So the prime minister of New Zealand is a woman - Helen Clark However, we have elections in about three weeks, so all the parties are trying to get in on the act, and the leader of the winning party will become the new prime minister. To help the public decide who to vote for, the tv stations run leaders' debates where they put the leaders head to head on the important issues. Anyway, the other night a leaders' debate was aired. the main debaters were Helen Clark, prime minister and leader of the Labour party (which is a center-left party) vs Don Brash, leader of the opposition, National (a center-right party) Now in this debate Helen Clark pretty much kicked Don Brash's ass. He couldn't answer the arguments and points she bought up, he just sort of stutterd and ummed. however don brash finally found his tongue the next day...(and this is what pisses me off)... basically, he said that if his opponent had been a man he would have been able to debate the topics, but that he does not want to raise his voice to a woman, which is why he kept quiet. now, putting aside the fact that a good debater does not need to start shouting - you should be able to win a debate through intelligence - why should he be so damn discriminatory? I think that there needs to be consistency in the way he (and other males) treat their collegues, whether those collegues are male or female they deserve to be equal.