Jacinda resigns!

[fungus pudding]

Wealth is relative. 1.5m including a reasonable sized residence in a reasonable area would not be comfortable in Auckland, whereas in Invercargill it may well be. Obviously for an oldie who has experienced decades of a leveraged 3 bedroom plus garden house equity value appreciation in inner Auckland could expect the wealth generated from their house alone to be well above average.

So why quote anyone with assets 408k plus as wealthy? That's nowhere near wealth.

[whatsup]

So how much money do you consider makes you wealthy?

" Wealthy" , thats sooooo easy, someone male or female who has very good health !

[Bjauck]

So why quote anyone with assets 408k plus as wealthy? That's nowhere near wealth.

Not everyone in NZ has a house in inner city Auckland. I said “wealthier.” On a NZ wide basis they are wealthier than the median $408k according to the figures from the article cited. Obviously if you limit you population to for example those adults living on the Remuera Northern slopes or coastal Takapuna or Bayswater, then $1m+ may well be closer to the median adult wealth.

An inner Auckland average 3 bed house owner has the option to sell their asset, and move elsewhere in Auckland, or in most of the rest of the country and invest the surplus. Whereas someone with an average house in for example Tokoroa would have fewer options.

[tim23]

And most of the time the very same posters saying it's "not ok" are regularly making personally derogatory comments about Chris Luxon. Talk about rocks and glass houses.

I think that you are being rather selective- Luxon has hardly been a topic on this forum ( I’m not even sure if there is a Thread?) in comparison to Ardern who has suffered plenty. I suspect in the ratio of 100-1 minimum - you read this forum and probably know I’m about right.

[fungus pudding]

" Wealthy" , thats sooooo easy, someone male or female who has very good health !

So how much money do you consider makes you wealthy?
Read the question and have another go.

[davflaws]

Another take - enjoy

"The announcement of Jacinda Ardern’s resignation has triggered both an outpouring of grief and vitriol in equal measure which echoes the polarisation of her last political term.We’ve seen outdated sexism and vile rhetoric before of course. It’s nothing new.

Misogyny has been a popular societal pastime since the days when Greek mythology made its debut. The only surprise has been the fact that many of us, naively, thought it was mostly behind us.

Jacinda Ardern’s rise and fall has all the elements of mythology. A young, attractive, relatively untested woman propelled into leadership amid a time of turmoil.

The meteoric popularity, the adulation, the carping chorus, the threats and then the fall.

A trajectory similar to that of Joan of Arc – who rose quickly, dazzled momentarily and then literally was burned at the stake.

Of course, there have been many calls for Ardern to meet the same fate as St. Joan. They continue even after her resignation. The level of hatred and condemnation is not purely down to a difference in political views - this is the stuff of the body politic – the literal politicisation of a woman.

It began much like a fairy-tale. The language employed by media outlets laid the first seeds. Stardust was mentioned. Jacinda-Mania. Descriptions better suited to pop stars than politicians.

Then came the diminutive – Cindy – just like the doll. At first this appellation was used mostly by old white guys who preferred their Prime Ministers to know rugby test scores rather than Booker prize winners. The shock of a young woman attaining the highest office and then presuming to tell them what they could and couldn’t do was alleviated somewhat by using a nickname that cut her down to size. Needless to say we didn’t hear this for Johnny, Billy, Jimmy or Bobby.

Much was made of her facial features, her fashion, her partner. The entirety of her life, up for scrutiny in a way that her male counterparts were never subject to.

Her competence and her experience was questioned. The rump of society seems to extend the assumption that men, no matter how much the evidence might betray it, have a basic level of competence. This assumption is not extended to women who must perpetually prove their effectiveness, their worth, at every step.

Assumptions lie deep within misogyny. We hear it on the radio when female guests are described as being ‘intelligent’ – as if that goes against the norm. We hear it when female leaders are given status through childbearing, or denigrated if childless. We hear it in monikers such as ‘Aunty’ Helen or ‘Crusher Collins.’ We heard it in press conferences when two women leaders were asked what things they had in common – presumably fashion or gossip. We heard it after Ardern’s resignation when she was called ‘well-meaning.’ When the leader of the opposition said he ‘could take it’ in response to abuse. We saw it in the television reports that looked back at Ardern’s ‘fashion moments’ or her being on the cover of Vogue. We didn’t hear about her being on the cover of ‘Time.’

Doubtless Ardern was, in part, a victim of the Tall Poppy syndrome that continues to characterise New Zealand. Whether you agree with her politics or not, she did indeed ‘put New Zealand on the map’ - in the same way David Lange commanded the world’s attention with his nuclear free policy back in the 1980s.

World leaders have been unanimous in their praise of her leadership. The international acclaim is unlike anything we’ve seen before. Seeing New Zealand represented on the world stage is something we as a nation are almost embarrassingly desperate for, so it’s intriguing to understand why Ardern’s high standing in a global context is a cause for resentment among so many.

It seems the real problem with Jacinda Ardern came after her exhortation for us to ‘be kind.’ Was the plea for kindness and empathy so archetypally feminine that it became a direct challenge to underlying masculine ideals? Did this undeniable feminine desire for kindness trigger such a threat to our locker-room ability to take the knocks that we needed to prove that toughness and violence are more valued than the ideals of charity and compassion?

Ardern was unusual in being a woman leader who did not achieve power by adopting a ‘tougher-than- the- boys’ persona. The pervasiveness of sports metaphors in media coverage of politics guaranteed that she simply could not win at this game. For her to be accepted as representing the best of New Zealand, rather than being painted as the great divider as she has been, the population would have needed to endorse her view of the efficacy and value of empathy. They didn’t.

The murmurings became criticisms. The criticisms became insults, became abuse, became threats. The nickname Cindy wasn’t enough anymore.

Tyrant. Witch. Dictator. ****. Oh yeah, we’ve come a long way, baby.

This is misogyny in action. A collective memory of burning women as witches. A collective fear of a woman with power. The simmering rage of the mediocre.

The woman becomes an effigy. A demon. A vessel for all resentment and grudges and perceived slights. Just as witches were blamed for misfortune in the late middle-ages, so the female politician is blamed in the twenty-first century.

Although we all know that a modern parliamentary system runs on collective responsibility of cabinet and is therefore not the work of one person – whether witch, wizard or warrior – the female politician somehow carries totemic blame for not delivering on the hopes that the masses unrealistically clamour for.

In popular accounts of Ardern there’s a contradictory characterisation of her being both preternaturally powerful and weak and indecisive - but she cannot be both. She cannot be everything. Only those determined to judge her in archetypal or mythological language can avoid facing this glaring contradiction. Perhaps this is why so much commentary is now focused on Ardern’s presumed political global aspirations: Once cast as a sorceress she must be seeking power over the world – that is the mythological trope.

Not even her resignation escapes this mythical narrative. Compare John Key’s resignation – he was allowed to have simply had enough of the job. It was never suggested his next step in global domination was to take the helm at the IMF or World Bank despite having a CV that would have enabled this.

This is the centuries old misogynist suspicion that women who come to power – in whatever field - always want too much power.

Or perhaps it’s exactly as she herself said. She’s run out of energy simply because she’s human. "

[davflaws]

So how much money do you consider makes you wealthy?
Read the question and have another go.

I'm half of a couple. Both of us qualify for super and my wife still works in her professional practice slightly more than half time. We spent about 20k more than our income this year because we travelled (me for diving, her for family). Our freehold house is currently worth about 850k and the portfolio 280k.
When the portfolio was $380k I felt wealthy. I used to say I had a lot more than I needed. Now I don't say that any more.

But this discussion started when you seemed to suggest that the wealthy became so solely by their own efforts and increased their wealth in the same way.
Can you acknowledge that there are structural factors that mean that the "playing field" isn't actually level, and that the rich tend to get richer and the poor to get relatively poorer for reasons that are not necessarily related to virtue, intelligence, or hard work ?

[Bjauck]

I'm half of a couple. Both of us qualify for super and my wife still works in her professional practice slightly more than half time. We spent about 20k more than our income this year because we travelled (me for diving, her for family). Our freehold house is currently worth about 850k and the portfolio 280k.
When the portfolio was $380k I felt wealthy. I used to say I had a lot more than I needed. Now I don't say that any more.

But this discussion started when you seemed to suggest that the wealthy became so solely by their own efforts and increased their wealth in the same way.
Can you acknowledge that there are structural factors that mean that the "playing field" isn't actually level, and that the rich tend to get richer and the poor to get relatively poorer for reasons that are not necessarily related to virtue, intelligence, or hard work ?

You mess with these long term beneficiaries of NZ government policy at your political peril!

[JBmurc]

Another take - enjoy

"The announcement of Jacinda Ardern’s resignation has triggered both an outpouring of grief and vitriol in equal measure which echoes the polarisation of her last political term.[FONT="]We’ve seen outdated sexism and vile rhetoric before of course. It’s nothing new.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Misogyny has been a popular societal pastime since the days when Greek mythology made its debut. The only surprise has been the fact that many of us, naively, thought it was mostly behind us.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Jacinda Ardern’s rise and fall has all the elements of mythology. A young, attractive, relatively untested woman propelled into leadership amid a time of turmoil.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]The meteoric popularity, the adulation, the carping chorus, the threats and then the fall.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]A trajectory similar to that of Joan of Arc – who rose quickly, dazzled momentarily and then literally was burned at the stake.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Of course, there have been many calls for Ardern to meet the same fate as St. Joan. They continue even after her resignation. The level of hatred and condemnation is not purely down to a difference in political views - this is the stuff of the body politic – the literal politicisation of a woman.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]It began much like a fairy-tale. The language employed by media outlets laid the first seeds. Stardust was mentioned. Jacinda-Mania. Descriptions better suited to pop stars than politicians.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Then came the diminutive – Cindy – just like the doll. At first this appellation was used mostly by old white guys who preferred their Prime Ministers to know rugby test scores rather than Booker prize winners. The shock of a young woman attaining the highest office and then presuming to tell them what they could and couldn’t do was alleviated somewhat by using a nickname that cut her down to size. Needless to say we didn’t hear this for Johnny, Billy, Jimmy or Bobby.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Much was made of her facial features, her fashion, her partner. The entirety of her life, up for scrutiny in a way that her male counterparts were never subject to.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Her competence and her experience was questioned. The rump of society seems to extend the assumption that men, no matter how much the evidence might betray it, have a basic level of competence. This assumption is not extended to women who must perpetually prove their effectiveness, their worth, at every step.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Assumptions lie deep within misogyny. We hear it on the radio when female guests are described as being ‘intelligent’ – as if that goes against the norm. We hear it when female leaders are given status through childbearing, or denigrated if childless. We hear it in monikers such as ‘Aunty’ Helen or ‘Crusher Collins.’ We heard it in press conferences when two women leaders were asked what things they had in common – presumably fashion or gossip. We heard it after Ardern’s resignation when she was called ‘well-meaning.’ When the leader of the opposition said he ‘could take it’ in response to abuse. We saw it in the television reports that looked back at Ardern’s ‘fashion moments’ or her being on the cover of Vogue. We didn’t hear about her being on the cover of ‘Time.’
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Doubtless Ardern was, in part, a victim of the Tall Poppy syndrome that continues to characterise New Zealand. Whether you agree with her politics or not, she did indeed ‘put New Zealand on the map’ - in the same way David Lange commanded the world’s attention with his nuclear free policy back in the 1980s.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]World leaders have been unanimous in their praise of her leadership. The international acclaim is unlike anything we’ve seen before. Seeing New Zealand represented on the world stage is something we as a nation are almost embarrassingly desperate for, so it’s intriguing to understand why Ardern’s high standing in a global context is a cause for resentment among so many.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]It seems the real problem with Jacinda Ardern came after her exhortation for us to ‘be kind.’ Was the plea for kindness and empathy so archetypally feminine that it became a direct challenge to underlying masculine ideals? Did this undeniable feminine desire for kindness trigger such a threat to our locker-room ability to take the knocks that we needed to prove that toughness and violence are more valued than the ideals of charity and compassion?
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Ardern was unusual in being a woman leader who did not achieve power by adopting a ‘tougher-than- the- boys’ persona. The pervasiveness of sports metaphors in media coverage of politics guaranteed that she simply could not win at this game. For her to be accepted as representing the best of New Zealand, rather than being painted as the great divider as she has been, the population would have needed to endorse her view of the efficacy and value of empathy. They didn’t.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]The murmurings became criticisms. The criticisms became insults, became abuse, became threats. The nickname Cindy wasn’t enough anymore.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Tyrant. Witch. Dictator. ****. Oh yeah, we’ve come a long way, baby.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]This is misogyny in action. A collective memory of burning women as witches. A collective fear of a woman with power. The simmering rage of the mediocre.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]The woman becomes an effigy. A demon. A vessel for all resentment and grudges and perceived slights. Just as witches were blamed for misfortune in the late middle-ages, so the female politician is blamed in the twenty-first century.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Although we all know that a modern parliamentary system runs on collective responsibility of cabinet and is therefore not the work of one person – whether witch, wizard or warrior – the female politician somehow carries totemic blame for not delivering on the hopes that the masses unrealistically clamour for.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]In popular accounts of Ardern there’s a contradictory characterisation of her being both preternaturally powerful and weak and indecisive - but she cannot be both. She cannot be everything. Only those determined to judge her in archetypal or mythological language can avoid facing this glaring contradiction. Perhaps this is why so much commentary is now focused on Ardern’s presumed political global aspirations: Once cast as a sorceress she must be seeking power over the world – that is the mythological trope.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Not even her resignation escapes this mythical narrative. Compare John Key’s resignation – he was allowed to have simply had enough of the job. It was never suggested his next step in global domination was to take the helm at the IMF or World Bank despite having a CV that would have enabled this.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]This is the centuries old misogynist suspicion that women who come to power – in whatever field - always want too much power.
[/FONT]
Or perhaps it’s exactly as she herself said. She’s run out of energy simply because she’s human. "

She's done her job WEF are happy agenda 21/30 NWO early stage moves done

... but Labour party brass knew she was toast(I personally don't think she wanted to leave but was pushed!!) ..as we have seen with chippy "lets be friends kiwis"wasn't me locking you down an forcing NWO agenda(yeah right!!) .. I wouldn't be surprised to now see Labour get another term as National can't keep on message lack backbone ...

[fungus pudding]

She's done her job WEF are happy agenda 21/30 NWO early stage moves done

... but Labour party brass knew she was toast(I personally don't think she wanted to leave but was pushed!!) ..as we have seen with chippy "lets be friends kiwis"wasn't me locking you down an forcing NWO agenda(yeah right!!) .. I wouldn't be surprised to now see Labour get another term as National can't keep on message lack backbone ...

Neither would I. I'll be surprised if they don't.