Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: A wretched editorial

99 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Danielle,

    Tag team represent!

    I tend to assume that there is a large group of lurking Guys Who Don't Get It rolling their eyes at everything feminist I post. (Here. Anywhere.) On the other hand, I am quite heartened by how rapidly the consent conversation has changed in the last few years, and how "mainstreamed" it has become. It's not like most people agree with my side, but my side *exists*. It's there to be grappled with, or dismissed, or in some way acknowledged. That's rad. (Uh, unless the acknowledgement is threats. That is somewhat less rad.)

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Samuel Buckman,

    Why do people talk about political affiliations the same way we would talk about financial conflicts of interest?

    Broadly speaking, they should be – and for much the same reasons. If Helen Kelly wrote an op-ed about how John Key eats babies and anyone who isn’t a total monster should vote Labour, then I think it would it would perfectly relevant to note that many (but not all) of the CTU’s members are formally affiliated to Labour. It’s up to the readers to decide how much weight to give that when assessing the credibility of said op-ed. I also hope, for National Radio’s sake, neither Matthew Hooten nor Mike Williams are moonlighting as campaign consultants without full and frank on-air disclosure.

    All that said, I’m not really sure that’s the point the SST was trying to make about Tania Billingsley. I not sure any point worth making was made at all.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Danielle,

    I tend to assume that there is a large group of lurking Guys Who Don't Get It rolling their eyes at everything feminist I post. (Here.

    Really? How come?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • AndrewD,

    On ZB I said 2 things. Its her complaint. And she went public to point out the lack of respect victims have. She was then re victimised for being too young, too pretty, too naive and too political. She proved her point. It was an ugly week.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 54 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to AndrewD,

    she went public to point out the lack of respect victims have. She was then re victimised for being too young, too pretty, too naive and too political. She proved her point. It was an ugly week.

    The response to feminist speech shows why the speech is necessary.

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3894 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock, in reply to Sacha,

    tend to assume that there is a large group of lurking Guys Who Don’t Get It rolling their eyes at everything feminist I post.

    Really? How come?

    Because, even here, there is the occasional methane belch from the depths of the swamp that indicates lurking horrors and that the ground is not quite as stable is it may appear.

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2728 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __,

    When a victim waives her right to name suppression so she can help other victims speak out. And her character is assassinated for doing so. This is rape culture.

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3894 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    Yes Rich, evocatively put.

    (I have certain PAS threads in mind. One had to be closed late last year, IIRC.)

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Danielle,

    "large" group though?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    Call it the iceberg theory.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Danielle,

    brrrrr

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    I dunno - I reckon that's a group who are noisier than their numbers might indicate.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to B Jones,

    Possibly so. In most online fora, it’s people with extreme opinions on a topic who are more likely to respond, and those showing extreme disagreement, most of all.
    Ben Goldacre calls this distribution the “bell-end curve” :-)

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1944 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock, in reply to B Jones,

    I reckon that’s a group who are noisier than their numbers might indicate

    There's been discussion on here before of 'things men say about women when women aren't around'. Can't remember the thread, unfortunately. One poster had a male partner who didn't voluntarily hang around with certain men from his work, and when queried on this, told her it was because of certain obnoxious opinions in relation to women that they felt free to express in all-male company, but not in front of women. I doubt there's a man on this forum who hasn't had this or a similar experience many, many times.

    My wife is fond of quoting Germaine Greer: "Women have very little idea of how much men hate them." Now, it's a ridiculously over-the-top thing to say. And yet......there's a rather large grain of truth at the centre of that hot air and bluster.

    Oh, and #notallmen. Obviously....

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2728 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Rich Lock,

    I doubt there's a man on this forum who hasn't had this or a similar experience many, many times.

    Not that it proves anything, but no, really, I haven't. Maybe I've been fortunate.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen,

    I guess I'm getting old. I actually remember when newspapers tried to be non-partisan. I also remember when editorials were reasoned, logical, well thought out essays.

    The genuinely disgusting, yes at time physically revolting, diatribes that get into newspapers as editorials today makes me wonder what on earth is the point. Even if the only point is to sell papers at what depth do the writers of this stuff begin to feel ashamed.

    And saying that makes me feel old - things used to be better yadda yadda yadda.

    And in this instance a young, pretty, woman (who would've thought a woman would be the target of rape, let alone a young, pretty one) actually articulates an opinion and the neanderthal at the SST decides the appropriate response is to tell her to shut the F up. "Go back into the corner like a good little girl and let the adults, sorry scratch that, let the middle aged white men in suits decide your fate ..."

    Yeah I'm old and grumpy and I'd love to see the person who wrote that have to stand in front of an audience of rape victims and defend their essay (although to be honest that might do the victims more harm so maybe not such a good idea). Wouldn't that be a fun episode of Media Take.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

  • kevinM,

    I though the telling sentence was: "the time for her to speak out publicly on this case was after any trial was concluded, not before"

    In some cases this might actually be valid, but a key issue here (pardon the pun) is that there might not be a trial. Apart from a few sly insinuations in the editorial, no one seems to be denying that a crime almost certainly took place. And the victim would have been denied any chance of justice unless someone spoke out about it.

    Wellington • Since May 2014 • 6 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    My wife is fond of quoting Germaine Greer: “Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.”

    That's what's - excellent? Terrifying? Both? - about the internet: it gives women great insight into how much (some) men hate them. Or dismiss them, or patronise them, or shame them, or any other sort of action that denies personhood. Which then inspires the kind of online analysis that can deconstruct and refute misogynist arguments and rhetorical tropes. I reckon few people outside academia were thinking about that before. Hearts and minds and all that.

    (This may be the most Pollyanna argument about misogyny I've ever made. Don't worry, I'll snap out of it soon.)

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • David MacGregor, in reply to Danielle,

    Thanks for referring me to the Wikipedia. I now understand that the term 'rape culture' has been in use since the 70's. Delving deeper I feel the criticisms of users of the expression is applicable in New Zealand "Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime" (the quote from the US Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network). It seems an hysterical term applied in New Zealand - spurious correlationships being drawn from sketchy data.
    But the real point of my comment about the 3rd Degree story was that is was a potpourri of topics - a topical grab bag…if 'rape culture' is the axe you are grinding, or partisan distaste for Murray McCully or the current government…grind away. So eager to get the woman on camera were TV3 that anything she had to say would be ok. No doubt it helped that she was telegenic.

    Auckland, New Zealand • Since Feb 2007 • 41 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to David MacGregor,

    It seems an hysterical term applied in New Zealand – spurious correlationships being drawn from sketchy data.

    Really? I'll occasionally feel the phrase is mis-applied -- and you could say the same about many useful and important concepts -- but I've no doubt it has meaning and relevance in a New Zealand context.

    But the real point of my comment about the 3rd Degree story was that is was a potpourri of topics – a topical grab bag…if ‘rape culture’ is the axe you are grinding, or partisan distaste for Murray McCully or the current government…grind away. So eager to get the woman on camera were TV3 that anything she had to say would be ok. No doubt it helped that she was telegenic.

    Ugh. Perhaps Billingsley simply and understandably felt that she was due a personal contribution to a political debate that had been going on around her for a week and a half. I can think of no reason that she, of all people, should not be allowed to speak her mind.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to David MacGregor,

    So eager to get the woman on camera were TV3 that anything she had to say would be ok. No doubt it helped that she was telegenic.

    Why I don't comment on rape/abuse postings right here.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2899 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to Russell Brown,

    I can think of no reason that she, of all people, should not be allowed to speak her mind.

    Yes.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2899 posts Report Reply

  • A C Young, in reply to David MacGregor,

    It seems an hysterical term applied in New Zealand.

    Seriously?

    There are more offensive words to use regarding issues that concern women, but "hysterical" is definitely up there.

    Wellington • Since Feb 2011 • 35 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Russell Brown,

    I can think of no reason that she, of all people, should not be allowed to speak her mind.

    Nor can I think of any reason why a big news outlet shouldn't cover it, since it was actually a very popular news item, something watched and rewatched by a lot of people. It wouldn't matter if Billingsley had nothing interesting to say at all, there would still be public interest in her saying it. The number of worthless know-nothing interviews that we get all the time from people just because they were trivially involved in some news item is huge. How can it be anything but big news to get an interview from the very person involved in a majorly controversial item?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to David MacGregor,

    I'm really not sure what the point of your posting is. I could simply dismiss it as standard trolling but I kind of feel like you have a real point you are trying to make.

    From your first post it seems as though you feel allowing the victim of an alleged assault an opportunity to speak on TV is of no value or interest to anyone in NZ. In this you are wrong - it was of interest to many including me.

    Personally I'd rather hear from the alleged victim than from John Key and Murry McCully who spent the entire time trying to assign blame for a cock-up anywhere but on their on desks. But that's just me, oh and a significant audience on TV.

    Whatever your point is/was you should understand that your dismissal of rape culture in New Zealand is a pretty nice example of rape culture in New Zealand, thanks for that.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.