This admission in a text from a friend this week made me laugh. This is what passes for scandalous these days for those of us formerly of the left. Having been catapulted out from our tribe courtesy their gender ideological erasure of women, we don’t know what to think anymore. Gone is the set menu of acceptable views we once unthinkingly shared, gone is the certainty that our side were the kind folk and gone are the kind folk tbh. Not so kind when you don’t agree with them.
But back to pay equity - we were both having second thoughts about a practice and principle we once thought was inviolate. We loved it when Kristine Bartlett achieved a higher wage rate for poorly paid care workers but it seemed to us that to employ this technique to numerous other jobs was a case of mission creep. Not all the jobs up for consideration were what I would call poorly paid - nurses, librarians, psychologists.
We were also both tired of the leftist trope of the woman as downtrodden. In fact women are doing as well or better than men on many metrics - education, professional representation, political representation. Men could claim to be over-represented in numerous negative statistics such as suicide, homelessness, lifespan and workplace deaths.
More importantly for this issue, there are many low paid jobs largely done by men and we see no attempt to raise their wages via the pay equity mechanism - warehouse workers, industrial cleaners, construction labourers and meat processing workers for instance.
Would we support it if the same mechanism raised their wages? Possibly. We both support the principle of sustainable wages and the right of workers to lobby for increases.
Pay equity is the same pay for different work which has the same or similar level of skill, responsibility, and effort. The new pay equity scheme wasn’t extinguishing the practice my friend had now decided was foolish. The government was just attempting to reign in changes made by Labour that opened the floodgates to claims and comparators they considered unfair. Treasury estimates of a $17b price tag over four years for the previously agreed rates gave us Guilty Leftists pause for thought.
As did the timing of the proposed changes when it was reported that politicians would receive an automatic pay rise come July 1 of 2-2.4 per cent. Disappointing. On a comparative global scale, New Zealand politicians are well remunerated.
My Guilty Leftist mate and I came to the conclusion that the number of public servants is excessive, many of whom are overpaid compared with the private sector. Workers in the public sector earn on average $10 an hour more than workers in the private sector. And it is the private sector that generates the wealth. The public sector just spends it.
As we mulled over our rudimentary, illicit views, we swore we’d never air them in public for fear of being seen as anti-women. Given the public outcry and protests around the country, it seemed like the left had the wind in their sails and would be flying this kite all the way to the election. That is, until the left showed us who they really were.
First, the propaganda arm of the left, mainstream media, published a column ostensibly defending pay equity but in truth dumping on women they disagreed with in the worst possible way. As well as phrases like ‘girl boss’ and ‘girl math’ the C-word was levelled at female cabinet ministers in the Coalition government. I doubt I’ve ever read anything as deeply offensive and sexist in msm. The Overton window of acceptability had widened so far now it appeared that all reason and judgement had been tossed out. Yet, despite the egregious sexism of the text, the rest of the media ignored the column as did politicians on the left.
Suddenly the truth was blindingly obvious. The left doesn't care about women. They didn’t when they voted in the Prostitution Reform Bill, Self-Sex ID and the Conversion Therapy Bill, while insisting men could be women.
Nothing has changed. They still don’t give a damn. For all their moral posturing, when it comes to the left, women have only ever been a tool in their armoury to beat the right with when the occasion arises. No group is better at whipping up emotional fervour. Standing up for women on principle not so much.
Their hypocrisy was on display when the former Minister for Women (the ministry that includes men) Jan Tinetti laid into the coalition government using the text of the offending article. Obviously only women with the correct views suffer sexism. Fortunately the ACT MP Brooke van Velden who spearheaded the changes to the pay equity scheme was more than capable of defending herself and other women. She even used the C-word for the first time in parliament, simply echoing the writer. Depending on your views this is either an achievement or a new nadir.
Will this sideshow damage the pay equity campaign? Has the left lost the moral high ground completely or is this a temporary set-back? Hard to say, but at least it’s emboldened me to raise doubts shared by myself and the other Guilty Leftist.
Actually I wish I’d called my substack The Guilty Leftist since I have a feeling I’ll be rethinking my position on a number of issues as time goes by. The title of this article is of course a riff on the Guilty Feminist, a lightweight comedian I can honestly say I’ve never rated. After her disastrous showing on Triggernometry recently, I’m guessing her cred may have well and truly tanked. As might mine having written this.
Yvonne Van Dongen is a journalist, travel writer, playwright and non-fiction author. This article was first published HERE
We were also both tired of the leftist trope of the woman as downtrodden. In fact women are doing as well or better than men on many metrics - education, professional representation, political representation. Men could claim to be over-represented in numerous negative statistics such as suicide, homelessness, lifespan and workplace deaths.
More importantly for this issue, there are many low paid jobs largely done by men and we see no attempt to raise their wages via the pay equity mechanism - warehouse workers, industrial cleaners, construction labourers and meat processing workers for instance.
Would we support it if the same mechanism raised their wages? Possibly. We both support the principle of sustainable wages and the right of workers to lobby for increases.
Pay equity is the same pay for different work which has the same or similar level of skill, responsibility, and effort. The new pay equity scheme wasn’t extinguishing the practice my friend had now decided was foolish. The government was just attempting to reign in changes made by Labour that opened the floodgates to claims and comparators they considered unfair. Treasury estimates of a $17b price tag over four years for the previously agreed rates gave us Guilty Leftists pause for thought.
As did the timing of the proposed changes when it was reported that politicians would receive an automatic pay rise come July 1 of 2-2.4 per cent. Disappointing. On a comparative global scale, New Zealand politicians are well remunerated.
My Guilty Leftist mate and I came to the conclusion that the number of public servants is excessive, many of whom are overpaid compared with the private sector. Workers in the public sector earn on average $10 an hour more than workers in the private sector. And it is the private sector that generates the wealth. The public sector just spends it.
As we mulled over our rudimentary, illicit views, we swore we’d never air them in public for fear of being seen as anti-women. Given the public outcry and protests around the country, it seemed like the left had the wind in their sails and would be flying this kite all the way to the election. That is, until the left showed us who they really were.
First, the propaganda arm of the left, mainstream media, published a column ostensibly defending pay equity but in truth dumping on women they disagreed with in the worst possible way. As well as phrases like ‘girl boss’ and ‘girl math’ the C-word was levelled at female cabinet ministers in the Coalition government. I doubt I’ve ever read anything as deeply offensive and sexist in msm. The Overton window of acceptability had widened so far now it appeared that all reason and judgement had been tossed out. Yet, despite the egregious sexism of the text, the rest of the media ignored the column as did politicians on the left.
Suddenly the truth was blindingly obvious. The left doesn't care about women. They didn’t when they voted in the Prostitution Reform Bill, Self-Sex ID and the Conversion Therapy Bill, while insisting men could be women.
Nothing has changed. They still don’t give a damn. For all their moral posturing, when it comes to the left, women have only ever been a tool in their armoury to beat the right with when the occasion arises. No group is better at whipping up emotional fervour. Standing up for women on principle not so much.
Their hypocrisy was on display when the former Minister for Women (the ministry that includes men) Jan Tinetti laid into the coalition government using the text of the offending article. Obviously only women with the correct views suffer sexism. Fortunately the ACT MP Brooke van Velden who spearheaded the changes to the pay equity scheme was more than capable of defending herself and other women. She even used the C-word for the first time in parliament, simply echoing the writer. Depending on your views this is either an achievement or a new nadir.
Will this sideshow damage the pay equity campaign? Has the left lost the moral high ground completely or is this a temporary set-back? Hard to say, but at least it’s emboldened me to raise doubts shared by myself and the other Guilty Leftist.
Actually I wish I’d called my substack The Guilty Leftist since I have a feeling I’ll be rethinking my position on a number of issues as time goes by. The title of this article is of course a riff on the Guilty Feminist, a lightweight comedian I can honestly say I’ve never rated. After her disastrous showing on Triggernometry recently, I’m guessing her cred may have well and truly tanked. As might mine having written this.
Yvonne Van Dongen is a journalist, travel writer, playwright and non-fiction author. This article was first published HERE
7 comments:
I think you have had an epiphany similar to people in the USA who used to be Democrats. I used to vote Labour but never will again. My epiphany happened a little earlier than yours but also for seeing hypocrisy everywhere in the Party.
I think many women who prioritise questions to do with sex / gender in the wake of the Posie Parker fracas have shifted to the right. Labour fluffed that issue. It's possible to criticise elements of the 2020 Pay Equity Bill - although National women MPs waxed lyrical about it back then. The current govt thought they needed more money before Budget calculations closed off on 9 May, and so rushed this through. It's a horrible measure to inflict on low-paid women, especially without following proper process, and low-paid women have called out Brooke van Velden for this on her Fb page (she's my local MP). Low-paid men may have a grievance, but they'll find this govt equally resistant to doing anything for them.
Smoke‑Bomb Journalism
News, some say, is “what somebody wants suppressed; all the rest is advertising.” Stuff’s handling of the pay‑equity rollback supplied plenty of advertising—none of it for the women whose claims were axed.
⸻
Exhibit A – Andrea Vance
“C… is an incendiary word. But that doesn’t mean its use is indefensible … The Government is shafting lower‑paid women.”
She lights the fuse with Parliament’s most radioactive noun, then pre‑packages the defence: if critics flinch, label it “faux outrage.” Result—12 paragraphs of lexical warfare, zero focus on the 33 cases binned.
Exhibit B – Verity Johnson
“Is it misogynistic to drop C‑bombs? Nope. It’s just salty shorthand … If you’re offended, you’re very upper‑middle.”
Translation: object and you’re a snob. The word’s normal now, move along. Another column consumed by etiquette, not equity.
Exhibit C – Forum Foot‑Soldier
“Nothing to moralise about—just a tactical error from Labour resulting in a distraction.”
A handy chorus line: the whole week was “theatre,” so why examine the script? Keep the audience seated while the props—legal rights—are wheeled offstage.
Exhibit D – Stuff’s Dashboard
Clicks spike, ad slots fill, awards night rolls on. Meanwhile the paper that once lectured politicians on transparency relaxes its own guard‑rails on language and focus. Shock sells; standards are cost‑centre line items.
⸻
Verdict
The pattern is textbook:
1. Drop a linguistic stun‑grenade.
2. Frame every recoil as prudish or partisan.
3. Reap the engagement metrics while editorial policy slips by uninspected.
The casualty is not parliamentary decorum; it is journalism’s duty of clarity.
When vocabulary (or the lack of) eclipses accountability, reporters become pyrotechnicians, not watchdogs.
Stuff has decided which craft it practises—but only one of them deserves the press card. The rest is a desperate attempt at news of the world inspired clickbait.
I note in this low pay discussion IRD Taxation is absent. The taxation paid by the least paid worker is miniscule and the increase in wages being claimed can effectively be for naught if you enter the next taxation index . And so on the indexes invite the wage increase with clear knowledge that taxation to Govt will increase as you climb the wages ladder .
Secondly the use of Billions is misleading especially when it is followed by "over four years " which is greater than a parliamentary term and obviously $250 million per year. As for women not being appreciated , bunkum 50% of the world alone cherish their "girls" quite apart from what the other 50% female gender thinks.
Basil what on earth does your bunkum comment about girls mean?
Anon 2;04 Bunkum means rubbish , "as for women not being appreciated "rubbish" 50% of the world (males) cherish their girls (mothers sisters aunts)
Basil, you say the lower paid pay miniscule tax. I would say that a lot of lower paid workers get more tax credits than what they pay in tax . Only a single childless person would arguably be better off with a pay increase, because a lot of the allowances are income related
Post a Comment