Over at The Hive, the blog that dare not speak its ideology (i.e. neo-liberal right), Queen Bee postures over Peters’ comments about Maori male peacocks, etc. “We think [the] comments… are not appropriate for our Foreign Minister. Winston should therefore resign or be fired,” they thunder.
Just 18 minutes after posting this, they posted a picture of Anne Pankhurst, Labour candidate for Tauranga under the heading “Labour Serious About Tauranga???” The caption reads, “Labour’s secret weapon. You can see they don’t want Winston to win.”
(Actually, she looks like a very good candidate, well-suited to the electorate. As MacDoc suggests in his comment, Labour appear to be fielding a strong candidate, possibly with the intention of denying National the seat.)
Since we are invited to question Labour’s chances of winning in Tauranga by inspecting the picture, it is difficult to interpret this as anything other than an attempt to judge the candidate’s qualities in terms of her appearance. Not to put too fine a point on it, it looks like arrant bloody sexism.
Hypocrites!
[Update: Queen Bee threw a right royal fit when she spied our post. Said we were outraged. Not really, QB. We save that up for your stable mate Whale Oil.]
Tags: gender politics, hypocrites, NZ blogs
Jafapete's Weblog 
June 20, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
jp: Not just sexism. They are inviting us to draw (presumably unfavourable) electorally significant conclusions from the single photo with no supporting information about the person pictured.
[Well put, Steve. Why don’t you put your blog URL in wordpress name?]
June 20, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
QB hates Winston and is probably not capable of rational discourse about him (a position I have some sympathy with). As far as I know, QB is a woman, so its a little hard to make the “sexist” label stick here.
Actually, Anne Pankhurst is not a bad candidate. It is just that her chances of gaining the electorate are very poor. I am thinking that Labour have put her there to draw votes from the National candidate, to give Winston a better chance. As we have observed in the last post, Winstn’s followers will vote for him, no matter what.
It’s no secret that Winston back in parliament with a few others in tow favours Labour, strongly.
June 20, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
Thanks, Doc,
Hadn’t thought of that (Labour putting up a strong candidate to take support off the Nats). QB hasn’t cottoned on, though.
Also, I do think that she — my understanding is that QB can’t resist shameless self-promotion on her blog — can be sexist, even though of that gender. We are all products of our patriarchal socialisation, no?
June 20, 2008 at 5:48 pm |
Being a woman doesn’t automatically mean you can’t be sexist. Michelle Malkin anyone? Thanks for the email jp, will have a looksie when I get a chance 🙂
June 20, 2008 at 5:51 pm |
Although QB neglected to post a link for this story, it is fairly obvious from checking her comments in the papers that this is not a strong candidate. Recently lost her seat on council is the crowning glory of her political career.
I also disagree with the contention that a “strong” labour candidate would drain votes from national. On the contrary I believe a strong candidate would be bad for Winston First. All this is moot of course because the grey goose has still not announced whether he is standing in gods waiting room.
June 20, 2008 at 5:53 pm |
On that topic.. When is the announcement due for the replacement in London. JH is due home and I have long suspected that winnie would have bagged this job as a hidden condition for support. He really is getting on, and his sole contribution in parliament these days is endless pontificating on points of order. I could see him believing that London would top out his career nicely.
June 20, 2008 at 8:49 pm |
Spot on Jaf. Blatant arrant sexism and hypocrisy I’d say. The only interesting aspect of the Hive sewer is their pathetic attempt to portray themselves as “non-partisan” – while churning out incessant anti-Labour pro-tory drivel masquerading as “insider” goss.
Put some porn and guns up and they’ll be right down there with Slater. The only thing worse than a semi-literate hatemongering organ of the born-to-rule is one that also stoops to transparent pretentions at impartiality.
Steady on. Their/her politics may belong in the 1980s, but if you want the inside on trade talks it’s definitely the best source. If you don’t, it’s certainly dreary.