Table of Contents
As already noted by idbkiwi, the issue of misogyny has become part of the discussion around the resignation of Jacinda Ardern. It has become a catch cry for those who believe that the criticism and increasing dislike and distrust of her was down to a dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
Wrong. To say otherwise means that the past, present and future successes and achievements of our grandmothers, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, nieces, grand-daughters, female friends and colleagues have been rendered meaningless as we are all branded with being misogynists for our denunciation of the woman who has done more damage to race relations, to business, to personal well-being – the list goes on – than any PM before her, man or woman.
“The Crucifixion of Jacinda Ardern” read a New Zealand Herald headline on Saturday 21 January. Daron Parton’s view. An illustrator now living in NZ with his Kiwi wife. Born in the Yemeni city of Aden. “By offering hugs rather than stoic nods; clasped and surrendered hands rather than dominating gestures; and caring smiles over fiery, popularist rhetoric, Ardern provided detractors with a vulnerability and a target for their invective. Optimism and charm ultimately failed to disarm the darker forces of an extremely vocal sector force-fed rancorous hatred and anger.”
Phew. So that’s what it was. The crucifixion of Jacinda Ardern. This excerpt from a lengthy article is a crucifiction of the reasons for the failure of Jacinda Ardern to continue with her Jacindamania. Her reign was destroyed by her refusal to listen, to understand the increasing mood of despair, disillusionment and disenfranchisement of increasing numbers of the population. She shot herself in the foot – well, both feet. She became victim of her own hubris.
And Alison Mau predictably and on time came in solidly behind the misogyny viewpoint, with an article titled, “Shame on our misogyny: It’s no wonder Jacinda Ardern was driven from office.”
Misogyny is the policing of women who step out of line, and that means women who rise to positions of power that were until recently reserved for men. And there you have it.
I in no way support the threats that have been made against Jacinda Ardern – those are completely and utterly unacceptable. But to claim that misogyny is the policing of women who step out of line is completely and utterly wrong.
And too Karen Nimmo, a Wellington clinical psychologist, waded into the debate in her article on burnout, which includes useful tips for dealing with what is a very real issue. However, she concludes her article with the following gem:
Finally, as a country we’re overdue for some mass psychoanalysis.
The nastiness, vitriol and misogyny directed at public figures is unacceptable behaviour, which demonstrates low emotional intelligence – that is, an inability to disagree with someone without hating, abusing and making personal attacks on them.
Sadly it tells us – and the world – who we are.
New Zealand desperately needs to do better than that.
Stuff
Mass psychoanalysis is required for the NZ, nay, the world, population. Nastiness, vitriol and misogyny demonstrating low emotional intelligence?
I repeat, I in no way support the death threats against the then PM – those are under no circumstances acceptable. But the ‘mass’ affected by the unrelenting, unkind control that Jacinda Ardern continued to mete out was also wrong, unacceptable and became very personal as businesses and lives were destroyed. She has herself to blame, not the rest of us who were forced to live under her punitive, divisive rule. Time will now tell if her successor, the apparently slightly more right and less woke Chris Hipkins, will reverse the tide of despair that Jacinda created.
To return to the Daron Parton article, it has long bothered me that Jacinda used hugs and headscarves as a way to deal with traumatic situations. Had a male politician done just that they would likely be imprisoned for indecent assault. Look at the fall out from the John Key ‘ponytailgate’ situation. He was “just horsing around”, he said. The pony-tailed waitress said it was harassment and bullying.
Mr Key has apologised to the waitress who accused him of harassment and bullying after he pulled on her pony-tail on repeated occasions.
In an anonymous article on the left-wing website The Daily Blog, the waitress said Mr Key behaved like a “schoolyard bully” when visiting her unnamed cafe in the past six months.
She said he later apologised by giving her two bottles of wine.
NZ Herald
Presumably she drank the wine, thereby accepting his apology. It was wrong of John Key. Absolutely wrong. He should not have pulled her ponytail. But just what in reality is the difference when Jacinda Ardern has been very up close and personal with members of the public. Was it really so different? That the circumstances were so different does or does not make it right for her and wrong for him? It seems that there is an element of having things both ways. It’s OK for a touchy-feely femme to offer hugs, but not OK for a male PM to horse around?
The Parton article makes a gross generalisation with the comparisons between the hugs or stoicism. In some circumstances stoicism is an entirely acceptable reaction and appropriate behaviour. Apart from making worldwide headlines for Saint Jacinda, now apparently crucified, did it change the outcome for the victims and their families? Did wearing a headscarf, the apparel of enforced compliance and for many an Islamic symbol of a fundamentalist approach, although also seen as a gesture of support, offer anything other than a great photo op? Her choice to play dress-up became a standing joke: what would she wear for the next drama? What opprobrium would John Key or other male politician have faced for similar actions?
Ridiculous, of course, to even contemplate such behaviour; however, it is perfectly acceptable and lauded for Jacinda Ardern as a female PM to have done just that.
I am saddened that the resignation of Ms Ardern has become so bitterly a symbol of so-called misogyny. It downgrades the ability of all women who have overcome the odds to succeed. It also portrays her decision to stand down as if her position was stolen from her by the thoughts, feelings and comments of thousands of usually mild, well-meaning citizens who had had enough and called her out on her refusal to listen and make changes that would turn back the unfortunate tide of discontent. The terrible threats are not those of the majority and yet that is how they are being portrayed. Comments are not threats.
Would I have wanted my daughters, the same age, high-achieving women, balancing the needs of husbands and children with full-time employment, to have been in Jacinda’s position? No. Would I have wanted them to be abused and to face such exhausting and dreadful times as Jacinda was required to deal with? Again, no; absolutely no. But were they in her position would I have wanted them to be able to look both ways, listen and learn and reflect? And if necessary to make a U-turn? And apologise? Absolutely, yes.
I am sorry that Jacinda Ardern has been the victim of those people who have issued death threats – that is inexcusable. But she has caused a lot of hurt. Maybe she will now have the time and willingness to reflect on that. It was not misogyny that caused her resignation.
