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

Internet Mana Feminist Party

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 2:23 pm Fri 19th September 2014

It came out loud and clear as far back as July that election 2014 was going to be the election of the feminist, or so THEY thought. Most of the relevant posts can be accessed through a previous post New Zealand Labour and the Feminist Election Campaign.

The post election analysis is going to be interesting, not only for what we might say here, but what the New Zealand media might actually say about it.

The campaign got even more overt when Internet-Mana announced that it WAS a ‘feminist party – one step up on Labour running a feminist campaign whilst trying to pretend that they weren’t really a feminist party.

After the Feminist Vote

After the Feminist Vote

The media was already playing ‘Where’s Hone’ when the announcement was made – it was obvious his male voice was suffering from the constraints of Laila Harre, the newly appointed Internet Party leader – joint photos of her and Mana Party leader (Hone Hawawira) had them looking like an irreconcilable couple, exiting the Family Court mid-hearing.

We looked at that, in the post A Feminist Party?

Anyway, it’s Suffrage Day today (yes, you’ve remembered, haven’t you, the same day last year, that Judith Collins led a parliamentary sandpit-celebration, while quietly sneaking through that ‘other child support legislation’) and today feminists now have their very own party, banners included, forget equality – we’re the party for you.

Not sure that this is what the big German (as he is quaintly known Down Under) Kim Dotcom envisaged when he dropped a couple of million into the party coffers.

But we’re all blokes here – let’s hope Kim is just on a bit of a learning curve – and he’s not a yet-to-come-out closet-feminist.

Personally, I think Internet-Mana are in for a hiding-to-nothing tomorrow; they may have encouraged a lot of young people to register but the German Shepherd’s Prayer; The German is my Shepherd, I shall not want for better internet, may have got lost along the way, squashed under sideshows, distractions, and something else that is now clear the country doesn’t want – feminist parties.

While Laila’s lackeys are out there swinging their banners high today – they might do well to remember – the vote was won long ago, and it ain’t ladies first no more, we’re equal now, or did Mater Harre forget to tell you that bit.


  1. Is anyone voting conservative?

    Comment by Shinhee Yi — Fri 19th September 2014 @ 2:42 pm

  2. Steve Taylor is.

    Comment by Downunder — Fri 19th September 2014 @ 2:45 pm

  3. I missed all this. (it’s good to know and thanks)

    I’ve been following United Future’s MP Peter Dunne over the years even on his FB page. He is an amazing man, IMO, who I believe has made fabulous changes and I particularly appreciate his work around male youth. I’ve seen changes in Mental Health but I also realise some are out of Peter’s reach.

    (He even has a picture of a father and child on the United Future website).

    Comment by julie — Fri 19th September 2014 @ 8:25 pm

  4. Peter Dunne and Child Support/Shared Parenting

    Child Support – pro
    Child Support – con
    Child support pro and con

    Comment by julie — Fri 19th September 2014 @ 8:26 pm

  5. Peter Dunne and Men’s suicide

    Men’s suicide – pro
    Male youth suicide – pro
    Men’s suicide – con
    Another dig, lol

    Comment by julie — Fri 19th September 2014 @ 8:28 pm

  6. Get off Julie – he’s a con-artist, take the dribble somewhere else.

    Comment by Downunder — Fri 19th September 2014 @ 8:36 pm

  7. #3 Julie. Back in 2004, he said he was going to change Child Support and he campaigned for the 2005 Election promising it. What’s he accomplished ? Nothing. Oh wait, he did manage to get Legislation through that benefitted his son. He’s a douchebag.

    Comment by golfa — Fri 19th September 2014 @ 9:51 pm

  8. Get off Julie – he’s a con-artist, take the dribble somewhere else.

    “Rolls eyes”.

    No, he is just a man doing his best with what he has.

    But look, I said something positive about your post. You’re are working with what you can, too.

    Comment by julie — Sat 20th September 2014 @ 8:08 am

  9. Golfa #7, I first spoke to him in 2006 after reading men’s frustration on this site. I figured politics is not simply, “Vote me in and I’ll make change”. Many politicians are saying they got into politics with great ideas and passion to make a difference but found the bureaucracy takes all their time. It’s a very complicated web because it’s not about ONE interest or ONE interest group but about many. We only need look at how both Natioanal and Labour want to get rid of MMP.

    I gotta say, “He did it eventually” but unfortunately, no one can walk into parliament and say, “Everyone sit down and shut up, I am king and what I say goes” or even, “Nope, no, no, no to all your ideas,…. oh, by the way, sign my ideas and wants”.

    Anyways, I’ve voted. Hope everyone else does.

    Comment by julie — Sat 20th September 2014 @ 8:25 am

  10. But look, I said something positive about your post. You’re are working with what you can, too.

    This may come as a surprise to you, but I don’t need nor am I seeking your acknowledgment.

    I would actually prefer to see you contributing something to the discussion about the post.

    For example: Look how these silly little girls have been have been conned into celebrating the vote.

    New Zealand women got the vote in 1893, New Zealand men got the vote in 1879 (14 years earlier).

    The main qualification prior, as inherited from England, was based on the ownership of property – such was the concept of civilisation – the security of one’s property, something conveniently overlooked in this day and age when it comes to men and child support and the state’s perceived right to strip men of their possessions.

    Or maybe – I wonder if these young girls share Kate Sheppard’s Christian socialist values and the belief that a women’s vote would achieve, amongst other things, the prohibition of alcohol.

    (Kate Sheppard was one of the main proponents in the campaign for women’s voting and her name is often held up as the identity of the success)

    Comment by Downunder — Sat 20th September 2014 @ 8:52 am

  11. I gotta say, ‘He did it eventually’

    You’re an author on the site – feel free to write a post about exactly what you think that was.

    But seeing it’s election day and you’re part of a political organisation I wouldn’t do that today.

    Comment by Downunder — Sat 20th September 2014 @ 9:13 am

  12. From – Ten Reasons Why You Should Cast a Vote:

    3. Kate Sheppard

    Every New Zealand school pupil learns that Kate Sheppard won New Zealand women the right to vote in 1893.

    And that we were the first country to introduce universal suffrage.

    Forgetting or not getting around to voting is pretty poor when you think about what the suffragists managed.

    Comment by Downunder — Sat 20th September 2014 @ 7:05 pm

  13. 3. Kate Sheppard

    Every New Zealand school pupil learns that Kate Sheppard won New Zealand women the right to vote in 1893. And that we were the first country to introduce universal suffrage.

    What New Zealand kids aren’t taught is the truth that whilst Kate Sheppard and her cohorts wanted the vote for women at that time, they didn’t work anywhere nearly as hard to alleviate men’s oppresssion.
    In essence they largely turned a blind eye to the fact that men were conscripted into what is euphemistically known as military ‘service’ (read; forced under threat of imprisonment to be disposable cannon fodder) during those times. Given the widespread media discussion and Sheppard and her peers’ level of education it’s impossible that she didn’t know about men’s situation.
    Yet she, who is held up as a paragon of womanly virtue had relatively little compassion for men, such was the level of her gynocentrism.

    Please read on and disseminate the following to re-educate NZ kids –

    the Militia Act 1858 replaced the ordinance, but retained the same provisions as the above clauses. Monetary penalties were introduced for not complying with the call-up.[5]

    As a result of the land wars that commenced in the early 1860s, the Act was replaced in 1865 by the Militia Act 1865. This new Act changed the requirement to register to by reducing the maximum age from 60 to 55 and including all males who had resided in New Zealand for more than three months. The list of exempted professions was expanded, and Militia were classified into three levels of priority ranging from unmarried men and widowers without children, between eighteen and forty years of age; widowers with children, and married men, between eighteen and forty years of age, unmarried men who can prove that female relatives are dependent upon them for their support; and lastly men between forty and fifty five years of age. Penalties for failing to comply with the Act became considerably tougher with reference to penalties under Imperial legislation

    Defence Act 1909

    Ward appears to have changed his mind because in April 1909 he announced that the government intended to introduce compulsory military training for youths up to 21 years old.[20] There was some opposition to the idea, but it was sparodic and very definitely a minority view.[21] In Wellington there was quite pronounced opposition from socialists.[22] The Society of Friends raised the issue of conscientious objectors with Ward.[23]

    The Defence Act of 1909 Section 35 brought in a universal training requirement for those aged between 12 and 14 years old (Junion Cadets), 14 to 18 (Senior Cadets), 18 to 21 (General Training Section), and 21 to 30 (the Reserve). There was exemption for religious conscientious objectors under Section 92 of the Act, but the Act required them to perform non-combatant duties. Failure to comply with the Act could result in fines and potentially imprisonment for those who did not pay them.

    Here’s what happened to military conscripts who were conscientious objectors or who sometimes “lost their nerve” (had Traumatic Stress Disorders) on the battlefield.
    It was known as Field Punishment Number 1, and consisted of putting a man in no-man’s land indefinitely whilst war raged around them.

    Comment by Stephen Gee — Sun 21st September 2014 @ 11:39 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar