Herald Editorial on Man Ban

The NZ Herald editorial is rather strong today on Labour’s Man Ban:

Just when the country imagined women were doing well in politics, particularly in the Labour Party, the party’s organisational wing says they are not. It is so worried that women do not yet fill half the party’s seats in Parliament it might allow electorates to ban males from selection as the Labour candidate. Predictably, the “man ban” has been ridiculed from all sides but if Labour wants to do it, why not?

The party’s former president Mike Williams offered one reason: “It’s discrimination, there are human rights issues.” Certainly it is discrimination, the kind of “positive discrimination” that Labour parties believe in. Another red-blooded male, MP Shane Jones, said, “Last time I checked it was the blue-collar, tradie, blokey voters we were missing”, implying they will not vote for a woman.  

They are right it is discrimination…but they are wrong also…it won;t be men that won’t vote for Labour it will be women. This is where labour has a disconnect, they believe that everyone thinks like them, that people vote for candidates simply because they have a vagina or don’t have a vagina. History has proven that approach to be dead wrong.

He might be right but he is about 30 years too late. It was at least that long since the Labour Party began recruiting women candidates in earnest. It appointed a succession of women as president of the party. A decade later it had a woman leading the party and within a few years she was Prime Minister.

By then the National Party had given the country a woman Finance Minister and its first woman Prime Minister. The nation has had two women as Governor-General, has women at the head of almost all levels of the judiciary today, women leading government departments and featuring high on the party lists of all parties in Parliament. This is a battle Labour women have led and won.

But they do not appear to know it. They have set a goal of a 50-50 gender balance in their caucus and women make up only 41 per cent so far. To reach perfect equilibrium by the election after next, they may need to turn away good men. Local electorate committees may be able to seek permission of the party’s New Zealand council to say that only women need apply for their selection.

A man ban in other words.

If this is repugnant to the meaning of equal opportunity in most people’s minds, it is not foreign to Labour thinking. While the public has not heard of a “man ban” before, it is quite likely that something close to it has been informally operated in party selections for many years.

Positive discrimination is central to the philosophy and character of the Labour Party. It does not believe in equal opportunity but in equal outcomes, which it believes require the playing field to be tilted in favour of those disadvantaged by race, gender or relative poverty. The “man ban”, even if the executive backs away from the idea in public, is a good defining issue for voters.

To anybody who shares Labour’s belief that women are inherently disadvantaged in competition with men, an idea as drastic as the “man ban” will show how determined a Labour government would be to address remaining gender imbalances in all walks of life. To those who believe women can hold their own in any company these days, it will be a warning.

That is the problem…people will worry that labour will apply their “Man Ban” across the state sector.

The calibre of women in the Labour caucus does not suggest they needed a “man ban”. If such a device is needed to reach perfect equilibrium, the party’s female talent pool must be running down.

There is no point objecting, it is Labour’s business, Labour’s badge of honour or dishonour depending on point of view. Labour will bear the plaudits or the consequences.

Hmmm…good point…let’s look at that Labour talent…Annette King, Maryan Street, Nanaia Mahuta, Carol Beaumont, Sue Moroney, Darien Fenton, Clare Curran, Megan Woods, Moana Mackey…hmmm yes I can see what the editorial writer is on about.

  • GazzW

    According to Grant Robertson on the 11am ZB News Cameron or one of his supporters must have joined the labour party to secure the info on the Man Ban proposal.

    I’m surprised that he didn’t ask Cam to name his sources. He was, however,quite confident that it was not an MP.

    • Dave

      And do they seriously not think the labour party does not have a few stooges buried in the Nats ????

      Difference the Nats are not stupid enough to even think up such a dumb idea let alone waste their time refining it and committing the stupid notion to paper. Rather, the Nats have a country to run, and a lot of up and coming talent to develop.

    • Travis Poulson

      The paranoia is gnawing away like a rat.

      • Dave

        Love to know how many new members, and how many RESIGNATIONS they have had in the past week. Strangely, I think they would have lost a lot of Women members.

        Also very strange, Wussell NotNormal has kept the Greens head low, not commented on the Man Ban and kept their nose clean. Beware of that Green Knife Shearer, especially once Sussie Bradford announces the Man Ban extends to their co-owners and associated support parties.

        Hey Winston, you gonna sit down to pee as well??

    • Time For Accountability

      Clearly we need a police inquiry into the leaker.

  • JC

    Actually I think that with one little tweak this Man Ban could be really effective.. simply add in a Woman Ban. This way an electorate could ring up HO and ask that there be a Man and Woman Ban put in place for the electorate.. that way no one gets offended and the public would likely be most pleased.

    JC

    • Time For Accountability

      I suggest it is a dastardly plan to isolate Winston from the left and leave him no alternative than to cuddle up to the right and thus cost them votes.

  • thor42

    I like the idea of a “Labia Party ban”.
    No Labia Party MPs.

  • cows4me

    Why would any self respecting man want to join the Labia Party now. You wouldn’t know if you were going to get shafted by the feminazis simply because you’ve got a dick. The whole fucking lot want to be put into a sack and dropped into an ocean trench.

  • Positan

    This man-ban issue is now developing a most fascinating feature. Quite incredibly in my experience, some long time Labour supporters with whom I’ve done battle over years, are now shilly-shallying in their vocal support of their party. This one-eyed feminist idiocy has deeply shaken their convictions – something I never thought I’d see in two of the most incontrovertibly dogma-following creatures I’ve ever known. A wonderfully self-inflicted home-goal by Labour. Man bans and woman bans will be high in the minds of those who might’ve voted for Labour candidates next year.

  • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Petal

    “Hmmm…good point…let’s look at that Labour talent…Annette King, Maryan Street, Nanaia Mahuta, Carol Beaumont, Sue Moroney, Darien Fenton, Clare Curran, Megan Woods, Moana Mackey…hmmm yes I can see what the editorial writer is on about.”

    Just a quick note from Jacinda: “Thanks Cam. Love your work”.

  • flashman

    “This is a battle Labour women have led and won … But they do not appear to know it”. You could say the same thing about trades unions. They’ve got all the legislative protections they were fighting for back in the 70′s and 80′s – note that most disputes today are about legal entitlements, not what’s the right thing to do per se. But they act as if they’re still the poor downtrodden workers denied basic rights.

  • Time For Accountability

    Its not so much the issue of gender rather than the underlying gender.

    Take for example where there is a gay couple of any mix where there is one with strong male bias and one with strong female bias.

    Where do the male bias people slot into the female gender selection.

    It has not escaped me that the prime movers of this policy have male dominant bias in their personality

  • IWantToBeLikeMallardOneDay

    I hope this causes Labour’s support to plummet to around 13% which would in turn cause them to amend their policy to compensate for the fact that their would be even fewer females in parliament and they’d have to have an 80% – 20% women/man quota which would send them into a complete downward spiral.

62%