Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | ... | 268

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#2042730 23-Jun-2018 07:21

Dingbatt: Have seen or heard all of my headline predictions within 12 hours of the birth. Not from the Women's Mags though, from the mainstream media. Someone standing outside Auckland Hospital talking about what the PM had to eat (sorry can't bring myself to think of Winny as the PM even though he officially is) IS NOT NEWS.

Normal these days. It would have been exactly the same if the last prime minister had a baby in office.

networkn: I predict it to be named something designed to elicit a positive response from her followers.

Such as? Give it a go, I'll be impressed if you get it right ; ).

kingdragonfly

11993 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12890

Subscriber

#2042734 23-Jun-2018 07:47

A bit of a nasty opinion piece in The Independent (UK), should have the subtitle "militant feminist's sour grapes"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-working-mothers-support-childcare-a8411671.html

Why you shouldn't uphold Jacinda Ardern as proof that working mothers can 'have it all'
by Victoria Smith

It is all very well to grant women permission to combine motherhood and career success, but until we both recognise and compensate for the work of parenting, this is rather like giving someone permission to own a yacht

"Congratulations to Jacinda Ardern! The New Zealand prime minister has just given birth to her first child and proven to the world that pregnancy is not a barrier to a successful career.

Except, of course, it is. Yes, Ardern – like Benazir Bhutto before her – has shown that women can hold the highest political office in their countries while also gestating brand new humans. Yet while this ought to make the patriarchy tremble in its boots (there’s nothing we can’t do, lads), it’s worth remembering that for most women, such feats of maternal heroism simply aren’t possible. We won’t be making new laws any time soon; we’re too busy deciding what to do with that vomiting toddler without missing the school run.

The story of Ardern and her partner Clarke Gayford, who plans on becoming a stay-at-home father, should warm the cockles of any self-respecting feminist. As former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark puts it, “New Zealand is showing that no doors are closed to women, that having a baby while being prime minister can be managed, and that it’s acceptable for male partners to be full-time carers.”

Here in the UK, where workplace discrimination against mothers is rife and uptake of shared parental leave remains low, such a message is hugely important. Equally important, however, is that we distinguish between social prejudices, which the example of Ardern is doing much to challenge, and structural barriers to equality, most of which remain firmly in place.

It’s always worth celebrating when women break new ground. At the same time, there’s a danger in pushing the message that outlier women – the trailblazers and standouts – have unequivocally cleared the path for all women to come. There’s a fine line between “good for her” and “if she can do it, why can’t you?”

Journalist Charles Wooley describes Jacinda Arden as 'attractive' and quizzes her over conception date of child

We see this frequently in UK politics, when male Tories try to use Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May as evidence that the Conservative Party have “done” feminism. With the example of Ardern, there’s a fear that if she does it all too well and makes the transition to motherhood appear too seamless, the question for the rest of us will be: “So what’s your excuse?”

Of course, most of us know the answer to that. There is a difference between that which is socially acceptable and that which is practically possible. While attitudes towards mothers in paid employment have changed significantly in recent decades (no more are we seen – universally, at least – as evil witches who love spreadsheets more than our babies), these have been replaced by the belief that we are being “allowed” to work, almost as an act of benevolence.

Maternity pay and flexible hours are still seen as perks, not minimal responses to the glaringly obvious facts of human dependency. For many women, childcare remains totally unaffordable, while the persistence of the gender pay gap creates a vicious cycle whereby it’s almost always more financially viable for a female parent to give up paid employment (which is then sold back to us as “free choice”).

It is all very well to grant women permission to combine motherhood and career success, but until we both recognise and compensate for the work of parenting, this is rather like giving someone permission to own a yacht. It doesn’t matter whether or not other people approve if it’s still unaffordable.

I’ve no desire to belittle the achievements of those who do combine motherhood with rising up economic or political hierarchies. That such women cannot do so without the support of others is unquestionably true. Nonetheless, we should be careful not to write this off as evidence of undeserved privilege or “cheating”. Just because motherhood is not like this for most women doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be."

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#2042736 23-Jun-2018 08:31

The subtitle is lazy and likely the work of a sub editor. The tone of the article is different without that.

I thought the article had one excellent point - when parents are able to make a choice for the early years that one parent will be full time 'at home' it is way more likely the parent with the lower income will stay home, and while the gender pay gap exists that choice will not be a particularly equal one.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#2042757 23-Jun-2018 10:34

MikeB4:

@Pumpedd why wouldn't they have a choice?

Political pressure eg from Shane Jones

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2042764 23-Jun-2018 11:20

Pumpedd:

MikeB4:

@Pumpedd why wouldn't they have a choice?

Political pressure eg from Shane Jones

There is more chance of Mr Trump opening the US borders than this happening.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#2042765 23-Jun-2018 11:23

MikeB4:

Pumpedd:

MikeB4:

@Pumpedd why wouldn't they have a choice?

Political pressure eg from Shane Jones

There is more chance of Mr Trump opening the US borders than this happening.

Its good that you trust the NZ First Cabinet Ministers...I sure don't!!!

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2042770 23-Jun-2018 11:40

Pumpedd:

MikeB4:

Pumpedd:

MikeB4:

@Pumpedd why wouldn't they have a choice?

Political pressure eg from Shane Jones

There is more chance of Mr Trump opening the US borders than this happening.

Its good that you trust the NZ First Cabinet Ministers...I sure don't!!!

I have confidence in the management of Air NZ and I am not into conspiracies

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#2042771 23-Jun-2018 11:44

I dont call it a conspiracy when my opinion is based on numerous past lies and dishonest behaviou. Its more about track record.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2042777 23-Jun-2018 11:54

kingdragonfly: A bit of a nasty opinion piece in The Independent (UK), should have the subtitle "militant feminist's sour grapes"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-working-mothers-support-childcare-a8411671.html

Why you shouldn't uphold Jacinda Ardern as proof that working mothers can 'have it all'
by Victoria Smith

It is all very well to grant women permission to combine motherhood and career success, but until we both recognise and compensate for the work of parenting, this is rather like giving someone permission to own a yacht

"Congratulations to Jacinda Ardern! The New Zealand prime minister has just given birth to her first child and proven to the world that pregnancy is not a barrier to a successful career.

Except, of course, it is. Yes, Ardern – like Benazir Bhutto before her – has shown that women can hold the highest political office in their countries while also gestating brand new humans. Yet while this ought to make the patriarchy tremble in its boots (there’s nothing we can’t do, lads), it’s worth remembering that for most women, such feats of maternal heroism simply aren’t possible. We won’t be making new laws any time soon; we’re too busy deciding what to do with that vomiting toddler without missing the school run.

The story of Ardern and her partner Clarke Gayford, who plans on becoming a stay-at-home father, should warm the cockles of any self-respecting feminist. As former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark puts it, “New Zealand is showing that no doors are closed to women, that having a baby while being prime minister can be managed, and that it’s acceptable for male partners to be full-time carers.”

Here in the UK, where workplace discrimination against mothers is rife and uptake of shared parental leave remains low, such a message is hugely important. Equally important, however, is that we distinguish between social prejudices, which the example of Ardern is doing much to challenge, and structural barriers to equality, most of which remain firmly in place.

It’s always worth celebrating when women break new ground. At the same time, there’s a danger in pushing the message that outlier women – the trailblazers and standouts – have unequivocally cleared the path for all women to come. There’s a fine line between “good for her” and “if she can do it, why can’t you?”

Journalist Charles Wooley describes Jacinda Arden as 'attractive' and quizzes her over conception date of child

We see this frequently in UK politics, when male Tories try to use Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May as evidence that the Conservative Party have “done” feminism. With the example of Ardern, there’s a fear that if she does it all too well and makes the transition to motherhood appear too seamless, the question for the rest of us will be: “So what’s your excuse?”

Of course, most of us know the answer to that. There is a difference between that which is socially acceptable and that which is practically possible. While attitudes towards mothers in paid employment have changed significantly in recent decades (no more are we seen – universally, at least – as evil witches who love spreadsheets more than our babies), these have been replaced by the belief that we are being “allowed” to work, almost as an act of benevolence.

Maternity pay and flexible hours are still seen as perks, not minimal responses to the glaringly obvious facts of human dependency. For many women, childcare remains totally unaffordable, while the persistence of the gender pay gap creates a vicious cycle whereby it’s almost always more financially viable for a female parent to give up paid employment (which is then sold back to us as “free choice”).

It is all very well to grant women permission to combine motherhood and career success, but until we both recognise and compensate for the work of parenting, this is rather like giving someone permission to own a yacht. It doesn’t matter whether or not other people approve if it’s still unaffordable.

I’ve no desire to belittle the achievements of those who do combine motherhood with rising up economic or political hierarchies. That such women cannot do so without the support of others is unquestionably true. Nonetheless, we should be careful not to write this off as evidence of undeserved privilege or “cheating”. Just because motherhood is not like this for most women doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be."

The world is over populated. Should we be paying people to breed at all?

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2042778 23-Jun-2018 11:59

MikeB4:
Pumpedd:

MikeB4:

@Pumpedd why wouldn't they have a choice?

Political pressure eg from Shane Jones

There is more chance of Mr Trump opening the US borders than this happening.

Blinkers are for horses.

You might recall in the news a couple of months ago that Shane Jones was putting POLITICAL PRESSURE on air NZ about cutting regional flights. You POV would have been plausible up until then... But now political pressure can't be ruled out.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2042785 23-Jun-2018 12:09

The general tone seems to be that NZ elected to have a PM who was going to have a baby while in office. The actual truth is that there was no endorsement by the public through the polls of this scenario, therefore it can't be honestly implied that society as a whole condones or encourages this.

There was no choice, nor is there any option to make any changes, so while many would put her on a pedestal as an example, it's really a meaningless event in terms of proving a movement or change in society's acceptance of mothers in the workforce.

I'm not saying mothers having careets and kids is a bad thing, but we can make more of Jacindas childbirth than there actually is to it in reality.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2042796 23-Jun-2018 12:27

Good lord people AirNZ is a company not a government department. They are no different to Spark or Fletchers. The Government does not have management pwoers.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2042812 23-Jun-2018 13:19

MikeB4:
Good lord people AirNZ is a company not a government department. They are no different to Spark or Fletchers. The Government does not have management pwoers.

Majority shareholders ALWAYS have managerial power even if it is not overt.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#2042828 23-Jun-2018 13:47

MikeB4:

Good lord people AirNZ is a company not a government department. They are no different to Spark or Fletchers. The Government does not have management pwoers.

Mike..really? I think it is you that has the blinkers on with this Government.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2042901 23-Jun-2018 16:00

I will leave the Stuff comment thread.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

1 | ... | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | ... | 268