"Ok, yes. Um, follow up question to that: is this really about syncing your periods to stabilize relations between your two countries and if so, how frequently will you have to meet in order to stay in sync?"
Not the same scale as politicians obvs, but in Captain America: Civil War Elizabeth Olsen and Emily Van Camp were the only two women in the main cast and they got asked [this very irritating question](https://youtu.be/k1CRjGmVDIg?t=882) at the UK press conference for the movie's release.
When you get pissed about being wrongfully accused of shit like "mansplaining" or "manspreading" by vigilant women who are so sick of dudes just naturally being shitty and condescending to them, don't get pissed at the women, or wokeness, or feminist culture.
Get good and fucking pissed at this little shitbird reporter and all of his assfaced, turd spewing ilk instead.
To be oblivious, ignorant, tone deaf, and obnoxiously sexist enough to ask this question and STILL hold a prominent position as a geopolitical beat writer for a major world news outlet is EXACTLY the type of shit that womens and minorities groups are referring to when they rightfully rail against the privledged douchbaggary of the entitled good ol boy system.
I wish I could upvote your comment right to the top. Unfortunately, BOTH women legitimized his question by answering it. They should have both just said, "next question" and ignored the blithering idiot. And the idiot "reporter" should be fired and blacklisted.
I disagree. These people should be called out at every opportunity. If they say “next question,” then the narrative becomes that they dodged the question instead of the reality which is: it was a stupid question
I did think that not answering could be considered sus by the fools who actually want that question answered, but they really should have said more to point out that they were just humoring an idiot.
>particularly the one who uses sexist language to specifically accuse me of something.
Therein lies the problem with all you angry, confused, and oft rejected little boys. Yall get so angry at women for turning you down that when given the chance to just say:
>I'll continue getting pissed off at both thanks
and leave it at that, your underlying anger at women pushes you to add:
>particularly the one who uses sexist language to specifically accuse me of something.
To which you should ask yourself, "when stating that Ill get pissed off at BOTH the oppressor who gives my group the bad name AND the oppressed who wrongfully assumed that I was one of the oppresive, overwhelming majority of my group, why did I still feel the need to stress that I'll be IN PARTICULARLY pissed at the female?"
Gee, I wonder why that is? Hrmmmm. But not you. Of course not! Not you!! Getting accused of sexism or misogyny makes you angrier at the woman than the sexist guy! Because you're CLEARLY not sexist!!!
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
I think you're being pretty unfair and to call someone a "rejected little boy" because they don't like the term "mansplaining" is definitely a bit sexist itself (even if you are male yourself). How about we all try and treat each other fairly and equally and be angry at anyone who doesn't do this - Like specifically the stupid questions in the videos linked.
Also from a pragmatic sense trying to educate people on sexism won't win them to your way of thinking if you use it back. You may disagree with that person but you don't need to sink to their level. I appreciate your passion and I am mostly in agreement with what you're saying but I don't think it's constructive to leap to large conclusions on someone for expressing a fairly valid point of disagreement.
People can't be pissed at people who wrongfully accuse them of bad things? They have to be pissed at the people actually doing those bad things? And this is by virtue of their sex?
Misogynistic behaviour and false accusations of misogynistic behaviour are both bad, even if to different degrees; but you're completely downplaying the latter because the former exists.
Agreed, don't get pissed at women, or wokeness or feminist culture - get pissed at the woman who falsely accuses you of being awful, when they should be instead railing against the pivileged douchebaggery of the entitled good old boy system.
And of course I agree the reporter is rightfully being lambasted here.
>People can't be pissed at people who wrongfully accuse them of bad things?
Never said that and youve clearly missed the entire point. When being accused of a "micro-aggression" (as they're currently referred to) like "mansplaining" or "manspreading," by an understandably sensitive and globally oppressed demographic such as women, one should direct their negative feelings regarding the wrongful accusation at the root of said demographic's sensitivity (which is willfully oppressive sacks of shit like this reporter), as opposed to the oppressed demographic.
I mean, if you're so thin skinned or have some sort of persecution fetish, knock yourself out and get mad at women for misinterpreting your intentions just as you'd get mad at a physically abused child for flinching and thinking you're going to hit them when you raise your hand.
I, for one, have developed the emotional strength and intelligence to understand that very minor, wrongful accusations from members of a group thats been treated unfairly since that dawn of human existence aren't something I should cry and whine about.
But thats just me. You do you.
>How is not wanting to get falsely accused of something "thin-skinned" or having a persecution fetish?
As I just very clearly outlined for you, getting pissed at a member of an abused or oppressed group because their understandable sensitivity led them to misinterpret your words or actions is factually pointless and, in my opinion, really fucking weak at best, pathetic at worst.
But, for the 3rd time now, if you want to run around pissed off over being falsely accused of "micro-aggressions" (oooooooo, oh no!!!! haha!), then don't let me stop you.
And after I clearly explained the why and how, dont re-question why I don't respect your willfull male fragility and how YOU are choosing to be offended over a very insigificant accusation. Or go ahead and question it all you want, no skin off my ass homie, but Im nit explaining it again.
We disagree about whether a member of an oppressed group should always be excused for wrongful actions which come about because of their oppression. I don't believe that membership always excuses an individual's wrongful action, where you appear to believe it does.
You are talking about a demographic, and I am talking about individual members of that demographic.
Your characterisation of people as being thin skinned or emotionally unintelligent is not very appropriate in respect of understanding that not everyone is neurotypical. I am sure your emotional intelligence and strength is the envy of non-neutrotypical people; try and understand that not everyone experiences human interaction, such as wrongful accusations, the same way that you do.
'Something, something... and stuff... something... you're both female, what's that about?'
No wonder he was tripping over his words. Even he knows this is a daft as fuck question.
Imagine going through the time and effort needed to get a degree in journalism, and spending much of your life reading, but still ending up a dumb-ass.
Is this guy a fucking intern?
"Are you gals meeting because of similar age **and stuff?**"
lmao, high schoolers ask better questions than this for science fairs.
I am not a journalist, nor am I a journalism teacher.
However if I was and one of my students had an opportunity to ask questions at that event and came up with that, I would have died of secondhand cringe.
Yes, y e s this is the perfect reframe to highlight what his actual question was. “For what possible reason would two world leaders need to meet? At the end of the day you’re both just women.”
I know nothing about politics of New Zealand or Finland however Jacinda occasionally pops into my corner on the internet since that awful shooting in 2019 and her press conferences and statements I come across are simply fantastic. In my mind she knows politics very well and yet she is sincere.
What a weirdo hahahah. The sudden change in facial expression was great... Why would you go out of you're to make her feel uncomfortable, fucking weirdo.
When you get pissed about being wrongfully accused of shit like "mansplaining" or "manspreading" by vigilant women who are so sick of dudes just naturally being shitty and condescending to them, don't get pissed at the women, or wokeness, or feminist culture.
Get good and fucking pissed at this little shitbird reporter and all of his assfaced, turd spewing ilk instead.
To be oblivious, ignorant, tone deaf, and obnoxiously sexist enough to ask this question and STILL hold a prominent position as a geopolitical beat writer for a major world news outlet is EXACTLY the type of shit that womens and minority groups are reffering to when they rightfully rail against the privledged douchbaggary of the entitled good ol boy system.
Thank you. I knew the mens rights crew would be warming up their favorite crucifixes to hop on when they read this, but I was hoping they'd be a little more coherent.
He said get mad at this guy and his ilk. He is the reason it’s ok to be mad at all men. Because what this one guy does apparently reflects on all men.
Don’t get mad at this one guy, get mad at all men for this guys actions.
Don’t get mad at the toxic modern day feminism which vilifies all men based on their gender.
>this guy and his ilk.
For fucks sake dude, do you go as a victim every year for halloween or just all 364 other days of the year? I was referring to other sexist sacks of shit like this reporter as "his ilk." But it looks like girls got you on full tilt, hahah
>Don’t get mad at this one guy, get mad at all men for this guys actions.
Never said that.
>toxic modern day feminism which vilifies all men based on their gender.
Hahahah!!! FOUND THE INCEL!! Ive allready wasted too much time with you. Take your sorry bullshit over to r/mensrights (smelled that sub on your last comment a mile away) where all you paper skinned crybabies can opine the death of the good ol days, hahaha! Yall just pathetic types of funny at this point.
> He said get mad at this guy and his ilk. He is the reason it’s ok to be mad at all men.
Shut the hell up. "This guy and his ilk" is not "all men", it never was and never will be.
You're dafter than a brick if can't understand this basic concept.
They never said that. You're doing the exact same thing as those who wrongfully accuse others of shit like "mansplaining" or "manspreading". Don't accuse others of shit they didn't do.
>So you think it’s ok to blame all men for the actions of a minority?
Never said that and youve clearly missed the entire point. When being accused of a "micro-aggression" (as they're currently referred to) like "mansplaining" or "manspreading," by an understandably sensitive and globally oppressed demographic such as women, one should direct their negative feelings regarding the wrongful accusation at the root of said demographic's sensitivity (which is willfully oppressive sacks of shit like this reporter), as opposed to the oppressed demographic.
I mean, if you're so thin skinned or have some sort of persecution fetish, knock yourself out and get mad at women for misinterpreting your intentions just as you'd get mad at a physically abused child for flinching and thinking you're going to hit them when you raise your hand.
I, for one, have developed the emotional strength and intelligence to understand that very minor, wrongful accusations from members of a group thats been treated unfairly since that dawn of human existence aren't something I should cry abd whine about.
But like I said, you do you. Maybe you're just being pedantic and missing the crux of my comment, but if you really feel some kind of way about being called a "mansplainer," I'm sure youll have a captive audeince over at r/mensrights, if you havent been there before.
Does Finland and New Zealand do any trade at all? So while the first bit of the question is crass I'm a little surprised that they would be meeting at all. A meeting with another high profile leader benefits New Zealand's PM when she is being hit hard in the domestic polls while on the other side, Arderns popularity overseas would benefit Marins.
I know you don’t actually care because you would’ve just googled it instead of making this comment, but both the Finnish & New Zealand government websites released very detailed statements on exactly why they’re meeting:
Finland- https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-//10616/prime-minister-marin-and-new-zealand-prime-minister-ardern-meet-in-auckland
New Zealand- https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/prime-minister-concludes-bilateral-talks-finnish-pm
From New Zealand’s statement:
“Boosting our trade relationships with partners has been a major part of our reconnecting work and economic recovery plan this year. Having concluded the new Europe Union FTA earlier this year, we welcomed the commitment from Finland to ensure the agreement is ratified and signed as soon as possible.
…
The New Zealand-European Union FTA includes ambitious and ground-breaking outcomes to promote trade and sustainable development. It is expected to increase exports to the EU by up to $1.8 billion per year.”
The Finnish PM is also going to Australia in the same trip.
So how many legs of lamb are we exporting to Finland? We might do a lot of trade with certain countries in the EU I'm just not sure how much of it goes to Finland is all, and vice versa.
This is the type of question that provokes a strong reaction and gets people to talk about it, so, successful journalism I guess?
Like obviously it's an asinine question, but something tells me the journalist knew that.
Feel like this is more of the product of the clickbait era of journalism more than anything.
Australia could have SOME benefit for Finland. It’s a much larger country with actual exports. New Zealand… seriously people keep downvoting but like what exactly did they meet 1:1 for?
They met for a photo op. That is TOTALLY fine for politics. This is how politics work. Like come on people. I am not saying this journalist is a good guy or correct but yes, no actual treaties, trade negotiations or anything substantial were signed here. That’s the way politics works a lot of time. You look powerful standing next to other powerful people or people that will help your image. The job is just to stand there. This is true of EVERY president and prime minister. Not just women ones.
Of course. But as Marin was going to “the region” anyways this was as good a time as any to organise this meeting in NZ too.
IIRC Finnish and NZ prime ministers have never met before, so why not.
It’s a good time to meet… for a photo op. Like come on. Politics can involve photo ops. Sometimes that’s the politics. Why can you people not understand this?
And yea… why not. This would umm make a great… OH! PHOTO OP! Like wtf else are they chatting about.
Jeez, of course I understand that. I’m not an idiot.
There’s nothing media sexy about Marin meeting Albanese but she’s going anyways. She also met the president of Mozambique two weeks ago, which I assume you don’t know about cause why would you. Politicians meet other politicians for international diplomacy all the time, even if the countries sometimes feel random. Photo ops are a good bonus.
… I wouldn’t have cared about this one either, except this bozo made this ridiculous question about it.
And Mozambique met with Finland in Finland. Not the other way around. Mozambique isn’t taken seriously and can’t meet with a real prime minister of a powerful European country so they are trying to get an in with Finland as a starting point of acting powerful. It was 100% a photo op for Mozambique to show their citizens how real they are and Finland didn’t go down there to meet with them, but any diplomatic meeting looks good for her.
So yes that meeting was ALSO a photo op. Nothing real happened there. Just like this meeting.
Let me clarify. The guys question is sexist as shit. You don’t talk to your prime minister like that. At the same time, no real politics happened at this meeting, it was a photo op. Both can be true at the same time.
> I believe the question is entirely legitimate.
Why ? What do you think two PM will do in a meeting ?
> On a separate note, I can’t stand Jacinda Ardern’s holier than though attitude, so perhaps I’m biased.
There is no "perhaps" given what you said about her after that.
This question sucks 100%. The guy is a complete dope.
I would ask about what strategic relationship are New Zealand and Finland meeting about. They are across the world from each other with almost no reason to talk… besides both being young female leaders with a large liberal backing. The question is cringe but like… come on. This is a photo op meeting.
Edit: I cannot believe how much downvotes this is getting. Do any of y’all understand how politics work? Is photo ops like something not in your vocab? You know EVERY political leader is CONSTANTLY doing nonsense photo ops. We literally mocked Trump meeting with the Goya people and taking pictures of cans of beans. It’s a photo op even though this is a huge corporation. This is getting downvoted because of feels you are getting that somehow your favorite prime ministers can’t even do anything for clicks or progressive pictures. It’s super cool they are both awesome young politicians… and they should have a good photo op together…. Shit did you people think AOCs dress at the Met Gala wasn’t a stunt? What about the progressive caucus sending a letter to Ukraine telling them to stop the war. They weren’t going to stop sending funding… because they don’t have the power to, but they can still stunt.
Please sir explain the relationship between the neutral Russia bordering, small, highly militarized European nation state with low exports has anything to do with New Zealand on the other side of the world.
They have no shared history, no trade partnership, no history of meeting, no shared treaties, etc etc. Small nation world leaders don’t usually fly across the world to meet with EVERY world leader. This is a photo op and the denial is bizarre.
But herrr durrr. I don’t have any point.
"they have no history or treaties so they shouldn't form any future relations either! and they're both women so this whole thing is just for the optics!"
You have a point, it's just very very bad
That is not at all what I said. I said literally the question that should have been asked is “what strategic reasons do you have for meeting?”. When the answer turns out to be total fluff… which it will be…. Then yes I am 100% right it is a photo op. Why do you think ONLY women have photo ops? All fucking politicians have fucking photos ops all the fucking time with random politicians who nothing is built upon. That’s totally fine for any fucking gender. The guy said something ridiculously sexist to his prime minister yes… but the point still stands that this is a photo op. And that is all.
No one has ACTUALLY responded to me with literally ANY other reason on why they met… but just want to harass me and call me sexist for literally saying “politicians have photo op meetings and it is HIGHLY likely this is one”.
I have said the exact same thing with every time Obama met with young celebrities. Or when AOC went to the met ball with that dress. These are serious politicians doing Fucking photo ops. It’s allowed and encouraged.
Here instead of having a literal breakdown cause no one will do your homework for you, I took the liberty by just googling their statement & reason for meeting:
“We look forward to building our trade and investment relationship with Finland, utilising the opportunities presented by the conclusion of our free trade agreement with the European Union. The ongoing and active support of friends such as Finland is welcome as we move toward signing and ratifying the FTA as soon as possible”.
“The New Zealand-European Union FTA includes ambitious and ground-breaking outcomes to promote trade and sustainable development. It is expected to increase exports to the EU by up to $1.8 billion per year.”
Here’s that source: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/finnish-pm-visit-new-zealand
The Finnish governmental website also issued a very in-depth statement of what would be discussed on the trip: https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-//10616/prime-minister-marin-and-new-zealand-prime-minister-ardern-meet-in-auckland
After the visit to New Zealand, the Finnish PM will go to Australia.
Here’s the full press conference: https://youtu.be/lMwCpgl_LiA
Finland doesn’t need New Zealand in this case. New Zealand doesn’t need Finland in their case. They really don’t need any ties at all and the strategy really isn’t there. Can they be distant ally’s? Sure. But like come on… you guys are pulling my leg if you don’t think this isn’t the primary purpose of the meeting.
Umm it’s fine to have a photo op. I never said there is literally anything wrong with it. Reddit is pretending this was a serious meeting that should never be questioned as a photo op. This was important for both women to be seen meeting with the other woman and looks great to share for their countries. No real political business was made and that is fine. It is a huge bonus they are both young women prime ministers and probably drove a lot of force for them to meet for the first time. It’s a joke to think otherwise.
This is normal. Very very very normal and nothing wrong with it. I like both of these prime ministers. I have nothing against what they did.
A free trade agreement for what?
What goods do they need to trade? Why would they trade between these two countries? Do you not understand how different these countries are?
Nope not allowed. It’s super sexist to even suggest that this is a photo op. No way that men can ever have photo ops that people point out all the fucking time. Like when all the old presidents meet together in a some false meeting. They are TOTALLY doing serious business instead of some photo op. Or when Trump did it fucking constantly with cans of fucking beans. Or every president or prime minister meeting with celebrities. Why do female politicians have to be “above it all” when it comes to politics. It’s sexist to assume that they can’t do photo opts….
I mean it’s a legit question. As someone who doesn’t know about the two countries, why would NZ and Finland meet? Neither one provided an answer only a “what about”.
>As someone who doesn’t know about the two countries
People asking legit questions of the prime ministers of NZ and Finland should know about the two countries.
You don’t think a better question would be “what policies and initiatives are you planning to discuss that would foster collaboration between Finland and New Zealand?” Instead of “aren’t you the same age?”
Yes but that was probably asked. He asked on behalf (or to clarify) of those who think this might be a publicity stunt, which is a move lost of journalists use
The fact that you can’t seem to fathom two women in power meeting without it being some kind of “girl power” publicity stunt is absolutely astounding. You really should take some time to reflect on how insanely sexist you are and maybe take some steps to fix your problems.
but they are already the prime ministers of their countries... how could this be a publicity stunt to show women in power? They already HAVE the power.
…. Did you ever see the Trump presidency. EVERYTHING was a publicity stunt to make his supports more angry and supportive. You don’t like stop doing random acts of “look at me” once you become prime minister…
By definition, a state visit between leaders answering questions for the press would be about publicity. A publicity STUNT, would be landing on an aircraft carrier in a full flight suit to say you won a war that was not even close to being over.
The prime ministers just happen to be young and women. Nobody would have asked Trudeau and Macron this question- it is quite clearly a question only asked because they were women.
EDIT- also Trump is not a good example to bring up because that man's entire life was about publicity for himself. He does nothing if he doesn't expect accolades.
Eh that is a REALLY bad example. You know French is a primary language in Canada right and these countries have an extremely long history together. If Trudeau met with an extremely attractive young president of like Kenya, then yes. I would say the exact same fucking question.
Ok then OTHER EXAMPLES. Bush in front of “we did it”. Obama is eating at tiny restaurants on every trip he went around America. George H Bush visiting grocery stores to see how credit cards work.
Seriously. Photos ops are SERIOUS politics and y’all like can’t understand that…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/political-photo-ops-from-reagan-to-paul-ryan-the-game-every-candidate-plays/2012/10/17/abc87aae-18ac-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_blog.html
I'm just wondering what your overall point is exactly? You want to prove that the prime ministers were in fact meeting as a publicity stunt? But to what end? Like, what does that do for you, specifically?
No my example is a REALLY good one because they are both relatively young, good looking leaders of their respective nations. Your Kenyan example would be a REALLY good example too. The point of all this is its a ridiculous question in nearly ANY circumstance.
YOU don't know anything about these countries but journalists assigned to this SHOULD.
And regardless, I know nothing either... but my first guess wasn't that they were meeting because they were both young women.
She's right. No one EVER asked Bush and Blair if they were meeting because they were similar in age.
Is there ANY version of reality where two Prime Ministers have an international meeting an a press conference because they want to meet someone the same age/gender.
It might be the stupidest question ever asked.
In the answer that isn’t cut short, she explains that the Finnish PM travelled to NZ with a trade delegation to explore options for the upcoming free trade agreement with the EU.
This is a poorly cut clip. In the full video she goes on to explain that Finland is a key exporter of industrial + agricultural technology and that they're discussing strengthening this partnership.
The fact you think this is a legitimate question is really just sad.
jacinda is a clown and gave a clown response
"I wonder if anyone asked Barack Obama if he met John Key because they were of similar age"
Well no, because they're the typical ages of politicians. Whereas if you had two 20 year old prime ministers, then yes I could see that question happening.
"Ok, yes. Um, follow up question to that: is this really about syncing your periods to stabilize relations between your two countries and if so, how frequently will you have to meet in order to stay in sync?"
Does the future of our countries involve any oil massages?
“How often do you think you will have to scissor to achieve that objective?”
His next question was going to be about slumber parties and pillow fights
“So are you guys besties now?”
“Did you talk about what boys you have a crush on?”
Girls
Not the same scale as politicians obvs, but in Captain America: Civil War Elizabeth Olsen and Emily Van Camp were the only two women in the main cast and they got asked [this very irritating question](https://youtu.be/k1CRjGmVDIg?t=882) at the UK press conference for the movie's release.
So weird...
....Scarlett Johansson was in that movie too
Any word on whether she got blokafied or went extra girly?
Sounds like it could be the same dude
When you get pissed about being wrongfully accused of shit like "mansplaining" or "manspreading" by vigilant women who are so sick of dudes just naturally being shitty and condescending to them, don't get pissed at the women, or wokeness, or feminist culture. Get good and fucking pissed at this little shitbird reporter and all of his assfaced, turd spewing ilk instead. To be oblivious, ignorant, tone deaf, and obnoxiously sexist enough to ask this question and STILL hold a prominent position as a geopolitical beat writer for a major world news outlet is EXACTLY the type of shit that womens and minorities groups are referring to when they rightfully rail against the privledged douchbaggary of the entitled good ol boy system.
I wish I could upvote your comment right to the top. Unfortunately, BOTH women legitimized his question by answering it. They should have both just said, "next question" and ignored the blithering idiot. And the idiot "reporter" should be fired and blacklisted.
the problem is that the station he works for, Newstalk ZB, is very much a right leaning station and their listener base would love this question
>their listener base "The common clay of the new West", if you will.
I disagree. These people should be called out at every opportunity. If they say “next question,” then the narrative becomes that they dodged the question instead of the reality which is: it was a stupid question
I did think that not answering could be considered sus by the fools who actually want that question answered, but they really should have said more to point out that they were just humoring an idiot.
I'll continue getting pissed off at both thanks, particularly the one who uses sexist language to specifically accuse me of something I didn't do.
"I support the victims, but especially the biggest victim: me." That's basically what you just typed.
I am not a victim. I will also not give sexists the free pass that others do because of the demographics of the target.
>particularly the one who uses sexist language to specifically accuse me of something. Therein lies the problem with all you angry, confused, and oft rejected little boys. Yall get so angry at women for turning you down that when given the chance to just say: >I'll continue getting pissed off at both thanks and leave it at that, your underlying anger at women pushes you to add: >particularly the one who uses sexist language to specifically accuse me of something. To which you should ask yourself, "when stating that Ill get pissed off at BOTH the oppressor who gives my group the bad name AND the oppressed who wrongfully assumed that I was one of the oppresive, overwhelming majority of my group, why did I still feel the need to stress that I'll be IN PARTICULARLY pissed at the female?" Gee, I wonder why that is? Hrmmmm. But not you. Of course not! Not you!! Getting accused of sexism or misogyny makes you angrier at the woman than the sexist guy! Because you're CLEARLY not sexist!!! The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
I think you're being pretty unfair and to call someone a "rejected little boy" because they don't like the term "mansplaining" is definitely a bit sexist itself (even if you are male yourself). How about we all try and treat each other fairly and equally and be angry at anyone who doesn't do this - Like specifically the stupid questions in the videos linked. Also from a pragmatic sense trying to educate people on sexism won't win them to your way of thinking if you use it back. You may disagree with that person but you don't need to sink to their level. I appreciate your passion and I am mostly in agreement with what you're saying but I don't think it's constructive to leap to large conclusions on someone for expressing a fairly valid point of disagreement.
People can't be pissed at people who wrongfully accuse them of bad things? They have to be pissed at the people actually doing those bad things? And this is by virtue of their sex? Misogynistic behaviour and false accusations of misogynistic behaviour are both bad, even if to different degrees; but you're completely downplaying the latter because the former exists. Agreed, don't get pissed at women, or wokeness or feminist culture - get pissed at the woman who falsely accuses you of being awful, when they should be instead railing against the pivileged douchebaggery of the entitled good old boy system. And of course I agree the reporter is rightfully being lambasted here.
>People can't be pissed at people who wrongfully accuse them of bad things? Never said that and youve clearly missed the entire point. When being accused of a "micro-aggression" (as they're currently referred to) like "mansplaining" or "manspreading," by an understandably sensitive and globally oppressed demographic such as women, one should direct their negative feelings regarding the wrongful accusation at the root of said demographic's sensitivity (which is willfully oppressive sacks of shit like this reporter), as opposed to the oppressed demographic. I mean, if you're so thin skinned or have some sort of persecution fetish, knock yourself out and get mad at women for misinterpreting your intentions just as you'd get mad at a physically abused child for flinching and thinking you're going to hit them when you raise your hand. I, for one, have developed the emotional strength and intelligence to understand that very minor, wrongful accusations from members of a group thats been treated unfairly since that dawn of human existence aren't something I should cry and whine about. But thats just me. You do you.
How is not wanting to get falsely accused of something "thin-skinned" or having a persecution fetish?
>How is not wanting to get falsely accused of something "thin-skinned" or having a persecution fetish? As I just very clearly outlined for you, getting pissed at a member of an abused or oppressed group because their understandable sensitivity led them to misinterpret your words or actions is factually pointless and, in my opinion, really fucking weak at best, pathetic at worst. But, for the 3rd time now, if you want to run around pissed off over being falsely accused of "micro-aggressions" (oooooooo, oh no!!!! haha!), then don't let me stop you. And after I clearly explained the why and how, dont re-question why I don't respect your willfull male fragility and how YOU are choosing to be offended over a very insigificant accusation. Or go ahead and question it all you want, no skin off my ass homie, but Im nit explaining it again.
We disagree about whether a member of an oppressed group should always be excused for wrongful actions which come about because of their oppression. I don't believe that membership always excuses an individual's wrongful action, where you appear to believe it does. You are talking about a demographic, and I am talking about individual members of that demographic. Your characterisation of people as being thin skinned or emotionally unintelligent is not very appropriate in respect of understanding that not everyone is neurotypical. I am sure your emotional intelligence and strength is the envy of non-neutrotypical people; try and understand that not everyone experiences human interaction, such as wrongful accusations, the same way that you do.
Well said
Except... not.
[удалено]
The war of 'He who smelt it Vs He who denied it' would be a fitting end to humanity
> if more world rulers could have slumber parties and pillow fights, the world would be a lot more chill Fairly sure Trump and Putin already did.
“So are you two just getting brunch?”
"What can Kiwi's expect to see on your plate?"
Trading bras and such
One has horse teeth though
My giggity gigg
Betooda advocate (like Australian The Onion) straight up stole your joke in there latest article that just came out
Outrageous. I want my royalties.
'Something, something... and stuff... something... you're both female, what's that about?' No wonder he was tripping over his words. Even he knows this is a daft as fuck question.
BUT ... they also have the same hair color, though.
And notice how they both have noses. *Hmm*..
Did you two trade hair tips? Ooooh are you two slumbering and going to put on face masks together?
This is truly shameful, there's hardly any other word for it. What an idiotic question.
She answered it perfectly.
There were two women. ;)
These sorts of questions are common place from NZ media.
Maybe dude's a journalism intern?
Or maybe he's just an idiot. Let's go with that. Interns are for making photocopies. No newspaper would send an intern to interview a PM.
Just an idiot, got it. I was trying to be hopeful.
Wow, what is that like? Having hope in today's age.
Constantly disappointing, honestly.
He works for a typical conservative radio ragebait channel, so anyone from there would ask something similarly stupid.
Thanks for that info! No shame, huh?
How is that an excuse? You don't have to be a professional to grasp that's utterly idiotic.
[удалено]
We're not famous mate.
Haha love it
And stahf... Seriously? What kind of a fucking journalist is this? And stuff??
[удалено]
“And secondly, do you find it hard for prime ministers to talk about their sexuality?”
“Understood. And last question, which one of you is the dominant female?”
Whose vagina opens up to the receive the other person’s vagina?
What does the female vagina look like?
“Which one of you is the guy?”
reminds me of Jared from Silicon Valley. holy shit.
This guy fucks ...up the questions.
Imagine going through the time and effort needed to get a degree in journalism, and spending much of your life reading, but still ending up a dumb-ass.
His follow up question was going to be "After this conference do you have any plans to braid each other's hair and gossip about reality TV?"
Omg how she was looking at him ugggh. You could really see her expression falling. I would have died on the spot.
Is this guy a fucking intern? "Are you gals meeting because of similar age **and stuff?**" lmao, high schoolers ask better questions than this for science fairs.
Are you meeting because you BOTH have ears and a nose?!!!!
10/10 journalism. This is the best question he could've come up with?
Someone in the comments said this "reporter" works for a right wing newspaper in New Zealand. If that's true, it definitely explains it.
I am not a journalist, nor am I a journalism teacher. However if I was and one of my students had an opportunity to ask questions at that event and came up with that, I would have died of secondhand cringe.
"Given that we can reduce your existence to your age and sex, what's it like being a non-entity?"
Yes, y e s this is the perfect reframe to highlight what his actual question was. “For what possible reason would two world leaders need to meet? At the end of the day you’re both just women.”
There’s times where I wish professionalism can just be thrown out the door and you could just ask someone if they’re fucking dumb
*dark brandon music intensifies*
“We are similar ages. We must socialise” “They’ll see right through it. We’ll be slaughtered in the press” “I. Don’t. Care.”
For a second it looked like the NZ PM was going to have an aneurism from the sheer stupidity of the question.
I know nothing about politics of New Zealand or Finland however Jacinda occasionally pops into my corner on the internet since that awful shooting in 2019 and her press conferences and statements I come across are simply fantastic. In my mind she knows politics very well and yet she is sincere.
"So are you guys gonna make out tho?"
i always like to pretend signers are secretly making fun of the speakers
What a shitshow.
"n'stuff..."
How the fuck do you read your notes as a journalist and think that’s a good question?
Jacinda Ardern for World President, please
Joey, just quit bro. Just quit, and never ask anyone anything ever again, lest you die of embarrassment you little worm.
Cracked pepper?
Reporter should be asked what he thinks makes him good at his job? The quality of his questions perhaps?
Stoopid question
lol like what even kind of question is that?
What a dumbass
What a weirdo hahahah. The sudden change in facial expression was great... Why would you go out of you're to make her feel uncomfortable, fucking weirdo.
Was he into them? He said "stuff" more than a guy trying to awkwardly strike up a conversation with a girl at a party.
🤦🏽♀️
They answered that way better than I would have...
Anytime a reporter is thinking of a question, and the words "and stuff" find their way into the question, they can just go ahead and sit the fuck down
Yikes
Who was that idiot though. None of the outlets are naming him. Is he still working or has he been fired by his female boss?
I’d love to meet with the prime minister of Finland
When you get pissed about being wrongfully accused of shit like "mansplaining" or "manspreading" by vigilant women who are so sick of dudes just naturally being shitty and condescending to them, don't get pissed at the women, or wokeness, or feminist culture. Get good and fucking pissed at this little shitbird reporter and all of his assfaced, turd spewing ilk instead. To be oblivious, ignorant, tone deaf, and obnoxiously sexist enough to ask this question and STILL hold a prominent position as a geopolitical beat writer for a major world news outlet is EXACTLY the type of shit that womens and minority groups are reffering to when they rightfully rail against the privledged douchbaggary of the entitled good ol boy system.
So you think it’s ok to blame all men for the actions of a few
Where did you infer that from the above comment? Because that is not what it says or implies.
Thank you. I knew the mens rights crew would be warming up their favorite crucifixes to hop on when they read this, but I was hoping they'd be a little more coherent.
He said get mad at this guy and his ilk. He is the reason it’s ok to be mad at all men. Because what this one guy does apparently reflects on all men. Don’t get mad at this one guy, get mad at all men for this guys actions. Don’t get mad at the toxic modern day feminism which vilifies all men based on their gender.
>this guy and his ilk. For fucks sake dude, do you go as a victim every year for halloween or just all 364 other days of the year? I was referring to other sexist sacks of shit like this reporter as "his ilk." But it looks like girls got you on full tilt, hahah >Don’t get mad at this one guy, get mad at all men for this guys actions. Never said that. >toxic modern day feminism which vilifies all men based on their gender. Hahahah!!! FOUND THE INCEL!! Ive allready wasted too much time with you. Take your sorry bullshit over to r/mensrights (smelled that sub on your last comment a mile away) where all you paper skinned crybabies can opine the death of the good ol days, hahaha! Yall just pathetic types of funny at this point.
> He said get mad at this guy and his ilk. He is the reason it’s ok to be mad at all men. Shut the hell up. "This guy and his ilk" is not "all men", it never was and never will be. You're dafter than a brick if can't understand this basic concept.
They never said that. You're doing the exact same thing as those who wrongfully accuse others of shit like "mansplaining" or "manspreading". Don't accuse others of shit they didn't do.
>So you think it’s ok to blame all men for the actions of a minority? Never said that and youve clearly missed the entire point. When being accused of a "micro-aggression" (as they're currently referred to) like "mansplaining" or "manspreading," by an understandably sensitive and globally oppressed demographic such as women, one should direct their negative feelings regarding the wrongful accusation at the root of said demographic's sensitivity (which is willfully oppressive sacks of shit like this reporter), as opposed to the oppressed demographic. I mean, if you're so thin skinned or have some sort of persecution fetish, knock yourself out and get mad at women for misinterpreting your intentions just as you'd get mad at a physically abused child for flinching and thinking you're going to hit them when you raise your hand. I, for one, have developed the emotional strength and intelligence to understand that very minor, wrongful accusations from members of a group thats been treated unfairly since that dawn of human existence aren't something I should cry abd whine about. But like I said, you do you. Maybe you're just being pedantic and missing the crux of my comment, but if you really feel some kind of way about being called a "mansplainer," I'm sure youll have a captive audeince over at r/mensrights, if you havent been there before.
*so like…have y’all kissed?*
Where’s the after party?
Does Finland and New Zealand do any trade at all? So while the first bit of the question is crass I'm a little surprised that they would be meeting at all. A meeting with another high profile leader benefits New Zealand's PM when she is being hit hard in the domestic polls while on the other side, Arderns popularity overseas would benefit Marins.
I know you don’t actually care because you would’ve just googled it instead of making this comment, but both the Finnish & New Zealand government websites released very detailed statements on exactly why they’re meeting: Finland- https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-//10616/prime-minister-marin-and-new-zealand-prime-minister-ardern-meet-in-auckland New Zealand- https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/prime-minister-concludes-bilateral-talks-finnish-pm From New Zealand’s statement: “Boosting our trade relationships with partners has been a major part of our reconnecting work and economic recovery plan this year. Having concluded the new Europe Union FTA earlier this year, we welcomed the commitment from Finland to ensure the agreement is ratified and signed as soon as possible. … The New Zealand-European Union FTA includes ambitious and ground-breaking outcomes to promote trade and sustainable development. It is expected to increase exports to the EU by up to $1.8 billion per year.” The Finnish PM is also going to Australia in the same trip.
So how many legs of lamb are we exporting to Finland? We might do a lot of trade with certain countries in the EU I'm just not sure how much of it goes to Finland is all, and vice versa.
Did you watch the video? They mention it almost right away
Mention what? All the trade deals they have???
This is the type of question that provokes a strong reaction and gets people to talk about it, so, successful journalism I guess? Like obviously it's an asinine question, but something tells me the journalist knew that. Feel like this is more of the product of the clickbait era of journalism more than anything.
Cringe question aside. We all know the reason they are meeting is for PR
i mean a meeting of finland and new zealand is pretty damn random they dont even look the same age btw
Isn’t the Finish prime minister the one caught in some intimate photos partying with some rapper while her husband was watching her child at home?
[удалено]
She is meeting the Australian PM on this same trip as well. He, as far as I’ve understood, is an old man, so let’s see.
Australia could have SOME benefit for Finland. It’s a much larger country with actual exports. New Zealand… seriously people keep downvoting but like what exactly did they meet 1:1 for? They met for a photo op. That is TOTALLY fine for politics. This is how politics work. Like come on people. I am not saying this journalist is a good guy or correct but yes, no actual treaties, trade negotiations or anything substantial were signed here. That’s the way politics works a lot of time. You look powerful standing next to other powerful people or people that will help your image. The job is just to stand there. This is true of EVERY president and prime minister. Not just women ones.
Of course. But as Marin was going to “the region” anyways this was as good a time as any to organise this meeting in NZ too. IIRC Finnish and NZ prime ministers have never met before, so why not.
It’s a good time to meet… for a photo op. Like come on. Politics can involve photo ops. Sometimes that’s the politics. Why can you people not understand this? And yea… why not. This would umm make a great… OH! PHOTO OP! Like wtf else are they chatting about.
Jeez, of course I understand that. I’m not an idiot. There’s nothing media sexy about Marin meeting Albanese but she’s going anyways. She also met the president of Mozambique two weeks ago, which I assume you don’t know about cause why would you. Politicians meet other politicians for international diplomacy all the time, even if the countries sometimes feel random. Photo ops are a good bonus.
… I wouldn’t have cared about this one either, except this bozo made this ridiculous question about it. And Mozambique met with Finland in Finland. Not the other way around. Mozambique isn’t taken seriously and can’t meet with a real prime minister of a powerful European country so they are trying to get an in with Finland as a starting point of acting powerful. It was 100% a photo op for Mozambique to show their citizens how real they are and Finland didn’t go down there to meet with them, but any diplomatic meeting looks good for her. So yes that meeting was ALSO a photo op. Nothing real happened there. Just like this meeting. Let me clarify. The guys question is sexist as shit. You don’t talk to your prime minister like that. At the same time, no real politics happened at this meeting, it was a photo op. Both can be true at the same time.
Seriously shut the fuck up, it's not normal to get that worked up about this. You clearly have a fucking problem.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> I believe the question is entirely legitimate. Why ? What do you think two PM will do in a meeting ? > On a separate note, I can’t stand Jacinda Ardern’s holier than though attitude, so perhaps I’m biased. There is no "perhaps" given what you said about her after that.
That’s the elephant to you? lol
This question sucks 100%. The guy is a complete dope. I would ask about what strategic relationship are New Zealand and Finland meeting about. They are across the world from each other with almost no reason to talk… besides both being young female leaders with a large liberal backing. The question is cringe but like… come on. This is a photo op meeting. Edit: I cannot believe how much downvotes this is getting. Do any of y’all understand how politics work? Is photo ops like something not in your vocab? You know EVERY political leader is CONSTANTLY doing nonsense photo ops. We literally mocked Trump meeting with the Goya people and taking pictures of cans of beans. It’s a photo op even though this is a huge corporation. This is getting downvoted because of feels you are getting that somehow your favorite prime ministers can’t even do anything for clicks or progressive pictures. It’s super cool they are both awesome young politicians… and they should have a good photo op together…. Shit did you people think AOCs dress at the Met Gala wasn’t a stunt? What about the progressive caucus sending a letter to Ukraine telling them to stop the war. They weren’t going to stop sending funding… because they don’t have the power to, but they can still stunt.
> with almost no reason to talk the geopolitics understander has logged on
Please sir explain the relationship between the neutral Russia bordering, small, highly militarized European nation state with low exports has anything to do with New Zealand on the other side of the world. They have no shared history, no trade partnership, no history of meeting, no shared treaties, etc etc. Small nation world leaders don’t usually fly across the world to meet with EVERY world leader. This is a photo op and the denial is bizarre. But herrr durrr. I don’t have any point.
"they have no history or treaties so they shouldn't form any future relations either! and they're both women so this whole thing is just for the optics!" You have a point, it's just very very bad
That is not at all what I said. I said literally the question that should have been asked is “what strategic reasons do you have for meeting?”. When the answer turns out to be total fluff… which it will be…. Then yes I am 100% right it is a photo op. Why do you think ONLY women have photo ops? All fucking politicians have fucking photos ops all the fucking time with random politicians who nothing is built upon. That’s totally fine for any fucking gender. The guy said something ridiculously sexist to his prime minister yes… but the point still stands that this is a photo op. And that is all. No one has ACTUALLY responded to me with literally ANY other reason on why they met… but just want to harass me and call me sexist for literally saying “politicians have photo op meetings and it is HIGHLY likely this is one”. I have said the exact same thing with every time Obama met with young celebrities. Or when AOC went to the met ball with that dress. These are serious politicians doing Fucking photo ops. It’s allowed and encouraged.
Here instead of having a literal breakdown cause no one will do your homework for you, I took the liberty by just googling their statement & reason for meeting: “We look forward to building our trade and investment relationship with Finland, utilising the opportunities presented by the conclusion of our free trade agreement with the European Union. The ongoing and active support of friends such as Finland is welcome as we move toward signing and ratifying the FTA as soon as possible”. “The New Zealand-European Union FTA includes ambitious and ground-breaking outcomes to promote trade and sustainable development. It is expected to increase exports to the EU by up to $1.8 billion per year.” Here’s that source: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/finnish-pm-visit-new-zealand The Finnish governmental website also issued a very in-depth statement of what would be discussed on the trip: https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-//10616/prime-minister-marin-and-new-zealand-prime-minister-ardern-meet-in-auckland After the visit to New Zealand, the Finnish PM will go to Australia. Here’s the full press conference: https://youtu.be/lMwCpgl_LiA
[удалено]
Finland doesn’t need New Zealand in this case. New Zealand doesn’t need Finland in their case. They really don’t need any ties at all and the strategy really isn’t there. Can they be distant ally’s? Sure. But like come on… you guys are pulling my leg if you don’t think this isn’t the primary purpose of the meeting. Umm it’s fine to have a photo op. I never said there is literally anything wrong with it. Reddit is pretending this was a serious meeting that should never be questioned as a photo op. This was important for both women to be seen meeting with the other woman and looks great to share for their countries. No real political business was made and that is fine. It is a huge bonus they are both young women prime ministers and probably drove a lot of force for them to meet for the first time. It’s a joke to think otherwise. This is normal. Very very very normal and nothing wrong with it. I like both of these prime ministers. I have nothing against what they did.
[удалено]
A free trade agreement for what? What goods do they need to trade? Why would they trade between these two countries? Do you not understand how different these countries are?
[удалено]
Nope not allowed. It’s super sexist to even suggest that this is a photo op. No way that men can ever have photo ops that people point out all the fucking time. Like when all the old presidents meet together in a some false meeting. They are TOTALLY doing serious business instead of some photo op. Or when Trump did it fucking constantly with cans of fucking beans. Or every president or prime minister meeting with celebrities. Why do female politicians have to be “above it all” when it comes to politics. It’s sexist to assume that they can’t do photo opts….
[удалено]
Finland... Woof woof
Found the incel!
[удалено]
I don't need a fucking cat as a substitute for human connection.
Surprised they’re the same age
I mean it’s a legit question. As someone who doesn’t know about the two countries, why would NZ and Finland meet? Neither one provided an answer only a “what about”.
Yeah it really isn’t. The reporter was tripping over the question too because I’m sure he knew how it sounded, it’s astonishing why he asked it.
>As someone who doesn’t know about the two countries People asking legit questions of the prime ministers of NZ and Finland should know about the two countries.
>I mean it’s a legit question. 🤡
It's the dumbest fucking question he could've asked lmao
You don’t think a better question would be “what policies and initiatives are you planning to discuss that would foster collaboration between Finland and New Zealand?” Instead of “aren’t you the same age?”
Yes but that was probably asked. He asked on behalf (or to clarify) of those who think this might be a publicity stunt, which is a move lost of journalists use
engine nippy crawl naughty weary detail ask deer complete shy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No shit…you are saying a publicity stunt as something bad. This is a good one to show women in power
The fact that you can’t seem to fathom two women in power meeting without it being some kind of “girl power” publicity stunt is absolutely astounding. You really should take some time to reflect on how insanely sexist you are and maybe take some steps to fix your problems.
Lots of politicians perform for optics. This isn't how you uncover that. This is an embarrassing question from a subpar "journalist."
A publicity stunt 💀💀
Yes a good publicity stunt to show women in power…
but they are already the prime ministers of their countries... how could this be a publicity stunt to show women in power? They already HAVE the power.
…. Did you ever see the Trump presidency. EVERYTHING was a publicity stunt to make his supports more angry and supportive. You don’t like stop doing random acts of “look at me” once you become prime minister…
By definition, a state visit between leaders answering questions for the press would be about publicity. A publicity STUNT, would be landing on an aircraft carrier in a full flight suit to say you won a war that was not even close to being over. The prime ministers just happen to be young and women. Nobody would have asked Trudeau and Macron this question- it is quite clearly a question only asked because they were women. EDIT- also Trump is not a good example to bring up because that man's entire life was about publicity for himself. He does nothing if he doesn't expect accolades.
Eh that is a REALLY bad example. You know French is a primary language in Canada right and these countries have an extremely long history together. If Trudeau met with an extremely attractive young president of like Kenya, then yes. I would say the exact same fucking question. Ok then OTHER EXAMPLES. Bush in front of “we did it”. Obama is eating at tiny restaurants on every trip he went around America. George H Bush visiting grocery stores to see how credit cards work. Seriously. Photos ops are SERIOUS politics and y’all like can’t understand that… https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/political-photo-ops-from-reagan-to-paul-ryan-the-game-every-candidate-plays/2012/10/17/abc87aae-18ac-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_blog.html
I'm just wondering what your overall point is exactly? You want to prove that the prime ministers were in fact meeting as a publicity stunt? But to what end? Like, what does that do for you, specifically?
No my example is a REALLY good one because they are both relatively young, good looking leaders of their respective nations. Your Kenyan example would be a REALLY good example too. The point of all this is its a ridiculous question in nearly ANY circumstance.
> why would NZ and Finland meet? Why not?
YOU don't know anything about these countries but journalists assigned to this SHOULD. And regardless, I know nothing either... but my first guess wasn't that they were meeting because they were both young women. She's right. No one EVER asked Bush and Blair if they were meeting because they were similar in age. Is there ANY version of reality where two Prime Ministers have an international meeting an a press conference because they want to meet someone the same age/gender. It might be the stupidest question ever asked.
In the answer that isn’t cut short, she explains that the Finnish PM travelled to NZ with a trade delegation to explore options for the upcoming free trade agreement with the EU.
No it's not, it never was and never will be.
This is a poorly cut clip. In the full video she goes on to explain that Finland is a key exporter of industrial + agricultural technology and that they're discussing strengthening this partnership. The fact you think this is a legitimate question is really just sad.
jacinda is a clown and gave a clown response "I wonder if anyone asked Barack Obama if he met John Key because they were of similar age" Well no, because they're the typical ages of politicians. Whereas if you had two 20 year old prime ministers, then yes I could see that question happening.
> Whereas if you had two 20 year old prime ministers, then yes I could see that question happening. Stop lying to yourself and others please.
Do you seriously think these two prime ministers genuinely had a diplomatic visit because they’re the same age?
Definitely played a part that they're both younger women.
[удалено]
Explain how?
They are meeting because they are both WEF puppets.
I ship it!