Close the Ministry Of Women’s Affairs
Occasionally the collective body of women do disagree.
A policy to close the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is being driven by the ACT Party.
That being so out in the open is firstly a typical feminist, bite back at anything that dares to criticise us, but what we might also be seeing is a realisation in higher society that that the feminist industry has had its day, and now is a damaging waste of money serving no worthwhile purpose in some outdated quest for equality.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:a72833c0-0b1b-4f7d-b24f-d62594ee31a0
The domestic violence industry is alive and well though and in the Polynesian communities perhaps quite separate to the family court.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 26th August 2023 @ 11:47 am
In the post, is a comment from Amy Jones.
Maybe the achievements, are secret.
It’s achieved so much, in such a short time.
But really, it can’t be honest about resultants.
It has doubled, the fatherless rate.
A great achievement, for women’s rights.
It has made male wrongs, prosecutable as culture.
A great achievement, for women’s rights.
It has made education, for girls performing better.
A great achievement, for women’s rights.
It has made government, only help women.
A great achievement, for women’s rights.
To say they have achieved nothing, is dishonest.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 26th August 2023 @ 9:02 pm
One question to ask, do women need a minister.
Are there things, that are problems for women.
So for a better society, we should look at the problem.
Is there a problem, is everything for women good.
We can say men are violent, women get abused.
Men can’t control sex drive, women get abused.
And men can be very controlling, women get abused.
So to say there’s no problems, is a silly thing to say.
Because women are represented, they are subjects.
Government spends billions, trying to solve the problem.
Complete industry’s are made, trying to be a solution.
If there was no minister, would we as society even try.
Is it not interesting, all the solutions do not solve the problem.
Prisons filled with men, all types of punishment the solution.
Women getting services and laws, and police at there whim.
The solutions address the result, but not the problem.
Because women are violent, men get abused.
Women can’t control sex drive, men get abused.
And women can be very controlling, men get abused.
Is that silly, to point out the obvious.
I still support, women having a minister.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 31st August 2023 @ 6:29 pm
I heard a good argument, about the Act party.
Because they want to be strict, with benefits.
Drug users and the mentally ill, targeted with policy.
The argument was, how unfair that could be.
Are they offering work, not needing drug testing.
Can the mentally ill, actually get medication changed.
Both may need services, to help fix there problems.
The service not existing, yet you get penalised for not going.
What is the result, of stopping the persons benefit.
For the drug user, it’s selling more drugs and crime.
For the mentally ill, it’s more homelessness.
So Act may be correct, but the results are bad.
Is there solution, we have this work for them.
We can’t fix them, and work cures poverty.
Can Act then accept, these bad people working.
It demands they work, but also bans them working.
Something can look good, real life is different.
Fixing a problem, requires a solution.
They don’t fix the problem, they change the problem.
It will save itself money, then cost itself more money.
I don’t support dependency, or going backwards.
The argument is harder, for the drug user.
The mentally ill, can’t help what’s happening.
Act desires an extreme, and people will vote for it.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 16th September 2023 @ 9:41 pm
Representing something, somehow is playing the victim.
It pretends the bad does not exist, in its own acts.
So a minister for women, does exactly that.
There is no policy, on the bad things women do.
So you don’t see policy, of men playing the victim.
Pretending the bad does not exist, in its own acts.
So a minister for men, would do exactly that.
But all the policy, is on the bad things men do.
There is only one victim, because only one is represented.
We then get policy, trying to fix the wrongs that are happening.
That’s a good thing, until you look at the offending men.
If they only played the victim, making us look at women’s wrongs.
The flaw is any representative, is bigoted.
Gender or race, nation or religion and no matter the subject.
But each of those things, still needs a representative.
Playing the victim, the world as always full of victims.
I watched a bad example of men, to the extreme sexually.
To the extent for the religious group, all the men are guilty of crimes.
Yet it’s not otherwise criminal, the society is peaceful.
The men are represented, but the women are not.
What then is not bigoted, when representation is missing.
If you have only one side, but not the other side.
You would have to represent humans, blind to identity.
Even then that person, would have to play the victim.
Maybe we should have, a minister for good things humans do.
What is good things men do, let’s celebrate those things.
What is good things women do, let’s celebrate those things.
What are good things humans do, let’s celebrate those things.
You can get sick of looking at bad things, with so much good happening.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 26th September 2023 @ 11:37 am