blog, I’ll get accused again of not being a real green.)
The problem here borders on the intractable because the situation is largely cultural and religious in its making. Ironically, the US suffers from a blinding religious fanaticism almost as strong in some quarters as radical Islam and that’s a big part of the problem too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree with you about the support of the people. The US always stuffs these things up because they work to election cycles, rather than on 100 year time-scales, as the Taliban do.
Colonialism is the answer. Invade it, take it and call it Pakistan. In a generation or two, it will start to come right, so long as you implement human and private property rights.
I don’t think it will ever happen, of course.
I often wonder what will happen if it is just left to fester. Does it spread to India, and elsewhere? Does it implode?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’d just laugh if this were coming from big bro, but I think you’re probably serious. You talk of property rights in one thread but are happy to treat others’ sovereignty as mere convenience in another, not to mention the potential for genocidal levels of loss of life.
And not to mention that your preferred Pakistan has just created a safe haven for the Taliban within its boarders. I guess we’ll just have to colonise them too. Let’s call it India, I’m sure that would have no unintended consequences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I found this on the Herald website, thought it fit with my thread very well!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10559059
It’s the photo and caption that made my day:
Men in suits: Business and political leaders listen to PM John Key’s speech. Photo / Kenny Rodger
Crusty old boys network indeed!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Will the ladies please retire to the drawing room?
what a bloody good idea ,let us get on with watching the Cricket in peace !!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree. In the drawing room there is strategy and its a do-fest, not a talk fest. Like how to win the Rugby World Cup and beat the Aussies at cricket.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Mark Says:
Women sit behind men in Maori Culture as a sign of respect. Meaning that in the event of attack, the men there are stationed as servants, to protect their women whom they value more highly – who’d a thunk it ay?
………….
Are you talking modern revisionist Mark? (PC) .Note that it was the 1890′s we gave women the vote in our (evolving culture)
On the family and traditional culture
”
New Zealand
Hilda Wilson
In early times, the woman’s place was always in the home. She was the mother and the homemaker. Traditionally, our women did not speak out on anything; it was always the woman’s place to be the cook for the family. The woman had to be sure that the cupboard was full, that hospitality was extended to anyone and everyone who may knock on her door. Also it was very much an extended family group so that it was not only her little family that she was concerned with, but the community as a whole. We used to live mainly in communal groups in the country areas.
However, this has changed a great deal. Nowadays, the majority of our people, because of employment, are moving into the cities to live and to work. We tend to lose the community spirit that we had in the country areas.
In some areas, traditionally, women are not permitted to speak on our maraes. In other areas, they are allowed to speak. But usually, it is the man who does the speaking and women do not speak on the marae. But in the city areas, women are now speaking up more than they used to.”
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-GriWom1-c1.html
“. In most cases, but not all, you will notice the men are seated forward and only males speak. There is a tension between the men and women on this matter and in a few places this has been resolved and you will see both genders stand to speak. In the interests of not causing friction in your business dealings, always follow the lead of the home people.
. The welcoming speeches are given by the agreed speakers of the home people and always end with the most revered speaker or elder.”
http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/new-zealand.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Mark Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Women sit behind men in Maori Culture as a sign of respect. Meaning that in the event of attack, the men there are stationed as servants, to protect their women whom they value more highly – who’d a thunk it ay?
…………………..
As far as I no I responded with a bit of googling but the reply has gone?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)