Send Women Back to Fight Too, Winston (and f*** off with them)
We don’t actually agree that anyone should be sent back to Syria to fight, mainly because we think that fighting for Syria’s corrupt and inhumane dictatorship would be no better than fighting for ISIS, the Russians or most of the other ‘rebel’ groups there. How could anyone fight for their country’s ‘freedom’ in those circumstances? Freedom from whom? Not that we know that much about it.
However, we are appalled that Winston Peters recommended today that we allow Syrian women and children to stay in NZ but that we send some of the men back to fight for “their own country’s freedom”.
We would agree with Winston’s recommendation to allow a quota of women who are primary caregivers for children to live in NZ, but the same would apply to men who are caring for children. If we are to send anyone else back this should be both men and women who are not caring for children.
Women have demanded equal rights so that should also apply to the right to be conscripted and sent to fight wars, should any such conscription be practised at all. Equal rights surely must carry equal responsibilities, burdens and sacrifices?
How outrageous that Winston can get away with such a sexist statement. I see no opposition to this article at all in the media. It is frightening yet illuminating that this thinking is coming out of the mouth of a leading politician. No wonder misandry is alive and well, permeates throughout our society and displayed by both genders.
If Winston made mention that all female refugees should be forced to stay at home with their children and not join the work force then I have no doubt that there would have been a tsunami of articles in response. Men (mostly working class) have always been canon fodder in war. I am reminded of my post some time ago where I point out that in the history of NZ democracy it was working class men who had no vote yet were slaughtered like pigs in the Maori wars. Their wives, who also had no vote, were at home enjoying motherhood.
Suffragettes were a bunch of whining, narcissistic bitches who, without the immense assistance of men, would never have gained the right to vote. If any feminists wish to debate me on this site with reason and facts I will enjoy taking you on….
Comment by triassic — Tue 8th September 2015 @ 10:37 pm
Yep, Winston’s the smart one all right. All we have to do apparently is send them back, and they’ll stay there – at least the male ones anyhow. Just why he wants to hang on to the female ones is a bit of a mystery, but maybe he figures they won’t do as they’re told so easily?
Comment by rc — Tue 8th September 2015 @ 11:05 pm
The fighting in Syria and surrounding areas is tribal based, but the social disruption has been brought about through an attempt to get a gas pipe-line from the Middle-East to Europe to compete with the Russian gas supply.
Basically what has been done there will not be undone in our lifetime. Regardless who stays or leaves there will be tribal bloodshed. Relatively advanced economies have been blown apart all in the name of Europe, and now even Turkey is looking increasingly unstable.
Should we inherit this problem.
We’ve had an exodus of men from New Zealand in the last two decades, both through suicide and social dislocation; this on the basis of what’s good for New Zealand women and THEIR children.
No one gave a shit about that humanitarian crisis, but it’s left us with a problem, we’re already missing 10% of OUR male population.
Now we’re being served up this global citizen bullshit that we should be helping the women and children of this humanitarian crisis.
Where were the do-gooders when New Zealand men were getting the shit kicked out of them, now we’re expected to put up with this political claptrap about taking in some more women and children.
In the worst affected areas of NZ we are already down to a 87:100 male/female ratio. If we’re going to increase the rate of women coming into the population along with the rate on men leaving that will very quickly get down to 80:100
What we need to recognise is that we are fast becoming a global cot-case at the bottom of the South Pacific.
Winston Peters, like the rest of our politicians, can take their politics, and fuck off to Syria themselves, and stop destroying our country.
When are we going to stop buying this, ‘it’s all about the women and children’ bullshit.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 9th September 2015 @ 6:01 am
Winston is responsible for propping up both National and Labour governments.
In regard to this, many (anti male) law making events have occurred that he could have acted against.
He even supports the sexually bigoted funding of the Ministry of Women.
So what then is wrong with Winston’s thinking?
He is a lawyer so you would think he has an understanding of the law?
So let’s look at the law and Winston’s comments on the refugee issue.
Human Rights Act 1993
21 Prohibited grounds of discrimination
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are-
(a) sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth:
(b) marital status, which means being-
(i) single; or
(ii) married, in a civil union, or in a de facto relationship; or
(iii) the surviving spouse of a marriage or the surviving partner of a civil union or de facto relationship; or
(iv) separated from a spouse or civil union partner; or
(v) a party to a marriage or civil union that is now dissolved, or to a de facto relationship that is now ended:
(l) family status, which means-
(i) having the responsibility for part-time care or full-time care of children or other dependants; or
(ii) having no responsibility for the care of children or other dependants; or
(iii) being married to, or being in a civil union or de facto relationship with, a particular person; or
(iv) being a relative of a particular person:
So Winston lives in a world were discrimination of men is normalised in his thinking. It is also a reason why he has survived in parliament so long. Clearly he has become a puppet to feminist ideology, so is allowed to hang around.
So do his comments discriminate on the basis of sex? Yes. Men piss off, women welcome. Men go and die, women come here and live.
So do his comments discriminate on the basis of family status? Yes. Women with “having the responsibility for part-time care or full-time care of children or other dependants”, are welcome. Males with “having no responsibility for the care of children or other dependants”, can go and die. Winston suggests that even men with dependants, be not allowed in, they can go and die too. Meanwhile females without dependants should be allowed in as well.
I do wonder why Winston thinks like this. Luckely I have worked out why.
It is because he is really old. IE he is a male over 57 years old. Now due to it being offensive for him to talk to a women ‘because he is now yucky’ he has to let them know that he still likes them with indirect actions.
Winston, still a player at heart.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 11th September 2015 @ 9:20 am
Winston thinks politics is some sort of silly fucking game.
He doesn’t understand that politicians determine whether a civil society is a success or a failure.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 12th September 2015 @ 8:01 pm
Winston and NZFirst have always been dinosaurs when it comes to sexual politics like fathers issues.
Perhaps we have done a poor job of educating their voter base on these topics.
For example how many grand parents have lost grandchildren thanks to the family court? How many elderly people have lost sons to suicide? There are issues that effect the NZ First voter base but these people tend not to use the internet so much.
Comment by Vman — Thu 24th September 2015 @ 2:46 pm