Posts by stephen walker
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
i was talking about adolescent women, specifically.
-
I'm relief teaching at the mo and when I see my students (girls) dressed in sexy gear on mufti days I feel a frisson of concern.
@Cecelia:
this phenomenon can be explained by my top 10 list:
1. constant media images
2. media brainwashing
3. reinforcement by slightly older peers
4. media images
5. media brainwashing
6. adolescent insecurity of not wanting to look different
7. media images
8. media brainwashing
9. all the crap the clothes shops are trying to sell at huge profit
10. media imagesjust MHO, though!
(in Japan, this phenomenon was really extreme from the mid-90s to about three years ago. seems to have calmed down a bit recently. i always blame the ad agencies and their media lackies.)
-
might she be the author of her own difficulties?
by this logic, anyone harassed at the beach or pool were wearing togs that were "asking for it".
in tokyo, sometimes i think, "the world is just these pricks' giant ashtray". maybe the nz equivalent is "the world is just these APBs' giant building site"???
-
I suggest that it's not a term most people have too much trouble with. Only people who actually want to misunderstand it can find ways to quibble over this.
the question was subjectively loaded and vague. i would suggest that there is a very wide variation in the way people in new zealand define a "smack". it did not say "light smack". it said "smack". way too vague and subjective, let alone what the fuck "correction" and "good" are supposed to mean.
competent speakers of the language in NZ
i would also suggest that the people who wrote the question were not "competent speakers of the language in NZ". LOL
-
can someone tell me what "parental correction" means?
putting a subjective qualification clause in a refurendum question ("good parental correction") makes the refurendum quite trivial and pointless, imo.
people will read into it what they want to. there is no way to discern what people understood the question to mean. James has elaborated on the problem with using a vague term such as "smack".
if the writers of the question really wanted to remove ambiguity, they could have asked: "Should assualting* a child be a criminal offence? *There is the legal definition of assault: ..."
but the writers wanted subjectiveness and ambiguity. in truckloads. so, a completely meaningless exercise was the result.
-
Therefore, it should be perfectly acceptable to assume that the clothes you wear clubbing also make a statement about your intentions.
I recommend a scientific study. Go out three times. Once in the sluttiest outfit you can find, once in a set of track pants and a third time in formal business. Count the number of times you are hit on in each outfit.
If the number is the same, then it's the men being douchebags. If it changes based on outfit, then it's the clothes, with a baseline level of douchebaggery.
There appears to be considerable research indicating that attractiveness is linked to attire. Acting as though that doesn't exist and that you have no control over it? Um... Yeah...
@JasonP:
you win the prize for...ah, fugeddaboudit.(p.s. maybe the clothes a person wears out clubbing indicates what they like to wear while clubbing? their intention to have a good time? their desire to express themselves without fear of "workplace norms and rules", blah, blah, blah?)
-
I want to be a member of Victoria University, why should I be forced to be a member of the Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association?
well, doh.
why should you be "forced" to abide by any of the regulations of VUW? because you want to be a member of VUW. no "rights" are being trampled by your agreeing to obey VUW's regulations. VUW is a voluntary association, with rules. your freedom is the freedom to join VUW and abide by its rules, or not join.Keir wins this match, hands down.
-
This school of thought is clearly misguided.
i totally agree with you Chris.
i cannot see how people can argue that his actions over many years were ethical. -
very nice Emma----out-Listenering the Listener!
or was that the hearald. or the press. nevermind.but in all seriousness (well, a small amount of seriousness, if you want to get all pendantic), the phenomenon of which you write reflects two very bloody major changes in the way newzild society is conditioned re life, the universe and everything. imho. when did these changes ferment? sometime between the mid-80s and the mid-90s, i reckon.
1. nz has gone from being primarily a place where people learn/train "on the job" to one where people are expected to front up for jobs pre-trained. really. in the "old days", only a very small number of jobs required a lot of pre-job training or university study. doctors, engineers, architects, dentists, vets, high school teachers, lawyers. most people left school at 15 or sixteen with no "formal qualifications" and the number who had university entrance was probably lower than 20% up to the mid 80s. people got jobs in the public and private sectors that trained them and quite often required apprenticeships and attendance at "tech" for one day a week for a few years and maybe night classes. most accountants didn't go to university, they worked in accounts jobs and tried to get their a.c.a. with the support of their employer. nursing, chefs, mechanics, carpenters, lab technicians, you name it. but now, it seems to be nearly all done before employment, at the individual's considerable expense, both in fees and opportunity cost of income forgone. it seems to me that the burden has shifted massively away from the employer onto the (future) employee.
2. all the tertiary education/training these days seems to automatically imply huge debts before little jonny and jane have even earned a cent. this does not seem to be a sustainable way to set up society imho. all this debt built up against future potential income seems to be (surprise, surprise) encouraging people to try and get their kids to get into courses that have a ROI. this is unlikely to end well, not least because of the fact that most teenagers don't have a clue what they want to do for decades hence. they don't even know what they want to do after tea, ffs!
so, if they have an interest or passion for some thing or other in terms of study or vocation, let them rip! only then can they find out if it will really suit them.
-
hello Rick,
thanks for the response to various questions and the overall summary. i hope everyone appreciates all the time and effort you are putting in on a voluntary basis.
i may have this wrong, but it seems to me that you want people to recognise that you have three kinds of "costs" and three kinds of "revenues".
costs:
- admin costs
- event costs
- charitable programme delivery costsrevenues:
- cash revenue not from the general public that has been received for a specific purpose (usually admin)
- in-kind revenue, mainly from private companies, that offsets all three kinds of costs
- cash donated by the general public in the expectation that it will mostly be used for the delivery of charitable programmesok. but. as others have said, the key issue is transparency. where is the revenue coming from and what is it being used for?
it seems to me that you need to very clearly show a breakdown of costs and revenues divided between:
- the cost of raising funds (all costs associated with fundraising activities and not charitable programme delivery)
and
- the cost of charitable programme delivery. this is key, imo. it can include the goods being distributed and the wages and logistics/infrastructure costs associated with distribution.
if you can't delineate the fundraising costs from the programme costs in a way that seems reasonable and fair, people are going to be left with lingering doubts about the validity of your model.
once you have disclosed all your costs and revenues and there is general recognition that the values are reasonable, then the key ratio is ALL money + in-kind goods/services available for (and eventually used for) charitable programme delivery as a percentage of ALL money + in-kind goods/services received.
IMHO!
cheers! (sorry, i may have started rambling)