“When Brooke van Velden and others dismiss protest or critique as unproductive or disrespectful, they are dodging a substantive debate,” writes Rebekah Graham about the response of the Workplace Relations Minister (pictured) to the use of the word “cunt” in a newspaper article.  (Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone)

Calls for “civility” in politics are often used by those in power to suppress legitimate anger and resistance.

The use of the word “cunt” in response to the government trashing pay equity claims for low-waged working women, and the subsequent claims of victimhood by women in power, is a classic example, writes Dr Rebekah Graham.

The performance of civility, particularly by politicians enacting cruel policies against the working class, is a political tool. Civility has long been wielded by white women to uphold systems of racial and economic domination.

Scholars like Sara Ahmed and Robin DiAngelo clearly identify and describe in detail how the use of civility, tone-policing, and white feminine respectability are weaponised to shut down critique and suppress resistance, particularly from those most harmed by oppressive policies.

Civility — framed as politeness, respectability, or non-confrontational discourse — is frequently deployed by white women who want to uphold the status quo. It becomes a mechanism of social control, maintaining the appearance of legitimate disagreement while repressing valid forms of resistance, especially when resistance comes from Indigenous, Black or minority women of colour.

As Sara Ahmed explains in Living a Feminist Life, arguments about civility (such as the use of the word “cunt”) are typically utilised to suppress dissent. Women who make arguments for civility are generally in positions of power and often not interested in listening. Their focus is to silence protest and make their own actions more palatable for the wealthy and privileged.

Robin DiAngelo observes in White Fragility how white women often position themselves as victims when confronted with their complicity in racism or oppression. They then invoke emotional distress to redirect critique and refuse the efforts others are making to hold them accountable for their oppressive acts.

One example of this in action was the social media post by the Minister of Finance playing the victim, when in reality she was being held to account for supporting the removal of 33 pay equity claims.

The role of respectability politics and political gaslighting

Women in positions of power can invoke “respectability” to delegitimise groups engaging in protest, civil disobedience, and direct or coarse language. The invocation upholds expectations of decorum that are deeply rooted in class, race, colonial and patriarchal values.

The recent political theatre by NACT women, including Brooke van Velden and Nicola Willis, taps into these notions of female fragility. They are entirely typical of the defensive moves women in power make when their privileges are challenged.

The responses of NACT women to the use of the word “cunt” in a newspaper article about their harsh policies are notable for the ways in which these politicians centre their own discomfort. They attempt to cast themselves as victims. Yet in reality, their legislative efforts are causing harm to working-class women, including a large cohort of Māori and Pasifika women.

These tactics align with what Allison Bailey terms “privilege-protecting epistemic pushback.” This term describes the way dominant groups (those with power, wealth, and privilege) deflect uncomfortable truths by appealing to tone, objectivity, or emotional harm.

This isn’t just a personal approach, it’s systemic. Power replicates itself while simultaneously claiming to be under threat.

As bell hooks, Angela Davis and Brittney Cooper argue, white women have historically used their social position to shield whiteness from accountability, often portraying themselves as innocents in the face of Black or Indigenous anger.

The unspoken rule? Anger from the left and the working class is dangerous, but anger from the right, dressed up as concern or policy, is leadership.

Civility as class warfare and cover for structural violence

Civility rhetoric often conceals the violent realities of economic exploitation. By insisting that critiques of capitalism, poverty, or inequality be expressed in polite terms and language, women in positions of privilege aim to neutralise disruptive resistance and protests that challenge the status quo.

Nancy Fraser’s work critiques how liberal feminism, particularly that led by white middle-class women, has been co-opted by neoliberalism to focus on women’s inclusion in existing capitalist structures, rather than challenging economic injustice itself.

bell hooks in Feminism is for Everybody underscores how white middle-class women have historically excluded working-class and women of colour, often prioritising women’s access to privilege over structural transformation.

ACT’s policy platform champions hyper-individualism, market fundamentalism, and actively dismantling social protections. These policies aren’t just economic choices — they are expressions of class warfare. Yet when these ideologies are challenged, and anger is expressed, the party politicians cast themselves as the voice of reason in contrast to those they imply are “overly angry,” “too emotional,” or simply “unconstructive”.

This is not new. As Sara Ahmed notes in Living a Feminist Life, it’s common for dominant actors to characterise opposition to inequality as “uncivil”, effectively punishing those who refuse to express their anger in palatable ways.

When Willis, van Velden, and others dismiss protest or critique as unproductive or disrespectful, they are dodging a substantive debate. It is far easier to perform the well-worn role of victim and uphold the systems that benefit themselves (and the monied and powerful interests they represent) than it is to make substantive change.

Projecting a political persona of poise and reasonableness is not a neutral presentation. In deflecting critiques of their policies by centring their own feminine discomfort, politicians who are actively causing harm position themselves as being under unfair attack.

They are leveraging the idea of “feminine respectability” to shut down necessary conversations about unjust and unfair policies and legislation. They are avoiding criticism for dismantling workers’ rights. It is a deeply class-based position.

As Brittany Cooper and bell hooks argue, holding composure becomes a shield behind which women in positions of power can promote oppressive policies, while simultaneously framing their critics as irrational or even threatening.

Emotions and victimhood as strategic tools

White women’s performance of fragility, particularly through tears or claims of emotional harm, shifts the focus from structural critique to individual emotional comfort. It recentres their hurt feelings as the most important factor, and casts those who are resisting material oppression as the aggressors.

Layla Saad in Me and White Supremacy discusses the recurring role of white women’s emotional reactions in derailing conversations about racism and recentralising white comfort. It is a form of privilege-protecting epistemic pushback whereby those in privileged positions deflect challenges to their worldview through appeals to civility, tone, or hurt feelings.

But there is nothing fragile about women who are prepared to slash pay equity claims, dismantle the protections of Te Tiriti, or fight to protect monied interests. These are extreme acts with devastating consequences. To frame opposition to them as uncivil or hysterical is gaslighting on a political scale.

Conclusion

The use of civility as a political tool is not neutral. Rather, it functions to maintain power and the capitalist status quo. By prioritising tone over substance and valuing emotional comfort over justice, civility becomes a weapon to delegitimise dissent, uphold systemic inequality, and suppress class-conscious resistance.

This dynamic is deeply embedded across a variety of institutional norms and must be critically examined to achieve transformative social change.

To that end, let me say that denying women equitable wages is a very cunty thing to do. The pay equity amendment legislation looks like, sounds like, and reads like a very anti-women, anti-feminist bill.

As such it is a cunty bill and so are its architects and supporters. As for so-called civility, I refuse to be civil in the face of uncivil policies and legislation that target working-class women. Make no mistake, this is a class war and deserves to be treated as such.

Requiring that we adhere to notions of “civility” has no place in the resistance to this attack on the working classes.

E-Tangata, 2025