Entry 2256, on 2023-01-23 at 11:39:34 (Rating 4, News)
Before I start this post I have to say that I am open to alternative views which are contrary to what I am saying. It is possible that I have missed something that others have seen, and that my conclusions are wrong. That could be true of many of my posts, of course, but this one in particular I am making fairly early after the phenomenon emerged, so I am less certain this time, than I was with others where I have waited a while before commenting.
Anyway, here's the subject: the resignation fo New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Ardern. Hallelujah, praise the Lord, the Red Witch is no more! Cindy's gone and we have all been saved from her treachery and tyranny!
Now, you might think that what I just said is a bit hyperbolic, and maybe you might think it is abusive, and you might even consider it misogynistic. Of course, I deliberately made those points that extreme to make a point. I don't necessarily believe Ardern was quite that bad, although there are elements of truth in all of those things. And that's the issue I want to explore here: is "robust" criticism of public figures like what I just did OK?
Since the PM resigned there has been a narrative here that abusive comments about her were a major cause for her leaving politics, and that the abuse was specifically because she was a woman. Many of the Ardern supporters I have debated with recently have claimed she was driven out by misogynistic abuse, and that she didn't resign because she could see an inevitable defeat looming in the election later this year.
It's entirely possible that there were comments aimed at her that were unnecessarily abusive, and that might have been a factor in her decision, but I doubt whether the abuse aimed at her was much different than that aimed at other public figures, including male leaders like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. I have certainly seen a lot worse aimed at them than I ever have seen against Ardern.
Of course, my experience is just an individual anecdote, and shouldn't be taken too seriously, but here's another important point: in all the mainstream news media coverage of this issue, which has just suddenly become a major theme in many news sources, and in the comments made by supporters on social media, I have never seen a single serious example of this alleged abuse, and even the more minor examples were very similar to things I have seen used against other (mostly male) public figures.
So, yet again, it looks like the mainstream media have jumped on the trendy bandwagon of blaming "toxic masculinity" or "the far right" or whatever brainless catch-phrase happens to be currently popular as a way to justify what could otherwise be construed as a self-centered and cowardly action by Ardern.
Some people would suggest this was entirely predictable, given how the media rely on the government for some of their funding, along with the obvious bias favouring the left that many media sources regularly show, but I don't think even that is necessary. I just think they are grossly incompetent and are too lazy to offer fair and reasoned analysis, instead making these pronouncements with no real consideration of their validity.
I currently have about 5 debates ongoing on Facebook, and all of the Ardern supporters I am facing have made the claim of misogynistic abuse forcing her out. Often these debates went back and forwards many times, but as soon as I challenged them to give an example of abuse that wasn't very similar to that faced by controversial male politicians the debate ended. My opponents just disappeared without trace.
Here's an example...
Me: At least there’s a better chance he [the new PM, Chris Hipkins] will make decisions based on rationality rather than emotion.
My opponent: She’s gone Owen. Your slurs are pointless now.
Me: Not really. We need to be careful we don't get anyone like her again.
My opponent: Just you - not "we". We get what the voters decide. We can be disappointed, but I don’t accept that some of "we" should feel free to pour out the sort of disgusting personal shite that the PM and others - mainly women - have had to put up with.
Me: I keep hearing about this "personal shite" but when I ask for examples which aren't similar to stuff aimed at male politicians (Trump, Boris, etc) there's nothing. Do you have any examples? Any from me?
My opponent: (the sound of crickets chirping in the background, and a tumbleweed blows across the scene)
Was suggesting that her decisions were based more on emotion rather than logic a slur? I think she has great "emotional intelligence" although I dislike that term, because I don't like confusing emotion with intelligence. But I think many people would agree - even her supporters - and that isn't necessarily even a criticism, although I did mean it as one.
And note the failure to provide any examples of this alleged abuse, apart from (presumably) my fairly mild comment about her propensity to emotion rather than thought. Is that the sort of abuse which has forced her out? I guess I will never know, because no one ever answers my challenge to provide examples.
Most serious commentators, including those I have some respect for, like Bryce Edwards, have stated in fairly clear terms that they think the real reason she left was she could see that defeat at the election later this year was very likely.
Would that defeat arise because of misogyny? That seems unlikely since at the last election she won with the biggest majority in recent history. Why would so many people just spontaneously change from supporters to rabid woman haters in a year or two since that election?
Of course, the real reason she quit was her unpopular policies which she tried to force on the country without warning, most of which were rejected by a massive percentage of the population. And the worst of all was her repulsive, racist co-governance policy which handed over significant control of the country's assets to a minority group based entirely on race. If she ever thought this was a good idea, then she really was an idiot like the "misogynists" claimed, and if she thought she could push this atrocity through despite the clear rejection of it by 70% of the population, then she was both arrogant and ignorant: a dangerous combination.
Just at this point, I should ask: is that last paragraph abusive, or is is just robust political criticism? It is certainly intended to be criticism, and it is similar to criticisms I have made of the actions of other leaders.
I can almost excuse the "Jacinda fan club" for being disappointed at her early exit, and for them reacting in such an irrational way, but I can't excuse the usual suspects from the mainstream media: RNZ, TVNZ, Stuff, and the Herald. They should know better, but it is illustrative of what a parlous state the media are currently in, entirely because of their own incompetence and corruption, that this has happened.
In fact, the trend today seems to be that a theme emerges, generally based on zero or very little evidence, and all the media jump on board, repeating and reusing each other's material to create a narrative which seems to the more naive people in the community might be true because it is so widespread.
The media are to blame, and as I said in my previous post, this is because they are full of university graduates who have been brainwashed by applied postmodernist doctrine. It is both absurd and dangerous, but maybe there is hope on the horizon.
There does seem to be some pushback against this toxic ideology in the community now. Even our new prime minister appears to be a but less politically correct and bit more amenable to common sense rather than doctrine. He made a speech recently discussing the future of the country where he used the actual name of the country, New Zealand, multiple times, and didn't use the fake name "Aotearoa" once.
I know, it's a small thing, but there is some hope, at least!
"It is possible that I have missed something that others have seen, and that my conclusions are wrong".
Correct.
If you listen carefully and with an open mind, you will hear a lot of journalists saying we need to "take her at her word" that burnout is the reason for the resignation (I'll put aside your theoretical alternative explanations which seem to have about as much evidence as the claims of abuse).
Comment 2 by OJB on 2023-01-23 at 20:59:35:
I was referring to the numerous articles in all the mainstream media outlets alleging that the real reason she resigned is because of abusive comments on social media, and even suggestions of death threats.
These have been published multiple times at RNZ, TVNZ, Stuff, and the Herald (and probably others) as well as being a common theme promulgated by her supporters.
That's what I am suggesting is inaccurate and unsupported, not the claims of Ardern herself. Note that this post is called "More *Media* BS?" (note the word "media" and the question mark). I don't think I've missed anything.
Comment 3 by Anonymous on 2023-01-23 at 22:44:31:
You have conveniently "forgotten" to mention the multiple articles and interviews on those outlets that suggest burnout was the main reason for the resignation. Just suggesting you shouldn't be so blinded by your bias and see that both positions were represented.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2023-01-24 at 08:34:27:
My post said "... abusive comments about her were a major cause for her leaving politics...". Note I said a *major* cause, not the only cause. To understand to what extent each of the possible reasons (burnout, abuse, and others) were the most reported on would take a bit of analysis, but my impression is that the "abuse" claims have become most dominant recently.
Comment 5 by M and R on 2023-01-25 at 11:28:43:
Very cool and well balanced, obviously same school we went to. Couldn’t comment because you haven’t taught me how to do those squiggles. Cheers.
Note: I added this comment on M and R's behalf. If anyone else wants me to do that, just email the comment to OJB@mac.com. Add a note about whether you want your name included, or not. - OJB
Comment 6 by OJB on 2023-01-25 at 11:29:42:
OK, I guess I should try to improve the "squiggle" system. Thanks for the feedback.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE