Posts by Sister Mary Gearchange

  • Up Front: Our House, in reply to B Jones,

    That sounds an awful lot like "hey, why don't we put more women at risk so they can help men overcome their violence problems." The idea that prison is a safe place for people seems naïve.

    I'd suggest that your idea of prison is limiting you. I'm not saying that that isn't what NZ prisons *are*, although I wouldn't go as far as agreeing with the person that said they were "hyper-violent" (try some of the prisons here in the US or some other countries I could mention), but it is certainly the case that prisons *can* be places of actual rehabilitation. Shocking to the NZ general view, I know.

    But, it will never happen.

    Kiwis are too narrow minded and NZ governments too lazy and inept to ever want to do anything positive that might cost them cash. Better for re-election purposes to pander to the Vengeance & Punishment crowd that form the bulk of the NZ population.

    Since Oct 2015 • 19 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: I Swear, It's True, in reply to Emma Hart,

    See, now "lying cock sandwich" rolls off the tongue smoothly. I think that's vital for a good bit of swearing. Not in print form, mind, but when spoken. A lot of the ones you mentioned simply don't lend themselves to being used in anything other than print. And that's a shame because good swearing should be applicable in every medium to stand a good chance of enduring and becoming widespread. "Hoofwanking bunglecunt" isn't ever going to be shouted in anger without the shoutee sounding like a complete muppet, but "unmitigated arsehattery", surprisingly perhaps, can just trip-trot right on out without nary a pause.

    Since Oct 2015 • 19 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: Dear Dudebros, in reply to nzlemming,

    >>It’s the pack mentality, not limited to sportsball fanatics, but certainly exemplified by them. “If everyone else is doing it I can’t be wrong to do it too ”. Any group of males is self-reinforcing in behaviour. <<

    Purely a side note, 'pack reaction' is not gendered. *Humans* do it. *What* they do as a group, or rather, the limits that the group will assume, are culturally and gender bounded. There's some fascinating research out there on group reaction across gender and culture.

    Since Oct 2015 • 19 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Best Possible Taste, in reply to steven crawford,

    >I remember hearing a female scientist talking on the radio about how on the one hand she wanted to be sexually attractive to men and be taken seriously as a scientist at the same time. But that was difficult becouse of the boys club culture.<

    Ignoring value statements about each individual goal, I'm having trouble thinking of a reason why the two are assumed to be mutually exclusive?


    And someone else said:

    >I hassle our HR department about promotions and the gender bias in our leadership and board of directors<

    Yeah, good luck with that. HR is a wasteland, especially in NZ and Oz. Then again, it's what keeps me employed, so I probably shouldn't complain too much. If it ever professionalizes properly then I'm out of work.



    >I point out again and again that diversity of approaches improves the quality of what we do but all too often people revert back to listening only to those who say the same things as they do and usually that means the boys club.<

    As an aside, there's exactly zero evidence for that currently, although it seems intuitively true. There *is* evidence that diversity within mid- to high-functioning teams improves the ability of an organization to react correctly to changing external circumstances, but that's as far as it goes on the evidence front. And it's complete opposite in low-functioning teams or organizations. It's a fascinating area of study; some really interesting stuff being looked at in all sorts of unusual places. From a business perspective, HR and diversity are the last great places for organizations to look for advantage. Structure, innovation, marketing, production - they're all played out.

    Since Oct 2015 • 19 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Best Possible Taste, in reply to Isabel Hitchings,

    Context is awfully important for many, if not most, things emotional, IMO. I'm rather glad the BSA does it this way, even though I'm not convinced I agree with their list/rankings. Mind you, I also am quite sure that I don't want to agree with their list because if they and I ever agreed it would probably mean something had gone wrong somewhere. Anyway, just to change tack slightly, it all makes for an interesting contrast with how the MPAA in the US does things. Here, it is very much a flow chart and accounting exercise. More than 2 "fucks" said or a single female genital shot seen in a movie and it's R material. More than 20 "fucks" and anything in the way of male genitalia and it's an instant NC rating (one above R). Context simply isn't relevant in the way it's done in the US and there is no input from outside sources. It's simply "count and classify".

    One thing we can deduce from these findings. It’s okay to ask a female scientist if she’s fucked Richard Branson. It’s not okay to say “fuck” while you do it. That’s our current community standard.

    Que? What? Can someone take pity on a person stuck with primarily US media sources who has, therefore, missed whatever is being mentioned there and point me towards some good overview coverage of whatever that is referring to, pls?

    Since Oct 2015 • 19 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: What Sorry Looks Like, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,

    I wonder if people who engage in psychological abuse and manipulation within a family or relationship setting should also be similarly held to such high standards viz responsibility for their actions? Is psychological or emotional violence as bad as physical? Worse? Less? Simply different and not something to try and compare/rank/place value judgments upon? Personally, and fully acknowledging that in many (most?) instances the emotional is frequently interwoven with the physical, I incline towards the latter - however you want to dissemble it after the fact, it's all unacceptable. If we have to have labels then the label "Bad" for both is simply enough. Someone that torments and violates another person's trust and emotional and psychological wellbeing should probably be similarly socially ostracized. I wonder if that will happen for those guilty of that who are writing here with such righteous indignation? Do they see what they have done? Given the pattern of actions covering decades of abuse, I'm guessing not.

    Since Oct 2015 • 19 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up Front Guide to Plebs,

    I thought we could take it as read that this was a very general discussion. :)

    Case law defines 'personal activities" as those preventing the employee from answering a call in within whatever time frame the contract may require. The fact of doing, say, your washing doesn't count, for example. Going to a movie or the dentist and being unavailable would. Etc. And yes, they can certainly cancel your on call hours on short notice, barring the contract saying otherwise. But they do have to actually cancel, and once cancelled you are no longer on call. They can't bring you back in. Again, there's case law on that sort of thing. Do it repeatedly and you'll see a lawsuit simply because creating a de facto zero hours contract /is/ a zero hours contract. I know the 9th Circuit has ruled on exactly that and I'm pretty sure others have. Obviously, there is grey area in there & that is where canny @hole employers try to stay. (And the 5th Circuit disagrees as usual.)

    Since Oct 2015 • 19 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up Front Guide to Plebs, in reply to Moz,

    >>Why risk an unfair dismissal case when you can zero-hour someone or just say “fired for not being straight enough”.<<

    Zero hour contracts are unlawful in most of the US. You /can/ have 'on call' contracts, but most states (only 4 exceptions, IIRC) require the employee to be paid for all time while on call, albeit usually at a reduced rate of 50-75%.

    Since Oct 2015 • 19 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up Front Guide to Plebs, in reply to Emma Hart,

    >>This 'order of things' has boggled me a bit with the US as well: there are still thirty-odd states where you can be legally fired from your job for your sexuality or gender identity. And yes, because these aren't specifically protected grounds in the Constitution.<<

    You're right on the first part, but wrong on the second. Employment in the US is almost universally 'at will' employment: you can be fired for any reason or no reason so long as it isn't a protected category under federal or state law. The US Constitution provides no protections within employment at all so it doesn't bear referencing. All protection is within employment, civil rights, and to small degree, case laws.

    Since Oct 2015 • 19 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up Front Guide to Plebs, in reply to Emma Hart,

    >>Something I discovered today. In England, adultery is grounds for divorce if you’re married, but not for dissolution if you’re in a civil partnership. But if you’re in a same-sex marriage, you can only divorce your partner for adultery if they sleep with someone of the opposite sex. So if your husband sleeps with another man, that doesn’t count as adultery.<<

    You're playing a bit fast and loose with terminology there. Marriage, civil partnership, and civil union are all different things under law.

    The law in the UK allows for divorce under all situations not covered by adultery as "unreasonable behaviour".



    >>I have no idea how this plays out for trans and intersex people.<<

    Covered in ss5 & 12 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. Some aspects still require case law to clarify because some of it (oh, the unhappy irony) is a bit ambiguous.

    Since Oct 2015 • 19 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 Older→ First