by Catherine Delahunty
The Ministry of Women’s Affairs seems to be under orders to engage more effectively with men. This was revealed after the Greens submitted a written question to the Minister, Pansy Wong, asking who was invited to the pre Job Summit meeting organised by the Ministry. The answer was basically “we won’t tell you” but a journalist found out some interesting background under the Official Information Act. The new Minister of Women’s Affairs with the strong guidance of our Prime Minister want Women’s Affairs to be more inclusive. That means inviting men along to help “champion” women’s rights.
The Chief Executive of the Ministry Shenagh Gleisner said that inviting men would be helpful to champion the actions because she believes that men make most of the business decisions.
What actions came out of the meeting many women’s organisations might ask, as very few were invited? Why is it okay with Shenagh that men make most of the decisions in business? And which male champions did turn up?
Michael Barnett from the Auckland Chamber of Commerce (the only man who went) is not a well known champion of women’s equity issues, but after a couple of hours discussion on getting more women on boards he may now be a champion. That would be fantastic, if we wanted a champion to speak for us or believed for one minute that the knight on the white horse doesn’t gain unhelpful power from rescuing the maiden.
The Minister of Women’s Affairs is misdirecting her Ministry and the analysis is medieval. Women are the best advocates for themselves just like any other marginalised part of our society. If we had pay equity and Women’s Refuges were redundant we would still want to champion our own issues. We do need a proactive Ministry of Women’s Affairs but we doubt that the Government will let them act effectively on the important issues for all women.
A budget of $5 million dollars a year is not nothing, it’s more than women in the community can dream of and we want effective leadership on public policy.
But it looks like the sisters will have to do it for themselves all over again with the support of the brothers who know how to stand along us rather than speak for us at the top table.
So let’s remind the Prime Minister what the bottom line issues are. Sign the pay equity petition that Sue Moroney launched and add your comments to this brand new e-card on pay equity for women in the public sector and email it to John Key. PLEASE BE POLITE AND RESPECTFUL AND SEND ONLY ONE CARD. You can send the e-card from here. Thank you!
Published in Environment & Resource Management | Society & Culture by Catherine Delahunty on Tue, May 12th, 2009
Tags: Catherine Delahunty, politics, women's affairs
More posts by Catherine Delahunty | more about Catherine Delahunty
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Right on Cath, Kiwi’s do not like discrimination and unfairness.
For this reason alone we should do away with the ministry of wimins affairs as soon as possible.
It MAY have been needed many years ago but that time has well and truly past.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve always wondered how many affairs the womens Ministry has actually organized…..
When women offer the same value as men, they’ll be paid the same. If women were undervalued in terms of wages for the value they create, businesses would employ all women staff.
But they don’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We should offer women paid maternity leave for 5 years (She must receive the same pay she was receiving before she went on maternity leave and the company must give her raises as through she were still working in her Job and she must also be virtually-promoted as though she was in her job.) All of this money must come from the company where she worked and that company must also pay an extra $1000(adjusted for inflation) a week to cover any of the childs expenses. The period can be extend if she has another baby while she is on maternity leave. Small business’s will not be excluded from this policy as that would be unfair to women working for small business’s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We should also find a few oil wells….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
turnip,
Why only five years?
Surely 15 would be better? That way she will be a full time mother for the entire time the baby is in her care.
Wonder how many businesses will employ women if that become law?
Off course her family would not be eligible for the WFF benefit!
Not sure if you are serious though!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Do you know what is scary about my post, there are actual greens who probably think its a good idea or maybe that it doesn’t go far enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I doesn’t, the blokes should get it too!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
15?
Are you people ape men, or something?
30!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And agreed about the blokes.
When do we start?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What a little gem this is, like a dusty old relic from a by gone era.
It just all seems a little silly.
So it’s sexist for men to advocate for women’s right’s?
RIGHT EEE HOE then!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good point – individuals are generally the best people to look after their own interests! Now if only you applied this more consistently across your whole political philosophy…
In all seriousness, those ‘quotes’ around the word championing are a little sinister. The idea that men should be forbidden from women’s rights advocacy is a little disconcerting to those males amongst us who very much support many the goals of feminism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wouldn’t have rated representation on corporate boards as a particularly important gender equality issue anyway. Most people of both sexes are not represented on corporate boards.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Do you know what is scary about my post, there are actual greens who probably think its a good idea or maybe that it doesn’t go far enough.
Yeah that is ridiculous, -let go back to something SENSIBLE like paying women less because they are women. Big pat on the back guys…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>et go back to something SENSIBLE like paying women less because they are women
You need to think a lot harder….
Try again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@Shunda barunda-
I agree with you on that point. One thing which stood out to me was the hostility towards males trying to contribute to equality. I would of thought having more people in the movement would increase its strength.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Personally I am in favour of paying women with children 5% of what a man would get for the same work. That would make it un-economic for the woman to work and motivate her to stay home with the child, providing a nurturing environment for it.
And for those who are about to attack, I would take 70% of the after-deductions income of a man who fathers a child and doesn’t live with it and give it to the child’s mother as long as she does.
Responsibility It’s an old fashioned idea I know, but one I think of with fond memories.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Having reviewed the misogyny so openly displayed in the posts above, all I can say is that it just demonstrates exactly the point that Cath was making – that gendered imbalances exist, that the status quo reinforces such imbalances, and that vested interests in some sectors of our society will discriminate against female employees, whenever they think they can get away with it.
Seems to me that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, EEO policy, and gender analysis of public policy, are all areas that this government needs to think a bit harder about before disdaining their worth to the public service, and the NZ public at large.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Katie
I hope you are not including me in the misogynists! That would be very wrong!
I think the time has clearly come when society needs to turn its focus from the acquisition of things to the development of people. The current economic crisis is caused by a competition between people to have more and better things. The truculence and brutality of young people is caused by a desire in them to have more and better things.
People, not things are what should matter, and when they do we will see the demand curve for electricity, oil, and so many other things that have the potential to harm the ecology go back down to reasonable levels.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Katie,
Person A follows a career track, then takes five years off.
Person B follows a career track, never has a break in career.
All else being equal, who is likely to be more valuable to an employer? B right?
It’s got absolutely nothing to do with misogyny.
After all, both could be women.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@Strings-
Well it is somewhat odd that you would only propose such a limit be placed upon females. Why should they be the only ones less deserving of a career? Why not have the father stay home?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Reddeath,
I dont think Strings was being entirly serious, but he does make a good point in that children are increasingly seperated from parents, leading to anomie and trouble forming interpersonal relationships, and that there tends not to be enough responsibility taken by absent parents. Of course, effectivly forcing them to be there may not be the best option, esspecially when it comes to child and spousal abuse.
Personally i think that mothers should have the choice of allowing the father access to the child and gaining payments or not allowing the father access but also not having the benefit of payments, that is in the absence of abuse, etc. Though considering that women have the choice to abort it would actually be more fair to let the father make the choice, but then that just encourages less responsibility on the males side, not that having such a policy as outlined above wouldint encourage less reponsibility on the females side.
There is an absence of responsibility within our society in terms of interpersonal relationships: an apathy in selecting decent partners. an apathy in knowing your partner. an apathy in knowing what your partner will do in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. an apathy in preventing unwanted pregnancy. Infact all there is an excess of is trust and stupidity, ah; oxytocin.
Katie,
as that effectivly stops the potential for pregnancy, stops the cycles perceived to cause wide emotional variation, etc, etc, etc.
So long as one individual poses more risk than another individual for the same benefit, the individual posing the least risk will be the one more readily employed, more in demand, and as such more highly paid. It is pure and simple supply and demand. So long as a female can get pregnant and a male cannot, so long as females tend to take care of children more than males, so long as maternal leave is for women more than for men; females will pose significantly higher risk and as such be less readily employed.
BPs example is another entirly, same principles though, not only does person B likely pose a higher risk than person A but person B also presents far less benefit than person A. Again, perfectly simple and straight foward.
Short of rendering all females infertile, the best way to acheive greater equality of pay, between individuals of the same skill and benefit, is to require that a certan portion of leave for children can only be used by the other partner, and unless those are equal, pay will still be less. Though, for the individual, the best way would be to have her ovaries removed
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient-
Haha I had just assumed that he was not being entirely serious in regards to his 5% figure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Aren’t we beyond this point in society yet…….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
man and woman should have the same chance or opportunity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)