While I had in the back of my mind when I wrote this that women often end up affected by conflicts they don’t actively participate in, (often through rape and violence by aggressors, but also as PoWs) it’s certainly worth pointing out as you did that many women have served a supporting role in armed combat before actually being allowed into the armed forces, and often put themselves in considerable danger to do so.

I’m not saying that’s exactly the same thing as serving on the front lines, of course, but I think it shows there will be people who have what it takes if a more sensible policy is put in place.

This was one of my posts about the USA, so no big deal on the whole international perspective thing.

How many women placed their lives in jeopardy serving as nurses in all wars? How many were POWs in all wars? Women serve and die in war no matter if they are actually on the front lines or in an area where it is considered “safe”.

However women do not get the recognition for being heroic. Maybe they just don’t need that. However more respect would be great for the sacrifices they make.

(PS. This is your gamer friend “uzi”)

I am sure being smaller may help in occasions, if that’s what you mean.

Men and women are different to each other physically and emotionally so it would be foolish to assume that – in general terms – that one can be as capable as the other.

I think that’s a bit of an unintentional strawman- we’re not talking about the general population. The armed forces don’t recruit a representative sample, they recruit from the elite. Women who fit the requirements to go into front-line combat and who want to go into combat shouldn’t be barred from it. I’m glad you agree with me on that score. Arbitrary rules may be quick to make and easy to apply, but it makes much more sense to just have straight-up physical requirements for frontline service if that is the reason the arbitrary rule is in place, as it would also more reliably eliminate male soldiers who fell short of the standard.

I should also point out that there are certain physical advantages that the female body has over the male body, and that modern combat takes better advantage of them in many ways than the previous eras of warfare that were a precursor to modern armed forces and resulted in them being male-dominated.

“2. any system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc.”

They also refer to South Africa which of course had an infamous application of the term and this example would be a reckless comparison with the Maori seats issue.

So I do understand what you are trying to say, but also feel it unfair to say I invoked Godwin’s law.

I don’t think so. I believe that Godwin’s Law refers to a thread ultimately comparing something to Hitler or Nazism.

If you don’t think comparing Maori opting to have their own seperate electorates to apartheid is worthy of Godwin’s Law, I don’t really know what to say. Regardless, it’s a bridge too far for me.

It is also amusing that you insist we need Maori racial representation urgently when we already have seats at the parliamentary level which have done little, if anything to improve the lot of Maori. I don’t know why the left continue to push failed ideas.

Okay just read your last line of that paragraph. Maybe I should shut up now, but I probably won’t if you keep baiting me!

Re the abortion comment – well done on avoiding answering the question truthfully. If anything I believe your response only shows me that you know abortion is wrong in the majority of cases, but won’t admit it as you would be betraying your leftist ideals and philosophies (you won’t agree of course) .

your concepts have been in place for a long time

Six years is not a long time in the lifecycle of an electoral system.

I’m sorry but the status quo isn’t good enough. If we want to help ethnic groups behind in various sectors of society then clearly “hand-outs” have proved to be a dismal failure. They have before, they do now and they will in the future.

I’d ask you not to derail the discussion into hand-outs. We’re talking about hand-ups, or temporary relief that allows people to solve a problem for themselves.

Time for some new thinking, and it doesn’t start with the insulting comparison of Maori to the delinquent child.

I agree with you that respect has to be the default position. This is why I propose we leave this sort of decision to Maori voters- who have already lent significant support to the Maori roll, for instance.

So what is the answer? Well I agree in a safety net as does most of NZ, incl those who regularly vote right.

OK, but even voting Labour is voting for the erosion of that safety net. You need to go to the very left of the parliamentary spectrum to get any support for livable benefit payments for people who need long-term support from that safety net.

Also, as I point out here, measures like Maori seats are essentially a political-level safety net to ensure Maori representation, yet you oppose it.

I don’t object to people from the right saying they support a sufficient social safety net, but the official position of the centre and the right in New Zealand is not consistent about that, so that commits you to significant activism to turn around your side of the political machine on this issue.

Why do Maori really fall behind other ethnic groups in NZ? My belief is due to cultural differences.

Are you saying that wider NZ society is wrong not to share more of its cultural values with Maori, or that Maori are culturally deficient somehow and need to change? Because the latter would be pretty inconsistent with your call not to treat Maori as children. A child isn’t responsible for problems their culture causes them. An adult is, and it’s not for other adults to tell them their culture is wrong. (That doesn’t preclude talking about it being problematical, but your claim went well beyond that I think)

I’m not referring to uni scholarships that benefit a few, but rather education to highlight the dangers and pitfalls of the choices made by said cultural group (or to be exact the failures within the said group).

See above. This is sounding pretty much like a parent talking about educating a delinquent child to me. *shrug*

I do agree that targetting is really important for addressing trickier problems, but honestly I don’t think we’re at that level yet. We are still sorting out basic issues of discrimination and settler mentality among Pakeha (or european if you prefer) New Zealanders, pulling Maori out of poverty that has been imposed on them by previous policy mistakes and negligence, etc… This necessitates hand-up policies. Because we need so much of them, it might look like a “hand-out”, because it needs to be a long term poverty prevention problem, but that’s just something that we need to make the reactionaries swallow.

However you propose to deal with the statistics it involves a significant investment into the Maori community. I’d prefer projects lead by Maori that directly work on improving communities. You’d prefer education. I think there’s some merit to that too, but I’m gonna preface that with the disclaimer that there’s helpful ways to point out something’s a problem and get it to improve, and unhelpful ways. Michael Laws telling off students to work on Maori abuse and crime was unhelpful, for instance, and similar paternalistic lecturing needs be avoided if any education programs have effect. MSD and Paula Bennett’s “Never Shake A Baby” program will probably be helpful to some degree. (although whether it is cost-effective is a different question)

Okay I know you are probably going to respond by picking out quotes from this comment and attacking them individually, but I ask you this time to take my view as a whole, and realise that we want the same thing.

I try to keep quotes within context as much as possible. I think we both recognise the others’ intentions are in the right place, but that doesn’t preclude either or both of us having bad ideas or idealogical blind spots. I think it’s clearer to quote what I’m replying to most of the time rather than try repeating it back to you.