If Helen Clark had stepped down prior to the election...

in order for a man to step up into her role then Labour would have won the election.

The latent sexism that has occurred during this election campaign was embarrassing. In fact it has happened during her whole term but it seemed to be particularly nasty during the lead up to the election. I heard her referred to as a transvestite and Uncle Helen just to provide a few examples.

When people refer to her in this manner I take it to mean that they themselves cannot fathom the idea of a woman holding a position of power. They go on to talk about Helen Clark using masculine images because it comforts them to be able to think of her as a man. My grandmother's generation held true to the belief that working was a man's job, which was not that long ago. The only time my grandmother did work was during the World Wars and the Depression. So the concept of the working woman and women in power is still relatively young in the scheme of things and therefore people can be excused as they are still coming to terms with such a newfangled idea.

In saying that, if Helen Clark had stepped down prior to the election in order for a man to step up into her role then Labour would have won the election.




Thoughts?

she was defeated for many reasons but only a small minority of retards voted against her because of her gender or perceived sexual orientation/lack of children

I certainly think it's a minority, but i'm not sure exactly how small. But I also think that those that think like that are more likely to be national supporters, so I don't think it would have made any difference.

TBH, if Helen had stepped down they would have lost by a much bigger margin. Labour 90, Labour 75, National 72, National 58... A fairly long history of incumbant governments who had changed PM close to an election. What do they all have in common? Defeat. You could probably include National 99, although they changed to Shipley two years prior to the election so she had a bit of time to establish herself as a leader in the eyes of the NZ public. Going right back here, the last time an unelected PM held onto power in their firsdt election was 1943 (Peter Frasier - replacing Michael Joseph Savage who died rather than being replaced). Lesson: NZers hate a PM who are elected to their office.

I think referring to sexism is overcomplicating things and a bit of a cop out, Helen has won two elections against male National leaders. Labour haven't had the best three years and as a result lost the election.

I dont think its only the change in leadership which causes election losses. Most of the time there would *only* be a change in leadership if it looked like they were going to lose and needed to take a chance on a new PM to win/not lose so badly.

Gah, NZers hate a PM who was not elected to theirt office.

Yes I'll definitely concede that usually governments change PM due to the imcumbant being unpopular, but Lange and Bolger were both replaced due to internal politics. Whereas Holyoak retired in 1972 after 12 years in charge, although his replacement Jack Marshall had the further obstacle of running against the massively popular Norman Kirk. I don't thimk a change of leader would have helped Labour at all though, as a lrage chunk of NZers were still very loyal to Helen. Plus it would be a poisoned chalice IMO, whoever took the job would have lost and then would have the black mark of losing power against them.

A point I forgot to make is that when you become PM prior to an election you don't really get enough of an opportunity to establish your leadership credentials in the eyes of the voters. Whereas Key has been topping the preferred PM polls for a while now which suggests that the majority of NZers see him as someone who can lead the country.

not entirely true..

some polls yes, key has been ahead, but on other polls it's been neck-and-neck, with sometimes Clark even ahead. The odd thing tho, is that several polls came out where the % of the people that said they'd vote national was higher than the % that said key was the preferred PM. exactly who were they expecting to get as PM by voting national?!?!

but I guess all that shows it that some polls don't really make much sense

http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/0a28908.html?source=nav

QFT

does anyone seriously think labour lost because helen clark is a chick?

Looking at some of the right leaning blogs over the last decade it has been clear that although Helen Clark was unpopular she was until recently, highly respected. Gender was never a factor I'd picked up on. The simple fact was she was head and shoulders more intelligent and disciplined than most of those she worked with, and many she opposed.

well if they didn't vote for Labour because Helen Clark is a woman would make it outright sexism

what I'm referring to is the unabashed latent sexism that has occurred during her term and in the lead up to the election by describing her using masculine imagery

listening to some people and things that have come out of their mouths it does make you wonder if they realise just how sexist they are being

not sure if people are getting snowflake's point

very few people would have consciously voted against Labour simply because Helen Clark is female

but if we can show that Labour would have been more likely to win under Phil Goff's leadership, then that MIGHT show latent or unconscious sexism

she has made a conscious decision to minimise much of her femininity on the whole. not surprising people speak of her as being quite masculine.

That's a point I've tried to focus on, and as I said I believe the result would have been worse for Labour if Goff or anyone else was in charge. Even if we ignore the historical precident I've referred to of changing PM between elections I still think that less people would have voted for Labour if Clark wasn't PM as I believe she still had a huge amount of support and many would have felt betrayed by Labour if they had replaced her. It would also be seen as a sign of instability and possibly desperation. I'm not saying that she hasn't been a victim of sexism as far as some of the comments about her go, but I don't believe they had had bearing on the election result either.

I tend to agree.

Regardless of the result and what they would have ended up with with a new leader. That is not the point here.
I think she's under rated by many and if she was a man and represented us in the same way, the sexist crap wouldn't go against her and I would say she would be rated much higher.

People just want change after a certain period of time regardless and many people really are sheep when it comes to politics. Pure followers of the pack.

They will just vote for the party they think is going to win due to the media or people around them or the party they think they should be voting for with no substance at all.

So yeah it will work for and against you no matter which party you are.

How is that sexism? I really don't understand you here. Sexism = prejudice based on gender. How is she being prejudiced against based on her gender? If a male prime minister happened to look really gay and female, do you think he would get given shit too? Of course he would.

People make these comments because she DOES look masculine.

I reckon she got more votes because of being female than she lost for it.

And a lot more because shes more than competent.

Sexism is more than just prejudice based on gender. It's also got to with, among other things, gender role stereotyping. So there is a sexist stereotype that woman are weak, men are powerful and good leaders. So when a women exhibits stereotypical male characteristics they get portrayed, by the sexist, and being a man-like. Furthermore, because there are these stereotypes gender roles, for a women to succeed and to be taken seriously in male dominated arenas they are forces to be more make like e.g. wearing pants suits and opposed to dresses or having short instead of long hair. And against, it's got to do with male dominance and sexist gender role stereotypes

If the man-like characterisations were based on her leadership abilities I would tend to agree, but I was always under the impression the accusations were based more on her physical appearance? Is that not so? To me she LOOKS like a man. So if I call her a transvestite (which I wouldn't) it would be because of this physical appearance; and completely non-reflective of any latent sexism?

well, you still have a stereotype about what a women and what a man should look like. Now, if you deconstruct how these stereotypes were formed then I reckon it may be possible to find some latent sexism in there somewhere.

You're not seriously suggesting that all the people calling her man-ish were doing it purely as a passing comment? That it didn't have a seriously negative undertone to it?

Of course it was negative.
I just disagree that it was sexist

(ie I think a male would get the same treatment if he looked particularly feminine)

what like Michael laws?

I don't know if that's a "stereotype"... How men and women differ in appearance is mostly genetic, right? She has man-like features, not just her dress sense.

Look at all the references about George Bush looking like a monkey, for example. HEAPS of people took that line. It was nothing to do with him being male, was to do with him looking like a monkey

I think there is a lot of post-hoc rationalising going on there.


also, as a side note... One of lecturers on gender psychology was telling me that a colleague told her that helen clark is actually considered quite feminine looking in the Philippines (or Thailand I forget which)

I doubt it. I'm very NZ apolitical as you know and don't really have any vested interest either way. Intuitively I think Helen seems awesome. But I do think that she looks man-like? Do you disagree?

When people make these comments, do you think they are talking about her physical appearance, or are they speaking to her leadership etc? I always just assumed it was the former?

other than the fact she has short hair what features of Helen's are manlike?

I can't see it....

saying that I thought the monkey thing with bush was cause he's a fucking mornon not based on his looks*








*no offence meant to monkeys

short hair, furrowed brow, strong jaw-line, broad shoulders, flat face... I think she looks a little tranny?

And there were lots of pictures of Bush places next to a picture of a monkey he looks just like.

women tend to grow more mannish looking as they age don't they?

Depends how pansy their husbands are.

There's plenty of people who are making the comments to undermine her leadership abilities, political abilities, connect-to-Joe-Average abilities etc. That's what I meant by the negative assocation - it's used by some to imply that she shouldn't be leading the country. The implication is subtle most of the time, but it's there...

Yes, but is it sexist?
That's what we're talking about..

If Don Brash was a lady Nats would have won 3 years ago! Damn feminists are the swing vote.