Luxon's Ladies.
Sisters Doin' it for Themselves.
Sisters are doin' it for themselves
Standin' on their own two feet
And ringin' on their own bells
Said, sisters are doin' it for themselves
Songwriters: Annie Lennox / Dave Stewart.
Did you ever fancy the idea of protesting? Of taking to the streets with your fellows and standing up to the system? Is there a worthwhile cause that you might like to associate with your brand?
But you don’t want to be standing around on a street corner, in the rain, holding placards, not with those people. There must be a better way.
Somewhere with bright lights, perhaps a glass of wine, with hair and makeup professionals, and the best photographers to ensure you look just right. Besides, you’ve done rather well out of the system; it would be churlish to bite the hand.
So, what noble cause could you choose if you were a high-flying CEO wanting to enhance your image? To garner a little public sympathy to help smooth approval of your home helicopter pad?
How about the environment?
I’m kidding, have you seen those Greenies? Worn-out jumpers and faded t-shirts, not a designer outfit among them. Concerns about water quality and climate sound worthwhile, but do you really want to be photographed with those people?
Ask yourself, what are you doing it for? How can you make your mark?
There has been an ideal opportunity this week with the cancellation of pay equity claims and the tightening of rules to make future claims more difficult. What do you think about standing with the sisterhood on that?
Perhaps you consider it; maybe you have just the coat, in case the weather turns bad. An outfit that says, “I am here, look at me.”
But that’s the thing, if there are hundreds or even thousands of protestors, how will you stand out as being important? How will people know that you are special?
Best to create your own movement, one that works in tandem with those in power for mutual publicity. How about something related to children?
Ah, the children.
Not those without food, or who have a parent in jail, or who would like to participate in an activity but are excluded due to the cost. They are undoubtedly good options for others, but seriously, could you wear pearls in a photo shoot for those causes?
Besides that, are the people you want to impress affected by this change, or concerned about those who are? Probably not.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure they’d be lovely people if you met one in a social situation, but you never have, so it’s hard to say, and it’s essential to appear authentic. Something the PM could work on, just quietly; perhaps you’ll have a word with him about that, and his fashion choices too - that suit jacket button is having to work way too hard.
Is there something else you can do to help those women and take some of the load off them? And so, an idea is born with the intention of:
Ahh, that feels better. These women might have to work two or three jobs to provide for their families, but unless you're willing to pay slightly more in taxes, what’s the alternative?
Of course, there is none; it’s hopeless.
Those wages have to remain low—that’s just the way it is. However, you can take steps to help protect the children of those women from danger when they can’t be there to supervise, because they’re working a double shift.
You can protect them from the internet just as you were protected when you were a child, when certain movies were hidden in a separate section of the video store behind a beaded curtain. You didn’t find dangerous material at the library when you were a child, or on television. Can’t we go back to that golden era?
But it’s hard to hide material or disallow certain content on the internet, so you choose to crack this walnut with a car compactor and ban everything.
No more social media for the kids, which essentially means no more internet, because realistically, how many of us go directly to a web page any more? We access most information via social media.
So your approach is akin to simply banning kids under 16 from video stores or libraries. A blanket ban on everything. With no plan for enforcement.
Still, it's best not to get hung up on the outcomes; the journey is the thing, and there are plenty of opportunities for good publicity without delivering anything. I mean, just ask this guy:
Doesn’t that look better than standing on a street corner in the rain, getting excited if a passing motorist toots their horn?
Ok, seriously now…
This issue of children needing protection from the ills of the internet does matter, but I don’t think a blanket ban is either advisable or enforceable.
Did you ever buy alcohol, see a movie or anything else you were prohibited from doing when you were a teenager? Of course, you did, and these kids have access to proxy servers; you’re dreaming if you think you’re going to achieve this without the sort of control over the internet we see in China. Is that what you want?
I’d be more in favour of holding social media companies responsible for the content they host and the activity that takes place on their platforms. They make billions of dollars and could do a great deal more, but realistically, they will only be motivated by the threat of substantial fines.
By aligning themselves so closely with Christopher Luxon and the National Party, the B416 ladies have made this a partisan issue, just like John Key’s flag. Many of us would have happily supported changing the flag, but it would have been a cold day in hell before we supported Key’s option, either aesthetically or politically.
At a time when many women who do not usually speak out on political matters are saying enough and taking a stand, these women of immense privilege are opting for photo opportunities with the man ultimately responsible for throwing their sisters under a bus.
Read the room!
This social media issue matters, but to use their platforms, all of their power and privilege to focus on this while ignoring pay equity measures that will hurt tens of thousands of women is disgusting as far as I’m concerned. What do you think?
To end today, Annie Lennox, someone with more integrity in her little finger than these sisters who are doin’ it for themselves. Have a good one, folks.
Ngā mihi,
Nick.
I think banning social media from senior police officers would perhaps be a better option.
A particularly good piece, Nick. I haven't been so angry for a long time -- and at 71 I didn't think I would be waving a placard outside an MP's office alongside so many others with grey hair! It was fabulous to see younger women, and schoolgirls too, who have yet to vote (no one asked, just encouraged...)
But there's a large phalanx of grey-haired women with plenty of protesting practice and, jeez, we are ready to do it again!
I am concerned that the outcry is largely from those who will vote left anyway -- not, as you point out, so many of those who are 'sorted'. But I was encouraged the other day to speak to someone who has 'never been political', has always voted blue, but is as riled as me about the pay (in)equity debacle. We have to be relentless about exposing the 'ladies who lunch' if they don't support fairness for others.
As for the social media ban -- it will be interesting to see what happens in Oz. I can't see how it would work. I totally agree that the tech giants should take responsibility - but can't see a way to make that happen.
It's all a bit of a mess, isn't it?