White Muddled Class Wail
I’m sick of ‘White Middle-Class Male’ arogance. Rohan Lord got the wakeup call he deserved.
Was he that politicaly naive, that socially disconnected, that remotely hopeful, that he could make any change by joining the Labour Party.
He got chucked? on the bottom of their list, where the remnants of the patriarchal dinosaur-class belong.
That’s because the Labour Party didn’t want YOU, they wanted what you represent. Yeah, we got one of those on our list, tick that box off.
That’s the way they operate: Don’t worry about what we think, if you can spot your Wally in the list, tick Red.
We can at least be grateful that in two weeks two men stood up and said, “No, I don’t think so”.
Two men got published for saying out loud, “No, I’m not a compliant fool”.
The other was Mike King, who quit the Government panel on suicide prevention.
That suggests that the National Party is no better – and they are not, just a slightly more sophisticated version of the same model.
So, welcome to the muddled classes, guys.
Each race, each ethnic group, each employment group, each social sector, has a growing disenfranchised, disinterested, collection of voters, who may not be aware of the other’s existence, but we’re the Muddled Classes.
The Muddled Classes would like you you to know, that we don’t like being called, black or white, just bitter and twisted, and indifferent to your pick n mix politics.
Well, did Alfred Ngaro get a little power crazy, or is he the sophisticompliant fool?
Janice Fiamengo pointed out the downsides of selection of politicians or employees on the basis of gender. She argued, in her usual erudite and well-reasoned way, that increasing the probability of selection for women equals decreasing the probability of selecting people with the greatest merit and ability. She highlighted the fact that far fewer women put themselves forward to stand as candidates in elections so the equal number of women are chosen from a much smaller pool unlikely to yield the level of talent and merit available in the larger male pool. She pointed to the lack of evidence for the feminist claim that overt or unconscious discrimination was discouraging women from political careers, and for the claim that being a woman brought such special wisdom to leadership roles that it should be treated as a merit factor in itself. Given all this one can see that a Little Labour government that has positively discriminated itself into equal gender ratios will be less competent compared to governments whose members were selected on merit alone. Gender equality in our governing party will be at the cost of our country, at least until the pool of women putting themselves forward equals that of men in number, talent and merit.
Fiamengo also made the point that selection on the basis of being female is patronizing to women and not good for them, aside from the losses to women caused by destroying men.
So this effects other parties to varying degrees. Off the top of my head the Greens are heavily into Gender Ratio’s too. Fiamengo’s logic makes sense to my mind; so surely the same problem effects the Greens. But I’m sure all parties have that gender policy with varying degrees of commitment so as to woo votes.