ONDP: Can Balance a Budget in Heels! Part 2

Just popped into this thread after being told about it.

Can't express how funny I think it is that there are a bunch of men trying to explain to remind what is sexist or not. 

Hello- is this thing on?

Saw the posters in the flesh, not one complaint- also a lot of very strong feminist New Democrat women I know were getting a great laugh out of them. 

But please don't let me interupt - I can't wait for the next episode of explaining feminism/sexism to remind to come on. 

The posters don't "evoke" a 1950s image of womanhood.  They play off an image that virtually everyone in the potential NDP voter universe would agree is hopelessly dated and sexist.  As such, they are not affirming that image, but mocking it.

I'm still not convinced they're particularly good posters / messaging.  But some of the criticisms offered on this (and the previous thread) are blatant evidence of the humour deficit among leftists.

I am concerned, however, about what I perceive to be a blatantly sexist belittling of remind and her point of view by certain posters.  I know its inconvenient when one of those people you're trying to speak for respectfully disagree with your shibboleths, but a little less abuse and a little more engagement might have been a more constructive approach.  Treating a woman with paternalistic contempt hardly enhances you feminist credentials.

Finally, in response to a comment by (I think it was Aristotle) on the other thread, I agree that one set of posters / ads etc. is not going to persuade an indoctrinated voter overnight that the NDP really can balance a budget.  Shoring up perceived weaknesses is not an overnight effort - and frankly, that's why such messaging is better done outside the writ period.

That it is a long and tedious process is not a reason not to do it.  Indeed, if we look at how the hard right have managed to rehabilityate themselves in mainstream political discourse over the past 40 years, we see (among other things) exactly that kind of innoculatory messaging on a consistent basis.

Remind, I said upthread and I say again, that I don't really care about the cute "heels" stuff - I'm more bothered by the right-wing messaging. The NDP is [b]not[/b] losing elections because people think they're big spenders or tree-huggers or want to shut down small businesses. That's why it's [b]pandering[/b] to defend against those charges. It's [b]pandering[/b] to some elitist spin doctor image of where working folks' mentalities are at.

remind wrote:

Quote:

And themes about women that were acceptable 65 years ago may seem wrong today

What themes, seriously what themes?

I was referring to your cookbook - not to the posters. The Mrs. David Lewis, and the "especial responsiblity" of women to prepare healthful food. All I meant to say is that that may have been fine then, but it wouldn't work today.

remind wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 for instance, we wouldn't want the leader to call herself "Mrs. John Doe" and talk about her special duty to cook the family meals.

This was not even close to being portrayed in the posters, and it is a strawperson, as it does not come close to being a comparative illustration.

Why be so hostile, when I'm being appreciative of your viewpoint? The fact that I don't agree with you about the messaging is no reason to be hostile, or to say "I don't care what you think", and so on.

Remind, I said upthread and I say again, that I don't really care about the cute "heels" stuff - I'm more bothered by the right-wing messaging. The NDP is [b]not[/b] losing elections because people think they're big spenders or tree-huggers or want to shut down small businesses. That's why it's [b]pandering[/b] to defend against those charges. It's [b]pandering[/b] to some elitist spin doctor image of where working folks' mentalities are at.

remind wrote:

Quote:

And themes about women that were acceptable 65 years ago may seem wrong today

What themes, seriously what themes?

I was referring to your cookbook - not to the posters. The Mrs. David Lewis, and the "especial responsiblity" of women to prepare healthful food. All I meant to say is that that may have been fine then, but it wouldn't work today.

remind wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 for instance, we wouldn't want the leader to call herself "Mrs. John Doe" and talk about her special duty to cook the family meals.

This was not even close to being portrayed in the posters, and it is a strawperson, as it does not come close to being a comparative illustration.

Why be so hostile, when I'm being appreciative of your viewpoint? The fact that I don't agree with you about the messaging is no reason to be hostile, or to say "I don't care what you think", and so on.

ETA: Crossposted with Cueball. I also don't find the posters particularly "sexist", and that was never the point of my posts here - although I recognize that some women and men do.

Kloch wrote:

I have no issue with women role models.  I think there should be more.  Of the ones we have, couldn't we celebrate more Alexa McDonoughs' and less Margaret Thatcher's.  The posters invoke more the latter than the former.

Margaret Thatcher won three straight majority governments while Alexa MacDonough was electorally a total failure - what does that tell you?

BA, remind,

I see that you would rather attack things I haven't said rather than things I have and that you quoting specific parts of my posts arises out of some kind of formulaic procedure rather than an attempt to engage with the actual meaning or contents of the sentences you quote. This is, of course, par for the course with you two; you have built twenty or thirty of me out of straw in our previous interactions and are well on your way to making another one. Obviously, there is little point in me continuing to attempt some kind of rational dialogue with you two.

I think the rest of the posters can recognize the Palinesque move of playing identity politics to defend conservative positions, so I think I'll just skip amateur hour here and check out the real deal at a Tea Party rally where they at least do it well.

Stockholm wrote:

Kloch wrote:

I have no issue with women role models.  I think there should be more.  Of the ones we have, couldn't we celebrate more Alexa McDonoughs' and less Margaret Thatcher's.  The posters invoke more the latter than the former.

Margaret Thatcher won three straight majority governments while Alexa MacDonough was electorally a total failure - what does that tell you?

That you have no political morality of any kind, beyond winning elections at all costs.

I don't have a problem with promoting fiscal responsibility as PART of a campaign.

My problem is taken in their totality the four posters ONLY emphasize our fiscal and environmental conservatism. Nothing else.

To me this is a profoundly stupid strategic move. (And while, anyone who knows the kind of openly leftist and hopeless campaigns I have run in, I never went into them thinking I had the remotest chance of winning them. I did them to represent the NDP in two ridings where there was no chance of winning and to run on a socialist platform municipally in another, but presumably the ONDP is trying to win the next election, so strategy is critically important.). Any poster like any one of these should be counterbalanced, and indeed overshadowed, with others that seek to inspire and empower with ideas like Pharma Care, Standing Up to Corporate Interests, Fighting for Better Wages Etc.

Someone else put up a great quote on Facebook:

"Larry Haiven put it well: "...the NDP will no doubt refer to Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan. They may remind people...that Douglas insisted on balancing his province's books as one of his first priorities. But Tommy Douglas was not just about balancing budgets...Tommy Douglas had social imagination; he had great ideas of what he was going to accomplish, like medicare, public automobile insurance, rural electrification, children's dental care and many more. He announced these things publicly and lifted people's spirits in the promise of what they could do collectively. He and his immediate successors took on the vested business and professional interests and rallied people to demand better. In recent years, NDP governments across Canada have been all about dampening people's spirits, especially the party grassroots. The NDP has become a promise of better management of crisis.""

That is the problem here to me. There is nothing inspiring or empowering in this messaging and if, as some have suggested, this is a response to Ford's victory it learns all of the wrong lessons from it.

I might note, for what it is worth in what seems an increasingly nasty and personal debate here, that on my Facebook page, where I have posted these photos for debate, many women have found them sexist and disappointing and have said so, so I don't think it is reasonable to try to claim that Stuart's views are not shared by any women on the left or in the NDP. If you go on Facebook and read what many women on the left and in the party are saying you will find that this is simply not true and that many do share his views. I am sure others do not. It is a debate, after all, and it is possible for different activists to find different things offensive for different reasons. Feel free to check my page on Facebook if you think that I am not being truthful. The wall is public.

I am sure there also are those who think it is mocking sexism and that it is a clever strategy. Presumably they would not have produced them otherwise.

I will leave it to others to decide this one, but it would appear to be an open question among the activists in the party and out of it (and the ONDP, of course, is not only trying to appeal to those at provincial council...that would constitute a couple hundred votes in a province of millions, so if it does rub some people the wrong way as "sexist" that is worth noting...at least if the ONDP wants to win an election or get the votes of these folks, as opposed to winning a debate on Babble)

Finally, I would say that trying to win the left vote and beat the Liberals and Tories by drawing inspiration from Thatcher as opposed to Alexa, who brought the party back from the brink federally (when she left we were only slightly lower in the polls than we are now and we were firmly back on the national stage) and who was a terrific leader and an inspiration to many women in the NDP and Canada as a whole... well good luck with that!

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

So Michael are you claiming that those women that I stood beside and looked at the actual real posters with when we were out in the hall talking about other issues should have their views dismissed?  Because that seems to be what you are saying to me.  I was at Council, in fact my daughter was with me, and she loved them, and not one single person ever raised an objection about them.  Are you really suggesting that these women, all of them strong, thoughtful women, couldn't see what they are intended for and that people on Facebook, who were not there and are seeing really poorly rendered photos of them have a better understanding?  Because that sure seems to be what you are saying, and frankly I find it rather offensive.

 

Which part of "It is a debate, after all, and it is possible for different activists to find different things offensive for different reasons" did you not understand?

I guess these posters did not leave an impression on me and I don't think that they do elsewere as a search on google, google news, even a google blog search does not bring anything up on this so to me, this is one of the few places that has anything to say about the posters.

Unionist wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Margaret Thatcher won three straight majority governments while Alexa MacDonough was electorally a total failure - what does that tell you?

It tells me that when Alexa stood up in the House, in October 2001, to condemn Chrétien's joining Bush's mission in Afghanistan, she should instead have kicked some ass:

[size=30]"War" is not a 4-letter word! Nuke Afghanistan! Then let's take the Malvinas!!![/size]

Instead, she played the usual simpering elitist latte-slurping socialist weak-kneed bleeding heart that [b]true Canadian workers[/b] despise.

Thank God for Andrea's new spin doctors.

Now, when do we get the poster about "More Cash for Catholic Schools!"

Alexa took the party from single digits to around 15%.  Jack took it from 15% to .... about 16%, and only won more seats because of vote splits and a Liberal collapse.  I guess by Stockholms logic, Jack is a bigger loser than Alexa.

remind, I though this might interest you since I was an attendee.

So just for the record there were 4 posters at the head of the escalators as you came up to the Council area.  Everyone saw them, although you had to get a little closer to read them at my age.  Just 4.  The place wasn't plastered with them and they were on those easel sort of thingies you see menus on or playbills that sort of thing.

There was also a poster of Andrea along the side hall where we registered.  I don't remember if that one had any writing on it- as it was a bit cramped in that area with the registration tables, people milling about and so on.  Andrea looked strong and like a leader in all 5.

I saw lots of people laughing at them.  Not one person complained that I ever heard or saw.

No mention of them was made during Council, unless it happened to be when I was in the bathroom or out talking to other folks in the hall.  If they were mentioned, it certainly couldn't have been much controversy as I was never away that long.  And believe me if there would have been this groundswell, or even an idividual so upset about them, people would have been to the mics- as they always do. There was ZERO indication that they were the NDP message for the election, certainly not the sum total of all things NDP. 

Andrea gave a great speech that ripped into the Liberal record on a number of issues - all from a staunchly progressive stance.  And was given several rounds of applause before, during and after the speech.  She made it clear that the Conservatives and their views are not the answer.

When the discussion from the newly formed EPC took place, it was clear what the likely themes of the campaign will be.  Just like the Liberals and Conservative themes are already pretty clear.  It should be no surprise to anyone who knows Andrea that they were practical, focused and in line with progressive values and about making life better and more affordable.

This claim that it is some kind of indication of a run from the right is total 100 per cent fantasy and not based on a single thing that happened. 

I had to be in the building for meetings after Council was over, the posters to my recollection were still there.  In other words they were not removed until the cleaning up from the weekend began.

If I had to guess, I would guess that these might have been one offs for the Leaders Levee and Council to poke a little fun at the way the NDP and women in politics always get framed and then to turn that framing on its head.  Maybe we will see more of them, maybe not.  I certainly hope so because my daughter, attending Council as a delegate for the first time, thought they were great and frankly I think as a young woman she has more political smarts than a bunch of old men (including me).  So if she liked them I expect that a lot of other folks will get it.

ETA

By the way I know Life's partner and daughter as they are quasi-neighours.  Two stronger feminists I can hardly think of.  If they thought they were funny and not sexist then that's worth noting for me.  And I hardly think their views should be dismissed, when people who clearly were not at Council, are free to make all kinds of untrue claims.

Since when was balancing the budget (in or out of heels) not progressive? When we borrow money - and even worse, get into the position where we HAVE to borrow money - we don't have the option but to dance to the tune of our creditors. See how Ireland's been doing lately if you disagree. The Ontario NDP needs a plan to close the gap over the next term of government. Bob Rae might not personally be the problem of the Ontario NDP anymore but the record of his government is.

As for business not being a swear word, sure, any NDP leader would be delusional for thinking the business community will ever collectively endorse them and they're probably doing something horribly wrong if that does happen. That said, it's also delusional to pretend that (at least in the short to medium run) the prosperity of working Ontarians doesn't depend on the profitability and growth of the businesses that employ them. That isn't saying it's a sufficient condition - success needs to be shared - but it is a necessary one. 

Getting an early start to defending against the problems some people have with the NDP before they get used by the other parties in their messaging seems like a fine idea.

* I don't know about anyone else, but where I perceived sexism was a series of posts which, as I saw it, discounted remind's opinion and even, as I saw it, questioned her capacity to have an informed position on what constituted sexism.  In general, I find men lecturing women about what's sexist to be . . . well . . . sexist.

* I don't think the proposed "campaign" is particularly effective or well executed, but that has virtually nothing do with the mostly over-the-top attacks I've read here.

* It isn't uncommon in politics, marketing or even social protest to riff off of a stereotype.  Clearly that's what this is about.  The suggestion that this is intended to evoke a 1950s image of womanhood is too daft to be taken seriously.  Whether it successfully satirizes the stereotype and thereby accomplishes the presumed goal is another question.  I'm not convinced it does.

* If this is intended as a set of innoculation messages, then OF COURSE it is going to focus on areas where teh electorate generally see the party as weak - ie, that the party is fiscally irresponsible or that the party is seen as mindlessly anti-business.  This sort of campaign is about addressing negative perceptions, not reinforcing positive ones.  So the criticism that this only focusses on these areas is . . . odd.

* BTW, I'm tired of the way the purer than pure around here keep repeating the right wing frame that fiscal responsibility is "conservative" or right wing.  It's complete bullshit.  Real leftists oppose the massive transfer of public wealth to the banks and financial institutions.

* At no point did Stockholm (or anyone else) suggest that we should emulate the POLICIES of Margaret Thatcher.  The attacks on him using that meme are stupid, childish, offensive and pretty much standard fare on Babble.

* There is nothing wrong with learning from the strategies and tactics of your opponents.  Indeed, only fools refuse to do so.

Actually Malcolm the real lesson from the last Toronto Mayoralty campaign is that tracking the media messaging of the right (and treating the electorate like gullible fools in the process) is a recipe for disaster. Smitherman's attempt to playing right on the issues, and progressive on rhetoric simply meant that no other media message was available other than fiscal conservativism. In the environment bereft of left critique voters (including an astonishing number of NDP voters -- 26% of Ford's voters -- went with Rob Ford, and his grass roots populism, which was just chock full of left wing messaging -- as I pointed out he was the only candidate who dared use the word "working class".

The result was the working class voted for him in droves.

So it would seem the ONDP has learned absolutely nothing and is actually applying the strategy of the major loser in that campaign and is preparing to launch itself down the same road that killed George Smitherman, and handed the right overwhelming victory.

More importantly the NDP should stop navel-gazing about media message and focus on mobilizing people on the issues, in the same manner as Rob Ford. Ford committed most of his resources not to creating an appealing soft sell media image, but a brash grass roots campaign, that survived in a seriously anti-Ford media environment.

I don't even think Mike Harris was treated so badly by the press.

All these posters tell me is that ONDP has not learned anything. Is continuing down the same road as they have for the last 20 years, which is working harder and harder to be indistinguishable from the opposition, and justifying doing so because it is "learning from the strategies and tactics of your opponent", which is NDP code for adopting their non-platform, "message" driven campaign because it "works".

Well, it didn't work. Smitherman was killed at the polls. This strategy, emulating the opposition, has had precious little impact on NDP fortunes and the ONDP is no where near winning government in Ontario, and is not even as popular as it was before Bob Rae was elected, and has absolutely no chance of winning the Federal government.

Here's some negative perceptions the ONDP might want to address:

1. They don't keep their best promises - like auto insurance.

2. They kick workers once they're in power - like tearing up negotiated contracts.

3. They're ambiguous on LGBTQ rights - like when the NDP government allowed same-sex benefits to go down to defeat in a free vote.

Are those posters coming soon?

No?

Too left-wing?

See, those are negative perceptions based on people's real-life experience - not like the "big time spender" nonsense.

Remind you said

"Michael, you made claims above about what happened at provincial council about the posters, that were quite blatently incorrect, as others who were there have stated concretely otherwise. Now, why should anything you say have any validity? Not saying it doesn't just sayin....also, given that you stated something happened that didn't , in respect to feminists at council and their actions, I find it pretty offensive that you continue to try and push your sexist premise. Even moreso when you do not acknowledge your former portrayal of what happened at council as being incorrect."

No I did not. I said NOTHING at all about council. What I said was

"I might note, for what it is worth in what seems an increasingly nasty and personal debate here, that on my Facebook page, where I have posted these photos for debate, many women have found them sexist and disappointing and have said so, so I don't think it is reasonable to try to claim that Stuart's views are not shared by any women on the left or in the NDP. If you go on Facebook and read what many women on the left and in the party are saying you will find that this is simply not true and that many do share his views. I am sure others do not. It is a debate, after all, and it is possible for different activists to find different things offensive for different reasons. Feel free to check my page on Facebook if you think that I am not being truthful. The wall is public.

I am sure there also are those who think it is mocking sexism and that it is a clever strategy. Presumably they would not have produced them otherwise.

I will leave it to others to decide this one, but it would appear to be an open question among the activists in the party and out of it (and the ONDP, of course, is not only trying to appeal to those at provincial council...that would constitute a couple hundred votes in a province of millions, so if it does rub some people the wrong way as "sexist" that is worth noting...at least if the ONDP wants to win an election or get the votes of these folks, as opposed to winning a debate on Babble)"

This has nothing whatever to do with what happened at council.

Nor did I say the posters were sexist. I said that many women in the party and outside of it felt that way.

That you are not on Facebook is fine. This is not the Matrix. Other people do actually exist...and they have said they felt the posters were sexist on Facebook. Many of them are women and many of them are in the NDP. That you disagree is fine, but ranting at me will not make their opinions go away.

 It is, however, kind of silly.

So, if you want to take shots, why not take them at what I actually wrote instead of trying to facelessly make everything personal.

Sunday Hat wrote:

So I'm clear: balancing budgets is akin to an illegal declaration of war?

I'm glad we've cleared up that the biggest sin is being soft on the Papists.

A simple "I know you are but what am I?" would've sufficed.  Fewer words, takes up less bandwidth.

Kloch wrote:

A simple "I know you are but what am I?" would've sufficed.  Fewer words, takes up less bandwidth.

The rubber-glue thing is a timeless classic. I don't see why these NDP acolytes vary from that time honoured schoolyard-tested formula.

Well this has been a fine thread. I don't suppose we could give it a good night's sleep before starting up again, eh?

Closing for length.