It is men, now, who need feminism

Ialmost feel like a midwife to Sue Kedgley’s book Fifty Years a Feminist. Being firstnamed in her acknowledgements has required a few explanations – why would a former ACT MP urge a former Green MP to pen a memoir?

As benchmates in Parliament some years back Sue, National MP Katherine Rich, and I became friends, and this relationship has continued long after politics. Over our regular lunches I eventually persuaded the reluctant Sue to at least meet publisher Nicola Legat with a view to writing a book.

This unlikely friendship of three different politicos was forged in the toxic culture of Parliament, where (most) women from all parties circle the wagons against tiresome male behaviour – braggadocio at best, and sexual harassment at worst.

Feminism ignores boundaries in tough times, regardless of background: political, socio-economic, geographic, cultural, or personal. This is an example of what Sue Kedgley means when she says women have changed their behaviour, now men should change. Her book concludes, men ‘‘need to reinvent the male role, just as we’ve reinvented the female role’’. It is men, now, who need feminism. Bluntly, women talk to and support each other in a meaningful way. Men don’t. Those men who need feminising most, are those in serious trouble.

Some examples. In May a former partner from law firm Russell McVeagh offered excuses of alcohol when crossexamined by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Committee over his behaviour towards four summer clerks at an out-of-office Christmas party.

He was drunk, he claimed (through counsel). Someone kept topping up his drink. He accepted he’d ‘‘traced a wine stain’’ on the shirt of one of the complainants and he was ‘‘sorry for everything they felt and experienced’’.

Implicitly, there is denial, lack of responsibility, victim blaming, all the way through this defence like the veins in a gorgonzola cheese. Women are tired of non-apologies, gaslighting, having to put a stop to this groping. Women want men to not even think about unwanted touching and groping. It is not women’s responsibility to make men behave.

I’m no lawyer, but for me the obvious question the tribunal should ask was: ‘‘You’re a married heterosexual man, so if the summer clerks were guys would you have let them get you drunk then danced close, run your hands over their bodies, traced wine stains over their T-shirts, generally be a sex pest?’’

Alcohol doesn’t sexually assault women, men do, but men blame booze, enabled by those who oppose licensed outlets. Professor Doug Sellman of Otago University recently criticised Wellington City Council for failing to ‘‘curb alcohol use in Courtenay Place after midnight’’ saying 10,000 alcohol-related sexual assaults occur every year in New Zealand.

So, blame shifts away from the assailant to the booze, along with those who sell it. Inevitably it’s the women who consume it (since it is mostly women who are assaulted) at whom society points the finger. In a feminised world, anyone who has consumed too much alcohol would be assisted, not assaulted. And why does being over the limit disqualify someone from driving, yet offer an excuse for sexual assault?

I am aware men don’t have a monopoly on denial and victim shaming. Acclaimed children’s author Joy Cowley got into trouble when she accused women of flirting with priests after Bishop John Drennan resigned following revelations he’d had inappropriate sexual relations with a young woman.

Boys are also sexually abused by priests – Catholic, Marist, Anglican – yet nobody in their right mind has accused them inviting their own assaults. Nonetheless, judging by the public reaction to Sue Kedgley’s book there remain many men who still need to catch up.

In other words, women are to blame, not men: ‘‘I couldn’t help noticing [in the 70s] some girls were behaving with glee the way men had been behaving for centuries.’’

Gagging for it.

If three MPs can forge a lifelong friendship in and out of Parliament without squabbling over differing politics, based on mutual support, is it too much to ask for this ethic to permeate throughout Parliament?

The public face of Parliament – the debating chamber – with its bullying, shouting, and personal insults, sees nobody covered with glory. It’s not funny. There is no honour in being ‘‘kicked out’’ of the House. Some MPs have a clear aim to make women cry; a notch in their belts. Are taxpayers happy with this use of their money? No better place then than Parliament to begin the feminisation process.

Those men who need feminising most, are those in serious trouble.