Posts by Mrs Skin
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's not a complete media beat up but there's still a noticeable element of that. Compare stuff.co.nz with newscientist.com & the difference is marked.
-
It is sad that Michael Stevens is unable to recognise that asexuals face discrimination, sexual attacks, the whole bejeebus - but on his head be it.
That column is like he's contrived to give the appearance of thinking, but actually isn't.
I'll agree that it's not one of his better-written pieces, but I think the question he's asking is not "What are the effects of our non-heteronormativity?" (wow, there's a word!) but "What are the bases for those effects and are there enough similarities for us all to be lumped in together?"
His answer is the bases are are so different that we should be separated. My response would be that we're not yet at the stage of being able to differentiate because the effects of/response from society to our sexual attributes are so very similar.
-
As an acronym it does start to get a bit lumpy. Michael Stevens' somewhat grumpy analysis here.
-
So that toaster-oven thing was only for lesbians? Damn.
Can't be. Craig has one.
...the reaction of the ANZ LGBT groups towards asexuals. As in, total cold shoulder.
I'm seeing GLITTFAB around a bit these days, which is almost inclusive enough to get the heterosexuals complaining about being left out.
-
Actually, drawing on my miniscule knowlege of critical feminist theory, I suspect some of the differences might have been around the intended effects/uses to which it might be put. This seems to be a common area of difference in gendered thinking. If those are the right terms.
-
Not having been hooked into net culture at it's birth, what were the significant differences by gender in the experience?
Dunno, so let's hear from those who were there.
...their version of events will start to become the official story.
History is the end product of what gets written down/repeated the most, so yeah, that's the likely trajectory.
-
Lin Nah, and Kim Scheinberg of Iconz come to mind
It would certainly be good to hear from them. I'm too tired to articulate rationally, but yeah, what Robyn said. And not what Sacha said. Domination doesn't mean exclusivity and I want to hear our stories too.
Hope that doesn't sound harsh/grumpy, lack of sleep makes thinking hard.
-
It's like non bald people shaving their heads to look good. Bastards.
*Adjusts mental image of Giovanni*
-
They could always try marketing to their new-found fanbase.
Otherwise they could have a go at fixing what's wrong. I know sweet FA about rugby, but it strikes me that the G9 have a point.
For me it's about community. I'd be more inclined to go out and support a truly local team, regardless of whether they were playing in the first, second or third tier. There's more opportunity for loyalty there too, I think (Cantabrians aside - they do loyalty to the extreme). I always thought that part of the reason Tana Umaga was so popular here in Wellington was because he was so identifiably local. You don't get much more 'community' than Wainui.
The other thing about the Super 14, apart from cherry-picking the local players, is that they're the same players turning up in test matches. Oh him again. Yawn. It detracts from the feeling that you're watching something special. Where's the excitement in that?
-
Last century I used to watch TV1 for the facts, TV3 for the story and read newspapers for the background and visit the internet for different angles...
...now mainstream media all looks alike and it's not so good
Well exactly. I periodically chuck my toys out of the cot and refuse to go to a particular source for my news on the grounds of laziness of presentation. The latest recipient of my sulk is Stuff, based on using the Amazonfail story from the SMH without so much as a quick once-over to check it was accurate.