I got into an online discussion recently over the following article:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/8450326/Bennett-unapologetic-about-welfare-reforms
The other commentators were reasonably positive about the “reforms”. Me? I saw red and my comments were mainly abusive. About the National Party, mostly.
I try to stay away from personal attacks but if someone is being a big cock about things, this should be pointed out promptly.
There is a rot in the National Party that stems right back to the 1990’s. It is a pervading belief that women are the sum total of their reproductive capacity.
The National Party would deny this of course. Every political party denies their Achilles Heel that is completely obvious to a blind boxer.Â
Political parties don’t have faith in market research, they just have fans. They can’t be told that actually, they are not very attractive because of “X”. “Not us”, they say and they try to trick the public that they are really the complete opposite of public perception.
Sure. There is no denying that it is not an easy gig, politics. Some of the flying merde is cast by a hostile media that looks to pin negative stories on a pre-conceived target rather than analyzing policy.
But, where there is smoke, there is fire. And the public knows what fans the blaze that motivates the movers and shakers of the National Party.
The firm belief that, “it’s all the Breeders fault, Dammit”.
There is no other explanation. Otherwise you would not get rubbishy press releases that tarnish the whole of the female sex with the same brush. No self respecting political party would commit the following to paper:
“As the second round of welfare reforms come back before Parliament, Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says the 650 children born to women already claiming a benefit in January are reason enough for her tough reforms”.
OH MY GOD!! 650 loose women. And we take how many refugees each year? How many other women are out there causing havoc with addictions or bad health choices that cost the tax payer money?
“And she said the focus on sole mothers and young people was deliberate.”
SOLE MOTHERS!!!! Quick! Run for the hills screaming.
On one hand it is laughable. The term “sole mothers” should long be confined to the history books. Â
On the other hand: Most women in their child-bearing years read the above as: “That Paula is going to throw me under the bus if I was ever in the position that my friend XXX is in”.
There is no such thing as a sole mother. It takes two people shagging to make a child. Behind every sole mother is an arsehole who wasn’t pulling their weight.
They are not pulling their weight because dollies like Paula give them the message that women are to blame.Â
The young lads should go and donate to a sperm bank instead of an innocent lass but the National Party appears to take the position of seeing every “sole mother”. as sluttish purveyors of immaculate conception at the taxpayers’ expense.
And that is why women hate National. We don’t see the 650 ratbags that Paula Bennett is referring to. We see our friends who were let down by a man and are struggling on a benefit. And we know it could just as easily be us.
National won’t convince us otherwise. They push PR rubbish about how John Key’s Mother, the dear old soul, raised children successfully in hardship.
See: Women are always the sum total of their reproductive abilities. It’s just not the message that appeals to my generation. .
“People will hide behind keyboards and bag you on a blog,” she said.Â
Just get on with it and shut the hell up about “sole mothers” Paula. When you target women you lose. Working For Families and interest free student loans are bleeding the taxpayer of far more money than loose wenches. And these are cross sex issues that don’t spark heated discussion in enclaves of women across the hearths of the nation. Discussions that are less mild than what might be committed to the blogosphere. After all, men read blogs too and we wouldn’t want to offend them with our coarse language.
