Feminism is for all women,
not just the privileged few (NZ election) Pt 2
By: Karolyn
6 October 2023
PART TWO: NZ Green Party policies, contradictions, confusions & silences
Part One showed that National, ACT and NZ First Parties2023 policies are, on balance, damaging for women. Jane Clare Jones’ radical materialist feminist analysis of the centuries-long oppression of women concludes widespread male-dominance is based on the control and exploitation of females as a material sex-class and resource (for sexual, reproductive and other labour).[i] This requires the liberation of the sex-class of women from control and exploitation, not just for those precariously aligned with the rich and powerful. Despite isolated policies that will benefit women, more of the NACTFirst policies will be damaging to those already struggling to survive on unacceptably low incomes because of the sex pay and wealth gaps.
The NZ Green Party have some very good policies for women and low-income people, particularly ones that will help a fair number of women struggling to pay essential bills. However, they have significant silences, confusions, and/or contradictions in their policies and plans that will have a negative impact on females.
Income-, wealth-, and sex-based inequities
The Green Party has some excellent policies targeting income and housing inequalities, and the precarious position of renters, beneficiaries, and low-income workers, as well as its Women’s Policy that specifically address the needs and inequalities affecting women and girls in a range of areas.[ii] For instance, they will implement progressive taxation, introduce rent gaps and other measures to improve housing affordability, address the ‘gender’ pay gap, counter the exploitation of women who do a high proportion of unpaid labour, and improve maternity, abortion and other health care provisions for women.
Exploitation and control of women
On the downside, the Greens support a neoliberal concept of ‘sex work’, rather than, as understood by radical materialist feminists, acknowledging it as part of the control and exploitation of largely women and their sexed bodies. We prefer the Nordic model of prostitution, which criminalises the buyers, decriminalises prostitutes, and aims to provide support for women to leave prostitution.[iii] The Greens’ ‘sex work’ section of its Women’s Policy aims to improve ‘sex work’ for immigrant women but has nothing to say about international sex-trafficking of women.
The Greens’ Women’s Policy is partly an artifact from a time when they knew what a woman is. Unfortunately, they have tacked on a footnote saying that a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. Meanwhile the ‘Sexual, Reproductive, and Women’s Health’ section acknowledges that women, especially wāhine Māori, tend to be delivered poorer health care than men. However, it is in health, sexual and reproductive services that the biologically sexed body is very significant, and it is also an intimate area where same-sex intimate spaces and staffing should always be available.
The policy has a clumsy work around to include females who don’t ID as women, by referring to ‘pregnant people’, and to ‘women and others’ who choose to keep the child they have birthed. The version in the Greens’ 2023 election manifesto [iv] largely airbrushes over these cracks, joins, mis-directions, contradictions, and anti-materialist mis-directions by including “women and gender minorities” under a “Gender Equity” heading. This would nonsensically include any male who self IDs as a woman, non-binary, genderfluid, or genderqueer, regardless of whether they want to medically and/or surgically transition, or even if they attempt to visually present themselves in a stereotypically feminine manner.
(Neo)Liberal US influences, community engagement & Te Ao Māori
The Greens’ radical embracing of gender identity ideology, imported from the (neo)liberal US, undermines some of their female-friendly proposals, and is further evidence of an individualistic liberal, rather than strong left wing, materialist feminist approach. Part of the problem is highlighted when looking at the Green Party’s Rainbow and Women’s policies, which are still part of their policy portfolio on the GP website.
The Women’s Policy was produced in 2014 before they were strongly captured by, and committed to, gender identity ideology. In comparison their Rainbow Policy is dated 2022 and is strongly influenced by Elizabeth Kerekere’s 2017 PhD thesis, wrapping the key elements of the imported gender identity ideology in Te Reo and traditional Māori concepts.[v] The development of the Rainbow Policy was led by Rainbow Greens, which is promoted as a community consultation. This is a very selective form of community engagement, especially when many of us LGB and even some T people, who disagree with gender identity ideology, are excluded, censored and no-platformed.
The reasoning for the incorporation of gender identity ideology in the policy’s use of the Te Whare Takatāpui framework needs to be made clear to the wider public, the majority of whom are not familiar with concepts used. With my limited understanding of Te Ao Māori, I see nothing that justifies criminalising dead-naming (referring to a transitioned person’s birth name), legalising sex self-identification, or denying the significant material differences between male and female anatomies, or politically, socially, and ideologically erasing documentation of natal sex differences.[vi]
The following statement from the Rainbow Policy is confusing:
“Mana Wāhine is essential to restoring the traditional balance between women and men that our tīpuna experienced, so that we may address the historical trauma and gendered violence of colonisation affecting us today.”
Biology and Material Reality
This, along with some parts of their Women’s Policy seems to contradict a lot of their adherence to the accompany genderist demands, which usually either denies natal sex, or dismisses it as being far less important than gender ID ideology. Sometimes the Greens seem to acknowledge significant sex-based differences, as evident in pregnancy and childbirth. As with the Greens’ Women’s Policy, there is a confusing acknowledgment that women and men have different anatomies, fully integrated with either a male or female reproductive system.
The Greens’ Rainbow Policy plans to criminalise misgendering and dead-naming, to promote gender identity ideology to children, and advocates for removing all barriers to transgender people competing in sport. Some of their proposals are a bit open to interpretation and could be implemented in terms of gender critical feminism as much as in terms of genderism. For instance, they don’t clearly state that they want trans IDed men to be allowed to compete in women’s sports.
A gender critical or radical materialist feminist interpretation would not agree with the lack of safety and fairness when males are allowed to compete in most female sports. Rather than denying biological reality, we would advocate for men to be more open to, and welcoming of, gender non-conformity, and of gay and bi men in their sports. However, given how wedded the current GP leadership is to reciting mantras like ‘transwomen are women’, and to demonising any gender critical views, I suspect that their implementation would be in line with extreme genderism.
The research by Jane Clare Jones et al traces the origins of transgender ideology, largely developed by well-off males in the US.[vii] She identifies their aim to be the eventual political erasure of sex, which will mainly be damaging to women as a sex-class. Such political erasure can be seen in the GP Rainbow Policy’s aim to replace sex in official identity documents with self-identified gender, and eventually to remove references to sex and gender from all such documentation. This conflicts with the aims in the GP Women’s and Rainbow policies, which require clear data on the ‘gender pay gap’ and discrimination against transgender or gender non-conforming people. For instance, we don’t yet have clear data on how males who identity as women compare with females, as regards pay and discrimination in significant areas of society. (See also, Alice Sullivan on the growing international trend to remove data on sex.[viii])
Who DOES have the political power?
In their 2023 manifesto, the Greens justify their plan for a Rainbow Ministry by saying there is a need for Rainbow people to have a strong voice in policies and practices that affect them.[ix] Yet, LGBT+ organisations already have a strong voice as indicated by the use of InsideOut in the Ministry of Transport staff training[x]. This is also indicated in “Mako Mama – Mangopare, Single Parents Project” research report [xi] that argues for the same networks for single parents in government, government agencies and businesses as exist for LGBT+ networks.
Who to vote for?
I could never vote for NACTFirst as they would cause widespread damage to New Zealand’s society and economy, especially with regards to public services, wealth, and income disparities, and especially to women, which a NACTFirst government would continue to control and exploit.
I have voted for the Green Party several times, as most of their polices are ones I strongly agree with, especially on income and wealth inequalities, housing inequalities, and the environment. At this time when we have a major cost of living crisis, many of their policies would significantly lessen income and wealth inequalities, and poverty, hopefully immediately. However, I now am conflicted because of the (neo)liberal, anti-materialist polices they have absorbed that will be very damaging to women and children in the long term. In their radical embracing of gender identity politics, they have noticeably lost touch with things they claim to prize: material reality, good science, widespread community engagement, listening to ALL the voices of the marginalised, and to true participant democracy.
[i] Jane Clare Jones, The Radical Notion, Issue Three, “Woman as Resource: Towards a Radical Materialist Feminism” https://theradicalnotion.org/woman-as-resource-towards-a-radical-materialist-feminism/
[ii] NZ Green Party, “Women’s Policy”, https://www.greens.org.nz/womens_policy
NZ Green Party, “Women’s Policy in Full”, https://assets.nationbuilder.com/beachheroes/pages/9637/attachments/original/1683326641/Policy-Greens_Womens-Policy-2014-2023.pdf?1683326641
NZ Green Party, “Our Policy”, https://www.greens.org.nz/policy_complete_party
NZ Green Party, “The Time is Now: Green Party 2023 Manifesto”, https://www.greens.org.nz/manifesto_2023
NZ Green Party, Full Manifesto 2023, https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSWSfQJunWVEuNIQjF4sdIy3Qa7uFoe6R6vHIk5lh9EmSH_Amf7yXFssfK9GHzu8S19NbrzPcB8Oj_o/pub
[iii] Ally-Marie Diamond, “Why the Nordic Model? A view from New Zealand”, February 2020, https://nordicmodelnow.org/2020/02/26/why-the-nordic-model-a-view-from-new-zealand/. Nordic Model: decriminalises all those who are prostituted; provides services to help them leave; makes prostitution buying a criminal offence.
[iv] NZ Green Party, “Women’s Policy”, https://www.greens.org.nz/womens_policy
NZ Green Party, “The Time is Now: Green Party 2023 Manifesto”, https://www.greens.org.nz/manifesto_2023
[v] NZ Green Party, “Full Rainbow Policy”, https://assets.nationbuilder.com/beachheroes/pages/9630/attachments/original/1668633533/Policy-Greens_Rainbow_Policy_2022.pdf?1668633533
See Jane Clare Jones, ‘The Political Erasure of Sex, Sex and the Census. 1. A Brief History of Transgender ideology”, for the rise of gender identity political and ideological agenda mostly devised largely by well-off males in the US. https://thepoliticalerasureofsex.org/
And Jones’ X Thread on Naomi Klein’s “Doppleganger”, 25 Sept, 2023, https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1706221465484267786.html
[vi] Kerekere defines her “Mana Wāhine” as “Māori feminist”, whereas Naomi Simmonds explains it as a complex concept, interwoven with others, and that is dependent on context. She says, “that pre-colonisation, mana wāhine and mana tāne existed as complementary parts. The roles of men and women, while distinct, were not mutually exclusive or necessarily hierarchical.”
Elizabeth Kerekere, “Part of The Whānau: The Emergence of Takatāpui Identity: He Whāriki Takatāpui”, 2017, P30. https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/6369/thesis_access.pdf?sequence=1
Naomi Simmonds explains Mana Wāhine” as a complex concept, interwoven with others, and that is dependent on context. She says, “that pre-colonisation, mana wāhine and mana tāne existed as complementary parts. The roles of men and women, while distinct, were not mutually exclusive or necessarily hierarchical.”
Simmonds draws on women’s experiences of maternity as a key part of the experiences of mana wāhine, and sites the existence in Te Reo of the same words for key parts of Te Ao as those for parts of the female reproductive system: eg for placenta as land; for whare as womb. This is similar to, the explanation on TeAra, where it says women are respected for their ability to create life.[vi] (See also Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s explanation.)
Naomi Simmonds, “Mana wāhine: Decolonising politics”, Women’s Studies Journal, 25:2, 2011, https://www.wsanz.org.nz/journal/docs/WSJNZ252Simmonds11-25.pdf
National library of NZ, “Mana Wahine transcript”, 2017, https://natlib.govt.nz/he-tohu/korero/mana-wahine
Rawinia Higgins rāua ko Paul Meredith, “Story: Te Mana ot3 wahine”, Te Ara, https://teara.govt.nz/en/te-mana-o-te-wahine-maori-women/page-1
[vii] Jane Clare Jones, ‘The Political Erasure of Sex, Appendix: Sex and the Census. 1. A Brief History of Transgender ideology”, https://thepoliticalerasureofsex.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/The-Political-Erasure-of-Sex_Appendix.pdf and her X Thread on Naomi Klein’s “Doppleganger”, 25 Sept 2023 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1706221465484267786.html
[viii] Alice Sullivan, Feb 2023, “A big as; Sex and data collection”, Significance, Vol 20, Issue 1, on the trend to end sex-based data collection internationally, it’s US origins, and its repercussions. https://academic.oup.com/jrssig/article/20/1/6/7034186?login=false
[ix] NZ Green Party, “NZ Green Party Manifesto 2023”, says, “Establish a Ministry for Rainbow Communities to ensure Rainbow communities are involved in policies, strategies and programmes that affect them.” https://assets.nationbuilder.com/beachheroes/pages/17789/attachments/original/1688864858/Final-online-PDF-pages.pdf?1688864858 says, “Establish a Ministry for Rainbow Communities to ensure Rainbow communities are involved in policies, strategies and programmes that affect them.”
[x]Emma Barraclough, “The day InsideOUT came to the Ministry of Transport”, Sept 2023, https://www.speakupforwomen.nz/post/the-day-insideout-came-to-the-ministry-of-transport
[xi] “Mako Mama – Mangopare, Single Parents Project” Final Report May 2023,
That’s really helpful. Thank you. I agree. So much good stuff – like their suggested changes to tax – and yet it contradicts their more recent ideas which ignores so much power in the hands of a few men.