Thank you Jesse, for the insight, the balance, and the care.
So . . . a journo is looking at a scenario where she sees a group behaving despicably, as careless beings do, regardless of their gender, and pulls out a word that is beyond the pale.
And I guess my curiosity is triggered too as to why this c- word, which refers to a lovely bit of female anatomy, is seen as an insult so dire and ‘vicious’ that it can never be spoken or printed. Would I prefer to be called a c--- or a bitch? I think it’s the latter word that goes deeper, in fact - more an indictment of my character than my behaviour. It’s a conundrum I’m sure can’t be solved so easily, and I don’t expect to, yet it intrigues me.
And while my thoughts may add little to the contemplation (and I hope that substack doesn't edit my comment out for the use of other potentially offensive words!) I'd be very curious to know what the response would be if the topic referred to men behaving badly, and the scandal of minimum wage rates, say, and she had written, ‘So long as you’re prepared to behave like a prick to the men who take away your rubbish, mend the roads you drive on and do two or three jobs to feed their kids while you stand on their shoulders . . .’
I’m curious as to whether this would spark a reaction about the offending male cabinet members hating men, or that the ‘p’ word meant something so derogatory as to ruin a chap’s life, or how deeply offensive it would feel to see Chris Hipkins or Steve Abel called a prick.
You are so right to say that this has become seen through a lens that highlights a supremely tender area of sensitivity, the place that nobody must go - - the possible derogation of women. And that somehow to use the c- word to convey outrage about a small group of powerful women’s extraordinary carelessness of the needs of many thousands of women who have very little power, is the greater sleight, so that the purportedly devastating insult to these female cabinet ministers and indeed the whole of their sex, takes centre stage.
And of course, this is absurd. And our antennae need to be triggered by this ‘card’- this defensive device - and it’s easier for me to say this as a 77 year old woman, than it will ever be for a man in 2025. To me, this has nothing to do with feminism, or alternative kinds of feminism. It has to do with the need to bring basic humanity into politics as the primary value, and never let it leave.
Meanwhile, Trump, behaving like a bastard, or maybe some word that describes the human nether regions, sends over 250 Venezuelans to El Salvador in a manner so outrageously careless as to leave us gasping. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/16/venezuelans-deported-trump-lawyers-torture. Do we react with outrage at this slur on his parents’ integrity?
My own sense is that this reaction about the c-word is sad. To me, Andrea Vance’s sentence was right on the dot. It was a message to these cabinet women to step up, and act with honour and decency. And of course, this just an opinion.
One hundred per cent the sentiment is correct for the scrapping of the pay equity claims that were close to being finalised before Coalition passed their "adjustments" to the pay parity legislation under urgency.
As someone who marched with colleagues, partners, children, and grandchildren against inequity on so many levels but on pay inequity in particular, and has participated in pay equity processes, I am really disappointed in this post and it's failure to set aside the distraction. The truth is that in negating the current pay equity claims this government, and in particular its women MPs, actually have disrespected 'the women who birth their kids, school their offspring, and wipe the arses of their elderly parents'. These women will have the equal pay claims they clearly deserve postponed for years by the women coalition MPs, who actually 'do stand on their shoulders to earn their six-figure, taxpayer-funded pay packet. These same women removed the pay equity clause from their own agreements (because as you know they are sorted).
I refer you to Dame Anne Salmond's expert opinion piece She won't be right mate (Newsroom 09/05/2025) on "this latest assault on our democracy ... a despicable piece of legislation, aimed at over half of the population of this country, without giving them any chance to scrutinise or debate it". This is the real issue and one on which it is impossible to "agree with everyone"
Thank you Sue Elliot for explaining to Mr Nice Guy Peacemaker the crux of the matter that in his earnestness he has failed dismally to fully understand.
Thanks - I usually rail against the misappropriation of language and altering meaning to fit a political agenda but in this case - if the shoe fits - she can keep it.
But Andrea Vance didn’t call *anyone* a see-you-next-Tuesday…as she has said in a follow-up piece, there was no “X is a c***” or “X was a c***”. If politicians are interpreting the original article - which was decrying the decision and (indirectly) the decision makers - as “I’ve been called a c***” then isn’t that an admission of guilt on their part? Or, to use your phrasing, an admission they are not, in fact, trying their best.
The sideshow of manufactured victimisation aside - and it WAS a PR sideshow predicated on white privilege - the actions taken by government with respect to pay equity is nothing short of reprehensible.
And can our media please stop taking the bait and instead discuss the real issue (the rights of wahine being trampled over)? Oh, and explain to the Nats the difference between ‘equal pay’ and ‘pay equity’ - they clearly don’t get it.
To me the disappointing part of the debacle was that there was no room to actually discuss and debate the issue with clear information. It is a bit like the transgender issue where it has becomes too dangerous to have an opinion or discuss this in case you are cancelled.
There’s no doubt the process was massively flawed but everyone is now completely pushed into being polarised into the “yes women have been stabbed in the back” camp or the “no the old pay equity legislation was ridiculous” camp.
I would prefer to be called the ‘C’ word and maintain my handsome salary with its built-in annual income raises - than be betrayed by having promised pay equity claims so arbitrarily dismissed by smug; sanctimonious, self-serving politicians - of either gender.
🤷🏻♀️I am ALWAYS taken aback by the use of the "c" word as I never heard it growing up & later as a definite slur against women. But in later years I have seen it lose a solely female slant (& a total divorce from its origins?) & used as a term of the strength of feeling about a person's actions, so in the modern context Andrea was 💯 given the egregious actions these women had fronted & voted for 🤔Of course it is not a surprise that it has been used as a distraction, but we keep forgetting that members of this coalition in particular are adept at distraction, & many media are willing to abet them.
IMHO this has shown the women of the govt to be anti-women... NOT Andrea Vance by calling them out in modern vernacular, even if I wouldn't/couldn't do it myself, & particularly as many of them are on video SUPPORTING UNANIMOUSLY the version of the legislation being demolished, so lots of words covered by just one? (dishonest, despicable, dystopian... 😵💫) I wouldn't like it to be commonly used in media, but the bigger offence is what these women were complicit in 🤬
Thank you Jesse for your brave tackle of this current and contentious concern. From the media bubble if the c-word debate is the media story of the year, as you say, that is sad. It reflects media's power is based on "if it bleeds it leads", essentially bringing a negative thrust for justice, as you argue, to validate Andrea Vance's voice being heard. It is a good question, is Vance getting what she wanted from that?
I think we can all do better to respect women, we need to. There are some people (but never enough) working quietly to value and empower women. For example Shakti, the organisation supporting migrant and refugee women who arrive in Aotearoa and need protection from gender-based violence in a new country. You can imagine those women's concerns are much weightier than 'to c-word or not to c-word' and I hope media stories can pick up and celebrate the thread of what is being done effectively in order to strengthen our communities.
A key definition of the C word is ‘contemptible’; and it was used in the technically correct sense to describe contemptible people doing contemptible things. However, the C word itself is an example of the sacred being turned into the profane; by the contemptibly ambitious. You may enjoy my historical take on Cunt, and the assholes (and heroes) who deserve it as title today https://open.substack.com/pub/tadhgstopford/p/topical-essay-2-on-the-divine-feminine?r=59s119&utm_medium=ios
Also, why do we let swear words blind-side us? They’re words that we’ve put in the “bad” category but they’re just words. I always said to my kids that they can swear as much as they like around me, but be careful doing it around people who will judge them for it. I think swear words spice things up and can be used in clever and funny ways. Feeling relaxed about swearing is def not an indictment of your character Jesse!
Thank you Jesse, for the insight, the balance, and the care.
So . . . a journo is looking at a scenario where she sees a group behaving despicably, as careless beings do, regardless of their gender, and pulls out a word that is beyond the pale.
And I guess my curiosity is triggered too as to why this c- word, which refers to a lovely bit of female anatomy, is seen as an insult so dire and ‘vicious’ that it can never be spoken or printed. Would I prefer to be called a c--- or a bitch? I think it’s the latter word that goes deeper, in fact - more an indictment of my character than my behaviour. It’s a conundrum I’m sure can’t be solved so easily, and I don’t expect to, yet it intrigues me.
And while my thoughts may add little to the contemplation (and I hope that substack doesn't edit my comment out for the use of other potentially offensive words!) I'd be very curious to know what the response would be if the topic referred to men behaving badly, and the scandal of minimum wage rates, say, and she had written, ‘So long as you’re prepared to behave like a prick to the men who take away your rubbish, mend the roads you drive on and do two or three jobs to feed their kids while you stand on their shoulders . . .’
I’m curious as to whether this would spark a reaction about the offending male cabinet members hating men, or that the ‘p’ word meant something so derogatory as to ruin a chap’s life, or how deeply offensive it would feel to see Chris Hipkins or Steve Abel called a prick.
You are so right to say that this has become seen through a lens that highlights a supremely tender area of sensitivity, the place that nobody must go - - the possible derogation of women. And that somehow to use the c- word to convey outrage about a small group of powerful women’s extraordinary carelessness of the needs of many thousands of women who have very little power, is the greater sleight, so that the purportedly devastating insult to these female cabinet ministers and indeed the whole of their sex, takes centre stage.
And of course, this is absurd. And our antennae need to be triggered by this ‘card’- this defensive device - and it’s easier for me to say this as a 77 year old woman, than it will ever be for a man in 2025. To me, this has nothing to do with feminism, or alternative kinds of feminism. It has to do with the need to bring basic humanity into politics as the primary value, and never let it leave.
Meanwhile, Trump, behaving like a bastard, or maybe some word that describes the human nether regions, sends over 250 Venezuelans to El Salvador in a manner so outrageously careless as to leave us gasping. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/16/venezuelans-deported-trump-lawyers-torture. Do we react with outrage at this slur on his parents’ integrity?
My own sense is that this reaction about the c-word is sad. To me, Andrea Vance’s sentence was right on the dot. It was a message to these cabinet women to step up, and act with honour and decency. And of course, this just an opinion.
With appreciation.
One hundred per cent the sentiment is correct for the scrapping of the pay equity claims that were close to being finalised before Coalition passed their "adjustments" to the pay parity legislation under urgency.
👍🏾💯
As someone who marched with colleagues, partners, children, and grandchildren against inequity on so many levels but on pay inequity in particular, and has participated in pay equity processes, I am really disappointed in this post and it's failure to set aside the distraction. The truth is that in negating the current pay equity claims this government, and in particular its women MPs, actually have disrespected 'the women who birth their kids, school their offspring, and wipe the arses of their elderly parents'. These women will have the equal pay claims they clearly deserve postponed for years by the women coalition MPs, who actually 'do stand on their shoulders to earn their six-figure, taxpayer-funded pay packet. These same women removed the pay equity clause from their own agreements (because as you know they are sorted).
I refer you to Dame Anne Salmond's expert opinion piece She won't be right mate (Newsroom 09/05/2025) on "this latest assault on our democracy ... a despicable piece of legislation, aimed at over half of the population of this country, without giving them any chance to scrutinise or debate it". This is the real issue and one on which it is impossible to "agree with everyone"
Thank you Sue Elliot for explaining to Mr Nice Guy Peacemaker the crux of the matter that in his earnestness he has failed dismally to fully understand.
You may find this interesting Susan? https://open.substack.com/pub/tadhgstopford/p/topical-essay-2-on-the-divine-feminine?r=59s119&utm_medium=ios
Thanks - I usually rail against the misappropriation of language and altering meaning to fit a political agenda but in this case - if the shoe fits - she can keep it.
I believe it fits her like it was made for her
But Andrea Vance didn’t call *anyone* a see-you-next-Tuesday…as she has said in a follow-up piece, there was no “X is a c***” or “X was a c***”. If politicians are interpreting the original article - which was decrying the decision and (indirectly) the decision makers - as “I’ve been called a c***” then isn’t that an admission of guilt on their part? Or, to use your phrasing, an admission they are not, in fact, trying their best.
The sideshow of manufactured victimisation aside - and it WAS a PR sideshow predicated on white privilege - the actions taken by government with respect to pay equity is nothing short of reprehensible.
And can our media please stop taking the bait and instead discuss the real issue (the rights of wahine being trampled over)? Oh, and explain to the Nats the difference between ‘equal pay’ and ‘pay equity’ - they clearly don’t get it.
Keep up the great mahi!
Media are largely doing their job of providing cover, ‘flak’ for the money politics. You may find this Iinteresting Matt? https://open.substack.com/pub/tadhgstopford/p/topical-essay-2-on-the-divine-feminine?r=59s119&utm_medium=ios
To me the disappointing part of the debacle was that there was no room to actually discuss and debate the issue with clear information. It is a bit like the transgender issue where it has becomes too dangerous to have an opinion or discuss this in case you are cancelled.
There’s no doubt the process was massively flawed but everyone is now completely pushed into being polarised into the “yes women have been stabbed in the back” camp or the “no the old pay equity legislation was ridiculous” camp.
I would prefer to be called the ‘C’ word and maintain my handsome salary with its built-in annual income raises - than be betrayed by having promised pay equity claims so arbitrarily dismissed by smug; sanctimonious, self-serving politicians - of either gender.
🤷🏻♀️I am ALWAYS taken aback by the use of the "c" word as I never heard it growing up & later as a definite slur against women. But in later years I have seen it lose a solely female slant (& a total divorce from its origins?) & used as a term of the strength of feeling about a person's actions, so in the modern context Andrea was 💯 given the egregious actions these women had fronted & voted for 🤔Of course it is not a surprise that it has been used as a distraction, but we keep forgetting that members of this coalition in particular are adept at distraction, & many media are willing to abet them.
IMHO this has shown the women of the govt to be anti-women... NOT Andrea Vance by calling them out in modern vernacular, even if I wouldn't/couldn't do it myself, & particularly as many of them are on video SUPPORTING UNANIMOUSLY the version of the legislation being demolished, so lots of words covered by just one? (dishonest, despicable, dystopian... 😵💫) I wouldn't like it to be commonly used in media, but the bigger offence is what these women were complicit in 🤬
Thank you Jesse for your brave tackle of this current and contentious concern. From the media bubble if the c-word debate is the media story of the year, as you say, that is sad. It reflects media's power is based on "if it bleeds it leads", essentially bringing a negative thrust for justice, as you argue, to validate Andrea Vance's voice being heard. It is a good question, is Vance getting what she wanted from that?
I think we can all do better to respect women, we need to. There are some people (but never enough) working quietly to value and empower women. For example Shakti, the organisation supporting migrant and refugee women who arrive in Aotearoa and need protection from gender-based violence in a new country. You can imagine those women's concerns are much weightier than 'to c-word or not to c-word' and I hope media stories can pick up and celebrate the thread of what is being done effectively in order to strengthen our communities.
Thanks Jesse … a thoughtful and balanced summary
Refreshingly thoughtful and balanced 🙏
Hi Jesse, nice take.
A key definition of the C word is ‘contemptible’; and it was used in the technically correct sense to describe contemptible people doing contemptible things. However, the C word itself is an example of the sacred being turned into the profane; by the contemptibly ambitious. You may enjoy my historical take on Cunt, and the assholes (and heroes) who deserve it as title today https://open.substack.com/pub/tadhgstopford/p/topical-essay-2-on-the-divine-feminine?r=59s119&utm_medium=ios
Also, why do we let swear words blind-side us? They’re words that we’ve put in the “bad” category but they’re just words. I always said to my kids that they can swear as much as they like around me, but be careful doing it around people who will judge them for it. I think swear words spice things up and can be used in clever and funny ways. Feeling relaxed about swearing is def not an indictment of your character Jesse!
Good article, Jesse, but just one point:-
Andrea Vance is NOT a "nice person" in my opinion.
I recall her vitriolic outbursts on TV.