Will the Real Canta Please Stand Up @willtherealcantapleasestandup - Tumblr Blog

Team Edward vs Team Jacob: Either Way You're Still A Twilight Fan feat. FemSoc and ENSOC

by Demosthenes

If you've spent any time at all paying attention to social media over the past few days, you'll have noticed that FemSoc and ENSOC seem to be at war. In response to photos posted on Facebook of the ENSOC RoUndie 500 event, featuring a range of offensive costumes, FemSoc brought complaints to the University, to media, and to ENSOC sponsors. By now, everyone on campus seems to have picked a side.

The reality is that both sides of this debate have done an excellent job of showing their ignorance and intolerance. FemSoc have derailed a good cause with their tainted image and vitriolic terms of engagement, while ENSOC’s facile apology to a serious breach of human decency falls well short of what we should expect from major clubs. This publication offers a third way – recognising that both FemSoc and ENSOC are bad guys in this scenario.

Let’s tackle the easy one first – the problem with ENSOC. Almost all progressive individuals would agree that some of the “art” produced by ENSOC for their RoUndie 500 event is problematic, albeit to varying degrees. At the “fucking disaster” end of the spectrum, we have the use of blackface (lesson clearly learned) and the crazy-hot graph which served to objectify women. Though it’s up in the air whether all the women on that graph consented, even depicting the graph without images attached is problematically sexist.

These works in particular are a real threat to equality on campus; if people of different sexes, genders and races feel persecuted, they’re unable to pursue their conceptions of the good life through the university. Not only should acts like these be banned, but it’s right for people to levy fairly harsh criticism at those who undertook them. As far as free speech is concerned, there’s no speech in this material – only sexism and racism. That’s no defence.

Beyond that, though, we should be thoughtful about our criticisms. Yes, it’s probably poor taste to make fun of the Malaysia Airlines disaster or ebola victims (distinguishing the blackface as a separate issue); however, overly morose or distasteful humour is not the kind of speech that we sanction. Unlike the direct sexism and racism of some of ENSOC’s works, these pieces are insensitive but permissible. Particularly when complaints deviate into “ENSOC made fun of clubs on campus (including FemSoc),” it’s clear that genuine concerns about progressivism are no longer in play.

Which brings us to FemSoc’s part in all this. Like we just said, there are valid elements of the complaints laid by FemSoc against ENSOC – in particular, the blatantly racist and sexist narratives perpetrated by some of the RoUndie 500 costumes. However, there are also some totally superfluous elements to their criticisms; by focusing on things like insulting FemSoc, they’ve successfully derailed a serious problem with ENSOC’s behaviour into being a petty shouting match.

Though we don’t necessarily disagree with approaching sponsors and the media as ways to make bigots change their ways, we do think those should be tools saved for when reasoned discourse fails. The way this issue has been approached by FemSoc is what has made the issue so polarising – by failing to give ENSOC a chance to apologise or make amends, and by universally condemning all members instead of targeting those responsible, they’ve put a lot of people on the defensive. It’s understandable that FemSoc are angry about ENSOC’s behaviour – so are we – but having a discussion with ENSOC’s Executive was never going to be possible after they’d all been told by FemSoc that they were irredeemable bigots.

What’s more, FemSoc has failed to identify other actors who have, in this instance, worked to perpetuate the harmful norms that ENSOC have been shamed for reflecting. FemSoc has backed the University in criticising ENSOC, notwithstanding the fact that the Proctor was present at the event and was complicit in ENSOC’s offensive behaviour. Other clubs on campus who have run sexist or otherwise racist events have also avoided sanction – FemSoc was conspicuously silent when LawSoc suggested “CEOs and Corporate Hoes” as an event theme, before attendees identified the sexist undertones.

None of this in any was justifies ENSOC’s actions. None of this makes what they did okay. But it’s significant because of the way that FemSoc’s behaviour has fed into ENSOC’s unwillingness to come to the table and reform their sexist ways. It’s significant because it’s this kind of vitriolic and unwavering campaign which has carried a tide of students over to ENSOC’s side, just because they’ve never seen a problem with this kind of behaviour in the past.

At a deeper level, the problem is that UC is still poorly versed in feminism and in progressivism more generally. That we haven’t had a vocal feminist society prior to this year is indicative of that; Law Revue skits once openly made offensive menstruation jokes and (even this year) mocked feminism, while ENSOC’s lack of sensitivity towards minorities is nothing new.

FemSoc’s problem is that they don’t understand how to convince those people that sexist and racist narratives advanced by groups like ENSOC are problematic. Their strategy thus far has been to sit on a high horse and decry all and sundry as enemies of the cause, with their particular focus on ENSOC’s behaviour not helping the narrative that this is a vendetta rather than a legitimate social agenda.

Emma Watson has, in the past week, provided an example of the kind of language and the kind of activism that is best placed to bring everyone on-board with the feminist agenda. People are right to point out that from a purely feministic perspective, she’s not scoring a bullseye – the harmful effects of the patriarchy on women far exceed the effects on men, who should be engaged in the cause because they care about equality, not because they care about themselves.

But from the perspective of someone who wants progress, however slight, her words are a huge triumph. Unlike FemSoc, Emma Watson has made feminism seem approachable. She paints a movement which welcomes people who recognise that they might have privileges or gender biases, and which is equipped to help them overcome those privileges and biases. And that’s the root of the problem – that when it comes to making feminism look attractive for non-feminists, FemSoc has failed utterly. Instead of rallying people behind clearly offensive behaviour, they’ve put half of campus on the defensive over an issue they should be agreeing on.

We’re sure that many of you know people who’ve “sided” with ENSOC on this issue, and we’re sure you don’t universally think that they are bad people or inherently bigoted. For the most part, they’re unaware or uneducated in narratives of privilege; they often don’t understand why their behaviour is problematic, particularly those who’ve witnessed five years of RoUndie 500s without complaint. The best way to engage those people and stop them from harming the feminist cause is not to launch an unwavering attack – it’s to make a movement that invites them to get onboard and change. Sure, they don’t understand feminism – but they never will if they think we’re the enemy.

Here's something you might all like to have a read of: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=774291992617789&set=a.675817372465252.1073741826.100001109864222&type=1

For us, this is a bit of an awkward moment when someone plagiarises your work to make an idiotic point. Let's compare this guy's writing:

"FemSoc doesn’t stand for feminists. It stands for a select few, whose political ideology has twisted them into some of feminism’s greatest enemies. They do not stand for freedom, choice and equality, they stand for themselves, and purpose to use all women and social guilt as their battering ram."

With our work:

"FemSoc doesn’t stand for feminists. It stands for the self-aggrandisement of a select few, whose political ideology has twisted them into some of feminism’s greatest enemies. Short of standing for freedom, choice and equality, they stand for themselves, and propose to use all women as their social battering ram."

Tips for bigots going forward:

1) If you're going to steal from someone almost verbatim, use quotation marks; 2) If you want to pretend that you were the genius who wrote something, change enough words that the author won't immediately recognise their writing; 3) Don't use it to make an ignorant point that the author will have to refute.

Yes, FemSoc suck. Their complaint is badly worded and conflates serious issues (like racism, sexism and respect for women's privacy) with bad taste jokes (like ebola and Malaysia Airlines), and even with things that are okay (like criticising FemSoc). But that doesn't mean that their complaint is invalid - on the contrary, many of the costumes on the ENSOC cars were hugely problematic.

So even if FemSoc are the Kim Dotcom of UC, don't automatically ignore the Moment of Truth - parts of it might still be worth listening to.

Whale Rider - The Moby Dickheads Of The National Party

by Demosthenes

“Appalling” is probably the least offensive way to describe the latest wave of Whaledump releases about Cameron Slater and Aaron Bhatnagar. Even moreso than the information revealed in Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics, the latest round of screencaps and conversation logs reveal two things that should offend every New Zealand voter: first, that the dreadful duo are among the most obnoxious individuals to ever be involved in politics, and second, that they have a terrifying amount of influence over the National Party.

Let’s start with a caveat, because it’s important to have some perspective on these documents. These are private communications between two individuals. Given that, we should remember that all of us, in private, probably say things in ways that are less than tactful, or that would be considered offensive were they made publically available. This publication believes that Slater and Bhatnagar’s commentary reflects an appalling grasp of morality, and incredibly negative stances on issues like rape culture and cultural sensitivity – that said, it’s critical to remember the nature of their communications before we judge unfairly. They deserve to be shamed, but for the right reasons.

So, now to what’s actually emerged. We would recommend that people skim the transcript – a lot of their attitude emerges as a result of trends in the way they discuss things. If you want to, you can access it here: http://pastebin.com/Kzu0C673.

But we’re going to drag out some of the worst offences for all to see. Be warned, there is incredibly insensitive discussion of sexual offending, among other things, below:

And that’s not all. Among the conversations you’ll see discussions on how best to publically destroy mentally ill young people who have commented on politics. You’ll see talk that is incessantly misogynistic and bigoted.

The first thing you should all immediately take from these conversations is that we are dealing with two obnoxious individuals, entirely self-absorbed with no sympathy or empathy for others. But we already knew that about Slater. The reason that all this matters is that these leaks also show that Slater and Bhatnagar were more than just hangers-on; in many of their conversations, they talk as if they’re National Party whips. They constantly describe themselves as close friends to Ministers, providing political advice to members of the National Party and, in some cases, talk about sanctioning the speech of MPs for not adhering to the party line or the interests of Whale Oil. Jami-Lee Ross, for example, appears to have taken Slater’s advice on how to handle fallout from the Banks affair.

What that shows is that this isn’t just a case of a pair of dickheads having an influence on politics at the periphery – these are men who have the ear of high-ranking members of our Government, and who in many cases count those people among their friends. When John Key leaks information specifically to Cameron Slater; when Judith Collins appoints Bhatnagar to a position with the REAA; and when Jami-Lee takes orders from Slater on his political speech, those politicians sanction this behaviour. They sanction the trivialisation of rape into a political tool. They sanction describing the victims of political scandals as sluts. They sanction the absolute disregard that Slater and Bhatnagar (and Ede, for that matter) have for basic human decency.

The ball is now in National’s court. In the same way that John Key would have some explaining to do if it turned out he’d been inviting neo-Nazis to his barbeques, the National Party owes New Zealand an explanation for why these poisonous men have been given a platform to influence their party. John Key, and Judith Collins, and Jami-Lee Ross, and the plethora of other politicians who have bowed to Slater, all owe these victims apologies. It’s not good enough to hide behind a veil of separate responsibility. Slater is the National Party’s Frankenstein monster; it’s time they owned up.

#nzpol #election 2014 #slater #whaleoil #whaledump #dirty politics #bhatnagar #leak

Go Stand In The Naughty Corner - Having The Dirty Politics Talk With Your Prime Minister

By Locke

Nicky Hagar is probably feeling pretty happy with himself right now. Dirty Politics has energised an election campaign that had previously been a meh-fest, and Hagar’s wallet is reaping the rewards. While it’s not really that surprising that political parties feed information to friendly journalists, the book paints a pretty convincing picture of National party bigwigs using Cameron Slater (aka Whale Oil, aka the slimiest man in existence) to perform online hatchet-jobs in a way that should make everyone involved feel a little, well, dirty. Probably the worst example of this was when Judith Collins gave the details of a public servant who had displeased her to Slater. That poor soul (the public servant; I’m not 100% sure that the other two have souls) ended up being the victim of death threats.

Putting aside further debate on the book, its allegations, and whether dirty blue politicians are significantly worse than the dirty red politicians were when they were in power, the publication of Dirty Politics has shed light on the extent of one particular politician’s disingenuous nature. That politician is the one, the only #JK.

Despite being repeatedly questioned about the allegations, Judith Collin’s conduct, and whether she would face any consequences, Key has largely refused to engage in any discussion about the contents of Hagar’s book. Instead, he has deflected questions with snide comments about “the Left” or demands that attention be brought back to the real issues, like the economy. Sure, he has given Collins a “final warning”, but considering that she’s already received four of those without further penalty, that’s hardly a condemnation.

Key’s behaviour is typical of a politician who likes to ignore his own faults; a man who cries “I already told you I can’t remember guys – move on already!” in the face of all criticism. That doesn’t speak to a character which we should condone in politics. Maybe Hagar’s allegations are overblown; maybe they are false. But they need to be addressed – frankly, honestly, and up-front. It’s all too easy for politicians to slide into corruption and abuse of power. The only way to prevent that is to ensure that political culture takes the kind of allegations made in Dirty Politics extremely seriously, and that politicians take pains to make sure that their behaviour is (and is seen to be) totally above board. So long as Key refuses to adopt that kind of attitude, he condones a culture of silence and stone-walling. We deserve better from a man running for his third term as Prime Minister.

willtherealcantapleasestandup

by Demosthenes

For voters anywhere closer to the Left than the National Party, this election might be aptly described as a “clusterfuck.” Assuming that you’re not interested in the Colin Craig Party, the Peter Dunne Party, the Winston Peters Party or the Hi-Hi-Hi-Hi-Hi I’m David Seymour Party (

guy-debordiga-deactivated201602

MANA as “radical separatists” Pay more attention to reality. MANA has specific Capital Gains Taxes, Inheritance tax, Financial Transaction Tax - all taxes on the wealthy. COMBINED WITH the total removal of GST which is a regressive tax hitting the poor the worst. Free education, Warrant of Fitness for rentals, living wage tied to 2/3rds of the average wage. First 20,000 tax free. Read something about anything before you comment on politics, sweet jesus.

willtherealcantapleasestandup

Let’s play Quotes From Hone Harawira:

When someone described Māori as a minority: “he’s just a racist… [he] lumped Māori in with other minorities like homosexuals and Asians.”

When someone asked him to repay taxpayer funds he appropriated to go sightseeing in Paris while on a Parliamentary trip: “white motherfuckers have been raping our lands and ripping us off for centuries and all of a sudden you want me to play along with their puritanical bullshit?”

On Phil Goff: “[he should be] lined up against a wall and shot.”

And, the icing on the proverbial cake, on Osama bin Laden: “we have heard nothing but negative things about him from the Americans, but he fought for the self-determination of his people and for his beliefs.”

Those all sound like totally reasonable statements of political opinion that in no way paint him as a radical separatist, right?

guy-debordiga-deactivated201602

but the entire blog post was fundamentally wrong! it’s like you interviewed folks at the pub one friday to find out what various parties were about. like not only are you stupidly wrong about MANA, but actually about a shitload of parties I don’t even like! Did you bother reading any party policies at all to make this post? On top of that, Annette and Hone both spoke at “capitalism: not our future” conference this year. To packed rooms of mostly Pakeha leftists. This ignorant as shit blog is doing well to be as shallow and banal as the original CANTA.

willtherealcantapleasestandup

Hey babe, are you Karl Marx? Because I'd love to abolish your classes through authoritarian dictatorship all night long.

Pick-up lines aside, we're really grateful for your feedback, Thomas. It's people like you getting in touch with us that lets Will The Real Canta Please Stand Up continue to provide quality banter to students on campus!

While we sympathise with your dissatisfaction, unfortunately we're not able to take your suggestion on-board at this time. Although we do take a broadly Left-wing approach to issues, we're not currently looking to expand into abolishing capitalism and subscribing to Marxist political doctrines. We love to paint things red as much as the next publication, but that's mostly because it's on the other side of the colour wheel from green, and it totally suits our figures.

We hope you haven't been too put out by our unwillingness to subscribe to the International Soviet. Keep reblogging and enjoying us!

Kind regards, The Will The Real Canta Please Stand Up Customer Care Team

willtherealcantapleasestandup

by Demosthenes

guy-debordiga-deactivated201602

willtherealcantapleasestandup

Let's play Quotes From Hone Harawira:

When someone described Māori as a minority: "he's just a racist... [he] lumped Māori in with other minorities like homosexuals and Asians."

When someone asked him to repay taxpayer funds he appropriated to go sightseeing in Paris while on a Parliamentary trip: "white motherfuckers have been raping our lands and ripping us off for centuries and all of a sudden you want me to play along with their puritanical bullshit?"

On Phil Goff: "[he should be] lined up against a wall and shot."

And, the icing on the proverbial cake, on Osama bin Laden: "we have heard nothing but negative things about him from the Americans, but he fought for the self-determination of his people and for his beliefs."

Those all sound like totally reasonable statements of political opinion that in no way paint him as a radical separatist, right?

Don't Throw Everything You Own In The Box To The Left: Why Left-Wing Voters Should Vote National

by Demosthenes

For voters anywhere closer to the Left than the National Party, this election might be aptly described as a "clusterfuck." Assuming that you're not interested in the Colin Craig Party, the Peter Dunne Party, the Winston Peters Party or the Hi-Hi-Hi-Hi-Hi I'm David Seymour Party (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEkPoZSBXh0, for reference), your choices are fairly limited.

The old stalwart, Labour, is polling about as well as Nixon after Watergate, despite having largely avoided scandal. Instead, a combination of uninspiring leadership, dull policy and total lack of direction have convinced many voters that it doesn't have the vision necessary to form Government. The Greens, returning from a successful last election, have abandoned the inclusive approach to policy that got them there. Instead of building on the strengths of their 2011 campaign, such as a willingness to engage with a surprisingly sound and pro-business mock budget, the reversion to blithe environmentalism (with a few exceptions) is pushing them back into the minor party bin. The Māori Party continues its alignment with the Right, failing to substantially advance policies that help disadvantaged New Zealanders, while the Internet-Mana leviathan creeps forward as an unholy union between radical separatists, political relics and immeasurably wealthy expatriates.

This publication, which admits openly to its broadly Left-wing bias, sees little to celebrate on New Zealand's Left at present. On the one hand, no party has successfully advanced a believable game-plan for Left-leaning policy: they shy away from substantial increases in income taxes for the wealthy (the top tax bracket, currently kicking in at a meagre $70,000, takes only 33% of income) and from delivering genuine universal healthcare by expanding full funding to primary services like GP visits. But on the other, they've also shown no desire to engage on sensible reforms on the Right that would stimulate New Zealand's economy: reducing company tax rates, cutting subsidies to sectors such as farming or raising the Superannuation age. By failing to build either a credible Left-wing narrative or a genuine centrist consensus, the Left have betrayed their voters. Notwithstanding the inevitability of their defeat, they haven't earned our votes.

In response, this author proposes a radical solution for Left-leaning voters: to vote for the National Party. Though undeniably corrupt and plutocratic; disingenuous, nepotistic and often outright dishonest, voting National may be the best way to mitigate the damage of the next, inevitable National government, and to spur the Left to change. Hold your skepticism - it may be the least bad option.

iPredict - a website where people can trade shares in the likelihood of political occurrences - can be a useful alternative to polling in determining the likely makeup of Government. Last week's numbers paint a potentially terrifying picture: the current "coalition" of National, ACT, the Māori Party and United Future coming in at 60 seats. Though the instinctive reaction to the Right not gaining a majority is elation, this is a result we should fear.

The reason we should fear it is that a National coalition with only 60 seats has precisely one place to turn for its remaining vote: New Zealand First. As has happened before, a Government formed without a National-Act-Māori-UF majority will be stranded with Winston Peters as kingmaker; and, much like Isildur's Bane, that will curse the Government for the next three years.

In case it's unclear why Winston taking a seat in Cabinet is such a bad thing, let's break it down. As a political personality, Winston Peters is a conservative bigot, willing to engage openly in racist and queerphobic discourse. His political party promises more of the same archaic thinking: removing protections for disadvantaged minorities, adopting whites-first immigration policies and limiting judges' discretion in sentencing. Particularly for youth, who are faced with the colossal, pending burden of our superannuation scheme, NZ First's plans to expand aged care and the prerogatives of the elderly threaten the ability of youth to pursue policies that matter to them.

What's worst is that if the National-hydra fails to take 61 seats, they become entirely reliant on NZ First. This gives Winston Peters huge power to drive through reforms that matter to him; instead of seeing R&D tax credits for innovative companies, we'll see a bolstering of the Super Gold Card scheme. Instead of a focus on free trade (the awfulness of the TPPA notwithstanding), we'll see prohibitions on cross-border asset ownership and investment. Instead of a slow crawl towards discussion on superannuation reform, we will have silence.

That will also have harmful consequences for National's other coalition partners, who have at least done some work to mitigate National's tyranny. Though ACT, United Future and the Māori Party have generally been loyal lapdogs, they have impeded some of the Government's more egregious calls; for example, all three minor parties voted against Government attempts to overrule the Commerce Commission on Chorus' copper wire pricing, preventing inflated internet prices as a result of the monopoly. Similarly, United Future opposed charter schools, which having failed in the United States (contrary to what libertarians have to say) is unnecessary and harmful privatisation of the state's obligations. If NZ First is incorporated into the coalition, however, the power of these parties to oppose reforms will be destroyed; Winston's votes will almost certainly be enough on their own to push National into a majority on any issue. We can also be sure that Winston will be happy to employ NZ First's votes in that way, so long as John Key accedes to him on certain policy areas.

Unfortunately, voting National is the only way to lock NZ First out. The Māori Party's reliance on the overhang from Māori Electorate seats means that a party vote for them is wasted; similarly, United Future never rallies enough of the vote to bring them beyond Peter Dunne's seat. As for ACT, they're not only worse than National, but are in enough danger of dropping out given David Seymour's disastrous campaign in Epsom. Unless you're sitting among Auckland's elite and casting your electorate vote for ACT, there's no other way to strengthen National's chances of passing 60 seats without Winston.

However, even if preventing the chimera that would be a National-NZ First Government isn't enough to get you to vote for National, it's also worth thinking about the signal this would send to the Left. Though their poor polling has rocked the boat, their response thus far has been facile; cycle through leaders but otherwise stay the course. By bolstering their support at this election, we convince those parties (particularly Labour) that they're slowly making progress. That decreases the likelihood that they'll change tack.

In reality, what the Left needs is wholesale reform. The Greens need to return to their broader, sensible policies in areas like the economy; while the environment is important, it isn't a platform that's going to win them votes from people concerned about their career prospects or redistribution of wealth. Their steps towards opening a discourse on abortion policy are excellent, and they should further embrace the language and discussion of social change. Labour need much more dramatic changes; the influence of unions must be curtailed, and they should embrace rising stars like Jacinda Ardern as the party's future, instead of leaning on old crutches. They need to adopt economically rational policies instead of relying incessantly on state intervention, but should also return to their roots in championing progressive taxation and protection of the underprivileged.

Given the Left's inevitable defeat at this election, the question for the Left-leaning voter to ask is how best to mitigate the next three years, and how to prepare the Left for an eventual term in Government. The best way to do that is to lock NZ First in opposition, where their conservative, bigoted policies will do the least harm, and to spur the Left to reform and change with the times. Regrettably, the only way to do that is to vote National. We shouldn't celebrate it, but we might have to embrace it.

#election #nzpol #election2014 #national #labour #greens #united future #internet-mana #maori party #ACT #nz first #winston peters

Actually, Two Wongs Make For A Diverse And Multicultural Society

So, unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ll know that the media has been filled with the “farm sale debate”; with Labour recently taking a stance on the sale of commercial property to offshore investors (they’re threatening to block the sale of Lochniver Station to the Chinese company Shanghai Pengxin).

The backlash over the Lochinver sale has reignited the debate on foreign ownership of New Zealand property. Critics of Labour’s approach have labelled the party "racist" and "xenophobic", while Labour ministers and supporters counter with the argument that foreign ownership needs to be restricted out of pure economic necessity. The economic justification behind Labour’s policy is arguably defensible – profitable assets should remain in Kiwi hands so the benefits remain in the New Zealand economy. However, it appears that economic arguments have fallen by the wayside as people have become distracted by the use of the term "foreign buyers".

This publication ordinarily supports and encourages political debate and discussion. Considering the general apathy of many New Zealand citizens towards political issues, we should be relieved to see people deciding to give a fuck about what their government is doing; better yet, in the same year that they will be expected to cast a vote reflecting the direction in which said fucks are given. However, our hopes for a sophisticated voting public are still unrealised as much of the "discourse" that has arisen out of the foreign ownership debate can only be described as discrimination against a particular race. New Zealand, it’s time to look at your life, and look at your choices.

Regardless of what you think about the sales, you should be appalled with the way both politicians and members of the public have engaged with the debate. We have two pieces of evidence to back this claim.

Exhibit A: Putting the Racism in Economic Protectionism

There are no words for this fake billboard, unless those words are "racist", "disgusting" and "I give up on humanity". Aside from its highly offensive nature, it turns the debate about foreign ownership into one about race, not economics. We’ve already discussed the effect that certain types of language can have, and within the space of a week New Zealand has kindly provided us with enough material for another post. Nice work guys. In this case, the use of language with clear racial connotations is extremely harmful. It is true that Lochinver Station is being sold to a Chinese company; Crafar Farms were sold to the same Chinese company and many Chinese investors and families are buying residential properties. However, the fact that these groups are Chinese is, and must be, entirely irrelevant to any objections to foreign ownership. Images such as the one pictured above do not convey the message that acquisition of New Zealand property by offshore companies is bad. Instead, they tell us that acquisition of property by Chinese companies is bad; we don’t want the dirty Asians treading on our white man’s land.

Exhibit B: That's So Winston

The second culprit is NZ First leader Winston Peters, who has come under fire for remarking that "two Wongs don’t make a white". If you have even an ounce of cultural sensitivity, there are obvious concerns raised by the expression of clearly racist sentiments by a political leader who stands a very real chance of gaining representation in Parliament come September. However, cultural sensitivity is apparently as foreign to New Zealand as the Chinese themselves. Again, we’ve seen the rallying cries of “OMG guiyzzz learn to take a joke” and “everyone needs to stop being so PC." One online commenter has eloquently claimed that that "anyone that complains is a self-righteous pig with a brain the size of a pea and a penis to match." Again, our response is a firm no. Jokes that are racist are not okay New Zealand, no matter how funny you might think they are.

Peters’ comments cannot be ignored for the same reason that ENSOC’s blackface video should not have been ignored. While the motive may not be malicious, the fact is that we simply cannot sanction objectively racist behaviour by people in positions of leadership. Peters is not your offensive, yet harmless grandfather yelling obscenities from his armchair. He is a political leader who has a duty to act responsibly and should not be capitalising on the inherent racism of New Zealanders in order to get votes.

Adding to the problem is that our news media refuses to take a stance on these issues, preferring to put the question to the public to answer. Maybe next time a politician says something sexist or racist, it would be nice to see our media condemn them as opposed to asking “do you think this is racist?” It’s time to wake up and join the 21st Century, New Zealand - not the backwards world that the suits in Wellington seem to be living in.

#nzfirst #winston peters #national #john key #election #racism #asset sales

So, A Voter Walks Into A Baaaa: On The Fence Is Worse Than A Bad Joke

By Demosthenes

If the people sitting in our lectures are anything to go by, quite a few people have been taking a look at On The Fence over the past few days. A venture coming out of Massey university, it’s a simple website that asks users 34 questions about 17 policy areas, with answers given on a classic sliding scale of one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). Having answered the questions, On The Fence then gives you an Olympic medal ceremony of political parties you should vote for, based on your answers.

Notwithstanding the incessant use of Kiwiana icons and slang (both sheep and words like “sorta” feature prominently), it’s a fairly typical internet-style attempt to isolate people’s political leanings. Unfortunately, the loose-cannon approach that On The Fence is taking to advising people on who to vote for is super dangerous. Don’t believe what they tell you – it’s probably bullshit.

If we break down what On The Fence is doing, it’s pretty easy to see why their results are haphazard at best. They ask two questions on each “policy area” – the questions are inversions of each other, so they’re looking for the same information, just framed positively and negatively. For example:

Even if we pretend the answers you give to those questions aren’t linked (whereas in most cases they'll be perfectly opposite), that gives a total of 25 possible “positions” on each “policy area.” You’ll see soon why we’re being so liberal with inverted commas.

When On The Fence creates a broad statement about the general vibe of the left-right spectrum in a policy area, that tends to be something that you either agree with or don’t. If we take the example above, most people probably have a clear opinion on whether people should, broadly speaking, receive benefits or not. The problem is that in practice, few political parties adopt such partisan approaches in their policies. National and Labour, in particular, adopt a clear middle ground on the issue, offering slightly different levels of benefits in different areas, which pushes them to the middle of the spectrum (a three on On The Fence’s scale). But when you answer that question, you’re just delivering a general philosophical statement. Applying that general statement to a whole policy area then produces a more radical outcome than if you'd considered a series of benefits individually; in the latter exercise, most people would support some and reject others, much like Labour and National do.

But instead of that being reflected in your score, On The Fence only measures the "vibe." The consequence is that very few people using On The Fence find themselves aligned with Labour and National who, as centrist parties, tend to be in the middle of most of these spectra. Istead, you're paired up with minor parties with more extreme views, which might cater to your “vibe” on an issue, but might not actually align well with the policies you support. This overly simplistic and relatively radical take on the Left-Right distinction is evident in this infographic, which the designers of On The Fence say they used as a roadmap for their product:

Aside from being needlessly complicated, this roadmap is incredibly US-centric, and doesn't really appreciate the moderate battleground that Labour and National fight over in New Zealand. Given that the authors of this map seem to think that the Right stands for non-interference in people's personal lives (despite being the driving force behind social conservativism), it's pretty clear that On The Fence has a pretty distorted view of politics.

That becomes an even bigger issue when On The Fence gives you no way to prioritise which issues are most important to you. In determining who you should vote for, it assumes that you care as much about Transport and Asset Sales as about the Economy and Justice. That not only provides a poor map of your preferences as an individual, but it also fails to realistically represent anyone’s weighting of policy areas.

And finally, if that wasn’t bad enough, the questions asked are incredibly poorly designed, often conflating different issues. For example, their first Justice question states:

Though that might seem alright at first glance, they’re asking two quite different questions: whether harsh punishments act as a deterrent, and whether it is society’s responsibility to rehabilitate offenders. Unfortunately for On The Fence, it’s a pretty reasonable opinion to think that harsh punishments act as a deterrent (really a question for a criminologist and empirical research), but that we should still care about rehabilitating offenders (a genuine policy question). Particularly seeing as the justice system uses both deterrence and rehabilitation as factors in sentencing, that question is hard to answer coherently for anyone but the Garth McVicar.

For voters who are switched on about their election choices, that isn’t a problem. But for the target audience of On The Fence – people who have no idea what to do in a voting booth – this service is incredibly harmful and disingenuous. Short of enlightening consumers about how to vote, it provides a shoddy, careless romp through policies that would leave the vast majority of people with nothing but a delusion about who best represents their interests.

What’s the alternative, then? In the opinion of this publication, almost anything. A vote based on how a voter’s peers or community are feeling is, if imperfect, at least a decent proxy for the way they’re likely to feel about different issues. Even personality voting will provide voters with an individual who they can engage with and hold accountable. I’d like to say it’s admirable to try and get the apathetic to vote, but you don’t achieve that by deceiving them into thinking their decision is easy.

#ucnow #on the fence #nz election #voting

Tits Out For The Votes - The New Bra Burning

By Demosthenes

A few days ago, these photos hit Facebook on the public page of a UCSA election campaign (fair warning - female nudity incoming):

The inevitable result was controversy. On one side, the girls have been defended for exercising control over their own bodies; on the other, they have been brutally attacked for sexualising themselves, making other women feel uncomfortable and using their agency to endorse male candidates.

This publication stands firm behind these women. They have made an empowering choice to use their sexuality to achieve their political goals – a choice that is no more problematic than donning paraphernalia or delivering a speech. It is the prerogative of all women to exercise agency over their bodies, including their sexuality, and that should never be circumscribed for the “good” of a collective.

First, let’s break these photos down and add some context. A number of women women are undressed and holding billboard that support a number of candidates in the upcoming UCSA election. Those candidates are all men. These women have uploaded at least one of the photos themselves, and expressed that their intention in doing so is to “back the boys.”

Our take on this is pretty simple – these are women making a choice to endorse political candidates. To make that point most effectively, they’ve decided to take their clothes off, knowing that that will appeal to male voters and is likely to push them to vote for the candidates these women support. Compared to the traditional notion that female sexuality is something to be controlled by men in the context of a monogamous relationship, this is a statement by these women that sexual agency is theirs. To use that for to political, social or personal end is perfectly capable of empowering them.

To the critique, then. Opponents of the campaign have addressed two concerns: that these women are inherently bowing to the patriarchy by exercising their sexuality to appease men, or that their actions are harmful to a collective of women to which they owe a duty.

Both arguments are hugely problematic. The first claims that whenever a woman does something that men enjoy or support, she is buying into power structures that control her. Not only does that belie the idea that women have agency and freedom to act as they choose (notwithstanding social influences that might try to fight that), but would prohibit any heterosexual woman from ever exercising her sexuality. If we refuse to acknowledge that women can make their own choices free of patriarchal influence, then all women are disempowered by the mere idea of patriarchy, regardless of whether it is controlling them or not. Rather than dispelling the power of patriarchal norms, that rationale reinforces them.

What's more, it's fundamentally alienating to criticise the choice these women have made to support male candidates. It's their prerogative to determine which candidates to support on the basis of their personalities or policies; weighting gender as part of that that is an exercise for them, not for external actors. Even then, if they did believe gender, or gender policy, to be an important part of their voting calculus, it's a perfectly legitimate decision to find that a man best supports your views on gender and on feminism when compared to female candidates. In the same way that I prefer Russel Norman's take on feminism to Paula Bennett's, it's fair for these women to prefer their candidates over female ones.

The second argument is even more harmful. Though feminism once embraced the notion that women owed duties to a “sisterhood,” that somehow encompassed the wide range of views that women take on gender issues, that view has now largely died off. It’s understandable that women with conservative ideologies, or those who don’t associate with sexual liberation, might not agree with the path these women have chosen. However, that does not create a duty on them to curtail their agency to accord with what is supposedly good for “feminism.” The only duty owed here is to themselves; in the same way that we would never ask men to act in a way that is best for men, these women must be treated as individuals.

It’s clear that not everyone agrees that taking your clothes off is an effective way to garner political support. For some, that would make them feel objectified and degraded. But for these women, it is a source of power – that’s something that everyone should celebrate.

#ucnow #feminism #desperate housewives #ucsa election #student politics

STEM The Tide, And Have Some Humanities

By Demosthenes

The past few years have seen a definite trend in the University’s favour towards different programmes. Where STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) have seen increased love from the administration, the humanities are suffering. Plagued by a lack of funding and support, many programmes are struggling to hold on.

It’s not just the Vice Chancellor’s administration that doesn’t care much for the humanities. Over the past few years, the Ministry of Education has progressively shifted increasing amounts of money towards STEM subjects, with the funding allocated to the humanities remaining static in spite of inflation. Though violent cuts to the Arts at UC were most visible in the destruction of degree programmes such as American Studies, the humanities have faced across-the-board cut-backs in course variety and funding.

The University is wrong to accede to the trend towards STEM subjects. Despite cries that MOOCs and Wikipedia surfing have diminished the value of the Arts degree, it remains a critical tool to allow students to engage with their identities and culture. To reject the study of those fundamental human paradigms is madness.

It’s worth acknowledging from the outset that we wouldn’t read any malice into the University’s prioritisation of STEM subjects over the humanities. In a post-earthquake environment where capital is limited and retaining international students is necessary for funding, a focus on the fastest-growing and most prestigious degree programmes is a sure-fire way to rake in cash. Unfortunately, unlike Jade Software, a University isn’t just an economic enterprise that should focus on making money, buying and selling parts of its business as they vary in profitability. Running a tertiary institution comes with a more ethereal duty to educate – one that is being neglected.

Though it might not always be the best career decision to commit exclusively to an Arts programme, the humanities support many of the fundamental precepts of our society and work silently to protect them. Well-funded humanities programmes have the ability to pass on analytical skills and cultural sensitivity; for the vast number of students – across degree programmes – who will take Arts papers, those skills are invaluable. For that experience, they will be better doctors, engineers and lawyers; professionals with a grasp on logic, clear communication and client engagement.

Where the humanities are least valuable is where they are left by the University under the status quo – in an underfunded vacuum. With limited teaching resources and the incessant pressure to publish-or-perish – as seen with the tragic departure of Gareth Pritchard from the Arts faculty several years ago – the humanities are forced into teaching generic programmes. Instead of providing the kind of specialisation that creates interdisciplinary value and equips students for a rapidly-shifting, division of labour-based marketplace, the status quo only permits lightweight engagement with relevant issues and topics. Where other universities have expanded into increasingly topical academic fields, such as Gender Studies, UC has cut back. Without specialisation, the humanities will continue to be unprofitable and non-valuable.

That said, the Arts need to do their part, too. In many respects, the ivory tower siege mentality that dominates the thinking of the Arts faculties does them no favours. By offering 30-point, one-semester 300-level papers (at twice the points of a comparable Engineering or Law paper), the humanities programme tries to generate an air of academic exclusivity. Instead, the overstatement of the real workload of Arts courses (because no-one does more than skim readings to bluff through tutorials) contributes to “not a real degree” narratives, and provides Arts students with less knowledge for the money they invest. These effects are particularly pronounced for students with conjoint degrees – the huge gap in workload between their degrees incentivises them to take the humanities less seriously.

So how can the humanities reform to make their disciplines more relevant? Many of the changes are administrative; Deans should be more willing to welcome double degree students, instead of portraying them as pariahs from the “real” Arts community. The workload for Arts papers should be better moderated – they should offer credit that is comparable to other disciplines, and should be more willing to test knowledge rather than mere analytical ability. Though rote learning is often framed as anathema to the humanities, the solution is to escape traditional, test-based examinations in favour of essays or take-home tests. That Arts papers retain the former is a relic of the distant past, and one that should be consigned to it.

Finally, the humanities should think more about what they teach. To give (perhaps undue) credit to the NCEA system, students tackling the Arts at university often slide backwards from skills taught at high school, with evidential analysis and deep, thematic criticisms often only resurging in final-year courses. The humanities also have much more room to make themselves relevant to STEM-focused university administrators and MinEd officials. By embracing interdisciplinary papers with greater commercial relevance (see the new Criminal Justice programme) and increasing focus on empiricism in areas such as Political Science, the BA can become a qualification that makes graduates more than just “good global citizens.”

To reinvigorate the humanities, both sides need to budge. The University needs to start acknowledging that the skills taught by the humanities are fundamental to the public good, and should support them accordingly. But the Arts department also needs to do their part to bridge the gap; to acknowledge a growing need for innovation and competition in a field once reliant on esoteric academia to educate. It’s time for a shift - have some humanities.

Canta has fallen. The resistance is here.

So we got a Facebook page. Just thought you might want know. Maybe you'd like to give a like. Or share it with your friends and whānau. Or not. You know individual autonomy and all that jazz.

#facebook #shameless publicity #ucnow

How To Train A President: Election by Disney

By Locke

It’s easy (and fun) to point out the flaws of the various candidates running for the UCSA President this year. But it’s also important to consider what things we do want to see in our candidates. No-one is ever perfect, but there are definitely some traits that should be sought after in the person that we elevate to the Undercroft Office. Because we’re at university, and self-referential humour is the greatest, we thought we would outline the characteristics of our ideal candidate in the form of a marking schedule (just roll with it, okay?):

I'll Make A Man Out Of You [Assertiveness - 25 marks]

[Caveat: We realise that much of the language of this song (including the title) has problematic undertones that frame femininity negatively. However, we like the part of Mulan's journey it explores.]

The UCSA President is, terrifyingly, the public face for all students at UC. That means that they are expected to speak on our behalf when an issue comes up that might affect us. So if they are a meek person, or just choose to be silent when something does come up, it is the default assumption that UC students don’t really care.

Most of the time, that’s probably pretty accurate: when you spend half your time writing essays and the other half drinking, it’s pretty hard to muster the energy to care about much beyond Blue Powerade and V. But often we as students don’t care when we should care, and that makes it all the more important that we have a President who is willing to insert a student voice into discussions where we are too hungover or wired on caffeine to be able to do so. Hell, even if that voice pisses off half the student body, it at least will spark a debate and force us to pay attention to what’s going on. Almost anything is better than the pall of meh-ness that hangs over Ilam at the moment.

A Whole New World [Vision - 20 marks]

Most of us don’t really know what the UCSA does, how it works, or what its role is in uni life. That’s fine for us plebs, but it won’t do for a President. Someone who has a clear vision of what the UCSA should be is going to inject a purpose and direction into their Presidency that will be sorely lacking in a candidate who doesn’t have a plan for their term. Any candidate that lacks a clear vision for the UCSA should be shunned like the plague, because that is a clear sign that they are running just to fill out their CV, to keep the party lyf going, or to feed their ego. None of those motivations are worth us handing them $40,000 worth of beer-money. And speaking of egos…

I Just Can't Wait To Be King [Humility - 20 marks]

A President needs to be assertive and have a vision, but they also have to recognise that the show isn’t about them. A tyrannical President who ignores the rest of the Exec, or who doesn’t go out of their way to canvass student opinion dictates, rather than leads, discussion. And dictators aren’t cool, guys.

As an aside, a leader without a massive/hugely fragile ego (as if those options aren’t synonymous) is less likely to want to do things like make sure that Canta censors opinion pieces so that they don’t criticise the UCSA. Though that would probably render this blog obsolete, which would mean that we would have to find other means of procrastination. Lose-lose.

Part Of Your World [Engagement - 15 marks]

It’s natural for all of us to assume that our university experience is typical. But not all of us are the nudity-loving dudebros that moonlight as centrefolds for Canta. Most (successful) candidates achieve office because they have gained a lot of street-cred through big clubs like LAWSOC, ENSOC and UCOM. But a President should not assume that those clubs are definitional of university life. A President has to speak for the students who have never gone to a single ENSOC BBQ as much as for those who attend them religiously. That means that they have to be open to university experiences apart from their own. Even if that means (shudder) talking to mature students.

Zero to Hero [Experience - 10 marks]

As is pretty clear, we don’t think that experience is an absolute necessity for a good President. Realistically, there aren’t that many experiences open to university students that could prepare you for running a multi-million dollar corporation (the UCSA owns a forest for goodness’ sake!). But equally, it would be rare for an 18-year old first year to be able to handle the responsibility of their new role. Someone who has had some experience in an organisational role in clubs would probably have enough know-how and can-do to fulfil this criterion.

Belle [Nous -10 marks]

Intellectual elitism is a particularly unpleasant form of masturbation, and not something that should be relied on in the voting booth. But that said, it is important for a leader to have enough smarts to be able to appreciate the significance of the arguments and issues before them. So a base level of intellectual ability would be nice.

So that’s our list of character traits. It’s probably not perfect, and no doubt other people see the issue quite differently. Nevertheless, it’s important to think of some kind of marking criteria for candidates, because otherwise you’re likely to either not vote or to vote for the hottest/bro-ist/best-known candidate. We get enough of that in national elections; we don’t need it on campus.

I Ain't Saying She's A Gold-Digger - And You Shouldn't Either

By Clinton

This week, the New Zealand Prime Minister John Key said that Kim Dotcom was Internet Party leader Laila Harré’s “sugar daddy”. Regardless of the relationship between Dotcom and Harré, the remark was sexist and totally uncalled for.

When defending himself over the remark, John Key said “I think it’s totally accurate” and “I’d say the same thing about Hone Harawira”. But the point is he didn’t say the same thing about Hone Harawira. Why? Because he’s a man. While there are countless other, non-gendered words that Key could have used to describe the relationship, such as “puppet” or “lackey”, he chose a term that is used to degrade certain women. The problem with what Key said isn’t that it was an insult; it’s that it was a sexist term that he would only use with relation to women. So when Duncan Garner asked her if it wasn’t “just sort of part of the rough and tumble of politics”, the answer is no. Just because you’re in politics, doesn’t mean that people can use your gender, race or sexuality against you. Yes, you need a thick skin in politics, but that doesn’t give people, especially the Prime Minister, a free pass to be sexist.

So what has the public reaction been? Duncan Garner claims that some people think Laila just needs to “take a sugar pill” or “harden up”, while others think that the Prime Minister’s statement was uncalled for. Reading the comments on Breakfast’s Facebook page (an activity that often makes me lose my faith in humanity) one of the comments with the most ‘likes’ is one that condemns Breakfast for taking air time away from the important issues (like farm sales). Well, sorry Mr Facebook-Commenter-Man, the Prime Minister’s sexist comments are important to me, and if you have women in your life that you care about, they should also be important to you.

But perhaps even more concerning were the responses to a commenter who said that she would no longer vote for Key; responses such as this gem: “like it would change a person’s vote. Pmsl.” The fact that people find it funny that misogynist statements from the Prime Minister might cause someone to change their vote shows how truly ignorant some people are. Same goes for people who think it was “just a really funny joke” and that those who are offended are “too PC”. It is not funny to imply that someone is being funded because of the favours they’re providing behind closed doors (which is what “sugar daddy” implies), regardless of what you think of Dotcom, Harré and the Internet-Mana Party. It’s as simple as that.

What I’m left with after this incident is a series of questions. As a young female, why should I care about Key’s “awesome economic policies” when I know that until the wage gap is addressed, I’m never going to receive the same benefit from a strong economy that my male friends are? How can I have respect for a Prime Minister who uses a woman’s gender against her, particularly in light of the fact that it is much harder for females to get into Parliament? Why should I care about a party that has a pretty low ratio of women to men, and yet thinks it is okay to refer to a political backer as a woman’s “sugar daddy”?

It is time for us to take a stand against discrimination in this country. The fact that we’re incredibly proud of our stance on gay marriage, but don’t think it’s important to call the Prime Minister out on blatant sexism just doesn’t gel. We’re a progressive nation, and we can do better. We shouldn’t condone such behaviour, especially from such a powerful man. What sort of message does the statement send? It’s okay to make a sexist joke because John Key does it?

If you didn’t think that gender was an issue in this election, think again. By failing to apologise for his incredibly sexist comment (and in fact standing by it), John Key just made it one.

#nzpol #sexism #john key

huffpostwomen-deactivated201612

3 simple ways to resist rape culture.

willtherealcantapleasestandup

Truth.

When Canta has to address our criticism, and makes it seem like the problem is that no-one will submit intelligent material

Coming from an editor who has explicitly said that he wants Canta to be less serious, it's pretty rich to blame critics for the lack of interesting and engaging content in the magazine. When you run a feature called "This Is Your One Page", it's absolutely clear how much you value intelligent content. Take responsibility for your editorial decisions, Canta-editor-man; if you want mature submissions, make room for them in your paper.

[For context:]

That's So Cheesy - Canta's Mack n Cheese

By Demosthenes

In spite of our Canta aversion strategy, designed to preserve our few remaining brain cells, we've been informed by a more astute reader that our "prestigious" magazine has recently opened a new segment titled Mack n Cheese. Though New Canta has already shown itself to be dire, vapid and devoid of meaningful content, this one's a step too far. By dousing page 22 in sex negative ink, the editor attempts to deliver a death knell to maturity and progressivism.

The gist of Mack n Cheese is simple in its idiocy - you catch your flatmate making out with someone, take a photo of them and send it into Canta. At that point, everyone's supposed to shame them and they have to buy your flat a block of cheese, just to ram the point home.

The first reaction of anyone who’s passed their thirteenth birthday to this new section should surely be “why do we care?” For the majority of us, we managed to escape cootie-culture before we started high school, replacing it with a sanctification of intercourse and then, finally, with the realisation that it’s all pretty chill. Apparently Canta’s editor isn’t quite up to speed – in his mind, the idea of two people making out is novel, exciting and worthy of public naming-and-shaming.

Unfortunately, Mack n Cheese goes further than just espousing desperately immature views on interpersonal relationships and displays of affection. Once we delve further into the implications of Canta’s latest blunder, it becomes clear that it reflects views that are decidedly conservative. Since the dawn of the century, Western society has been pushing towards greater levels of sexual liberation – in particular, by embracing a laissez faire approach to sex and romanticism. In place of the restrictive, Victorian norms that demanded lifelong monogamy, the majority of young New Zealanders have now embraced having numerous partners and sexual promiscuity as social goods.

There are, naturally, opponents to that movement – those who condone the decline of family values and the institution of monogamy. Those viewpoints are valid insofar as individuals are concerned, but in terms of societal shifts, sexual liberation has been crucial in empowering marginalised groups. For women, it has seized back sexual agency, long the purview of men who maintained control in traditional relationships. For the LGBT community, it has allowed them to build communities around the rejection of heterosexual norms and their long-time disenfranchisement from institutions such as marriage.

Sex positivity has also given everyone greater freedom, regardless of their class, race and gender. It has allowed us to experiment with our emotions and hormones, pursuing conceptions of relationships that conform to our ideas of the good life, rather than our grandparents’. It empowers us to use our sexuality as a means of engaging positively with a range of other people, breaking down barriers both inter- and intra-personally.

Mack n Cheese goes against everything that sex positivism stands for. By actively shaming and punishing individuals who engage in behaviour that is outside conservative norms of affection, it demands sanction for those who embrace sex positivity. In publishing the section, Canta rejects the freedom of individuals to self-actualise through sex. Instead of celebrating hook up culture, it condemns it as something that should result in shame. That is disempowering to everyone, particularly sexual and gender minorities.

Though concealed behind a shallow veneer of BroSquad immaturity, Mack n Cheese is a genuine threat to sex positivism and contributes to a pernicious culture of shaming people for exercising their sexual freedom. Shame on you, Canta.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Will the Real Canta Please Stand Up