Portraying Don Brash
Goodness it has been fascinating to see all the attempts to paint Don Brash as some sort of throwback to the 19th century. His latest crime is declaring he is not a feminist. I’m sorry people but get real – regardless of the technical definition, a guy labelling himself a feminist is just silly. It’s the sort of thing Steve Maharey would do.
The left are desperately trying to portray Brash as reactionary. This is an incredibly false portrait of a man who is a genuine market and social liberal. As seen yesterday in response to questions at Grey Power.
Despite an audience very much wanting to hear a conservative message, Brash made very clear he supports civil unions, and the prostitution law reform.
Don’s main crime has been to twice take National ahead in the polls, thus making it crucial he is ‘taken down’.
August 25th, 2005 at 9:44 am
Why is it silly for a man to call himself a feminist?
What should man who believes in equality for women, and wants to contribute to acheiving that equality, call himself?
Not very relevant to Brash, but I ‘m curious
August 25th, 2005 at 9:52 am
David: Nice spinning on the Brash sexism thing. I was wondering how long it’d take you to blog on it: perhaps you were working out the best way to spin the gaffe?
Nevertheless, I’d be very interested indeed in your views (as you haven’t blogged them yet) on two issues:
1) Whether saying that he went easy on Helen Clark *because* she’s a woman was sexist or demeaning to women in any way?
2) Whether you believe Brash still sees the virtue of telling “noble lies”, as I explain here: http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/08/25/what-is-brash-lying-about/?
Cheers.
August 25th, 2005 at 9:54 am
Anita – it all comes down to popular perception of a term vs the technical definition. As an example in the USA the term liberal is used almost exclusively to denote leftwing, so I would not label myself a liberal in the USA, but am happy to in NZ.
As for what term men should use – well why need a term. Do we have a term for heterosexuals who suport equality for gays? A term for people who support no race discrimination?
August 25th, 2005 at 9:55 am
Anita: how does being polite to a women mean that he doesn’t believe in equality for woman?
When did being nice to other people become a crime? Is this really where our country is going?
August 25th, 2005 at 10:01 am
Surely anyone who believes in an -ism is by definition an -ist. Humanists believe in humanism, communists believe in communism, surely feminists believe in feminism, regardless of their own actual sex?
Or have I misunderstood all these years?
August 25th, 2005 at 10:07 am
DPF – Hm.. good point about not actually needing a word
But I still don’t see what is wrong with using the perfectly functional one we have 
I also struggle with the word “liberal” and think it needs adjectives for safe use in NZ (eg “socially liberal”, “economically liberal”). It hurts my head that ACT calls itself “The Liberal Party” when it’s MPs vote against socially liberal legislation.
Blu – Huh? I’m not saying that Brash doesn’t believe in equality for women. Yesterday he said he isn’t a feminist, David said that a man labelling himself a feminist is silly, I asked why.
That said, I believe that Brash that he has some pretty deep seated beliefs that, if given free reign, would undermine the progress made toward equality. Whether he believes in equality or not, some of his beliefs, policies and assumptions would lead to inequality.
August 25th, 2005 at 10:10 am
You can support gay rights without being gay – same goes for feminism
A general definition of Feminism is a social theory and political movement primarily informed and motivated by the experience of women (according to Wikipedia).
I am not sure that many men have experienced what it is to be a woman – so it kind of devalues that experience to claim that a man is a feminist, and devaluing the female experience is definitely not within the feminist agenda.
As a believer in gender equality I might label myself a feminist supporter perhaps, but more likely a believer of basic human rights.
Don Brash however, has inadvertantly devalued womens experience by admitting that he thinks men should not shout at women, but it is ok man to man. He is indicating that men are stronger and should therefore be kinder to women (that is what these ‘gentlemanly’ manners are based on after all). Whether or not he believes that women are weaker is open to debate – some ‘good manners’ are just plain hard to shake. I would have a lot of trouble hitting a woman despite the fact I know that a woman could do significant damage to me – its not that I think woman are weaker (I’m no Vin Diesel afer all), its just the way I was bought up. I find peas easier to eat with a spoon, but I still use a fork because of accepted convention i.e. manners.
In any case the whole thing is just a pathetic avoidance of any real issues – and Don Brash would have done better to not have come out with those comments – who are his advisors?
August 25th, 2005 at 10:13 am
If it’s absurd for men to call themselves feminists (and I kind think it is) then that begs the question as to why the hell Brash is wandering around the country assuring people he isn’t a feminist?
Sounds like classic dog-whistle politics to me . . .
August 25th, 2005 at 10:15 am
*blush* For a pedant I’m having a very bad day. Replace the word adjective with adverb, remove the stray apostrophe and add the third . to the ellipsis.
I wonder if NCEA English would’ve helped me at all?
August 25th, 2005 at 10:28 am
Dim – He hasn’t been. He got asked the question.
Frog – in turn:
1) He did not say he went easy on Clark. He said “not entirely appropriate for a man to aggressively attack a woman and I restrained myself for that reason”
I actually think that not trying to outshout Helen was a good thing. I don’t think it at all mattered that she got 10% more speaking time because I think it turned a lot of people off her.
And while I think the way he expressed himself was somewhat clumsy, I think in general terms there is an issue that a male politican outshouting a female politican can backfire badly. It can be a very bad look. Having said that it can work the other way and a shrill Clark outshouting Brash IMO looked bad for her.
To me it comes down to always take the specific over the general. Generally the points Brash made were valid, but in this particular instance with Clark it wasn’t particulrly relevent – the correct answer was what he himself said later on – “I try to be courteous to everybody and prefer a reasoned and rational debate rather than shouting over my opponent”
2) Look anyone can dredge up musings of people from before they entered politics. Go back to my school days and I was a rampant homophobe. No major party leader can or does subscrobe to a philosphy of intentionally breaking promises. Labour in 1990 and National in 1993 have the scars of that. They know that the only result of that will be to have you thrown out of office and the work you have done reversed.
August 25th, 2005 at 10:29 am
“Anita: how does being polite to a women mean that he doesn’t believe in equality for woman?”
That’s not exactly what he said, in fact he outright stated that his tactics may have very well been different had Helen been a man. That implies definite gender bias.
And against Helen, who we all know can rip anyone another asshole without even blinking.
Don has shown himself up here.
I have no problem with his assertion that he’s not a feminist, but taking it all in context and it’s obvious we’re dealing with a quaint gender rights neanderthal. If he meant what he said I don’t think he meant to be nasty at all. I just think he’s lagging in social progress.
This isn’t a case of the left just being big meanies, he said it, the message was clear. Now it’s time for Don and his supporters to own it. So much for personal responsibility eh?
August 25th, 2005 at 10:32 am
Wow, this is some hirtherto unknown interpretation of the word “support” I was not aware of. Brash voted against not only the Civil Union Bill, but also the less-controversial Relationships Bill.
Following Dr Brash’s logic, I hereby call for everyone to support National and vote Labour on election day.
August 25th, 2005 at 10:40 am
Frog:
I find it rather ironic how the Green Party has spent years complaining about the “macho” culture of incivility and sexism in political discourse that demeans and alienates women.
If Brash had shouted down Helen Clark we would have had endless media chatter over the last couple of days about the misogyny of Don Brash and the National Party. Can’t win whatever you do.
August 25th, 2005 at 10:44 am
It’s interesting. There
August 25th, 2005 at 10:46 am
Krimsonlake:
Nice to see the new definition of leadership is being able to (as you so charmingly put it) “rip anyone another asshole without even blinking.”
I guess that’s why we’re going to see a further decline in voter registration and participation this election.
To be honest, I think this is yet another media/partisan beatup that just confirms why politicians hand journalists are the two least respected professions in this country.
August 25th, 2005 at 10:50 am
I think the left is trying to put a huge amount of spin on this. What if, say, Don had leapt up and down, shouted Helen down, disparaged her as the left are saying he should have, and then Helen breaks down and cries again ? Don’t think she wouldn’t, Waitangi Day anyone ? Would all those leftoids then say good on Don, that was no different than attacking, say Winston ? Uh huh, cold day in hell methinks.
This is classic Don Brash, he is for todays intensely spun partisan politics, just too direct. Be polite, you’re a sexist, be rude, you’re just another domineering patriarchalist. Women can’t admit it easily, but they have the definite advatage here. Be polite and it’s his fault, be rude and it’s his fault. That’s the arguement being used by many commenters, and it’s working for them ! Of course the other H1 defence is the standard “by definition, I can’t be rude”.
I for one do try to argue differently with women than men, both socially and at work, because in my experience different tactics work on average. But that says nothing about how I might treat any individual. Men relate to women, on average, differently than men relate to men, would anyone like to dispute that statement ?
August 25th, 2005 at 11:02 am
Even if Helen does cry her mishandling would not make him the bad guy. If he can’t handle confrontation with someone for whatever reason then he’s got big problems.
And as for todays Herald reporting that he didn’t know what it was like to be a woman until he had a daughter… did the guy not have a mother, a girlfriend, ooh, a wife? Did these women shield him from reality. Get a grip.
I grew up in the ’70s where banks would only send letters to my mother with Mr at the beggining, where they wouldn’t give her a mortgage because she was a solo mother. She got the last laugh, the mortgage stayed in Dad’s name and when he died the mortgage repayment insurance paid off the rest. Made up for years of not paying child support!
So, what was Don Brash doing in the ’70s while this was going on? Surely as a young man he must have been aware of what was happening in his community?
By the time his daughter came along things were considerably better – and he thought that was bad!
August 25th, 2005 at 11:03 am
It’s so pathetic when all the raving feminists come out and say how Brash is now deameaning to women blah blah blah. Suck it up, he was just being polite. All my female friends and I think that him being a gentleman and being polite is fantastic.
The debate was pathetic on Clark’s part-she ranted and raved and smirked and screamed on top of Brash the whole time. He came off looking like the better man.
August 25th, 2005 at 11:07 am
“Brash made very clear he supports civil unions”
Obviously. That’s why he voted against them.
August 25th, 2005 at 11:12 am
Glenn, you are right. I was told yesterday that Leighton Smith on ZB talkback yesterday made the point that Dr Brash actually said “….I maght have….” but to a man, the media and leftoids are shouting that he said “….he would have…treated differently, gone easier” or what ever. Then came the ZB news break. Sure enough there was the news reader spewing on that “Brash says he would have done this or that…” Nothing short of pathetic.
Remarkably, Morning Report received and read out a considerable number of e-mails in support of Dr brash’s actions.
August 25th, 2005 at 11:14 am
If Don had treated the Red Witch like she treated him the Socialists would have come out with the “how dare he be disrespectful to her” Just a bunsh of two faced hypocrites Dont even try and reason with them They say blacks white so it is
August 25th, 2005 at 11:20 am
Don didnt want to be a leader on civil unions he wanted to be a listener !
But now hes back in leadership mode so he wants to leave well alone.
We have heard Don say baloney a couple of times, that brings silence to any room
Lets call Don a metrosexual with bad hair, or the newsest term in the US is a “”heteronormative”"
August 25th, 2005 at 11:20 am
Ditto on what Sophie said.
I’ve always been a Nat supporter, but I despised Don Brash…until I saw that debate.
I’m an active female worker. I’m currently living alone and supporting myself. I believe in equal opportunities for males and females.
I also think it is wonderful when a man holds the door open for me, and when that happens, it gives me warm fuzzy feelings.
Feminists are often criticised when they say they want men to give them the same respect they afforded their mothers and grandfathers. They are told “you can’t have it both ways”.
Did Brash say that Helen Clark was a non effective prime minister because she was a woman? On the contrary, he said some excessively kind things about her in that debate.
Don Brash both respects women as workers, and also gives them the respect that all women… all PEOPLE deserve simply for being human.
August 25th, 2005 at 11:23 am
gd , your caledar is stuck in 1955. The only former communists in parliament are in the Greens and ACT.
August 25th, 2005 at 11:33 am
Let us get a few things straight.
Frog et al. He never offered up the fact that he went easy…He was asked why he did not shout over the top of her by the ZB pol rep (go and listen to the archives)
And again yesterday he was asked if he was a feminist…never said hey guys look at me I am not a feminist… However as you follow the example of your leader, I would not expect you to have the honesty to admit that this is a beat up. That’s fine.
But Froggie, I thought the comment of the day yesterday was made after Layla Hare suggested that Condelesa Rice would wipe the floor with Brash. A french reporter suggested (AFP/IW 25/08 SP2778) that “in New Zealand politics must be like buying fish in a market with all the screaming.” (And you will really realize how funny this is if you know anything about the french political scene)
August 25th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Let us get a few things straight.
Frog et al. He never offered up the fact that he went easy…He was asked why he did not shout over the top of her by the ZB pol rep (go and listen to the archives)
And again yesterday he was asked if he was a feminist…never said hey guys look at me I am not a feminist… However as you follow the example of your leader, I would not expect you to have the honesty to admit that this is a beat up. That’s fine.
But Froggie, I thought the comment of the day yesterday was made after Layla Hare suggested that Condelesa Rice would wipe the floor with Brash. A french reporter suggested (AFP/IW 25/08 SP2778) that “in New Zealand politics must be like buying fish in a market with all the screaming.” (And you will really realize how funny this is if you know anything about the french political scene)
August 25th, 2005 at 11:42 am
Clark has been shouted down and jeered at on an almost weekly basis during Parliamentry question time for the last six years. I don’t remember her ever breaking down and crying, or the evil left-wing media crying foul. She also made it through last campaigns leadership debates with Bill English – which were much more robust – without bursting into tears.
But the real issue here is that Brash has given Labour a heaven sent opportunity to make the issue of the day a dividing one about gender instead of a much more dangerous one about tax cuts. Another own goal.
August 25th, 2005 at 11:57 am
pertinax Can see the word communist in my post Its Thursday 25th August 2005 I will repeat that sloooowly for you
August 25th, 2005 at 11:59 am
“Don Brash both respects women as workers, and also gives them the respect that all women… all PEOPLE deserve simply for being human”
Except that he admitted he “might” not have given the same respect if he had been facing a man…if there is a crux in all of this, then that is it. It is true that he is being vilified for being honest about what most of us uphold as admirable good manners (regardless of how we view women) but honesty is not his only fault – he displayed a great deal of stupidity and bad judgment too – what else would you expect the media to do to make a headline?
I also don’t buy into the whole “might” thing when we are looking for strong (which does not exclude polite) and decisive leadership – I might have said gone by lunch time, I might have sent troops to Iraq, tax policy might be tinkered with to get Winston on board (he all but said that on today’s Morning Report etc
What we see is what we get?
August 25th, 2005 at 11:59 am
Can we pretty much assume now that if Helen Clark was on the Titanic, that she would decline the call for women and children to go first and instead pick up a cello and play along with the band?
August 25th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
As an early thirty something male I was brought up to open doors, let women go first etc. Does this make me archaic? True gentlemen like my grandfathers must be rolling in their graves wondering what has happened to the values in this country when a guy shows a women respect and then gets steamrolled by the media. Everyone that has been interviewed an provided a negative response has been setup by the media. Listen to what the guy actually said, grow up and thank god that we actually have a potential prime minister who still has some dignity and values. Labour is gripping onto power with anything they can get their hands on (reminds me of a few communist dictators from Eastern Europe in the early nineties doesn’t it). I know my mother can’t stand the lesbian feminist agenda that is changing NZ from the pulpit of the Ninth Floor at the Beehive, and I’m sure there is many other women out their who feel as strongly. The country has had enough of this shit.
August 25th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
Of course Brash would have debated differently if his opponent had been a man, or had been 23, or had been Maori, or had spoken English as a second language, or had been very soft-spoken, or had a cold, or had a stutter, or was wildly energetic, or was very charismatic, or was less in command, or was ruder, or, or, or …
But he didn’t say “I might have debated differently if Clark was my age” or “was Maori” or “was more softspoken” or “wasn’t Pakeha” or “was less commanding” or “swore more often”.
He picked her gender.
Which suggests a bunch of things
, but he considers being a women in that kind of situation to be out-of-the-ordinary.
1) His minders must be tearing their hair out.
2) He thought her gender was something worth mentioning.
3) He is not used to debating with women (as equals?).
4) He considers some of those factors normal (mainstream?
5) He has a tendency to say embarrassing/appalling/unwise things off-the-cuff to the media.
As I have said before, it would be great to see a Labour/Green win at this election based on a discussion of policies and a vision for New Zealand. It would be sad to see a loss by National at this election due to a leader who just doesn’t quite cut it.
August 25th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Whoa there Dim, dont we forget Waitangi Day in a hurry here? Helen in tears because another woman spoke to her harshly? And all the Lab rats crying foul then? Did we not see Helen then punnish those nasty brown people for being so rude to her by refusing to ever attend again? Nasty people was nasty to me so never going back bahhhhh hoooo weh whe sniff sniff?
August 25th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
This stream of posts is just amazing…not.
Has our world changed so much that if I guy with standards, values and respect exposes himself. (AND BEFORE YOU LOT WHO LIKE TO READ DEEPER INTO STATEMENTS TO SENSATIONALISE you know what I mean!) he gets ridiculed for it!
For christ sakes! What are you anti people teaching your children…
This is simple..and I will say it slowly for those who cant get it…
H e s i m p l y i s a m a n w h o r e s p e c t s w o m e n !
N o t h i n g m o r e !!
He actually added some class this election. Whether I like him or not is irrelevant, but he showed the qualities and values that were taught to me by my father and I am teaching to my son.
…and people are insulted by it ???
My god….what a world!
August 25th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Bearing in mond the title of this thread…
Whatever one’s politics, any election is very much about image and presentation, and this is one of Brash’s biggest weaknesses.
The dreadful hair, the whole general fuddy-duddy air of the man: He has a great face for radio.
Helen was in the same boat a few years back, and finally allowed herself to have a full makeover to become electable, and it paid off.
If National really wanted to win this they’d have put Don in a gym for a few months, had a stylist do something with his hair, and invested in some clothes that suggested he wasn’t just a boring suit.
His appearance is one of the main weaknesses – and the Kennedy/Nixon debate should be fresh enough in his minders’ minds to have made them work harder on this.
He’ll lose because he looks like a loser, not because of his policies.
August 25th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Sector 7G,
I would suggest that Helen would be off before the woman and children – aren’t the rodents the first to leave?
I don’t think anyone on this thread has commended her admirable behaviour at the debate in question – for good reason. Why the media isn’t beating her up is that she didn’t come up with a pathetic excuse to justify her actions.
And if the Monday debates were a sinking Titanic, to extend the metaphor, wouldn’t it have been great to see Bill Ralston go down with it – that is the captain’s role isn’t it?
I am hoping that Ralston and Co on StateTV have listened to their funders – that is all of us – and change the format of their future debates so that we can actually have debates.
Oh, and morg:
H e s i m p l y i s a m a n w h o r e s p e c t s w o m e n
Do you mean “he simply is a man whore spects(?) women?
Heh, it seems you typed too slowly for me
August 25th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Well, Labour, and their useful idiots the Greens have come through on their promise of
August 25th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
Mikey Bill are you blind as well as dumb. At least Don hasn’t gone and got punch grow hair like he would have if he was in Labour. How can you make shit comments like this? Have you not seen Helen’s miracle makeover? She looks like she has peaches and cream complection and is about 25. She should be charged with fraud. If you showed that photo to a stranger and then Helen walked past she wouldn’t be recognised. And she’s learnt to keep her mouth shut so you can’t see her hill billy teeth.
Don maybe “fuddy duddy” or what ever you want to call it, but at least he’s genuine and people are starting to notice this.
What ever you say screaming at women is not acceptable in any country.
August 25th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
I think Brash is a “reactionary throwback to the 19th Century” as someone wrote by way of refutation earlier in this thread. This was the golden age of capitalism, when it operated without restraint, and concepts such as womens’ or workers’ rights were unknown. The entire New Right project is about turning the clock back to the late 19th century and facilitating capitalist oligarchy. Sadly, the New Right has largely succeeded in its project, with the collaboration of the political party formed to defend workers’ interests against capitalism. That’s the debate we should be having, not who opens doors for whom.
August 25th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
This is what National not being reading ready for prime time, collectively or individually in the the case of their candidates, looks like, my friends.
Damn shame. Labour is an absolute disaster but you still actually have to beat them (maybe if the economy were significantly worse by New Zealand standards National could have the brass ring just handed to them but that’s not the case in 2005), and National evidently is neither smart nor disciplined to do that or to deserve to do that. They can’t explain their differences from Labour in any coherent way nor are they able to recover from their mistakes gracefully. I’ve yet to hear a National candidate even *identify* Labour’s *greatest* sins against liberal democracy – it’s a piful performance all around by the center-right.
To give an important example: Turiana Turia said to Kim Hill last night on TV that the Maori Party wants a *Treaty-based* relationship with any partner parties in Parliament (maybe with all other parties) not just a normal political relationship such as coalition/confidence and supply/etc.. (Kim Hill didn’t get a chance to follow up on this point, which was disappointing.)
Arguably, that’s a disaster. It’s what separatism looks like – so post-election, no matter what happens, no matter who “wins”, it’s 1840 all over again. The Maori party intends not to be not just part of the core legislative body of the country but also simultaneously *outside* it as a partner to the whole legislative/kawanatanga enterprise. That’s the “two standards of citizenship” – “two legal principles” idea at work folks: we’re all kawanatangans but some of us born rangitiran overlords (or maybe senators). That reflects a not un-common interpretation of the Treat of Waitangi that makes it one big human rights violation – two kids born in NZ today are de jure different, one of them’s a rangitiran overlord/senator and one isn’t – which was the real target of Orewa 1 (not affirmative action or even maori seats in parliament etc.- those are red herrings which themselves could be *ways* of having one governing legal principle, or *ways* of having one law for all, *ways* to organize kawanatanga-land etc.).
OK – what you want out of Brash is, among other things, that he’s able to talk intelligently and forthrightly about this… but in fact he’s been clumsy beyond belief about this stuff recently (although Labour’s no better on this front). If you want to be able to do any good for the country on this complicated/difficult matter you’d better have kept your powder dry: at least kept your quasi-sexist attitudes to yourself, and just generally have your act together. There’ll be all sorts of people eager to declare that your very coherent, very important stuff is all*really* about dragging NZ back to the 1950’s, to wishing that Maori didn’t exist etc.. If you give those critics anything they can sink their teeth into on this front they’ll eat you alive and the mainstream of NZ will just see you as too high risk. That’s seems to me to have happened.
In general, it’s not as though there isn’t all sorts of stuff that Brash *could* be doing right now that would be important. But he’s just not skilled enough to do any of that, and instead it’s almost certainly going to be 4 weeks of National tripping over itself on almost every significant issue. Bummer.
Too bad for the country. There’s literally no one who deserves my or anyones else’s vote in this election that I can see. And, yeah, leaving the country again is going to look more attractive than ever when the dust settles.
August 25th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Aaron: What ever you say screaming at women is not acceptable in any country.
Too precious, can’t scream, but we can rape and kill to defend the family honor? Somehow I think screaming at a woman is acceptable in a great many countries.
It may not be acceptable to us, and we may condemn those that do but don’t set your values onto other countries!
August 25th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Sam,
Yes my attempt at ’slow’ talking failed miserably….
But I hope the point was not lost.
August 25th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
Sarah, you raise a good point. Those wailing and gnashing their teeth over Don Brash
August 25th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
True – Clark did cry at Waitangi, proving that she is at least physiologically capable of the act.
She has not, however, cried at any of the hundreds (possibly even thousands) of occasions in which people like Richard Prebble, Bill English, Rodney Hide or Jim Bolger have shouted at her or tried to talk her down.
I’d also add that this leaves Don pretty screwed in his upcoming debates with her. What the hell is he going to do next time she starts yelling at him? Sit there and take it – he looks like a weak loser. Fight back and he looks like a hypocrite.
August 25th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
mikey bill. Your recipe didn’t do John Kerry much good. Arguably the most made over loser in history.
August 25th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Oh Justin, what rubbish. Have you any idea what the hell you’re talking about? Have you got some examples? People used to use the same smear tactics regarding supposed leftist non-criticism of human rights in developing countries – until they realised it was Rod Donald – and not Don Brash or Rodney Hide – who was confronting China’s Wu Bangguo with a Tibetan flag, and taking active steps to oppose Robert Mugabe. Get your facts straight, eh?
August 25th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Dim: So if someone yells and rants at me, then I’m the loser? Only if I joined in. Brash didn’t.
August 25th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
No takers on the given fact that in general people take account of gender when treating other people ? So why all the fuss ?
And Baden is correct, Rod Donald is making more noise than any other politician on human rights, ineffectively so far maybe but the change is welcomed. The problem might be Baden, is that Rod (and the Greens in general) are utterly opposed to any action that might actually affect human rights abuses. Remember Saddam Hussein had a horrendous HR record, one that actions such as embargoes and general UN noises had had no impact on. Sudan has a horrendous record, and an ongoing problem. Zimbabwe has a horrendous record, and all Rod wants to do is ban cricket teams going ? Is he prepared to wait until there are no more anti-Mugabe people left alive, no more non-Arab Sudanese ? A moral stand without any action represents a moral failure, IMHO.
August 25th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
Baden-Its obvious then that Donald doesn’t think China is sufficiently anti-American.
August 25th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
If you’re in a televised leaders debate and your opponent is articulating their points while you just stand there stuttering then yeah – you lose.
August 25th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
David – we do have a word for heterosexuals standing up for gays and men standing up for women, your party calls it PC
August 25th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Ed, I’ll have a go:
While I agree with your point (to a degree), could you honestly say that you would treat all women as your debating inferior
(I know that Brash did not say, or even mean that, but this is what the inference was, which is what is under discussion)
I think most would more likely take each person as an individual personality (of their which gender is an aspect of) rather than as a generalised sexual stereotype and adjust their behaviour accordingly. E.g. Is there any point going easy on a person who is stronger than you just because she is a woman?
He could well have said I have respect for Helen Clark and do not shout at people whom I respect (hehe), or I am not a person who rants and raves to make a point (which I believe he said later on), or I don’t believe that Helen’s character is strong enough to take what she dishes – Waitangi etc…(thereby making a personal rather than gender based discrimination, and so on….
Does this satisfy?
August 25th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Conor-So what Brash was doing was PC……..? I thought Helen and her crew would have been all for it then, or do you now agree that it is just a smear campaign designed to make Brash look bad?
August 25th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Mickey bill wrote: “The dreadful hair, the whole general fuddy-duddy air of the man: He has a great face for radio.”
Sounds like the perfect description of…John Howard.
Don’t get too narrow an idea of what the identikit perfect political leader should look like. Again, think John Howard. Voters are actually a bit more prepared to think outside the box than they are given credit for.
I don’t think the focus on this issue is a beat-up by the PC media, as some have some have suggested – Have you listneed to talkback? its running hot.
Two improtnat reasons: People can RELATE to this issue, in a way they can’t to the economic impact of the various fiscal packages.
Second reason the interest is there is because this is about a genuine choice of who will be prime minister. People want to know what they are like. If bill English had said something like this it would not have been such a big issue because we all knew he wasn’t going to win that election.
And I suspect Brash’s comment won’t hurt him at all. The ones who find it objectionable were never going to vote for him anyway.
August 25th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Mickey bill wrote: “The dreadful hair, the whole general fuddy-duddy air of the man: He has a great face for radio.”
Sounds like the perfect description of…John Howard.
Don’t get too narrow an idea of what the identikit perfect political leader should look like. Again, think John Howard. Voters are actually a bit more prepared to think outside the box than they are given credit for.
I don’t think the focus on this issue is a beat-up by the PC media, as some have some have suggested – Have you listneed to talkback? its running hot.
Two improtnat reasons: People can RELATE to this issue, in a way they can’t to the economic impact of the various fiscal packages.
Second reason the interest is there is because this is about a genuine choice of who will be prime minister. People want to know what they are like. If bill English had said something like this it would not have been such a big issue because we all knew he wasn’t going to win that election.
And I suspect Brash’s comment won’t hurt him at all. The ones who find it objectionable were never going to vote for him anyway.
August 25th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
//Helen was in the same boat a few years back, and finally allowed herself to have a full makeover to become electable, and it paid off. //
BAHAHAHA!! Helen had a makeover? That’s news to me!!
August 25th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Dim …You forget that we have the word of the Hon John Tamihere that Clark is emotionally unstable and that assessment was indeed illustrated when an elderly tribal matriarch told her to sit down and be seen but not heard at Waitangi. I well recall when Robbie MUldoon reduced Marilyn Waring to tears. The media feasted on it for years and since his death have never passed up the opportunity to embelish it.(thinking he can’t return from the dead.}Clark is almost a clone of Waring sharing almost all her personal characteristics. Don is no Muldoon but he did well to avoid placing himself in the same position.
August 25th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
Baxter, in all seriousness re Muldoon and Waring, wasn’t it the other way around?
August 25th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
No cigar sam. Where, where, where, did I say “could you honestly say that you would treat all women as your debating inferior ” and where did Don say that. Inferior is not just an invention, it is a deliberate distortion of what was said. My point is, whether you admit it or not, as a general point you discuss/argue with someone differently based on your perception of them, and sex is one aspect of that. Not necessarily the dominant aspect, but usually an obvious one although it may have no bearing. Don is I think expressing what is almost a truism, and outside of parliamentary debate where do you win arguements by shouting louder and interupting more ?
Don could have said it differently, sure, and maybe expressed it more clearly, and with wit maybe defused it. Perhaps that’s the contrast to Helen who can say “I was unaware that we were speeding” with a straight face. Is that the qualification the left are promoting, the ability to tell bare faced lies ?
August 25th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
It’s not a deliberate distortion – it was the clear implication. Brash allowed his sexist views to be aired because he lost a debate.
What he should have said, is that “Frankly, I don’t believe it is necessary to raise one’s voice to articulate policy.”
He would have looked like a statesman, and explained his behaviour.
What he did was make an excuse.
“My response would have been different”
And attribute it to the PM’s gender.
“If the combatant had been a man.”
He came across as sexist, and unfit to deal with powerful women.
August 25th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Damn – and no points for trying either.
What I meant was that the ‘good manners’ that Brash was exercising (manners which I share, I’ll admit) are based within the convention that men are stronger than women. This does not allow for an appraisal of the individual situation. He did say he would have acted differently had he been facing a man (not some other individual).
You can’t escape the conventional basis of good manners (which it was a case of, rather than general politeness). His statement (not necessarily his actions) invoked these traditional manners and therefore the traditional beliefs that they are derived from.
As I stated early in this thread – I don’t believe for a second that he meant to say women are weaker than men (good behaviour, is just as hard to shake as bad behaviour) but that doesn’t change the fact that this is what his clumsy excuse implied – and it is the implication that has so offended certain people.
Any better?
August 25th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Geez, now try and relax a little bit.
I’m just pointing out the need for any politician to look like a strong leader these days, when elections are by and large won through TV, not detailed policy analysis by wonks who spend all day on the net.
Think of how the first Pres Bush, a genuine war hero, was (successfully) painted as a wimp, and how his son, definitly not martial in any sense, got the militaristic makeover to look like a soldier president?
Don can’t help it, but he looks and sounds like a nice mild goldfish breeder from Glenfield, (now goldfish breeders from Glenfield will be upset with me), not like a strong decisive leader. He may have the qualities, he might be an excellent leader, but he doesn’t project those qualities in any way. He projects nice and fuddy-duddy and a bit ditherey, that’s all I am saying. And those are not good things in the electronic age.
I am amazed at how some people here seem to take my remarks so personally, unless of course some of you are responsible for his media training, in which case you should hand you fees back.
August 25th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Being in the back seat you can say I was unaware of any speeding Ed as well by a strange coincidence a PM has a lot of paperwork to do , but since Eds experience is limited to his mother in law.
Put the best spin you like on Dons comments, the fact he said anything at all so clumsy is a recuurent pattern. The previous week it was I am a listener , Im mean leader comments, there is his support for civil unions which he voted fo and then against. An endless list of gaffes , but there will be more, and just as you lot feasted on Helen over the painting ,the Doone resignation its a fact of political life.
In theory its all right to let Gerry cover for you in parliament but Don is a poor communicator of policy to the general public. I personally think he is just fine and he certainly gives Kim Hill a run for her money.
I can go back through the archives to see the hell Jenny Shipley got over what she said when she should have shut up, so jenny solved that problem by hiding from open press conferences and letting the tame journos from the morning dailies tell everybody what she could have said .
next week it will be a new Don gaffe- let the tumbrills roll.
August 25th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Calm down! I was simply pointing out that Don doesn’t come across as a strong leader on TV. Nothing to do with what he is saying or Nat’s policies. It’s the electronic age, and if you can’t project strength and leadership, you are stuffed.
At the moment Don comes across like a nice, mild stamp collector from Glenfield, not as a possible Prime Minister.
Think of how successfuly Bush Snr was painted as a wimp, even though he was a respected combatant in WW2. Think of how his draft-dodging son managed to get painted as a warrior, even though he is anything but. It’s not about policy: in the TV age it’s about how you project, and whoever is doing Don’s media training should be made to hand their fees back.
He comes across as nice, inoffensive, mild, and like a fuddy-duddy.Getting angry with me for saying so won’t change that.
August 25th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
“Nice to see the new definition of leadership is being able to (as you so charmingly put it) “rip anyone another asshole without even blinking.”
Craig it’s lovely to see that you are able to take an offhand comment about Helens ability to thrash Don in debate and immediately transfer it to somehow being my definition of leadership. It shows spactacular talent on your part, since nothing in my post was refering to leadership and how I define it. Well done and many hugs.:-)
However, In case you’re having issues with context I was refering to the sheer idiocy of his comments especially when taking his opponent into consideration. It’s quite obvious Helen is a strong character, whether you like her or not.
As for defining leadership qualities, yes I do think strength and the ability to hold ones own in debate are desirable traits. I’d be bitterly disappointed with a PM who can’t stand his/her ground when necessary, and then proceeds to make lame excuses for it.:-)
August 25th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
If Dr Brash believes a feminist is by definition a woman, it’s kind of odd for him to feel he needs to get up on his hind legs and announce that he’s by no means a feminist. I think we were all pretty sure already that he’s not hiding tits under that jacket. See Frog’s blog for what the by-definition-not-a-feminist was actually telling us.
August 25th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
I’m not so sure there aren’t ‘tits under the jacket’. Perhaps lovable old Don was being a nice old gent. Or perhaps he was a bit shocked, and lost for words. That’s pretty much how he comes off in these debates – a bit of a stunned mullet, shocked that anyone would be so disrespectful to such an old, urbane, charming and (previously) influential guy.
Not that any of this matters one whit to who is the better leader. But it does kind of show what a risky call it is putting an unblooded old bureaucrat in charge of the major opposition party.
Sure he got a bounce after Orewa. Any clown running the National party should be able to get over 30% popularity out of sheer party loyalty, which just shows how talentless the current Nats are. Now they’re gathering in all the support that would usually go to their coalition partners, and will lose the election again. But at least Brash will look on paper like he’s acheived something.
And he will have – he’ll have killed off ACT and half of NZ First. A ‘tactical’ victory for the ‘left’ if you want to call a Labour/Green coalition that, although ‘centrist old-sk00l’ will probably be how it will look in the future.
August 25th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Now Don has all the macho loggers offside.
NP Logging spokesman: more logging on Crown land
NP Environment spokesman: less logging
Don : No logging “”while hes PM”"
Don ,just a hint dont put your job on the line over such a small thing.
At this rate DB will be rolled 6 months after becoming PM , coming close to beating Mike Moores record for shortest tenure
August 26th, 2005 at 1:29 am
Mikey Bill makes a perceptive observation. Image will be a major factor in this election. Therefore, we should attempt to understand image. With the de rigueur corporate suit, Mr Brash cuts a plausible figure on television, but television is about movement, and Mr Brash is lacking grace in movement
August 26th, 2005 at 8:55 am
And the Herald “Diary of an undecided voter” today says pretty much what I did.That Don doesn’t come across as leadership material. And this guy likes National’s policies and has been saying he would vote for them, but Don’s bumbling TV appearance has put him off.
It’s not about policy, it’s about presentation, and Don is useless at it.
Maybe the Nats are playing a deep game and put him up because they don’t really want to win this time?
And apologies if this goes up twice – sometimes I keep getting asked to re-enter the security code then find the first post has gone anyhow…
August 26th, 2005 at 10:10 am
Deep game? Yes that must be it. They found they can exert more power as the opposition without any of the tedious responsibility.
August 26th, 2005 at 11:45 am
Brash is not useless at presentation. He just has no support around him in his caucus (except Key) or office (except a single press secretary). Clark has Cullen (although he is starting to fail), Mallard, Maharey, King, Goff etc and a spin hospital with dozens of doctors.
August 26th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Mikey Bill: Brash is not useless at presentation. He just has no support around him in his caucus (except Key) or office (except a single press secretary). Clark has Cullen (although he is starting to fail), Mallard, Maharey, King, Goff etc and a hospital full of spin-doctors.
August 26th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Mr English and his allies in caucus will be savouring the public wounding of their leader. Mr Brownlee’s deference to his leader is plainly feigned – and has been from the moment of his selection as deputy leader. Mr Power is younger and not so wise. But his head is down for the moment. These National Party MPs (among others) all have personal narratives that read differently to Mr Brash’s. Distinctly so.
By his own account, Mr Brash is ‘mainstream’ in large measure because he is a Presbyterian.
Do not underestimate the jealous regard – among many in this caucus – for the honour of their own non-Presbyterian backgrounds. Their leader, Mr Brash, (in a queer tactical manoeuvre) set this odd precedent – not they. But they will have noticed, certainly. If you have been educated by Jesuits or Marists (or Columbans etc), the stakes are always higher. There is a long game, an end game, and a deep game. Few of these MPs would deeply desire that Mr Brash succeed (if not for these reasons, perhaps then for the undemocratic manner of his selection as an MP and his wresting of the party leadership out of their hands).
Ben Wilson would be politically unsophisticated to believe otherwise.
August 26th, 2005 at 8:12 pm
Hmmm? I don’t have an opinion on the matter, frankly. I’m sure it all mattered during the Great Schism. But frankly I wouldn’t know or care what flavour of christian Brash professes to be, or his colleagues. It’s not any part of the reason I’d vote for him (or not), and I really can’t see it affecting the opinions of any but a small minority.
Yes that’s politically unsophisticated. Sorry. I couldn’t care less. Nor do I care about his suit, or his baldness, or his soft voice, or how hot his wife is, why he left his ex, or whether he got caned at school and whether he liked it. It’s got stuff-all to do with anything that matters to me.
August 28th, 2005 at 10:10 am
David said: (Brash) did not say he went easy on Clark. He said “not entirely appropriate for a man to aggressively attack a woman and I restrained myself for that reason”.
Whatever way you look at it, what Brash said (as you quote above) *meant* that he went easy on Clark. Surely you can see that? If not, what is the difference between the *meaning* of the two phrases?
August 29th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
It’s simply not good manners to give anything less than 100% in a debate, regardless of who your opponents are. Brash’s behaviour toward Clark, and the debate audience, was rude.
August 29th, 2005 at 9:21 pm
It’s simply not good manners to give anything less than 100% in a debate, regardless of who your opponents are. Brash’s behaviour toward Clark, and the debate audience, was rude.
August 29th, 2005 at 9:22 pm
It’s simply not good manners to give anything less than 100% in a debate, regardless of who your opponents are. Brash’s behaviour toward Clark, and the debate audience, was rude.
August 29th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
And posting the same comment three times is not good manners either. Sorry about that.