Up Front: The Best Possible Taste
28 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
While Hosking, Henry, and Plunket are (or should be)
a job lot of job openings waiting to happen,
the second quote clearly pegs Plunket as an arsehole. -
It’s okay to ask a female scientist if she’s fucked Richard Branson.
This made me so angry.
Would he have asked Professor Sir Peter Gluckman if he'd fucked Richard Branson? It demonstrated a level of contempt he has for all women and this amazing woman in particular - all while smiling and pretending to treat her as a guest.
------
Also I too inserted the word cunt into each of those gaps and I was annoyed at myself for doing so. There are better words. -
Emma Hart, in reply to
Would he have asked Professor Sir Peter Gluckman if he’d fucked Richard Branson? It demonstrated a level of contempt he has for all women and this amazing woman in particular – all while smiling and pretending to treat her as a guest.
Yeah, three of the complaints used (one upheld, two not) were things that would absolutely only ever have happened to women. They were sexualised bullying.
-
I was really interested to note that the advisory for Roots specifically mentioned context - that words that would otherwise have been unacceptable were used because of how they had been used in that particular setting.
-
linger, in reply to
I too inserted the word cunt into each of those gaps and I was annoyed at myself for doing so. There are better words.
Yeah, “misogynist self-centred one-eyed prick” is more accurate (at the very least, it’s their perceived job description). As the old saying goes, They can’t be called cunts, because they lack the warmth and depth.
-
Interesting that father-fucker continues to be seldom deployed, despite it conjuring an image every bit as insulting as its more commonly used female counterpart.
But I think it was in Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant it was used to great comic effect?
There certainly seems to be no shortage of candidates deserving of being called FFers in 2016 - so perhaps it is a term ready to redeploy to describe the buggers, bastards & pricks of this world! -
Joe Wylie, in reply to
But I think it was in Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant it was used to great comic effect?
Father-rapers, if memory serves
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
I was really interested to note that the advisory for Roots specifically mentioned context – that words that would otherwise have been unacceptable were used because of how they had been used in that particular setting.
Yeah, this is something I think is really important: depicting something doesn't mean approving of it. It's not the actions or the words, but the way they're used and shown.
-
Moz,
I do use arse or arsehole as a generic insult, and I think it works better above. But far be it for me to tell Emma how to swear properly (I have an amusing mental image of that). And I recall a discussion on feministe or somewhere on good, rude-but-not-offensive terms out of which came crotchwad. But I still like arsehole, because it describes someone who is a source of shit. Often, accurately, someone who doesn't create the shit but is merely expelling what they've been given.
Also, pizza chit, because it's homonymous.
-
Prudence, in reply to
"There was all kinds of mean, nasty, ugly-lookin' people on the bench there .
. . there was mother-rapers . . . father-stabbers . . . father-rapers!
FATHER-RAPERS sittin' right there on the bench next to me! And they was mean
And nasty and ugly and horrible and crime fightin' guys were sittin' there " -
Moz,
Looking at the bad words list... I'd put retard higher, along with nigger, coon and boong (are those last two particularly Australian?), but fuck lower, depending on context. I do think PA should have a similar survey, because I think we'd have a different set of ratings and probably a whole pile of different words.
I am really curious as to the language used by participants in the group exercises, because being exposed to that language does tend to produce it. I suspect that like many here, being exposed to the clips used would generate strong emotional reactions in group members. I'm also thinking the survey would make a useful key "4 he's a 3 5 who can 6" :)
-
Some things amongst the considerable pile of ordure peddled by Henry, Plunket, Hoskings and their fellow travellers are "slow steamers". Shauney's ill-considered rant to Louise Carrol comes into that category. It still leaves me incensed, and I still consider that the BSA got it very wrong. I try not to remember Shauney's shit too often- bad for my mental health-, but be sure that many of us bear profound resentment for this kind of stuff. May he and his ilk be monstered by the BSA I say!
-
Moz,
Also, every one of those needs a matching emojii. We have 💩 but I can't really think of one for the rest. (and yes, there are unicode code points and glyphs for that as well as many, many others - if the Chinese can have 40,000+ for their language, I think another 100 or so to allow teenagers to communicate is fine)
-
Howard Edwards, in reply to
"There was all kinds of mean, nasty, ugly-lookin' people on the bench there .
. . there was mother-rapers . . . father-stabbers . . . father-rapers!
FATHER-RAPERS sittin' right there on the bench next to me! And they was mean
And nasty and ugly and horrible and crime fightin' guys were sittin' there "Love that movie!
Here's the full monologue.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
They can’t be called cunts, because they lack the warmth and depth.
Cunts are lovely, useful things. Neither adjective is generally suitable as a description for most people at whom the charge is levelled.
-
Sister Mary Gearchange, in reply to
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?
-
Litmus Test of the Good Taste and Decency Standard
pHuckers?
---------------------
Spooky!
I just got back from a walk by the avon and down past Banks Ave school and spotted a pile of rubbish in a section - and that classic line from Alice's Restaurant sprang instantly to mind:"Yes, sir, Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie, I put that envelope under that garbage."
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
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?
So I just went and looked for the clip, and TV3 has archived it. There are a number of clips of Paul Henry's interviews with Michelle Dickinson on youtube, but not this one. Here's how the BSA described it:
During The Paul Henry Show, Paul Henry interviewed a scientist, Dr Michelle Dickinson, about her research. At the end of the interview he asked about her recent experience staying with Richard Branson, a well-known businessman, and referred to a photo of the two of them in which Mr Branson had his arms around her. He then asked: ‘Now when I see this – and you’ve got to realise I am something of a sceptic, you know, I look at things and I read things into them – I’m looking at that [photo] and I’m thinking, did you have sex with Richard Branson?’
So here's the Stuff tv reviewer being really upset about it, and here's Michelle Dickinson talking about how she felt about it, and why she does shows like Paul Henry:
I realised, that only I can make the decisions on whose show I choose to go on and my reasons for doing that. Until we can get funding for a prime time dedicated science program accessible to all, scientists like me will keep having to throw in our 5 minutes wherever we can because we feel its important to talk about science. I know that my comments will mean that others will write negative things about me and my lack of self respect and lack of feminism values and that’s OK, because I’m doing the best that I can with zero budget and nothing but a passion for positive change to drive me.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
here’s Michelle Dickinson talking about how she felt about it, and why she does shows like Paul Henry:
I realised, that only I can make the decisions on whose show I choose to go on and my reasons for doing that. Until we can get funding for a prime time dedicated science program accessible to all, scientists like me will keep having to throw in our 5 minutes wherever we can because we feel its important to talk about science. I know that my comments will mean that others will write negative things about me and my lack of self respect and lack of feminism values and that’s OK, because I’m doing the best that I can with zero budget and nothing but a passion for positive change to drive me.
Which pretty much defines why she is a better person than I.
She feels getting science out to the public is important enough to take that kind of crap. For me it's a marginal call, I can see her side of it but I also see the constant sexism in science and worry that allowing Henry a pass on this legitimizes the damaging sexism that goes on. But it's her call to make not mine.
That TV3 were happy to allow it to remain without any apology says nothing new about TV3.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
What kind of sexism are you seeing in science, and other than Paul Henry, who or what is driving it?
Oh man, where to start. Essentially everything you can think of as sexist is true in science. I guess one difference is the victims are scientists and quite often collect good data.
CVs get ranked by sex, male names on CVs get offered higher starting salaries.
Sexual abuse and harassment.
Women typically get more teaching and committee jobs which means less time to do research.
Essentially you could write a book on it - oh wait Nicola Gaston has!
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
What sorts of actions do you take? And what sorts of responce do you get from your counterparts at work when you do?
I try, and it's likely that I fail sometimes because of unconscious biases, to make sure women get time ...
time to make their point
time to do their research
time to lead
I try to highlight when it's the women who came up with the ideas
I hassle our HR department about promotions and the gender bias in our leadership and board of directors
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.I'm not as active as some, but I try.
-
Sister Mary Gearchange, in reply to
>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.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I’m having trouble thinking of a reason why the two are assumed to be mutually exclusive
Because of sexism, I guess. Was it really that hard to imagine a scenario involving sexism?
As an aside, there’s exactly zero evidence for that currently, although it seems intuitively true.
Your evidence for this being? Claiming the absence of something is a notoriously difficult thing to do. You literally have to look at ALL the evidence. But really, there's so many google hits on "does diversity make teams work better?", that branch off to what looks like it could be evidence, that I don't have the time or inclination to go and fisk them all.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
I’m having trouble thinking of a reason why the two are assumed to be mutually exclusive
Because of sexism, I guess. Was it really that hard to imagine a scenario involving sexism?
Yeah, when I was seventeen I was told, by my biology teacher, that if I wanted to be taken seriously, I should have a breast reduction operation. There are studies which indicate that both men and women perceive the same woman with larger breasts to be both friendlier, and stupider.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
As an aside, there’s exactly zero evidence for that currently, although it seems intuitively true.
In science, the field I was talking about, there is a metric shittonne of evidence that having a group with diverse backgrounds and race and culture and experience and gender improves the quality of the scientific output.
That is the reason every science institute in the world tries to get postdocs, so that diverse experiences and approaches can improve their output.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.