John Key either has very poor PR advice, is grossly insensitive or has some darkness in his heart, to say nothing of his small head, when it comes to women. I am less concerned by his choice of words when describing models and actresses that he lusts after. It might have been better for the Prime Minister to refer to the objects of his sexual fantasies as “attractive” or “pretty” rather than using the adolescent term “hot.” But getting a bit horn doggish on a blokey sports talkback show is not the worst of sins.
A slightlyÂ worseÂ sin is to reveal admiration for a sports star because he makes “heaps of money” and gets some “fringe benefits” on the side. Talk about revealing your core values! For the PM, money grubbing–admittedly driven by unique talent– and serial adultery–which did not have much to do with talent of one sort or another–are positive traits worth coveting. Crikey! But that is just his shallow venality surfacing, not a mortal sin.
What is a far more serious matter is his apparent condoning of spouse abuse, as exemplified by the poster-boy for putting ass-kickings on women, Mr. Tony Veitch. Not only did Mr. Key agree to sit down for an interview with Tony the Tough Guy on his radio sports show, which legitimates Veitch in areas far outside the blokey sports-minded demographic. Mr. Key has now agreed to do regular spots on Mr. Veitch’s show. If one interview legitimates Mr. Veitch, then subsequent regular interviews symbolically condones what he did.
It was bad enough that a sports radio outlet would see fit to re-hire a spouse abuser who escaped jail time because he paid off the victim and wept crocodile tears at a series of staged press events. Here we have the PM of New Zealand, who should be fully aware of the intimacies of the abuse case as well as the allegations of drug use and other anti-social behaviour by Mr. Veitch, agreeing to grace his show on a regular basis. This, at a time when Mr. Key has terminated at least one guest spot with another radio news show focused on hard news rather than rugby, cricket and league. What is the message Mr. Key is trying to convey here, and on what assumptions does that message rest?
Is it his assumption that most Kiwis think Veitch is a good bloke and he was hard done by the back-talking wench? Is it his assumption that Mr. Veitch did wrong but it was a minor transgression? Is its his assumption that the NZ public do not care any longer what Mr. Veitch did and bygones are bygones? Is it his assumption that sporty blokes at best do not care or at worst condone Mr. Veitch’s behavior, and in an election year connecting with that crowd by engaging in some good-natured letchingÂ will increase Mr. Key’sÂ chances of re-election? What, exactly, is the rationale that says that it is OK for the PM to grant privileged regular interviews to an unrepentant spouse-basher while canceling similar interviews with other news shows?
And what message is Mr Key trying to convey here? That he is a sporty bloke? That he is a sporty bloke who sees nothing wrong in the occasional bitch-slapping along with letching, adultery and money grubbing? That he is a sporty bloke who does not give a darn about the high incidence of spousal (and child) abuse in the country he leads? That he is sporty bloke that simply does not care if he objectifies women and symbolically condones spouse-bashing? That he is a sporty bloke who is insensitive to women’s concerns about being objectified and victimised in their own homes as well as in the streets? Or is his message simply that in the run-up to elections catering to the lowest of the low is acceptable? What next, a guest spot with Mongel Mob, Black Power or Headhunter media outlets? After all, they are also sporty blokes who knowÂ something about how to treat uppity women.
Maybe I am just a prude. Perhaps it is perfectly acceptable for the PM of an advanced liberal democracy that is not Italy to see nothing wrong in publicly letching, to express admiration for greed and adultery, and who symbolically condones spousal abuse by voluntarily and preferentially associating with a spouse-beating coward who happens to be a celebrity. But if that seems a Â bit untoward for a PM (or anyone else), then he and his PR minders need to be made aware of that fact. Boycotting advertisers who buy time on Vietch’sÂ show when it features the Key interview is one way to convey that message. More importantly, and specifically for those women and other decent people who do not condone such behavior and who crossed over to National in the last election, the best way to deliver the message is to do so on November 26, at the ballot box. Of course, it if could get a clue, Labour might make a point of pointing out to the electorate Mr. Key’s apparent lack of regard for the feelings of his female constituency or any others who might think that engaging in egregious sexual innuendo with a spouse abuser is not fitting behaviour for a sitting Prime Minister (or anyone else with a modicum of sensitivity to the issues involved).
After all, not all of us are sporty blokes.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with politicians discussing their sexuality on TV – and I don’t just mean their sexuality as in their sexual identity. Key is human, he has sexual desires, those desires are nothing to be ashamed of. I don’t really think “attractive” or “pretty” are less offensive than “hot”.
However. I do agree that he should really have nothing to do with Veitch. And it’s a shame that his sexuality doesn’t really appear to be anything beyond rugby-head gawping and hooting. (Or maybe it is, and this is a front, which is just as bad but for different reasons).
I blogged about this too, and right-wingers generally didn’t get it. For my part, I think it says a lot about his character – not only in what backing Veitch says about him, as you’ve pointed out, but what expressing envy of Tiger Woods’ adultery and nominating celebs he’d like to shaft says about him – that he’s that kind of Kiwi bloke who thinks nothing of humiliating his wife in public. Prime Ministerial it ain’t.
It’s election year, and both his instincts and advisors didn’t switch on. Sadly, they only see the Veitch audience, not the host. Key should go on a long overseas “working” holiday until the RWC distraction arrives, and he’ll sleepwalk to victory. Hanging around NZ will only be detrimental to his chances.
Key has appeared plenty of times on the Radio Sport breakfast show. Previously it was hosted by Darcy Waldergrave. Now it is hosted by Veitch.
The breakfast show gets the most listeners, and usually listeners to Radio Sport would be less engaged with politics. So I can understand the logic of appearing on a radio show that broadens your reach in election year.
Key let Veitch lead him into the Hurley questioning, via the Warne episode, and he went with it. Whether Key should get “blokey” is entirely subjective, but hardly a great crime.
As for Veitch, he committed a deplorable crime. But I find it rich that left-wing commentators don’t believe there is any way back for an offender. Murray Deaker spent a lifetime as an alcoholic. Is there no way back for him also? If a politician appears with Deaker, do they condone binge drinking?
And what about anyone else that gets interviewed by Veitch – do they condone spouse-bashing by their association? John Wright, Graham Henry, Richie McCaw etc. Maybe part of the reason that Labour do so poorly in the polls is that the Left ride around on a bloody high horse.
Imperator Fish –
“Anyone who is about to throw their girlfriend down the stairs will now be thinking of voting National.”
@PsychoMilt: Perhaps we play Bronagh Key the courtesy of letting her be offended on her own account, instead of paternalistic concern trolling?
Pablo – she was never his spouse – probably worth altering your post, if only for legal reasons.
Pat – Murray Deaker never kicked the shit out his wife/partner and broke her back as far as I am aware, and never whined and sobbed about how unjust it all was for him. He dealt with his alcoholism and when he talks he is frank in his admission of his weakness and sins. The contrast with that snivelling coward, that sorry excuse of a “man” Veitch, couldn’t be stronger.
Agree with this post in totality.
Mr Veitch has not â€œtaken his medicineâ€ as righties like to claim, to the contrary he did everything to avoid responsibility to the extent of fake suicide â€œattemptsâ€-more likely self pity attacks. He remains in denial. And as such cannot be considered rehabilitated.
As for the PM, the guy who ducked Radio NZ for months last year, appearing on this fetid swamp of a programme really illustrates his true character again. Dignity of office, gravitas mean nothing to this guy. As a tagline on Bomberâ€™s Tumeke site says about Key-â€œI have principles, and if you donâ€™t like them, I have othersâ€.
In the real world the pudgy Key would not get a second glance from younger women â€œhotâ€ or otherwise, until he produced his enormous wallet.
Craig: whether she takes offence or not to him humiliating her in public is her own affair; my assessment of how it reflects on his character is up to me.
Obviously omitting the tongue-in-cheek headline, I agree with this argument, and I regret not dealing with the topic in a more principled (less ‘political calculus’) manner in my own post. Beyond politics, it reveals an ugly ruthlessness about Key. Normally this would be grounds for excoriating criticism by his political opponents — character is a valid political matter, after all — but … well, Key’s got himself a ‘free hit’, as it were.
The jealousy of Tiger Woods explains the vasectomy then.
Also technically, adultery is intercourse with another mans wife, married men cheating on their partners (with anyone not in the above category) is just that.
Drawing an equivalence between rugby players and coaches doing interviews with Veitch and the PM doing so is just silly. As for Veitch “leading” Key to start letching–it was Key he started getting tumescent when Vietch asked if he would like to be Shane Warne. Key could have started talking about spin bowling and ODIs but opted for a sexual theme.
Sanctuary and SPC: Did you get the main point of the post? Yes? Then there is no need to be pedantic.
I will remember that the next time you lecture us on the correct meaning of terms as it speaks to either authority or accuracy when there is debate on a topic.
When the concept or term is central to the thrust of the discussion, then precision in terminology is required. When the concept is not central to the discussion, particularly when it does not subtract from the thrust of the point being made, then some flexibility is allowed. Plus, the use of “spouse” and “adultery” where meant to be understood in the broadest sense of the term given common usage. Given that, getting your panties in a twist and muttering darkly because I asked you not to be a pedant seems a bit thin-skinned.
Please address the substance of the post or desist from commenting.
Pablo – surely no more silly than trying to suggest that the PM being interviewed by Tony Veitch is “condoning spousal abuse”. Over the top doesn’t begin to describe it.
Ah censorship of my last post pablo. I’ve lost respect for you.
And the censored post was on topic as was unconsciously your censorship of it.
I told you to stay on thread or desist. You did not, and what is more you launched a nasty personal attack on me. That violates the comments policy.
Pat: What symbolism do you think Mr. Key’s regular visits with the partner-beater conveys? Can you differentiate the symbolic weight of a PM granting regular interviews to a partner-beater versus that of some rugby players and coaches? I might be wrong but I do believe that there is something known as the dignity of the office and that actions speak as loudly as words when it comes to the office of the PM (as the de facto head of state). Hence, to my mind, Key demeans his office by patronising Vietch’s show, and shows a disregard for that part of the electorate that has strong feelings about spousal abuse in NZ society.
Quite frankly, I think that he would have been better off visiting with Mr. Deaker or other sports show hosts simply because the symbolism would not be as controversial–which is why I think that whatever his proclivities, Mr. Key got bad PR advice from his minders.
So you say, but where is the evidence? There is none.
Re-post it and say what it was then. If not, I will re-post it elsewhere and say you censored it here and called it a nasty personal attack violating comments policy.
Censoring the post was the same sort of behaviour that Veitch showed, using a position of authority or power to dictate terms to the powerless with effective force if necessary. Dare anyone disagree with him, or breach some imagined terms of behaviour decided upon unilateraly.
As I said unconsciously even your censorship was on topic. Something I would have thought your academic training would have had you note.
Do as you please SPC.
Given I posted a link to this thread over at frogblog around mid-day (their thread on this topic) I will do so there.
Anyone looking for any actual nasty personal attack on pablo won’t find anything – sorry.
The thread concerned.
SPC: Have you lost the plot? Getting into frenzy because I called you pedantic with regard to your hair-splitting on a minor, tangental point is no reason to resort to threats and personal attacks. Your deleted comment made a clear inference to my employment dispute and the email that caused it as being equivalent to the Veitch case. That is simply nasty and unacceptable.
I shall henceforth delete anything else from you that does not address the topic of the post. This whole exchange has been just plain weird. I should have just ignored your pedantry. Lesson learned.
Oh pablo you still don’t seem to understand relevance -the exercise of power is what it is. Did Veitch tell someone this or that, and insist he would have the last word and if not, she’s an uppity bitch who deserves what the one who is powerful has to dish out?
Does daring do disagree defines rebellion against authority, rebellion that needs to be suppressed. All sorts of pejorative descriptions of the powerless who refuse to be cowered then get used. Dare I list all the adjectives you have used to describe me and all those there are to describe troublesome females …
Errrr, SPC, this is starting to get more than weird, My asking you not to be pedantic is equivalent to being kicked down a stairs? Yowza. As for “all the adjectives” I have supposedly used to describe you and troublesome females–WTF??
This thread is well and truly stuffed.
You differentiate the exercise of power when it involves direct physical violence to other forms of exercise of power. Sure, but they are still both forms of exercise of power, are they not, and the same principles apply to the exercise of them – despite the different forms of power involved.
After all any battered women knows the second day its the raised hand that intimidates and there is no need for any subsequent violence. That’s how dictatorships form.
As you brought your personal stuff into this, being the victim of a power play yourself, a heirarchy based on money and influence where you were the one relatively powerless, yet as there was no actual violence it’s not really relevant to this issue. Or is it?
Key’s regard for Woods having a truckload of money and all the fringe benefits/trappaings of power and status
does speak to what Key is about, validation being approval of a man as an alpha figure who deserves more than others – despite common society desire for all to have a fair go.
You’ve implied association with someone who assaulted his partner as a form of tolerance for it? So you do draw connections yourself and you still say you don’t get the relevance to Key and this topic and the broader
exercise of power over others.
ps – you drove the contention to this point when you wrote this
“Given that, getting your panties in a twist and muttering darkly because I asked you not to be a pedant seems a bit thin-skinned.”
Then came the instruction to accept this as your final word on the matter. Something only someone in a position of masculine power and asserting it over the weaker feminine would have done.
All of it has been entirely on topic, more so because you were denying it and kept using pejorative adjectives (commonly used for the feminine challenging male heirarchy).
Have a holiday SPC, please.
This thread should not be stuffed because it is important. A specific enquiry into the personal makeup and behaviour of the NZ Prime Minister is most relevant this year or any year really.
â€˜Smile and waveâ€™ generalisations are one thing. His demonstrateable inability or unwillingness to react on the hoof in a way suiting his office should be of concern. The Paul Henry on air incident re the Governor General being one example. JK typically seems to go along with dodgy behaviour rather than comment on it let alone reign it in. This indicates he has problems with spontaneous assertion or more likely, an underlying agreement with the sexists buffoons he seems to feel comfortable with.
When will commentators get beyond â€œnarrativesâ€ and focus on the facts. The Key government is an anti woman government.
ECE made less accessible. ACE funding chopped. Pay Equity group funding chopped and so on.
The physcology of the countryâ€™s Prime Minister is of concern given the generational consequences of National Acts agenda.
Well put TM. And thanks for getting us back to the substance of the post.
This is what happens when they close down womens studies at the universities, no one understands the connections between abuse of women and assertion of authority and suppression.
He’s like to be like Tiger with the ‘fringe benefits’ and lets not forget Tiger was tom catting while his wife was pregnant. To me that the lowest of the low, in terms of abuse of love and trust it makes him no better than Veitch with his pyhsical abuse of his partner. And Key clearly seems to think that’s ok? Good greif.
Yes – this sums it up nicely. It would be nice to see some journo ask him about it, but I guess he doesn’t have any incentive to subject himself to that.
OTOH, when you go to the handmirror and discover our feminists are more interested in railing against a lawyer who exercised some moral judgement in relation to a hopeless drug addict client he happened to represent you wonder if they were shut anyone would notice.
I doubt they would claim to be representative of New Zealand feminists and they would contribute to discourse at other places on a range of issues anyhow.
BOI. The problem with being accessible, as a tool of â€œleadership celebrityâ€ (political popularity), is a decline to a less respectful tone and ultimately loss of gravitas.
Being a mate about the country, means adapting to the culture of time and place â€“ and doing this in the public media is fraught with risk. No one behaves the same in all situations, and the more one is adapting to time and place, the less appropriate this becomes for the PM to present himself to the wider public.
One wonders whether the response to the patsy question, what sports star you would like to be â€“ All Black captain (national leadership) or really wealthy (respect for achievement measured in personal wealth and being able to afford professional services/user pays â€¦ mmm anyone in the media game to ask the PM a question as to whether use of professional services constitutes cheating and has he ever â€¦) was suggested by the host of Kiwiblog (possibly the list of the 3 hot women as well â€“ probably after extensive research).
Itâ€™s hard to say though whether this media (chosen to manage the working class bloke vote) showing was over or under-managed.
Rightly we donâ€™t focus on the personal lives of our leaders and politicians so much, unless itâ€™s put out there by the politicians themselves or is a matter of hypocrisy. In this case the PM has invited the question.
But of anyone is game to ask the PM, the ultimate â€œClintonâ€ question â€“ has he cheated on his wife, the way Tiger Woods did â€“ and if so when, and who with, and was she â€œhotâ€.
But it is one to which he will reply no and claim credit for his fidelity before the woman audience, despite his â€œmanly blokeâ€ longings validating him to those sporty working class types who might want a tax freethreshold.
Itâ€™s cynical, but effective politics.
Heâ€™ll even expand on his Woods comments by saying that we should have all be aspirations for more wealth/income â€“ and how he is being aspirational and how he is for New Zealand.
The only response is to say that Key is saying greed for more is good. The Greens can more credibly argue the sustainable society and economy response than Labour. But even Labour can help out a bit.
Maybe Labour should do that and say there should be promotion of the â€œitâ€™s not OK adsâ€ on Radio Sport while Veitch and Key are together. I wonder what Keyâ€™s advisers are getting paid to get proactive on this?
All seems a bit over the top to me, especially the suggestion that taking part in a radio show is an endorsement of the hosts crimes. Is my commenting on this blog an endorsement by me of whatever Pablo gets up to? Is a comment on Whaleoil’s blog an endorsement of his breaking court orders?
This whole post reads more as a politically motivated attack than a genuinely principled stand, especially given the headline.
Pablo – Without wanting to stir, I think you are slightly missing SPC’s point. He is also missing yours as he is well off thread. SPC – just take your hands away from the keyboard on this, nothing will be proved.
John Key’s PR minders have clearly made the assessment noted above that Veitch is presenting a popular breakfast show and that it is more important to engage with that audience than it is to boycott a worthless piece of shit.
Your offence at characterising Liz Hurley as hot indicates a little too much time in the company of ardent feminists.
The “fringe benefits” comment was tacky and I imagine he would have got a very call reception at home from that.
He was engaging with a non political audience in terms they are comfortable with even if you are not. In that respect I agree with Andrew W above. Actually I think this post is almost beneath you, it is on a par with getting bothered about Goff’s hair colour. Lew is closer to getting too the heart of things.
Veitch is an odious little man whose initial (and insufficient) mea culpa was undone by his subsequent inference ‘she’s a bunny boiler and asked for it’ and several self-aggrandising, self-publicised poor me ‘suicide’ attempts.
But at one point do we withdraw the possibility of redemption. Here’s a scenario for you. A bloke abuses his girlfriend in front of her ten-year-old son and numerous other witnesses. Calls her a bitch and a slut. Then says sorry the next day.
Does he deserve forgiveness?
Yeah, well, either that, or he thinks the Prime Minister of New Zealand brings the office into disrepute by publicly blathering on to a wife-beater about which female celebrities he’d like to f**k. One or the other.
Some friday fun gems in the air tonight eh what blogger cobbers! – a Ranapia lecture on “paternalistic concern trolling”, Pablo “there is no need to be pedantic” and the bizarrely compelling sight of our PM mincing just a little too well on the Standard (check out the final flutter-to-camera!)
Priceless one and all, but on-topic, what on earth do we expect from an individual groomed and selected for not a single skerrick more than the ability and deeply-rooted need to be at least accepted, and in miraculous best-case scenario liked, by the hapless, shallow, one-in-twelve swinging political media-cannon-fodder voter who determines our future?
Leave the sad sap alone. I’d almost feel sorry for the poor wee bastard if it weren’t for those odd telling glimpses at his grotesquely frigid soul; he’s just flirting for a business: and how many would weep if he cashed-up tomorrow?
Bugger-all; and he knows it all too well, all the time, but lacks the courage to give. Generic Tory genetics spliced on a sociopath.
I think Andrew W is on the money. I took the mickey out the Dim Post the other day for this feeble line: http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2011/02/john-keys-dark-side.html (if you will excuse the link-whoring), I think Pablo (as he might secretly agree) is a spohisticated kind of dogwhistler, who in this case must have had ‘one too many’ and has inadvertently blown on a duck-caller. Pablo, did you not yourself not so long ago fall foul of the powers that be for dealing to an ‘uppity female’ in an educational environment? How did that feckless and unprovable accusation work out for you? This kind of assertion is up there with the ‘Are you still beating your wife?’ kind of attack that seems to only rear its ugly head in election years. Another thing, Pablo, I’ve just had a quick look at your previous contributions to the ‘Feminism’ category here on ‘kiwipolitico’. Guess what. Nothing. Not a skerrick of prior concern about this particular ‘Veitch’ issue, or ‘feminist’ issues in generality prior to this one. Lew, yes. Anita, yes, Pablo – nada. So excuse me if I accuse your blogosperic crocodile tears a little lacking in integrity. Finally I think that you are being a teensy weensy bit defensive as well whihc to my mind betrays an inherent ‘bad faith’ (in a Sartrean sense) about being called out on this one. I love you like a brother Pablo, but you are demeaning yourself with this – it should have been filed under ‘comedy’ although I acknowledge here that you lefties don’t really know how to ‘do’ comedy.
As a break from my usual “analytic” posts, this post was designed to be polemical. It was designed to make people take full measure of what the PM/Vietch interview actually implies. I knew it would incite rightwingers. My mistake was in the thread, where I rebuked some tangental nitpicking and got abused for it.
Which is where you come in, late. References to my employment dispute (which had nothing to do with “uppity” women), inferences that I was under the influence when writing the post (false), and the fact that none of my previous writing was tagged under the “feminism” category (which is due to the fact that I have a minimalist approach to tagging posts) are cheap shot attempts to scuttle away from the thrust of the post, which is that the PM, the party he leads, and people like you take a cavalier attitude when it comes to spousal abuse, money lust, cheating/adultery and sexual objectification. It is one thing for rugby thick necks to do so. It is another thing for the PM to “roll” that way.
But then again, I suppose that you think of yourself as a sporty bloke, so your objections to my post come as no surprise.
Brittle bravado emobdies some â€˜sporty blokesâ€™ it would seem.
The semi coherent bullying tone of â€œMonkeyâ€ contributes little to debate here.
“…the thrust of the post, which is that the PM, the party he leads, and people like you take a cavalier attitude when it comes to spousal abuse, money lust, cheating/adultery and sexual objectification.”
Count yourself lucky Pablo that I’ve just got enough time between beating the wife, seeing the mistress, watching some porn, and whipping a couple of wage-slaves to respond to your in-depth analysis. Why don’t you show the courage of your convictions and state that in the post if that is the general sense of contempt with whcsh you hold what you casually refer to as ‘sporty’ NZ?
And yes somehow we are back to the subject of intellectual laziness. Yours. What next? ‘Maori have natural rhythm’ or ‘Mexicans are lazy’? Isn’t your attitude just teh reverse of the same coin that says ‘She was asking fo it?’ Same mental process.
your admission above is precisely my point, Pablo. Which is that the post is a groundless cheap shot and has nothing to do with ‘Feminism’, and betrays another of these recurring examples of the ‘loftier’ plane on which you think your frame of reference exists. Fine, it, appeals to your sheeple. Collectively you have no objection to lazily stereotyping a whole swathe of society based on the shoddiest of pretexts disguised up as a reasoned -actually pseudo-intellectualised – conclusion. But how unintentionally, but deliciously ironic, that now, after using your lofty ivory tower position to villify these poor uneducated rabble (or ‘sporty’ types, if you like) that when challenged, you start to complain that you are being ‘bullied’. Gimme a break.
oops Pablo my error you didn’t say ‘bullying’ that was Tigger, below. My Apologies anyway the other stuff still stands.
The way I see it, is that these sorts of comments have their place. In the smoko room, or at the barbie, or in the pub with your (male) mates.
You dont make this comments as a head of government on a radio show.
Imagine if Julia Gillard said she had the hots for Daniel Craig or something?
Not even a Key was wrong to go on Veitch’s show, but Craig?
I see all this as intentional distraction from the less titillating but far more serious issues of tax cuts vs asset sales, foreign companies suing the govt, SAS still in Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc…
I hate his slimy personality too, but it doesn’t damage the country the way the other issues do.
I see the issues as intertwined. Anyone who would demean the office of the PM by going on talkshows with woman beaters and letching on his fantasy objects while expressing money lust is also someone who cares little about matters of principle, be it in foreign or domestic policy. In fact, my impression is that he has utter contempt for the body politic because he thinks we are too stupid, shallow and easily distracted to see past his smile and wave PR stunts. And if he gets re-elected, he will have been proven right.
I’m glad you are back Pablo :-)
To elaborate, thanks for raising that point Pablo.
I think what John Key is up to is the usual National party tactic of reinforcing existing power structures / worshipping wealth and power etc.
By rabbiting on about his hetrosexual extramarital desires he is exercising (and abusing) his social privileges. He is doing something that wouldn’t be socially acceptable for a female P.M. His language is objectifying. But I think its also so common that people barely notice.
He is stroking the powers that be in acting like a ‘man’s man’. He also gets up to this in other respects by cosying up to visiting royals and through his displays of wealth etc. etc. He is asserting his privileged position as male, hetrosexual, rich etc.
Don’t think I think that there is anything wrong with male hetrosexuality in itself. I hope I’ve communicated what I mean well enough for people to understand.
I also think it is deeply inappropriate that Tony Veitch has actually maintained a high paid and privileged social position.
Abuse of us women is a massive and horrendous problem in this country. I think its generally just seen as something that is normal and just happens. However in other societies it doesn’t happen as often as it happens here. As someone that has been abused I think that the average person doesn’t really have much of an inkling of how much damage it really does.
Objectification is no joke when you actually suffer from it, and believe me, people from one end of this country to the other suffer from it.
I do think that there is widespread ambivalence to this problem, and its indicated in the reaction to the Veitch case and the fact that the National party spin doctors are happy for the PM to be associated with Veitch.
I think that some kind of moral leadership should be expected of our leaders, and I agree with you that he shouldn’t be seen to be publicly supporting Tony Veitch.