Thread by @suzewilsonnz

Long🧵 #nzpol #jacindaresigns #misogyny

Not sure what made anyone think this⬇️ deserved to see the light of day - but let's unpack the 'argument' it puts forward shall we.....

https://twitter.com/NewsroomNZ/status/1625578603114029057

So, its central argument is this:

"the narrative that misogyny broke former prime minister Jacinda Ardern's mettle is wrong and unwise, and such a narrative only discourages young women from aspiring to be a leader in the future"

To show the inherent moral &/or logical flaws in an argument sometimes its useful to see where we get to if we just follow its reasoning to its 'logical' conclusion. Doing this we end up here:

"the narrative that her murder broke former prime minister Jacinda Ardern's mettle is wrong and unwise, and such a narrative only discourages young women from aspiring to be murdered in the future".

So, yeah, this core argument is a problem

Basically the argument is we should remain silent about misogyny b/cos it "only discourages young women from aspiring to be a leader in the future'".

Elsewhere it states doing so risks making "a female leader look weak" and "glorifying and empowering misogynists"

Here's the thing though: misogyny is very fundamentally concerned to silence women, to keep us docile, submissive & out of positions of power.

Per philosopher Kate Manne it is the 'enforcement arm' of patriarchal norms & values, punishing women for breach those

By advocating that we NOT talk about the misogyny targeted at Ardern - which, importantly, sent a message to ALL women 'watch out, you'll get this too if you dare to speak up' - the fundamental premise, purpose & effect of the article is therefore itself misogynistic.

Minimizing, trivialising & dismissing the significance, not simply for Ardern herself but for all women, of the torrent of misogynistic abuse to which she was subjected is actually what risks 'glorifying and empowering misogynists'.

Remaining silent is what misogyny seeks from women, along with dedicating every moment of our lives to doing what men ask of us.

Speaking out about it, on the other hand, is quite literally an act of resistance against misogyny that serves to counteract its desired effect.

The article is also deeply flawed in arguing misogyny is rooted in economics. Actually its far more fundamentally rooted in unequal relations of power between men & women, issues which also far pre-date the article's focus on plough technology.

This inequality of power takes multiple forms - legal, economic, political, social, cultural & is deeply normalised & internalized in all the expectations society places upon us as men or women. Fundamentally, patriarchy sees women as 2nd class, inferior beings.

The article's breezy assumption greater technology & an increased reliance on mental labour will assure the elimination of the "old habit" of misogyny is therefore extremely shallow & simplistic.

In reality there a multiple indicators of a significant 'backlash effect' intensifying contemporary expressions of misogyny, rendering them more aggressive & violent, as a reaction to women gaining more freedom, rights, influence & power.

This makes it even more imperative that as many people as possible engage in acts of resistance to counter misogyny, & other forms of injustice, by calling them out whenever we see them

While there's other points that could be raised, the final concern I want to unpack is that the author is a man.

This, of course, does not inherently render his views wrong.

For eg, see this excellent analysis by A/Prof Neal Curtis :

newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/when…

What matters is that it takes care & effort by people who hold privileged positions in systems of inequality to be awake to the many ways that their privilege can distort their understanding of things.

Men, for eg, if out at night do you continuously scan for possible rapists, jam your keys between your fingers as a potential tool for self-defense & carefully check the back seat before getting into your car? No? Ok, so that's a privilege I don't have as a woman.

Its also really important, when one has privilege, to be willing to shut up & listen to those who don't have that privilege, to ensure they're heard & taken seriously. You can then, with care, use your privilege to help amplify their concerns - see A/Prof Neal Curtis eg above.

In this instance, though, the author has actively sought to dismiss as "wrong and unwise" the voices of many (but not exclusively) women who've sought to highlight the damaging effects of the misogyny targetted at Ardern, not just for her but for all of us.

They go so far as to contend its all just confirmation bias: "we see what we want to see, what we already believe, or what we have been told". And later they suggest the need to find 'evidence-based reasons for her resignation" - which for them is anything but misogyny

Dear reader, is this argument infused with age-old sexist tropes about women being irrational & emotional? Hell yes.

And are we, in fact, fully justified in being upset & angry that misogyny made the already difficult job of being a PM far worse than it needed to be? That it made our capacity to speak out more tenuous?
HELL YES.

Overall, the argumentation offered in this article is deeply flawed & profoundly misogynistic. It aims to gaslight us into thinking we're being biased, irrational & emotive by voicing concern about the misogyny targetting Ardern, which also made so many others of us afraid

It advocates we seek to hide this reality from young women aspiring to leadership, least it deter them.

In fact our only hope for ensuring they're not subjected to such treatment is to demand that those engaging in misogyny stop.

When articles like this get platformed, the chances of that happening are reduced, not enhanced.

So let's counteract that by continuing to speak out b/cos as Margaret Atwood taught us "do not let the bastards get you down".