The Politically Unrepresented Male
Those who pay attention to New Zealand parliamentary debates will be well aware that there is seldom if any male perspective offered in our debating chamber to balance the overwhelming feminist dogma that has become a visibly dominant and mostly unchallenged voice – and even when challenged – that generally concerns financial priority and affordability of legislation.
It is a trend that’s been present and advancing for some time but not one that has been unnoticed by politicians. For some time the ACT party sought the male vote on the back of Family Court protests with the promise of shared parenting legislation and in the 2005 election campaign New Zealand First made a pitch for the male vote – “A man for a change” – was the sub script with Winston Peters’ picture on campaign corners.
I highlight ‘male vote’ because the voters being targeted weren’t men in general, they were men who had been mauled by the system, by the failed experiment that is our Family Courts, by the Child Support system, and by policies such as remove or arrest the male at domestic incidents.
Sincere or not these politicians were system apologists who in reality had no hope of effecting change. As Nick Smith found when he became the first MP to be charged with contempt of court, for intervening in a Family Court case, this is a system that is intent on not being challenged or changed.
That was a numbers game. As long as the numbers of men affected aren’t too great, collectively they are no political force and are often dismissed as deserving of what they got.
The greater male vote, for obvious reasons has always been based in unions. Earning your daily bread, especially if you had a family was central to a man’s life. The post New Zealand Labour abandoning men looks back to the early days of last century and the formation of the union movement and its association with the Labour Party.
Time brings change.
If you look at New Zealand’s modern day unions, the largest being the PSA (discussed here Public Service Association (PSA) – a feminised shipwreck) this is a union that is now over 70% female across its membership and promotes predominantly feminist policies for the advancement of women.
The Labour party no longer represents what we would call the Union Movement. It’s a highly feminised political party that represents the interests of unions like the PSA and promotes the advancement of women.
Men are yet to come to the realisation that their unions are becoming baseless political vehicles supporting a feminist party on traditional alignment rather than representative policy.
We are not alone in what’s happening here.
The Labour Party conference in Wellington this weekend was addressed by Bill Shorten, leader of the Australian Labor Party. He is a strong advocate of Australian Labor abandoning unions completely.
What he is promoting is elitist politics, where politicians place themselves in a class above those they might represent. It is a big move away from the representative politics, we have grown up with.
This won’t stop the left holding the position of the ‘champion of the people’ but it is a major shift in the political dynamics we are used to.
Weakened unions will need to go cap-in-hand to political parties in the hope of any representation. The difference being that women will get the cake and men will get the crumbs.
The New Zealand male voter is no longer alone in his political isolation – men need to be aware that this is an evolving situation that will leave them increasingly socially and financially disadvantaged.
Worse though, men are losing their hard won political representation, and very fast.
Bill Shorten resigned in disgrace today after his politics was rejected by the Australian people.
Australia and New Zealand have never been far apart and that presents us with some serious decisions for 2020.
Obviously there is a contradiction in politics to say that men are under represented in politics.
Most countries still have gender bias in politics.
That doesn’t bother me if the voter actually decides on the candidate.
This bothers me.
Haven’t democrat supported groups rioted in streets most of last year.
What did humans expect to be the resultant.
Can you cheat in an election?
Leave a untraceable digital manipulation of results.
Vote for people who otherwise don’t vote.
You could find out if you wanted to, if there was cheating.
Grab random samples of votes.
Enough to find errors.
Talk to the voter.
But only ask them how they voted.
Who they voted for.
If they voted.
Do not show them there vote.
Until interview is finished.
Then eliminate the risk in the system so next time it’s better.
I have also read an item from the coroner’s office.
I liked the idea of levels of information.
I liked more the idea that questions and concerns will get looked at.
I did not like seeing concerns about election fraud not looked at properly.
If I am not mistaken the President asked for signature matching.
So a President wants something about integrity looked at.
Whatever that may happen to be.
And he is told no.
Yet he has been investigated for everything.
Anybody see the error in thinking?
What if you do those things and find no problem with the election.
Then Biden is a legitimate President.
Isn’t that what he wants?
The politically unrepresented male continues.
The myth is that a man has a vote and therefore is equal in democracy.
The reality is Doris Lessing was right all those years ago but women wouldn’t listen to her unpopular opinion.
As far as I can see, Lessing is only mentioned once here as her quote being wrongly attributed to Erin Pizzey.
With Covid contributing to an increase in FV cases, the female centric Family Court system is becoming more flawed. As time crawls on a particular case, many different judges will become involved. Not one will have the full picture and each will apply their own personal views as there is no clear yardstick for judgement. The applicant will never be accused of lying to prevent any fears of coming forward. But this is at the risk of lies being said as perjury does not exist in the family court. This was all done to curtail the deaths of women at the hands of violent men. At some stage this was at 8 to 9 deaths a year if not mistaken. What is unspoken is how many suicides are related to the family court process. No one govt agency seems to have the data.