Thanks for the friendly words Russell, as an insensitive clod I had no idea I was being insensitive. Funny that!
And Craig, could you kindly quote back to me where I said that victims of rape were responsible for their fates, because I am struggling to see where I said anything of the sort. It sounds a horrible thing to say. Maybe I really am a horrible person?
If I tell you not to walk alone at night it is because I am worried about you. Is that wrong? Perhaps it would be better if I offer you no advice? Because, in worst case scenario that something bad does happen, it would be terrible for you to somehow construe that I blamed you for what happened, no matter how many times I tell you that it is not your fault. It is not your fault. It is not your fault. It is not your fault....
but you just won't listen. Maybe you do want it to be your fault? Maybe you do want to put some blame onto yourself? You can if you want, but don't expect me to agree. Don't get angry at me. My intentions are good, and we can only do what we think is best.
See what I mean? Putting words in the mouth of others. I am telling rape victims that they asked for it. Therefore I am an insensitive and horrible person, ipso facto everything I say is wrong and horrible. Thanks Craig for confirming exactly what I said. Ah, what a pleasure it is to engage in civil conversations here at Hard News!
Apparently Queen Bee is not a reference to Beatrice Faumuina, as I'd initially thought. It's Beyonce, or someone else, I read somewhere. Or maybe it could still be Beatrice Faumuina, someone should ask Lorde to confirm, or maybe it is whoever the listener wants it to be?
Oh for crying out loud Craig! That is a very silly argument. There is no logic to it. I do not want to speak on Bob’s behalf. Bob can correct me if I am wrong. But the point is that Bob, as a father, as any father would, worries about these things. Perhaps it is even an evolutionary ,or genetic trait for fathers, and indeed men in general, to worry more over the safety of the female loved ones. Because females are more vulnerable, are not as strong, while men tend to disregard their own safety, at least to some degree.
There seems to be a general tactic of debate in here. Put words in the mouth of others. It would take a miserable, chauvinistic misogynist bastard to dare suggest that rape victims had brought it on themselves. Once you have established that of your opponent in a debate, the debate is then by definition over and won. I look around, but I cannot see any evidence of this victim-blaming culture that would seem to be so prevalent, if what I have read in here is to be believed. There appears to be disconnect with reality. No wonder Russell gives congratulations for the conversation not blowing into smithereens, as it surely would have in another forum. Hard News is a closed shop, anyone with a dissenting view is quickly dispatched. I wanted to say more on this subject, but I am intimidated by the angry and judgemental feminists. I fear I might unwittingly say something that turns out to be “triggering”, and I do not want to be labelled an insensitive clod!
It is a free country, and it’s not consequence free, and I’m not suggesting it should be otherwise. But the point here is that consequence free should not be an excuse for wanton character assassination. And that is EXACTLY what has occurred here. Don’t believe me? Well, if you have ever watched Fox News, and that grubby little con man HANNITY, then you should be able to recognise that what has occurred in here to poor Simon is EXACTLY the kind of thing Hannity would do. Whenever Hannity has a confrontation with a guest, the next day he will invariably regale his audience with the dirt he, and his team of trusty helpers working tirelessly overnight, have dug up on said troublesome guest. You know it is TRUE!!
The “they” I am referring to is all of those who are claiming offense. I’d have thought that was obvious. Now some of these people may have been genuinely offended, but I suspect many are not as offended as they would have you believe. But it makes another good stick with which to bash Simon with, so heck, why not pretend it’s the most offensive thing said in the history of mankind?
Further, a statement can only be a lie if it was originally offered up as fact. I don’t believe there is any way you could read what Simon wrote and leave with the impression that he was claiming this to be a proven scientific fact, unless perhaps you were totally lacking in a sense of humour. There was no intent behind the statement other than as an attempt to explain an observation, an observation which might be somewhat of a generalisation, but which was merely put forward for the basis of lighthearted discussion. It is completely and utterly absurd to imply the existence of a hidden agenda to belittle women, or to attack their intellect. That thinking is only in the fevered imagination of those who are incandescent with rage over Simon’s Lorde review. Which it has to be said was a serious error of judgement by Simon in publishing.
Finally, I should point out that I do not agree with Simon's Lorde review, not with his opinion or the manner in which he expressed it. I'm not really au fait with the modern popular music scene, but Lorde seems pleasant enough, at least compared to other stuff I've heard, including many of the tedious tunes Russell plugs in here.
The validity of the statement that women think more with their hearts than minds, WITH RESPECT TO TASTE IN MUSIC, is totally and utterly irrelevant. The bone of contention here is whether me, Simon, or anyone for that matter, has the right to even suggest such a thing.
And, according to the aggressive feminists in here we, apparently, do not have that right. For some mysterious reason they are incredibly offended both by the statement itself, and the very fact we have the temerity to even say it, or at least they pretend to be. Why do they claim to be so offended? I am not at all offended by the statement, which applies equally to the male gender, namely that they think less with their heart and more with their mind. Perhaps, after much research scrutinising the scientific literature with respect to psychology and evolution, and even from conducting my own scientific experiments, I have determined that there is some truth to the assertion, based on a statistical analysis of metadata, I may have, through the scientific process arrived at such a conclusion. Do I then not have the right to publish my results because it offends a few aggressive feminists? Alternatively I could have just pulled the statement out of my ass, but it shouldn’t matter how I arrived at my conclusion. I should have the right to speak my mind without being battered down by aggressive feminists. It is bullying, plain and simple!!
The ugly truth here is that aggressive feminists can be incredibly mean when they want to be. Far meaner than innocent blokes like Simon could ever be. You need look no further than what that horrible woman Germain Greer said about poor Steve Irwin after he died for proof of that. Best friend of aggressive feminists Finlay MacDonald also wrote a very nasty piece about poor Steve. Why are the aggressive feminists and trendy lefties so nasty? That is the real question that should arise from this debate.
This is no more than a witch hunt. Character assassination. Soviet-style stalinist repression. Call it what you will. Sure, Simon over stepped the bounds of good taste in his review. He was angry and frustrated, and in a moment of vulnerability wrote something that he now regrets. But who here hasn't, at some time in their life, done or said something they later regret? Please, if you are such a person them make yourself known. For his one mistake Simon has had his character assassinated in here, things he wrote eons ago have been dredged up and interpreted in a new and sinister light. He is defenceless in the face of a vicious and angry bullying mob. Simon is not a misogynist. He in fact could be better described as a philogynist, at least by those who know him. Further, there has been in here an attempt by certain female posters to censor debate. To be specific a debate concerning whether there might be a gender explanation for the differences in musical tastes between men and women. Simon has very helpfully suggested, and he is hardly the first to offer such forward such a thought, that one possible explanation for these differences might be that women think about music with their heart, and men with their heads. In fact the head of popular music at the BBC has said exactly the same thing!!
I guess he is also a misogynist!!
greatest race ever according to the lead on one news, but then in the story it turns out it was Team NZ making the claim!
Hello Jackie. I've got your "missing stair reference", but it would seem to be very unfair to apply that to Sweetman, based only on a couple of reviews or articles he has written. I do not know him, so have no idea what he is really like. But he is a music critic, and an opinionated one it seems, and he appears to be passionate about his opinions on music. I see that as part of the entertainment, as long as he does not go over the top with it.
Now I want to address what is the most unpleasant, vile as some here have called it, aspect of Simon's Lorde review, namely Simon’s contention that Lorde was being sexualised to sell music, with the particular reference to the video of the Tennis court song. I will do my best to be as delicate as possible here. Having tracked this video down on youtube, it must be said that Simon’s claim is ridiculous. You’d have to be a bit weird to think otherwise. But I’m (fairly) confident that Simon does not genuinely believe what he has written. For some reason Simon's sensibilities have been offended by what he sees as the 'hype' surrounding Lorde. Why this would get his dander up so much only he can answer. His true objective in making the absurd claim was, I believe, to launch a cheap shot, indeed a very crude cheap shot, at the likes of Russell Brown, and others, who he sees as ‘hyping’ (supporting and promoting) Lorde’s music. Basically, Simon was calling these people ‘wankers’. It is a schoolboy level type of humour (as Margo said to Tom). Note here in case there is any confusion, I am referencing the Aus/NZ meaning of ‘wanker’ (as a self-important, posturing type of an individual). Simon is questioning the sincerity of these people. Nothing to do with masturbation, but the literal interpretation of what Simon wrote in order to convey this crude message makes it that much more vile. To be clear I am referring to Simon's remark concerning the Farmer's lingerie catalogues. The remark about Lorde being sexualised was a very clumsy means used by Simon to set up his 'people who think Lorde is good and are promoting her music are really just wankers inference'. I do hope people can follow what I am saying? Basically, Simon has made a vile comment and made himself look like a sicko in order to make a crude attack on people (males in this case) who are praising or promoting Lorde. I will not attempt to comment on the psychology involved here, and in particular why Simon would direct his vulgar suggestions at a certain section of the male population.
(as an aside see TISM song ‘whatareya?’ for further clarification of the meaning of the term wanker, and also note James Hird, in the news lately as coach of Essendon footy club, was a former Oz football great. Think maybe Christian Cullen for an NZ equivalent, on the field at least ).