Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There's only a puzzle if you think that women see fashion models as icons of sexiness. But what does sexual desirability of models have to do with women feeling they should emulate them as, you should pardon the term, models? That assumes that women only care about looking sexy, which I suggest is not necessarily the case.
Models don't have to be demonstrably sexy to heterosexual men, they just have to be invested with prestige and glamour, and then they will still be sending messages to viewers about what they should look like.
-
where the geeks look like geeks.
I wouldn't claim that my workplace is a showcase of masculine or feminine beauty, but it is definitely mostly programmers -- about 100 of them, which I'd say is a reasonable sample size. When I look around, I see what I think of as a normal array of body types, including a fair few sporty ones. And I'd say my perception of "normal" probably skews athletic, given that I'm somewhat of a gym rat.
What exactly does "look like geeks" mean?
-
Ah, the Listener scooped again.
*applauds*
-
Danyl, Matthew: I see no contradiction in criticising both the "eat heaps" and the "be skinny" messages, or in believing that both kinds of messages have an effect. Media coverage can encourage you to eat badly, AND to feel stink about the shape you end in when you do. *
* (setting aside the issue of whether eating habits alone account for anyone's shape which is a whole other derailing debate I suggest we avoid).
-
I don't see why Christchurch can't both have an undeservedly prominent set of violent white eejits AND be as progressive, cultured and delightful as the rest of NZ. It's not as though everywhere else is homogenously wonderful.
-
Of course. And the news media and the opposition were asleep.
Or were they? The same media outlets who profit by fear-inducing exploitative reporting of violent crime can hardly be expected to challenge policies that rely on that fear for support. An opposition whose leader consistently supported "tough" policies over civil rights can not now change direction without accusations of hypocrisy.
This didn't "just happen". The ground work has been laid by years of sensationalist violence porn news coverage and a political establishment that's happy to capitalise on it.
-
The "white way":
Eerily reminiscent of Vyvan on the Young Ones.
-
It's not just that dna tells a lot about you, but that you shed cells containing detectable quantities of it in many more places than you leave finger prints. Thus even without cameras or other apparatus of the surveillance state, your movements are potentially traceable to a much greater degree than even mandatory fingerprinting would allow.
If it comes to that, what about mandatory fingerprinting of all adults, just in case? Would you have a problem with that? Why? Surely only the guilty have something to fear?
-
Innocent people? The police would hardly be charging them if they were innocent. I suppose you'll be happy when one of these crims gets away with murder because of your hand-wringing, you pantywaist.
But you see Phil Goff is tough on criminals, so he was hardly going to object even apart from the political difficulties.
-
In Chch over the weekend. Admired the trout and eels in the Avon. Was yet again unable to avoid Scorpio books or leave without purchasing. Had momentary disorientation in Northlands mall where I thought I was in St Lukes but there were too many white people.
Based on PAS representation, and personal experience, I'd have no problem moving there, if I weren't so embedded here. Just don't give the night patrol my address, I'd like to keep my kosher letterbox unsullied.