Wednesday, September 08, 2004

I am woman, hear me roar


ACT wants to scrap the Ministry of Women's Affairs. I`ve mentioned this a bit in the blog as I actually think it's a good idea. So does Don Brash and a few National types, apparently.

It’s a better idea than setting up a Ministry for Men's Affairs, as John Tamihere wants to do to even things up a little. What good is the Ministry of Women's Affairs doing anyway - apart from keeping about 24 people employed.

The Ministry was set up as a vehicle for policy analysis and advice to government organisations, and a way of changing New Zealanders' negative attitudes to women and children. It also wants to get more women into work, despite many working women chosing to work out of necessity rather than choice. Since 2000, more and more money is being pumped into this Ministry while more and more women are being abused, raped, splitting with their partner, having affairs, and living as sole parents - not to mention being featured in R-rates films that are getting scrutiny from the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards. And what has the Ministry got to say about all that. Yeah, I don`t know either.

The Women's Affairs Ministry is a relic of another age.

If it is good enough for the Ministry of Youth Affairs to be incorporated into the Ministry of Social Development, it is good enough for the research component of the Women's Affairs Ministry to go the same way, and the rest of it can be swallowed up by the Human Rights Commission.

In any case we have enough ministries, departments and spokespeople for affairs: Ethnic Affairs, Maori Affairs, Rural Affairs, Youth Affairs, Consumer Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Internal Affairs - and National has discussed an Asian Affairs Ministry. We don`t need a Men's Affairs Ministry. Next thing they`ll want a Ministry to control the media and call it Current Affairs.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

We already do... it's called TVNZ!

KiwiPete

bruddah said...

Hi
John McNeil, aka 'Canary in the Mine' makes some german observations in his article, 'Take sex differences seriously, says professor'

Quote:
=====
He said a wealth of research indicates that women are better nurturers than men, and that for the most part women prefer being with their children to pursuing a professional career. Even when mothers are fulfilled in their career there is evidence that the children suffer. One study showed that the more mothers loved their job the less mentally healthy their teenage daughters were. But mental health for teen girls improved as their father's job satisfaction increased.
Rhoads also dealt with the issue of whether "women have to work". He said a single wage earner today, on average, makes 30 percent more in inflation-adjusted dollars than was the case in the 1950s when many mums stayed at home. What has changed, however, is consumption - more cars, bigger homes and so on. Couples who opt to live more simply can still live on a single income, he suggested.

Research showed the drive for more day care was mistaken, he said. "Two career families who put children in subsidised day care apparently produce a near tripling of the odds that these children will be disobedient and aggressive …" It would be better if the government offered tax benefits to couples where one parent stayed home.

Anonymous said...

Germane post at 'Canary in the Mine' :

Take sex differences seriously, says professor

Differences between men and women are natural and not socially constructed, says an American academic, contradicting one of the most powerful ideas shaping contemporary society [...]

He said a wealth of research indicates that women are better nurturers than men, and that for the most part women prefer being with their children to pursuing a professional career. Even when mothers are fulfilled in their career there is evidence that the children suffer. One study showed that the more mothers loved their job the less mentally healthy their teenage daughters were. But mental health for teen girls improved as their father's job satisfaction increased.

Rhoads also dealt with the issue of whether "women have to work". He said a single wage earner today, on average, makes 30 percent more in inflation-adjusted dollars than was the case in the 1950s when many mums stayed at home. What has changed, however, is consumption - more cars, bigger homes and so on. Couples who opt to live more simply can still live on a single income, he suggested.

Research showed the drive for more day care was mistaken, he said. "Two career families who put children in subsidised day care apparently produce a near tripling of the odds that these children will be disobedient and aggressive …"

It would be better if the government offered tax benefits to couples where one parent stayed home.

Anonymous said...

As far as I'm concerned, we live in a pluralist society, and women's economic inequality, domestic
violence, sexual violence and other examples of gender inequality haven't gone away. Girls may ace boys in primary and secondary school performance, but that doesn't translate into wage equity down the line after
graduation from university or apprenticeships, Dave.

Craig