|
4/23/2006WOMENSFEST SPEECHI shall now quickly fisk Kate Sutton's Womensfest speech to The Quad at AU a few days ago. Of course it would have been better to be there, because it was a speech and not a piece of literature. These are just speech notes released on Red Confectionery. The hook, the catch, and the swearing make more sense as a speech. However, the non-facts can be shot down here on equal terms weather they be spoken or penned. So,- I was invited to speak because I am a successful woman. I must say that this is very flattering, as I do not yet feel successful. You're not a successful woman. Success is reward for dealing in values but political power is a reward for penalising, for dealing in fear. You are a successful paracite, if successful at all, but not a successful woman. When told this I started to think about what success is – Sure I do many things. I am a former president of this student union, a current University of Auckland councillor, I am the chairperson of the Tamaki community board and I am a project manager for a charitable trust in South Auckland as well as sitting on about 4/5 other boards and committees. I rest my case. I wanted to speak about women overseas and their plight – the feminisation of poverty and how vital it is for us to understand what is happening overseas, Note the abstract reference to women outside New Zealand and some kind of plight. What women? Where? What's their boggle? If it's vital for us to understand why is it left to the imagination? Are you talking about Australian woman? Who? What? Where? the HIV/AIDS epidemic which affects mainly heterosexual females and their children. So do hickups! So does getting hair in your soup and forgetting where you put your shoes! Some vast patriarchal conspiracy, Kate? No. It's just that most members of every population are hetrosexual females and their children. Think about it, you're talking crap. it is not an equal or fair world for women overseas in our poorer countries who are raped, mutilated, tortured and without homes – they are victims not perpetrators. Ohhhh, they're victims not perpetrators? Thanks for the correction, as if we needed to be corrected for thinking your poor abstract mutilated mystery women you haven't identified were guilty for being homeless and tortured. Shame on us. You really got us good with that one, Kate. ask most women if they are discriminated against and most pakeha women will say no. The problem is that the statistics tell a different story 24.2% of judges, 19.2% of newspaper editors, 17.2% of legal partnerships, 18.9% of mayors are women. What is this fascination with making men and woman homogenous in all industries? People find their own place in the world without some Stalin conforming every pocket of society into a microcosmic duplicate of the national statistics. If 50% of New Zealanders are woman does it really follow that 50% of magazine editors need to be men? Does the number of percentage points by which we fall short of this really measure sexist discrimination as Kate suggests? Why is it that 17% of professors and associate professors are women? But it that over 50% of general staff are women – its because there is still a hierarchy of jobs and there is a still a system where women have choices to move ahead - the boys network still exists in this university Sexual dimorphism exists, celebrate it Sutton! Maybe "most pakeha women" don't wish they were judges, newspaper editors, and politicians? Men and woman have different abilities and tastes that don't happen to conform to what your numerical model demands they should be. You just want to change the world into one giant game of Sutton Says. I am passionate about good governance and directorship and I am trying to break the mold of these statistics and bring my sisters with me, but it’s a long slow battle. I always ask people who produce this bullshit if they would also like to apply their golden median to the crime statistics. Is it also a problem for you, Kate, that insufficient violent offenders are females? Not enough drink drivers? Not enough white collar crime comming from skirts? Should we try to equalise those statistics too for the same reason you have for equalising it in the legal workforce? A television campaign or schools programme to get more little girls to go crooked? Well why not? Or could it be that there are other considerations to the desirability of this kind of equality you have neglected to include in your stupid inferences? Hmmm. Date rape, gang rape, sexual violence are all a norm here – it’s a joke because men make it so and they are the blokes, the boys club and they are putting us down and taking our jobs. Well you've got us there. But for a man to get to the bins where Craccum is kept you have to sometimes push girls out of the way, and down a flight of stairs. And as for gang rape, what else is there to do while waiting in those huge queues at the cafe? It's the norm, what can I say? But, hey. I say again- they're not *your* jobs, Stalinette. So the stats look bad, the story is still bad - what do we do? Cut cafe queue times and hand out Craccum magazine to those who are kept waiting. Then I wont have any excuse for all this normalised raping I've been doing all the time and you wont have to think twice before going to luch. We must encourage a culture of diversity and this starts with accepting women as equal in our society by providing them with equitable opportunity Well they're not equal, unless you mean politically equal but you do not. "Equitable oppertunity" means whatever you want it to mean, which is clearly that girl% is supposed to go up and boy% down so we're all nice and symmetrical like. You all have an obligation to wake the fuck up and realise how every thing that you have now, all the rights to be free to earn money to marry when you want, to gain an education, to control your sexuality and bear children when you want – all of these rights have been fought for by women and they can be taken away Well that's it right there, isn't it Kate? You think you're Kate Sheppard and it's the 1800s, or that you're Betty Friedan and it's the 1960s. These were times for a'changin', for pushing the system the way you're still pushing now. But guess what Kate? It worked. You are living in the past, still pushing. You still think the right to work, to learn, to invidivual sexuality, to mating and marriage choice are in immanent danger of being snuffed out. But they are not in any such danger, because we fought and won that battle together before you and I were even born. And why did we fight for those thing? Wasn't it so we could enjoy them? Take your place in the world, woman. Stop squarking. Nobody is trying to make you have babies and steal your jobs, okay? Relax babe. You live in New Zealand in 2006. There are people who love you and could use your help and offer you theirs and share a community with you but if you can tell such people by the shape of their gender you're a better person than I am.
Comments:
Good stuff Rick.
I'd be interested to know what percentage of women are rubbish collectors (ooh hang on, i mean "refuse technicians") or farm labourers. Perhaps we should institute a 50% qouta on all professions?? I've got a mate who works at an abbatoir who'd be more than happy to swap jobs with a female teacher...
Well hey! Andrew, ask your mate if he thinks he could cut it as a feminist polemicist. Pam, ask Kate if she can cut it at the abbatoir.
Both of you get back to me. I have a cunning plan, the details of which will make a lot of people happy. And I do mean a lot.
Until we men are represented equally in the childbirth stats I will never feel truely free and empowered...sniff! ;-)
Rick, Kate is a successful woman - she is widely respected, has a great career, and is going great places. Not that that has anything to do with this; resorting to personal attacks just shows your lack of ability to come up with a decent argument against her speech.
Men and woman have different abilities and tastes that don't happen to conform to what your numerical model demands they should be. What the fuck is that about? All that Kate's 'numerical model' demands is gender equality, it's not such an outrageous thing Rick. Kate isn't living in the past (a past that's more recent than you think), the fight for equality is still going, and all Kate has done is point out the facts in NZ and how we can change them.
Pam, I don't go out of my way to make personal attacks any more than you do. It was Kate that made this an issue, she made her personal success a topic of the speech. I just play the ball where it lands.
Post a Comment
All that Kate's 'numerical model' demands is gender equality, it's not such an outrageous thing Rick. Well I'm outraged, Pam. I'd like to think I've clearly explained why and how much. But if I've done a poor job there are plenty of other outraged commenters to pick from! This equality idea is stupid and disgusting. I'd like to see you and Kate put your talents to better use, such as defending liberty. Weblog Archives |
_ _
_/ \_|\ Rick Giles
/ \ bardan@clear.net.n z
| | Melbourne 2006 \|/
\__'~\__/ -o-
o http://rick.orcon.net.nz /|\