- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Tue 4th October 2016

David Seymore on identity politics

Filed under: Gender Politics — JohnPotter @ 9:10 am

On 29th September the NZ Herald published a response by ACT’s David Seymore to an article by Lizzie Marvelly attacking him for suggesting that the Ministry for Women be converted to a Ministry for Gender.

It doesn’t seem to appear on the Herald website, but you can read it on the ACT website here:
Shoot-the-messenger Marvelly trapped in identity politics

Seymore writes:

The problem with Marvelly’s column is a kind of anti-intellectualism where identity matters more than ideas. Stripped of all the bile, it said: “A Minister for Women is needed because women are still behind in many statistics, whereas a Minister of Men is not needed regardless of challenges the gender faces because there are lots of men in Parliament to advocate for men.”

What caught my attention was Seymore’s clear explanation for the “heads I win, tails you loose” nature of the feminist approach to gender debate:

Identity arguments are the easiest in the world to make and impossible to refute. If I say left-handed people will never understand what it’s like to be right handed there is no comeback for the world’s lefties. They have already lost the identity argument no matter how well they argue.

15 Responses to “David Seymore on identity politics”

  1. MurrayBacon says:

    Embarrassing to admit, but I agree with David Seymore on this argument. But both people have made some good points.
    There is a need to try to measure outputs from all Government Departments, certainly including the MoW.
    In the present environment, I would prefer to keep MoW and have MoM too. Ideally, they might later just be absorbed into Human Rights Commission, when there can be more focus on quantitative issues and less on hissing and spitting.

  2. Jerry says:

    Well I see no reason for any ministry dedicated to any gender. It inflates government, and costs tax payers. Why not have a genuine and unbiased “Human Rights Commission?” instead. But I suspect most would disagree that the Human Rights Commission is unbiased. I don’t see that propagating a population of costly biased groups to fight eachother at tax-payers expense as a good idea for anyone. Scrap the lot.

  3. Man X Norton says:

    I don’t think Ms Marvelly’s opinions are worthy of response in most cases. I suspect her wealthy parents have paid the Herald to let her spout her opinions. They lack research, insight and broader understanding.

  4. mantrol says:

    Gender identity politics is for the mental enslaved morons to figure out.
    Theres no such thing as ‘gender’, there’s only men and women and they’re not equal.

    https://youtu.be/semqNwBE4vo

  5. Men Deserve better says:

    Speaking of gender politics. I was sent to an anger management course after my ex wife took out a protection order on me. I went to Men Living Without Abuse run by Talking Works, as it was the closet to where I live.

    There was a male facilitator who i got well with and a female one, who from the outset seemed very angry herself. She kept using feminist catchwords such as “male privilege,” and in the literature and charts presented, all refered to the victim as she or her and abuser as he. I asked why this was the case and she shouted “Because its about men!” Which doesn’t actually answer the question.

    Her name is Kay Douglas. She appeared to be projecting her own emotional issues and ideologies on members of the group, not just myself.

    I will be leaving this course to attend another one I went to 20 years ago, which was very helpful, and didn’t include gender politics or agendas, just techniques dealing with self improvement.

    I would urge people to steer clear of this course as it was from my experience operating with a strong anti male bias, projecting shame and guilt on an entire gender, and denigrating and devaluing men as human beings.

  6. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Men Deserve better @ 5: We would encourage you to make a complaint to the Health and Disability Commission and/or Ms Douglas’ professional body, possibly the Association of Counsellors. The Health and Disability Commission is very quick to condemn male counsellors and related professionals for sexism and unsafe practice, and it’s time that feminist man-hating practitioners were taken to task.

    We can help with a complaint. Give Kerry a call on 021 269 8353 (you will need to leave your number and he will get back to you promptly) or drop a note to PO Box 13130. There’s no cost or risk in making a complaint.

    Most men who are post-separation and/or have had protection orders made against them are very vulnerable. This is the time of highest risk for suicide and other extreme reactions. Many men are the victims of false allegations and the injustice of our protection-order legislation. Many are attending these courses under ex parte orders, essentially rubber-stamped orders that the men have not even had any opportunity to answer. It’s not much better for those men who have had their day in the Family Court because the orders are made on the ‘balance of probabilities’, an appallingly weak standard of proof for those circumstances. This low standard of proof reflects the feminist attitude that it’s ok for the FC to harm many innocent men in order to ensure that no woman feels unsupported or disbelieved.

    Any counsellor or facilitator providing programs under this system at least owes it to the men to avoid denigration, sexism and stereotyping. They owe it to the men to be respectful, balanced and fair-minded. From your account it sounds as though Ms Douglas shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near vulnerable men.

  7. mantrol says:

    Anger management? Sounds like you need bitch management skills.
    Don’t take shit from females especially some ding bat feminist.

  8. Doug says:

    Record the session otherwise it will be her word against yours and in a feminist court you will lose.

  9. Bunyip says:

    Kay Douglas should be sacked and be banished from the industry for good.

  10. Man X Norton says:

    The problem is, if she gives a bad report back to the FC then that will go against you in further proceedings. Better to go through formal channels with a complaint, after you have commenced in the new course.

    One man I know attended one of these courses and found it very helpful. Even the female course presenter was frank in acknowledging the unfairness of most of these orders. However, even if a course is helpful it’s still unethical to force people into any course or treatment.

    NZ politicians in one breath criticize forced treatment and forced indoctrination programs in other countries yet here they are doing the same in NZ. Just because NZ’s programs are designed to indoctrinate people into accepting feminist beliefs doesn’t make them any better or more ethical than other countries’ forced brainwashing to promote communism, to change people’s religious beliefs, to force allegiance to ISIS or to force people to have surgery. If people are forced under threat of imprisonment to attend and submit to a treatment program this is fundamentally unethical unless the person is too insane to make rational choices, and NZ’s required standard of proof for that is much higher than that for ‘protection’ orders.

  11. Simon says:

    They never forced my children’s mother to:
    Adhere to the directions regarding access and activities
    Not lie in court
    Not to apply for three protection orders (two defended successfully, for the last one – fuck it, have your new toy)
    Not to hang out with gang members
    To be a decent mother.
    Not to make methamphetamine her priority.
    Not to have a dead body hanging in her garage for the children to walk in on.
    To take any interest in the children’s progress at school.
    To not live with a man she has obtained non molestation orders on (with the children there)
    Not to complain to the police 20 to 30 times.

    Counsel for the children
    He wasn’t stopped producing about 50 drivel submissions.
    Apparently perverting the course of justice.
    Using a memorandum to get reappointed in order to cover his own arse.
    Being the duty briefing solicitor for the psychologist about to give evidence.
    He did nothing when directions were made with no evidence with utterly detrimental outcomes for the children.
    Doing nothing when the children were having serious difficulties.
    Hi priority appeared to be himself, his reputation, sullying mine to discredit me to better cover his arse, he has behaved like the police in the Scott Watson doco.

    We hang in there because we believe our children are better with our input. The toll this takes is not worth it because the blind support the mother receives is staggering, then lawyers like this one must attempt to paint themselves in a good light. How? By doing what ever they can. This may include, evidence through the back door, off the bottom of the deck, who knows perhaps have their buddies chuck a couple of listening devices in your car or home (or via phone these days) this is not a level playing field, not when councils reputation needs protecting.

  12. Crusty says:

    To those readers who have suggested that placing all gender issues under the umbrella of a Human Rights Commission in the hope that these matters would then be dealt with in an unbiased manner … allow me to present as ‘Exhibit A’ the Australian Human Rights Commission as discussed at http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/gender-bias-at-the-australian-human-rights-commission/

  13. Bunyip says:

    Crusty , that page is worthy of being on the front page of the herald , it needs more exposure .

  14. Bunyip says:

    Australian students to be taught about ‘male privilege’
    A state in Australia has launched an education programme designed to smash gender stereotypes and tackle the root causes of domestic violence.
    The “respectful relationship” curriculum will be mandatory in all schools in Victoria from next year.
    Students will explore issues around social inequality, gender-based violence and male privilege…………..

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-37640353

  15. Man X Norton says:

    Bunyip @ 14. Thanks for that one. Hopefully the presenters of the course will get some robust feedback from the male students they are trying to indoctrinate. How much longer can these feminists peddle their propaganda and take in politicians with it?

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar