Firstly, I’d like to congratulate the Greens on making a straight-out announcement, as opposed to an announcement about an announcement, which is Labour’s modus operandi.
But let’s analyse this decision. They state that “The party is now looking to go further, with a proposal for one co-leader to be female and the other any gender or identity.”
So, one co-leader MUST be female but the other co-leader can be anything. Isn’t that gender bias? I strongly suspect that the other co-leader will be any gender-identity, except male.
What that says to me is that the Greens value women more than any other gender because they want to make it compulsory that at least half their leadership is always female, regardless of the skills and abilities of other candidates.
Maybe Gaia communes better with women due to their natural affinity for nurturing and being kind and caring so they have an advantage when it comes to “saving the planet”.
Of course, the usual media suspects and left-wing Green feminists were trotted out to say how marvelously progressive and how long overdue this was. Not one mention was made of how the Greens were deliberately skewing their future leadership based on gender. A reflection on the current political, academic and media disdain for the male establishment and men in general.
I’m assuming that the Greens are in parliament with the aim of wielding some power and influence so it does seem strange to adopt a policy that deliberately discriminates against half the population.
Based on the gender make-up of the current Green MPs perhaps they feel they can justify their proposal. I’m not an expert on the many gender-identities so I’m going to keep this crude and simple and sort people into biologically male and female. So, there are 7 females and 3 males/others. That is a majority but not an overwhelming one. You would expect at least 90% females I would have thought to justify on these grounds.
And then there’s the Green Party List, published at the 2020 election. Scanning through this, and admittedly not doing any more fact-checking on dubious names, I came up with 12 females and 12 males. So perfect biological representation. I have no idea what each candidate’s actual gender-identity is so I may have been presumptuous here.
What must these male candidates be thinking of their chance to be leader if they ever manage to get into parliament, regardless of their ability? One can only wonder.
But remember this is the Green Party and I wouldn't be surprised if most Green “males” fully applaud this blatant discrimination against themselves because they are so woke they can’t see it.
The question has to be asked, how will male Green voters view this decision. Are they from the same mould as their representatives or will enough of them see this for what it is and swing their vote to Labour.
What does it matter, I hear you say. Labour-Greens are effectively two sides of the same coin and always ally with each other.
But, you know, it could matter. If enough male Green voters switched, and Swarbrick lost her very marginal seat at the next election, the Greens could drop below the 5% threshold.
How exciting would that be!! I’d like to think I wouldn’t gloat…but I bloody well would!
Hold on though. There is one more development. The Greens also announced “A requirement for one co-leader to be Māori is also on the table as part of the Greens commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”
Of course it is! Co-governance! All they have to do now is only select males with no Maori heritage and they will be guaranteed full female representation forever.
If a party was being truly progressive and wanting the best and most able candidates to serve the public you would expect gender, or any other personal trait, to play no part in the selection process.
But this is the Greens. Weird, woke, wacky and woeful!
Four excellent reasons never to vote for them, whether you’re male or female.
Derek Mackie is a geologist with a keen interest in current affairs.
4 comments:
FFS What next
Only the Greens can make clowns of themselves by making serious decisions and statements.
Oh sorry, forgot the labour cult, but they make clowns into minister.
and these idiots are reliably polling at around 10%. It makes one wonder about the intellectual capacity of NZers.
this is a surprising stance from people who refuse to define 'female' :)
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.