Posts by Lucy Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: News media meets new media:…, in reply to nzlemming,
Those with money to spend tend to run screaming from the room if you approach the topic of child abuse imagery with anything other than a mainstream thesis, as they don't want a sniff of guilt by association.
Which is a problem, because there clearly (to me) seems to be a need to establish exactly what the link is between imagery and offending against children (and things associated with it.) Imagery created *through* offenses against children is one thing, but where do you draw the line with, frex, all the stuff the Australians have come down on with cartoons/underdeveloped adults? You can't do that rationally without understanding whether its existence leads to more offending. But getting funding won't happen...or finding researchers who want to do the work, come to that; I say "someone should do a study", but I wouldn't want to be that person. (Which is true of things not nearly as disturbing, of course.)
Personally, I'm just as horrified by the JonBenet Ramsay subculture of toddler beauty pageants, of sexualising preteens with the clothing choices and makeup and advertising, and how complicit society is in the forming of young female minds to be uber-consumers using sex as currency. I think that has a far wider and more sinister impact (which is not to minimise the impact of CAI on the individuals involved, believe me).
It's sort of the same thing, though - taking people who can't consent to much at all, due to their age, and grooming them to be available for other people's consumption, sexual or not. That stuff is creepy because none of it is about what the individual kids and teens might want, it's about conforming them to what other people want from them.
-
I agree that "munted" has achieved new currency in 2011 - world-wide, it's been that sort of year - but if you want real evidence of its longevity in general vocabulary, I remember very clearly a friend being bemused a few years back when he rang his bank because his eftpos card had stopped working, and the customer service rep with the strong Indian accent on the other end asked "Is the card munted?"
-
Hard News: News media meets new media:…, in reply to nzlemming,
Consequently, they tend to look askance at someone who has their home filled with ST paraphernalia - not so much guilty by association but clearly an indicator. I swear they were relating this to me very seriously though I can't swear they weren't pulling my leg just a little, having already ascertained I was a fan of TOS.
Someone needs to do a proper study on this, if for no other reason than that the media reaction would be epic. The things you learn.
-
Hard News: News media meets new media:…, in reply to nzlemming,
I see it with law enforcement all the time. For example, they’re convinced that child abuse imagery is a precursor to molestation simply because every molester has viewed the imagery first. (They’ve also got some very odd views about Star Trek, but that’s a different kettle of fish).
I...have to ask how you got from A to B in that sentence. What sort of odd views?
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Raymond A Francis,
Is it a state of mind (ability to pay that unexpected bill), reality (can’t feed, care or house ) or even more complexity
Poverty is not being able to get the things you need. This means both day-to-day necessities and unexpected events; for instance, New Zealand takes away one of the biggest causes of poverty in the US by having a nationalised healthcare system, so costs are spread across the whole population. You can muck around with poverty lines and exact numbers, with greater and lesser levels - it's possible to be poor and still have people poorer than you - but, ultimately, it comes down to not being able to survive on what you have. This manifests mentally (the stress of not knowing if you can pay the next bill) and in reality (not being able to buy those new shoes, or turn the heater up.) The "real problem" is not complicated or even complex; it's pretty obvious. It's the solution that people are debating.
Ben's right about money in every pocket, too; there are things that are most effective when delivered by government (healthcare, education) and things that are most effective when acquired by the people who need them in response to their actual needs (clothes, food, household goods) and some that are between the two (housing). Unless you're proposing a really radical restructuring of the economy, that involves money, and people having money.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to BenWilson,
So jobs, jobs, jobs, might not actually be the answer we’re looking for at all, even if it has been Labour’s message since they represented even people doing the dirty jobs. It might be that we need an entirely gestalt switch away from seesawing socialist/capitalist thinking.
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need?
More seriously, I think what we actually need is not just the idea of jobs, but of a living. People need the opportunity to find a way to contribute to society, be it in a traditional 9-5 job or otherwise, that lets them live without constant fear that this week will be the week the car breaks down or they have to go to the after-hours or all the kids need new school shoes.
Because you're right, what we accept with the jobs mantra is the idea that what lots of people have now - jobs that barely keep them above water, that don't quite meet their actual basic needs - is enough. Unemployment is bad enough that people's focus is on the unemployed, but it ignores the working poor. And it's all mixed up with the idea of a job as something you're lucky to have, something that's given to you, not something you have a right to - that it's OK to have a system where some people can't find work and then rag on them for their inability to do so.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Lew Stoddart,
It’s to say that there should be no space in a political movement for people who can’t perform, who aren’t really committed to reform, or who think Labour can do better by just pushing the same old barrow a bit harder next time.
Are we talking about MPs, or activists? Because political party members who actually get out there and do stuff are a valuable commodity. These are not the days of mass party membership. Picking a bunch of people and saying "You, you, and you - your ideas are irrelevant under the new regime, begone!" is as good a way as any I can think of to turn a whole lot of people off the idea of volunteering for Labour permanently.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to merc,
I think it was taken away before the earthquakes and I really hope that things are going to work out for Christchurch, my wife was from there, her family have been through so much. Everyone has been through so much.
ECan was most certainly taken away before the quakes, in terms of the councillors being sacked en masse and elections cancelled. That'd be why no-one got to vote for them in October 2010. It was a massive scandal in Christchurch which generated a lot of public debate and anger, and dominated headlines for a long time. But then the quakes happened, and the energy to deal with it was re-directed to more pressing issues, and never, as far as I can tell, came back.
-
Up Front: The Up Front Guides:…, in reply to Emma Hart,
I don’t tend to pick up on “being hit on” as anything more than social flirting, unless someone is being really, really creepy.
On second thought, I'd say this is exactly. The idea of "being hit on" as anything more than part of a wide continuum of social interactions - which can go from a casual chat to trying to talk someone into bed - is part of that whole thing where we try to separate out romance and sex from everything else, and Men And Women in the context of that as different from people being people (and interacting with other people.) No reason it *should* be obvious.
-
Up Front: The Up Front Guides:…, in reply to Megan Wegan,
I think the problem, for me, its that I am not at all attuned to realising that dudes are hitting on me. So for it to actually hit the mark, it has to be fairly overt.
I'm guessing that statistically someone apart from the person I married must have hit on me at some point in my life. I've just never managed to pick up on it. Then again, I didn't really read it with the aforesaid spouse until he uttered the words "So would you like to actually* go out?" This stuff is hard.
*("Instead of trolling the rest of our floor like we've been doing for the last three days.")