the fact that anyone is making a
decision to have those bits cosmetically altered to meet market expectations?
is the good discussion to be having. But sadly, as it really gets interesting I really have to go.
It's really normal (as in lotsof people do it ) to comment on other's appearance. Because it's "normal" it's the stuff we need to think about. "Normal" ie what most people do is what gives us the society we've got at any one time. Abusers and all.
She's screaming for us to look at her breasts. Are we (men, women and children) not allowed to say what we think of said breasts? How would that be respectful and not, say, patronising or prudish?
Well, revolutionary though it might be we could just accept that we all have these bits that work in both wonderful and functional ways and get over it and not denigrate or elevate each other on the basis of what we look like instead of how we behave and what we are. But hey that would be detroying whole industries and we would have to find other ways of making ourselves feel better rather than puting somebody else down. Tony Vietch up to now has had lots of money and kudos that he wouldn't have had despite however much hard work if he didn't have the appearance. But it turns out to be just an appearance doesn't it. Even Holmes said so.
Emma, I don't have time to follow Deborah's link so don't know if I will contradict it. What I was taught was that someone had actually done a count on this stuff. I think you are right about there being an aspect of just sexuality in it. But the fact that the crunch point of the relationship between men and women becomes a point of abuse also is interesting in itself I think.
Still there. Just take forever to get my thoughts in line and I do have to go soon. . I'm really not trying to have a go at you either. This is something we are all in together. I don't think any of us are perfect but if we want a way out we have to really be prepared to look at the hard stuff. This comment of yours is a very small subset of other thinking that is really good and to that extent is unfair to focus on.
You have every right here to take issue with that, but I really do find your characterisation of it, and particularly the assumption that I'd exercised some undue power in simply clarifying the context, both extreme and unfair.
I don't think you were deliberately exercising any power at all . I would not have credited you with being one of the "good guys" if I thought otherwise. I think it is effectively there none the less.
To me the piece read that it was an embarrassing program because she had very limited news reading skills (fine) and any way her breasts are ugly (not fine by me). I have no problem with the observation that as a news program it is dire and that if the appearance of the reader is not to your taste then there will be no reason for watching it. That is different from very personal comments.
The whole program does reinforce that thing of what you look like is more important than what you do. The reader might not be doing suff that everybody respects but she still deserves to be treated with respect.
You're welcome Deborah. Thanks.
At Carisbrook on Saturday two guys carried a sign in front of our stand trying to gee up the crowd in support. The sign read "Good on ya, Veitchy!".
It doesn't surprise me unfortunately but, sadly, maybe the lack of support does a bit.
Something that has inerested me in all the verbiage about this is the unconscious reflection of the underlying attitudes to women that our society still has. I think it's wonderful that we live in a time and place where we're even contemplating this stuff and not taking it for granted but we clearly still have a ways to go.
Back when I did Sociology of gender mumble mumble years ago there was a section on language that introduced the notion to me that the way we use language reglects how women are seen and their real situation in society. I think some of the stuff that has been said bears thinking about.
I think it was Craig who touched on it the other day (apologies if wrong correspondent). He was taken to task for using "cunt" as a perjorative about Vietch. He responded with an apology and a comment that "it was a nasty word for a beautiful thing" or something like that." My understanding is that it was actually the beautiful word for the beautiful thing at one time (cf Lady Chatterly's Lover) but has come to be a horrible word because people use references to things female in the majority of put down words. Bitch, tit etc. The ones about men tend to refer to their mother hence the ever popular "mother"f"er and son of a bitch. Some things haven't changed much in mumble mumble years.
In a commentary today Jane Bowron reflects her dislike of what a commentator was saying by reference to her appearance. Don't know how to link but it's on "Stuff" -
Even more bizarre was Wednesday night's Close Up panel discussion on the Veitch crisis with, of all people, PR personality Michelle Boag, who, looking like a boiled yellow and black licorice allsort,
The same thing happened here to Bridget Saunders with it being questioned whether she had some kind of severe facial disorder or was just plain ugly. There has been a lot of foul stuff said by men but I don't recall the reponse to it including derogatory remarks about their appearance.
Something similar happened on another thread here. Russell described the Naked News as "embarrassing" and commented that the readers swollen, bruised breasts were ugly anyway. Taken to task by an unwitting poster who didn't realise he had written it, Russell replied that because it was in the context of the Naked News it was fine to comment on her breasts. The program would be less embarrassing in quality if the reader's breasts were to his taste? She asked for it because she was semi naked on TV?
This is despite Russell clearly striving to be one of the "good guys" in terms of his views and words that we regularly see here, Most of this stuff is unconscious. The interesting thing was that the poster immediately backed down and even apologised for questioning Russell. To me it was a very interesting display of perceived power. No one else picked him up on it, the only person who did, didn't know she was talking about him. Russell has a lot of power anfd people want him to like them.
While we have a society that is still judging the credibility of women on what they look like instead of what they do and who they are we still have the seeds for abuse. To me it is like the "zero tolerance" thing. You actually have to start with the small things that seem too small to be really relevant but that provide the growth medium for the more visible ugly stuff on top. Apologies for the long post.
Judged by his excuses, he starts to conform to the second picture
Women's refuge summation, I should have made clear.
Chance meant if this was a different time, a different place, arrived later, weapon not to hand, baby had slept for even a few hours, etc.
Ian, for me this misses a lot of what domestic violence can actually be about. Sparks of violent response can happen as Jackie described. It's wrong, there are better ways of communicating frustration, can certainly become a criminal assault charge and be rightly dealt with so.
And then there are the cases where the violence alone is horrendous but is actually the tip of a huge iceberg of jealousy, humiliation, control and put-down. A whole way of relating to women (and yes it probably happens the other way too but I think women are most often on the receiving end) that is just sick. Wellington Women's refuge put out a book a number of years ago called "he said he loved me." It was a harrowing but valuable insight into the lives of some of the women who took refuge and the men who put them there (including. surprise, surprise, white middle class "respectable" pillars of the community). I think the plight of these women and the understanding of the attitudes that put them there are watered down a lot by "well everyone can lash out, male or female in the right circumstances." Yes they can but it's a different kettle of fish - still wrong but different. Another book was recently published with this title and I haven't read it but I suspect it is indeed worth a read.
Which kettle does Tony Vietch belong in? Don't know. Judged by his excuses, he starts to conform to the second picture but we don't know. The look of anger rather than embarrassment or humiliation on his face as he left TVNZ or wherever in his car chilled me. I would hate to see him front anything on family violence any time soon. For me that call could only be made by a counsellor in conjunction with a partner who has lived with him safely over some time.
<quote>Perhaps I could suggest this Nice Hoodie for Jill Reade.</unquote>
LOL. Actually it would be more efficient to put the smokers in them. They would get more bang for their buck and solve all the problems.
Nowhere new or useful to go on this one so bowing out of this sideline.