Is it at all possible that a public service ad aimed at the male perpetrators, or maybe their peers who could have some influence over them, could get any traction?
Pragmatically, we'll be talking with our daughters in years to come about looking after themselves in the big wide world, but I would like to see something that tells men it's time to step up and stop being a dick, and that goes for your mates as well.
What gets me cranky about the Listener is how it's all about me. Middle-class, mortgaged, married with children me. My house and how it's losing value, my frightening retirement prospects, my kids who are either doing the wrong NCEA subjects or doing P, my elderly relatives languishing in shoddy retirement homes, my cholesterol, my mid-life crisis, me me me me me me.
Thankfully there are more things to heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the Listener's editorial department, but if they don't fit the "what's in it for me?" test they won't be making it to the front page any time soon.
And re the portrayal of women in TV ads: if you're cynical you'll say it's just a branding exercise, but can I recommend the Dove "Onslaught" clip. I can't do the linky thing, but google it. I'm a father of daughters and I think it rocks.
I'm forever intriqued by the "we smack but only as a last resort" position. I always want to reply: look, if you're right and smacking is effective and good and God-given, why arse around with those other child-rearing techniques - just hit the kid and no mucking about.
For now though it is time for me to retire, having been woken up too early both mornings this weekend by the raucous crowing of the Too-Often-Spotted Baldock
I once saw a potato that, viewed from a certain angle, didn't look like Jim Bolger
And as for getting ministerial advice by taking a squizz at the Privacy Commissioner's website - what's wrong with Wikipedia?
Move over 'Crusher' Collins, here comes Paula 'The Googler' Bennett
I just love Bennett's justification that the information was released in order to "round out" the debate, as if she is some disinterested chairperson sitting above the partisan side-taking.
In fact the only reason she could have had for doing it was to bolster the argument that those whining women have enough money already and should just shut up already.
And then, having opened a big can of whup-ass on their privacy rights she now comes over all "You Go Girl!" with them.
Actually I think I heard the words "Mrs Bennett" come out of the mouth of the accused himself when I was watching it in a "why am I watching this?" way last night.
Obviously there are whole levels to 'Pride and Prejudice' I just don't get.
Thanks B Jones for your take on the 'freedom of choice' argument. That seems eminently reasonable to me.
Anyone out there want to have a crack at putting the opposing view? I really, really don't want to go to looking for it on kiwiblog...
I'd like to hear what people think about the 'freedom of choice' argument.
I mean, I support vaccination programmes, and I supported the last Government's efforts to restrict unhealthy foods in schools... but compulsorily putting something in a staple like bread makes me go "hmmm".
Then again there's already iodine in salt, as David pointed out, and the sky hasn't fallen in. So I'm a bit confused. What are the limits of the 'freedom of choice' case?
Come on (folate proponents and opponents) - convince me.
Eek! 'Awesome' doesn't fit at all!
Know why I thought of it though: many moons ago, in much the same spirit as David, I issued a list of synonyms of "awesome" to the presenters of a children's TV show I then worked for, in an attempt to thwart the spread of 'awesome'-ness throughout the general population.
Needless to say, it was Canute Vs Tide all over again