For appearance’s sake
The Green Party is in the unique position that 2/3rds of our MPs are women. So one of the things I really notice in the parliamentary precinct is the way those women are judged on their appearance, clothes and hair style in a way that men never are. Some of the attacks they endure are cruel and aimed to hurt. Others are merely pointless judgment’s on a person’s appearance that the commenter thinks is harmless, but would never think to say about a male politician in the same position. The Hand Mirror covers this issue well when it discusses the pointless attacks a young, aspiring female politician in another party is currently facing.
Interestingly, there are only two male politicians I can think of who are subjected to anything approaching this sort of critique. One is our own Nandor, and the other is Rodney Hide.
Sometimes I feel there’s not much we can do to change that portion of the general public who indulge in these judgements. If we point out the double standard it’s seen as some edict from the nanny state, if we turn a blind eye, or a deaf ear, it is seen as concurrence. If we protest it seems to elicit even more name-calling.
But that’s no reason for people commenting in public, especially the media and bloggers, to pander to our darker instincts.
So, here’s a challenge to some of the usual culprit blogs. Let’s try spending a week without referring to any woman in a way that reflects on her appearance. Notice how many times you need to consciously edit out adjectives or rewrite nouns to make them less subjective. Let me know at the end of the week if you were still able to make your political point by building a logical argument on policy and previous record. I’m keen to hear. And, if you want a real challenge save up all those adjectives and nouns and apply them to the next thing you write about a man. And let me know how out of place they look.
March 29th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Well said indeed.
I have observed this gross unfairness and I am glad you have written about it.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
There was a slight intimation that it is male bloggers or commenters who are the guilty parties. Standing in line at the checkout provides an easy way to test that assumption. Read the headlines on the covers of the magazines. Catty is the term that springs to my mind.
Aside from that, your point is well made.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Frog- excellent post, it’s actually one of the topics I’d planned on covering myself. I’m glad to see you’re well on top of things and this is a pretty good start. I’m actually writing something that expands on this right now
Both women and men are certainly guilty of this, and I think they both ought to acknowledge that this sort of thing promotes sexist attitudes both towards men and women.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Not surprising really since over 50% of those polled want naked (females) news presenters. Liberals. So free, they are apparently free from consequences.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
look i know what you mean about them girl mn thing fwwog, all the time i was aaying to heather like yous hair good but do yous got a better bair of knickers and that well it no use to frown at me dudes because it the truth as you knew see the girl on tv1 like with them slippery film across the chest fwwog, now i did happen to notice that sue K always been good looking and i really dont see whats wrong,
March 29th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
PQ-
What are you trying to say? A little time spent on your spelling and grammar wouldn’t hurt, even if you are going for some weird sort of accent effect. Have you tried to read your posts?
About the only thing I got from that one was “don’t frown at me because it’s the truth”. Peter, it might be the truth that I like to do obscene things in the bedroom, but that doesn’t mean I need to yell that at women, in public. It might be the truth- or at least, I might see it as being the truth- that my mate’s car, which she loves, is a bucket of rust, but that does not mean I have to tell her.
The issue at hand is that not only do we see women this way, but we see them this way at the expense of any other qualities they have. A woman running for office ought to be judged on her policies and her leadership qualities, just like men running for office should be.
If you have not had to deal with people ridiculing you for your appearance- like I have, and like many women experience daily, probably to a much worse degree- then I would question what criteria you’re using to judge the appropriateness of your comments? When is it appropriate to judge someone by their appearance, Peter?
March 30th, 2008 at 7:29 am
now..seeing as part of my commentaries of questiontime in parliament..
..will..(if required/’needed’..comment on (particularly spectacular) fashion-crimes..
(or fashion ‘victories’..)..
i presume i am one of those you rail against..
in my defence all i can cite is a lifelong interest in the irredeemably irrelevant..
..and that i am non-gender-specific in my critiques..
my most recent fashion-declaiming..
was where i fulminated/amazed/scoffed (and sneered) at the sartorial choices of one dail whats-his-name(?)..
on his return to parliament..
i went on at length how he was ‘a vision in beige’..
(as indeed he was..)
y’know frog..!
there are so many other things i wish you/the greens were more vocal about..
eh..?
(meanwhile i’ll just continue on my ‘irredeemably irrelevant’ ways..)
(and whats wrong with telling someone they ‘look good’..?
or they look ’shit’..?)
(btw..is russel norman still wearing his shirt collars out over his suit coat collars..?
could someone take him aside and tell him this was a look/fashion that wide-boy gangsters effected in that rash of ‘crim’-movies at the end of the last millenium..
a look that is so ‘last millenium’..
someone tell him to ‘tuck his collars in’..
eh..?..
and when is keith locke getting his ‘makeover’..?
i want frou-frou hair..and ‘crocs’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 30th, 2008 at 7:39 am
btw frog..
when do you think you will be dong your (first!) global economic meltdown story..?
a read of frogblog would lead you to believe the large economic tsunami heading our way..
just isn’t happening..
(why this deriliction of your ‘information-duties’..?..)
you aren’t part of the ‘don’t panic the punters’/’scare the horses’ crew..are you..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 30th, 2008 at 7:46 am
You are wrong i heard jude on kiwifm talk about the tv footage, she said “the media is biased, they only show us arguing like children at question time” or some such thing, anyway shes WRONG they have parliament TV now, and its off air 4 days a week, which they control themselves, I say introduce changeable votes so i can can change my vote everytime you girls introduce a womans affairs minister without making a mens one aswell.
March 30th, 2008 at 7:47 am
and just one more question..
did i hear jeanette fitzsimons on national radio arguing againt a doubling of the solar hot water subsidy..?
(on the grounds of ‘just throwing money at it won’t solve the problem’..(!)..
is that just ‘cos’ it was an idea from national..?
would her response have been the same..had labour argued for a doubling of the subsidy..?
there was this surreal moment on national radio..
where nick smith presented the ‘green’ arguments..
and fitzsimons presented the reactionary/’national’point of view..
whoar..!
could you clarify for us all..
..just why feanette fitzsimons is on the record opposing a doubling of a solar-subsidy..?
(it has me scratching my head..going wtf..!..)
(much like dail jones’ ‘beige-ensemble’..(matching hankey and all..!..)..did..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 30th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Excellent article.
The practice of judging women by their looks and men by their actions implies that women are for decorative purposes while men get on and run the world!
Have to take issue with the use of the “nanny state” expression. So much labour bashing is lumped under this sexist term.
In the context it is used I hope you are quoting the disinformation machine.
March 30th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
“nanny state” a sexist term?
You ARE joking I assume
March 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Big Bro,
Perhaps they’d prefer the masculine equivalent: “Command and Control”?
March 30th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
BluePeter
The funny think about that article is that in todays society most men are scared to be men, they have been programmed by the femenazi to keep their heads down lest they be accused of a sexual crime.
Have a look at the way they have successfully driven almost all men out of our primary education system.
The days of men seeing or treating wimin as sex objects is mostly gone, the ironic thing is that the people who judge females on their looks the most are OTHER females.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
BB’s right it’s women who judge women far more than men.
Hey frog, just what has Green said about National’s solar panel policy?
Start a new thread please. I’d rather see us discussing that than cleavage.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Samian
“I’d rather see us discussing that than cleavage.”
Speak for yourself….ha ha
March 30th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Maybe you should change to ‘DD’ then ;^)
March 30th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Big Bro,
Indeed. I preferred the attitude prevalent in the UK, where people don’t take it all so seriously. And as for faux outrage over the “Whaka” billboards - Jesus wept! As the Maori guy who was interviewed on the street wisely stated “the people who will find it funniest are probably Maori”.
PS: Discussing cleavage would be a vote winner, for sure
March 30th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Phil U - I deleted your test comment from 7:30 this morning. It got caught in the spam filter, which I confess I rarely check. I only hit it because BB had been caught in moderation today - twice.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
BluePeter
I thought the “whaka” advert was outstanding and I agree that the faux outrage is sickening.
Were are these people when it comes to other adverts currently running on our TV?, have you seen the one for “skins” it is without doubt the most blatantly racist advert I have seen for some time yet nothing is said because it features African Americans.
I can just imagine the howls of protest if speedo were to use a campaign promoting the superiority of white swimmers over other races.
March 30th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Being white and male is a crime, dontcha know
The male, feminist, apologists are welcome to their guilt-ridden club. The rest of us will be watching Top Gear.
They can call us if they need us to invent something…..
March 30th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
The ‘whaka’ thing sort of reminds me of Billy T James labelling the meat in his fridge ‘te steak’.
I tend to think ‘feminazis’ exist in the same realm as ‘militant homosexuals’ that is, an alternate universe.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:23 am
most commented-upon politician for appearance must be winston peters. i recall one sublimely poetic passage in which jane clifton described (an unlikely thing) as being as likely as winston peters appearing in public wearing tracksuit bottoms.
single most commented about appearance-incident in the world in recent years would be dick cheney wearing a bulky jacket at a funeral or memorial or something outside when it was snowing. as if the fact that he’s a wicked imperialist doesn’t count for anything… strange what’ll hold people’s attention.
anyway don’t women like to be noticed for their appearance?
…well at least when aspects of their appearance are political, for instance flouting dress protocol in the presence of the queen, as strategic a wardrobe gesture for a prime minister as non-appearance related ones like putting a friendly arm around the queen or texting during her speech etc
March 31st, 2008 at 9:58 am
andrew Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 9:23 am
> most commented-upon politician for appearance must be winston peters. i recall one sublimely poetic passage in which jane clifton described (an unlikely thing) as being as likely as winston peters appearing in public wearing tracksuit bottoms.
I don’t think Winston’s appearance has really been commented on in a negative way. But Gerry Brownlee’s weight and Don Brash’s comb-over have.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I say introduce changeable votes so i can can change my vote everytime you girls introduce a womans affairs minister without making a mens one aswell.
I’d certainly love for the awareness of men’s rights and similar campaigns to be put in the limelight, but I don’t delude myself that it’s anywhere near as urgent as women’s issues.
Big Bro- Yes, Nanny State is sexist, (I’ve blogged on this recently in fact) and it’s insulting to nannies, who do a very important job that allows the rest of us to go off to work, and generally do it quite well. Especially seeing that the people, like yourself, who use the term, seem to be quite selective about what qualifies as a Nanny State- for instance, not refunding you half of your taxes is “nannying”, but attempting to spell out in law that marriage is limited to men and women- when it’s already denied to homosexual couples- is conveniently ignored by our “Nanny State” bashers. I know double-standards can be a tricky concept, but come on.
As for the “whaka” billboard- I think that’s used in good spirit and it’s not inherently demeaning, and looking at the coverage, it gave me a quick laugh. It’s a thin line though, and you’re better not to tread it.
SteveR- “Feminazis”, or feminists who go a bit overboard, do exist, but aren’t really listened to by other feminists, and certainly not by wider society. Used as a word to bash Labour, it’s particularly disgusting, as Labour has been incredibly restrained on the women’s issues it has legislated about, even though it has passed the most feminist laws of any party. Most of the instances of society going overboard with feminism have actually been men instituting rules that are overprotective of women’s interests- which in itself is sexist against women.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
People who froth on about ‘feminazis’ typically tend to get their arguments ignored by me anyway…really lazy word. Though yes, they probably DO exist - possibly within the ’school’(?) (if there even is one anymore) of lesbian feminism.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Ari
I simply do not accept that “Nanny state” is a sexist term, far to many of our traditional words and phrases have been assaulted like this by the PC police.
Even the sport I love (cricket) has been affected, some now adopt the term “batters” to describe batsmen when for over 100 years the term batsmen was perfectly acceptable, only now is that term deemed offensive by some.
By all means use what ever term you want, if you are unhappy with the term “nanny state” then do not use it, but please do not tell me what words I can use and in what context I can use them.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:32 am
i suppose the masculine equivalent to the phrase “nanny state” is “big brother”