Labour's day of decision new leader or not.

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

Forums › Politics › Labour's day of decision new leader or not.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1836552 3-Aug-2017 13:37

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

It is against the Law in NZ to make a decision about an employee on whether they will have children or not. It is illegal to decline employment based on that. It is illegal to discontinue employment based on that.

I would go further and say that if someone believes they have the right to ask that they are ill equipped to be an employer.

I guess that New Zealand voters can be seen as "Employer" and/or interviewers. If she does not get the job as PM, maybe she should take New Zealand voters to court on the grounds of discrimination?

The law of discrimination does not apply here. At the end of the day voters are exercising their democratic right to possibly change the laws of the country. You can't force voters how to vote, or what questions they can/can't ask.

You were arguing that employers are allowed to discriminate - as basis for discriminating against an election candidate.

When that argument failed (because it was abject BS) you come back like a persistent annoying terrier dog - saying that even though your misogynous crap isn't legal in the workplace, it should be in politics.

You can't reason a fool out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to, so I give up. Any man expressing the views that you are isn't, in my humble opinion, much of a man.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1836559 3-Aug-2017 13:45

Fred99:

You were arguing that employers are allowed to discriminate - as basis for discriminating against an election candidate.

There are some instances where I think discrimination against a pregnant woman could be seen as indirect discrimination. Ie flight attendants. That would need to be tested in court. But that discussion falls outside this debate. Here we are debating if it is an appropriate question for a possible PM or not.

Fred99:When that argument failed (because it was abject BS) you come back like a persistent annoying terrier dog - saying that even though your misogynous crap isn't legal in the workplace, it should be in politics.

Should our current laws dictate what questions I as a voter can/cannot ask a possible PM? (who may end up changing those very laws)

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1836574 3-Aug-2017 13:51

Wiggum:

Fred99:

You were arguing that employers are allowed to discriminate - as basis for discriminating against an election candidate.

There are some instances where I think discrimination against a pregnant woman could be seen as indirect discrimination. Ie flight attendants. That would need to be tested in court. But that discussion falls outside this debate. Here we are debating if it is an appropriate question for a possible PM or not.

Fred99:When that argument failed (because it was abject BS) you come back like a persistent annoying terrier dog - saying that even though your misogynous crap isn't legal in the workplace, it should be in politics.

Should our current laws dictate what questions I as a voter can/cannot ask a possible PM? (who may end up changing those very laws)

I asked earlier but no answer so I will ask again, why aren't the women in National, NZ Green, being asked the same question?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1836575 3-Aug-2017 13:51

Wiggum:

Fred99:

You were arguing that employers are allowed to discriminate - as basis for discriminating against an election candidate.

There are some instances where I think discrimination against a pregnant woman could be seen as indirect discrimination. Ie flight attendants. That would need to be tested in court. But that discussion falls outside this debate. Here we are debating if it is an appropriate question for a possible PM or not.

Fred99:When that argument failed (because it was abject BS) you come back like a persistent annoying terrier dog - saying that even though your misogynous crap isn't legal in the workplace, it should be in politics.

Should our current laws dictate what questions I as a voter can/cannot ask a possible PM?

First you should actually provide some evidence that a female flight attendant (or pilot) can be negatively discriminated against (fired, laid off, put on leave without pay, denied future career opportunities) in NZ.

You're free to ask her - go ahead. Just please stop your whining here.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1836579 3-Aug-2017 13:57

MikeB4:

I asked earlier but no answer so I will ask again, why aren't the women in National, NZ Green, being asked the same question?

Because voters are exercising their democratic right to ask whoever/whatever questions they like.

It was already answered. But the post seems to have been deleted? None of those woman are up for possible PM.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1836582 3-Aug-2017 14:01

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

I asked earlier but no answer so I will ask again, why aren't the women in National, NZ Green, being asked the same question?

Because voters are exercising their democratic right to ask whoever/whatever questions they like.

It was already answered. But the post seems to have been deleted? None of those woman are up for possible PM.

Rubbish all women are possible PMs . Paula Bennett springs to mind as one example. I suspect you believe this garbage due to prejudice. With that I leave you to play in the sand pit alone.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1836626 3-Aug-2017 15:11

I can see why the question is relevant to some extent.

Let us imagine an MP is a woman and is an electorate MP not a List MP.

People vote for THAT INDIVIDUAL to represent them.

Let us now suppose that MP has children and decides to take 12 months leave.

Effectively that means that the elected representative is unavailable to the electors who elected them.

I presume there is some sort of system to provide those electors with representation but, crucially, it won't be the person for whom they actually voted. There is a personal element to the election of a person in that scenario.

Now, of course, a man might choose to take time off for the same reason, so could also be asked the same question - although I doubt many men would find it remotely bothersome to be asked that.

IMO that is different from, say, employing a new person in accounts who may take time off and could be replaced pro tem by a temp.

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.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1836675 3-Aug-2017 15:50

I guess misogynist sexism is truly alive and well in this country. What a pity.

John Key (unlike Bill English) is a charming and personable individual in public. I can well imagine undecided voters choosing National because they found Key appealing. That may upset some people who think political choices should be based on an unemotional assessment of party policy, but that is not the case in the real world. Many voters make their choice because they like the person fronting for the party.

So maybe we should ask all politicians if they intend serving out their term. Is that a fair question? Maybe we should ask John Key to give us back the election because he crapped out and buggered off and left us with someone who has already been rejected once by the electorate.

And maybe we should ask certain male politicians if they intend to go on a diet to reduce their chances of cardiac arrest. After all, if you are going to give them your vote, you have a right to demand that they look after themselves so they can finish out their term.

What really disappoints me about this is that the people raising this issue have no comprehension whatsoever how demeaning and invasive this kind of questioning is for a woman. Her future family plans are none of your f***ing business, and neither are her husband's.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1836762 3-Aug-2017 18:13

Rikkitic:

I guess misogynist sexism is truly alive and well in this country. What a pity.

John Key (unlike Bill English) is a charming and personable individual in public. I can well imagine undecided voters choosing National because they found Key appealing. That may upset some people who think political choices should be based on an unemotional assessment of party policy, but that is not the case in the real world. Many voters make their choice because they like the person fronting for the party.

So maybe we should ask all politicians if they intend serving out their term. Is that a fair question? Maybe we should ask John Key to give us back the election because he crapped out and buggered off and left us with someone who has already been rejected once by the electorate.

And maybe we should ask certain male politicians if they intend to go on a diet to reduce their chances of cardiac arrest. After all, if you are going to give them your vote, you have a right to demand that they look after themselves so they can finish out their term.

What really disappoints me about this is that the people raising this issue have no comprehension whatsoever how demeaning and invasive this kind of questioning is for a woman. Her future family plans are none of your f***ing business, and neither are her husband's.

I don't generally disagree (although frankly I think women are far too touchy about it).

However, I do maintain that in the case of what is essentially a popularity contest (electing an MP for an electorate) it is not unreasonable for someone to want to know whether, prior to voting, a person standing for the job has a plan to do anything that will take them away from doing it.

It's no different to my wife being regularly asked when she is put forward for contracting roles whether she has anything planned during the 6/12/18/24 months of the contract that will affect her ability to deliver (such as long periods of holiday for example).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1836770 3-Aug-2017 18:43

Fair enough, but then treat men the same. Women should not be demeaned because they bear children.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1836773 3-Aug-2017 18:48

Wiggum:

But the post seems to have been deleted?

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1836775 3-Aug-2017 18:54

Fred99:

First you should actually provide some evidence that a female flight attendant (or pilot) can be negatively discriminated against (fired, laid off, put on leave without pay, denied future career opportunities) in NZ.

I remember in the 1960s hearing serious discussions on the radio about whether women should be allowed to become commercial pilots at all. According to the learned men pontificating on the matter, women would be so overwhelmed by their periods that they might crash into the terminal while attempting to land. Somehow this thread reminds me a lot of that.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1836783 3-Aug-2017 19:13

Rikkitic:

Fair enough, but then treat men the same. Women should not be demeaned because they bear children.

No-one is demeaning JA, that's people getting upset because they need something to be upset about. I would have no issue whatsoever being asked if there was any reason I could think of that would prevent me from doing my job over the next x months or years. I would expect Bill English to disclose as potential PM next term, if he had any terminal illness, or significant medical issue that would prevent him executing his duties. If he then said, my wife and I intend to have more kids, I intend to be their primary care giver and as a result I may be less available to the public during those times, and if I was voting National soley because of him and for no other reason, then it may well lead me to examine my other options.

I am happy for men to be treated the same way, and I imagine you'd struggle to find a man who would get upset being asked the same questions.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1836787 3-Aug-2017 19:21

networkn:

No-one is demeaning JA, that's people getting upset because they need something to be upset about. I would have no issue whatsoever being asked if there was any reason I could think of that would prevent me from doing my job over the next x months or years. I would expect Bill English to disclose as potential PM next term, if he had any terminal illness, or significant medical issue that would prevent him executing his duties. If he then said, my wife and I intend to have more kids, I intend to be their primary care giver and as a result I may be less available to the public during those times, and if I was voting National soley because of him and for no other reason, then it may well lead me to examine my other options.

I am happy for men to be treated the same way, and I imagine you'd struggle to find a man who would get upset being asked the same questions.

I think you are sincere but I also think you are wrong. Women's biology has been used by men for centuries to excuse all kinds of 'well-intended' discrimination. Many women, especially those trying to be taken seriously, do experience this kind of thing as demeaning.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1836800 3-Aug-2017 19:24

Rikkitic:

Fair enough, but then treat men the same. Women should not be demeaned because they bear children.

What are you saying "Fair enough, but then treat men the same" in reply to?

Are you replying to Geektastic's comment "It's no different to my wife being regularly asked when she is put forward for contracting roles whether she has anything planned during the 6/12/18/24 months of the contract that will affect her ability to deliver" ??

If so, then I suggest you consider for one moment whether that same question is not asked time and time again towards male contractors. Many people of all sexes / quasi-sexes / sexual leanings of course would not.

Gosh this chance to jump on the PC bulls**t wagon at every opportunity just sends us backwards at the end of the day. As a potential voter (i.e. employer) I should have every right to consider whether my vote is there for the long haul or not.

"Demeaned because they bear children"? I have not seen your suggestion in the replies so far. What I do see is a relevant question of whether it is possible to fulfill a promised role (based on voter response) as 24 hour a day Leader of the Country as against a part time mother and part time leader. We are told time and time again that a role as "mother" (every child deserves a fulltime mother) is a 24 hour a day role!

She can't have it both ways because either the country, or her own children potentially could suffer. I feel for her, I really do.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11