Former Covid minister Chris Hipkins’s prolonged public argument with, and humiliation of, pregnant journalist Charlotte Bellis, stranded in Afghanistan, the land of the Taliban, is one of my most ghastly memories of the debacle which was the Covid response.
(Of course ‘trustworthy’ then Covid minister Hipkins had a laundry list of other egregious actions which impaired our Covid response, including his tardy ordering of Covid vaccines – putting us at the back of the queue – and stealing test kits from the private sector and denying it after he failed to order them in time… but I digress.)
Hipkins cornered proves to be a very dangerous animal who reverts to lying, obfuscation and personal attack (note his latest comment to Luxon over Three Waters), as he did also with the two women who went, it turned out, legitimately, to Northland but were labelled by his Government as “prostitutes breaking the law”.
For him ‘sorry’ really was the hardest word, and he didn’t issue an apology until legal action (by Bellis) forced him to. Dozens of other women also wanted to come home to have their babies, but Hipkins and his Labour Government viewed, for example, 66 DJs’ reasons to enter NZ as more legitimate than vulnerable NZ citizens, and there are many other heartbreaking stories of families kept apart during bereavements, sickness and milestones such as weddings and birthdays by this Government’s cruel, twisted policy.
Targetting a vulnerable woman stranded in a war-torn and dangerous country in such a blatantly public way surely was misogynistic of Hipkins. However for Labour and the media the ends justify the means for their victims and there was no mention that this could be misogyny.
That only applies for conservative treatment of the left, like the recent banning of Ilhan Omar from the Foreign Affairs committee by the Republicans for her unacceptable racist commentary, which is ‘racist and misogynistic’, according the ‘Squad’, who have been losing their lunch over the incident. No responsibility taken for her actions.
Another example of the media’s biased, prolonged targetting and criticism is Mayor Wayne Brown, where their misandry is in full view, with even Fran O’Sullivan now begging them to let up as he has apologised.
It has now been revealed the emergency management team did NOT have Brown’s name or any of his team’s on their email list, so they did not receive the messages others did leading up to the disaster. (We are still waiting for their public apology.)
I bring up the subject of misogyny as the media have been reverting to it a lot in an attempt to protect the reputation of Ardern, who resigned, basically, because she had screwed up big time and knew ‘it was time’ to resign (before she was pushed or lost the next election).
According to media she attracted such criticism and hatred due to her sex. They prefer to ignore the reasons behind it. They are determined to turn her into a martyr and label any criticism of her as misogynistic in order to shut down conversation; they conveniently ignore her egregious behaviour, not least her lack of success in all public service delivery areas and being the first PM to introduce He Puapua – a separatist regime based on race and driving division in our society, and then denying or ignoring its existence. Hipkins is leaving it bubbling away in plain sight and behind the scenes whilst he does a sleight of hand to try to fool us he is dealing with it. A new name will suffice for Three Waters, apparently!
Then there was former National leader Judith Collins who got regular, cruel, vicious cartoons and nasty comments on her demise: no kindness there based on her female status. She bravely, correctly, called out He Puapua’s racist, separatist intent early in the piece, but was abused and called ‘racist’. (Of course!) This was misogynistic, but condoned by most too scared to speak out.
The reimagining of Twitter by Musk, essentially to allow conservative opinion back into the ‘town square’, was a big departure from the former Twitter management’s very cosy arrangement with the FBI, DOJ and senior Democrats censoring conservative dissent and banning them from the site.
We still have the (unspoken) censorship of conservative views in New Zealand, a little (actually a lot) like in the original Twittersphere. Our media ran commentary of the ‘dangers’ of Musk’s actions to allow the conservative voice back on Twitter. Laughable, but an edict they follow almost religiously.
And of course no one gets to reply as the conservative voice is not represented, unless by a former politician, and even then it has a very short shelf-life. On the other hand, John Campbell has been starring on TVNZ’s website since 21 September lamenting his ‘slow dull understanding of history’, and our journalists string out the departure, like a rat fleeing a sinking ship, of our failed former PM – lies, violins, mournful photos and all.
Censorship definitely exists in NZ with a small incestuous cabal of bought and paid for news media deciding what is acceptable, funded by the former PM’s PIJ scheme and dependent on their acceptance of her Government’s radical interpretation of the Treaty.
Totalitarianism. Not misogyny.
I am hopeful that Christopher Luxon attempts again to state his views calmly and clearly in the incendiary environment of the Waitangi celebration. Expect the word ‘racist’ to be freely tossed about by those who have no legitimate argument to counter his words.
He might be a bit ‘vanilla’ (compared to the departed ‘media star’ PM), but his calm, composed, temperament worked well at Ratana and is an advantage in standing up to the bully media. Labour is led by a new leader who is already reverting to personal attacks on Luxon in the absence of a good argument to counteract National’s simple need not race approach to the delivery of public services – an approach which puts all New Zealanders on a similar footing.
Sounds fair to me.
Wendy Geus is a former speechwriter and generalist communications advisor in local government. She now writes for the pure love of it. This article was originally published HERE.
4 comments:
Here’s a thought. Misogyny is about contempt for women. But who or what is a woman these days and is not contempt now part of the definition? How about a new ( or very old) word: Femina. A femina is a person born biologically female unsullied by gender politics. Such a person will be proud of her extraordinary body which, amongst other things is not derived from a male body, is not a modified female body for gender identity purposes, may become pregnant, may give birth so she ie the femina, becomes a mother, and may breastfeed her child. And of course, as with men and women, she can and should reach for the stars and be acknowledged and respected as a human being.
Femina- the form for both singular and plural. Uses she pronouns.
Readers might enjoy this:
https://off-guardian.org/2023/02/07/jacinda-ardern-saint-or-psychopath/
In your list "of wrong doings by Hipkins & Media", can I add 2 things -
[1] - Media Persona > Anna Burns Francis, recent TVZN reporter USA, and her "unbridled hatred of Don Trump", to the point that no Kiwi has ever been told what DJT achieved in his 4years as president - unless they sourced News via YoOu Tube;
[2] - Wayne Brown, If you state a belief of missing data from an email list, "is it possible due that Wayne being disliked in many quarters, across Auckland, that it may have been deliberate"?
Dear "Chippy" another "Trevor Mallard from the Hutt valley.
No, neither the decisions about Charlotte Bellis nor criticism of her demand for special treatment nor calling Judith Collins 'racist' were examples of misogyny. Bellis was the victim of an unfair government policy that was applied to thousands of male and female victims in various circumstances of vulnerability or despair, with no evidence that its invention or administration was based on hatred of women. Calling Judith Collins 'racist' for saying true and sensible things was unfair and irrational but similar things said by males will attract the same mindless slur. A lack of 'kindness based on her female status' does not amount to misogyny and providing such kindness would be discriminatory against males, though not necessarily misandry. Sure, some comments made to or about Ms Collins may have involved hatred of women, and even without evidence of hatred it may be justified to use the term 'misogynist' for criticism of a female in any role simply on the basis of her gender or to an extent that the critic would not direct at a male in similar context. But loose use of the word 'misogynist' is no better than loose use of other words such as 'racist', 'fascist', 'homophobic' and 'transphobic' that are used far too often simply because another's opinion doesn't suit one's agenda or preference.
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.