Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And to refresh our memory, here is the central advertisement in question. Remarkably non-gender specific, and addressing all areas of society.
Thanks for the links George. This confirms what Tim Michie and I suspected (see page three): that these ads are actually not overly "males hit females" focused anyway.
-
This is stuff you hear a *lot* in feminist webspace from unsympathetic commenters. Two sides to every story, takes two to tango,
That last phrase in particular is annoying in this context. If River wanted to make a reasonably couched observation, it would be better to leave out trite phrases like "it takes two to tango".
-
Er... I'm sorry, I've missed something here.
<paraphrase>It's not okay to hit your partner or your kids (for whateverjustification youe care to raise) but it is okay to ask for help</paraphrase>: What part of this message is gender specific and prevents the other gender from watching, listening and acting?
Yeah I had a similar thought. There are plenty of non gender specific statements in those ads, as I recall. The only gender specific one I can think of right now is the "It's not okay to force your gilfriend to have sex." That's one comment in one version of the ad.
And as JLM pointed out the statistics are quoted cover family violence in general, not just men hitting woman.
-
This sort of provocative, lightweight, knee jerk reaction sort of stuff makes me wonder about the worth of these sorts of columns. Hmmm.
Yeah, my only potential criticism of Russell might be that Ralston's comments were so obviously ill-considered that it should be beneath him to even bother refuting it. (The only time I ever read Ralston's column is when Russell links to it.)
But Ralston's column may be reasonably widely read, so maybe it's worth it, especially given his attempt to present it as though "the reasearch" catagorically says one thing, and the Labour Government just disregarded it.
-
...much, even...
-
Stephen Judd's comment was, yes. Or do you mean Peter's reply was a sarcastic riff on an already sarcastic comment? (Peter was taking the piss out of the other Stephen?) Ugh. Too mauch for me, this early in the year.
-
@Stephen Judd
And that's why Hamas takes such pains only to aim rockets at military targets
The Israelis complain endlessly about how 'indiscriminate' the Hamas rockets are because they cannot be targeted. Which makes the above either manifestly ignorant, deeply biased or just callously indifferent.Only skimmed through this topic, so I might be missing something here, but not I’m sure what your point is Peter. The Israelis shouldn’t complain about having inaccurate rockets pointed in their general direction and fired at them?
-
-- if only we weren't waiting sixteen months or so to see him in action.
So do we (here in NZ) have another series of Tennant yet to be shown?
-
I've still got to watch all of Tennant's series. He's an excellent Doctor. They're replaying his first series on Prime on Thursdays, so I can watch the ones I missed. I haven't seen his second series at all.
The new guy doesn't look right for the part - but then I thought that about Tennant.
-
Okay, that's fifthed... er.. fifthted. ummm ..fived??