Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
PS: if anyone wants to sign up, here you go. Still haven't got my cheque though.
-
If my memory serves Peters has been quite pro-Israel in the past, and friendly to the local Jewish community. It's Moore who's making the insinuation here. When anti-semitism became unfashionable in the Social Credit movement they switched to saying "international bankers", but it does not follow that every reference to international bankers (or money lenders) is secret code for Jews.
-
I would also like to know what makes people fall in love, and then excise it with a scalpel and preserve it in jar filled with formalin
That is one great metaphor.
-
That is an interesting article, but like a lot of evo-psych it seems to me that it assumes that the phenomenon described is innate and looks for an evolutionary explanation. I am highly, highly suspicious of such just-so-stories. Especially when so many measured male:female differences are quite small, much more like tendencies than absolute distinctions, and with plenty of people with the "wrong" behaviour. It could be the reporting, mind you. The press loves articles that say "women are like THIS, men are like THAT" and they like it even more if the story reinforces traditional sex roles.
That aside, this passage:
"Men are much more likely to have sex with a total stranger. And assuming you don't have many friends who are porn stars, porn shows you images of strangers who haven't even so much as bought you dinner"
... would lend just as much weight to the argument that women don't like porn because it isn't produced with them in mind.
-
Google? That's such an unusual moniker that I assumed it was a pseudonym. No one could be _born_ with a name that cool.
I guess having an unusual name ruins your online plausible deniability.
-
Heather: you might find this interesting and apropos. (A review of Audacia Ray's Naked on the Internet).
Interesting bit embedded in it:
One thing that she highlights that I found interesting was the widespread notion amongst women who are trying to cut out a feminist space in porn that women don’t look at porn as much as men strictly because of the male gaze issues.** Written erotica was deemed more female-friendly not because of inherent preferences for visual porn for men and written porn for women, but because it was much easier for women to find written material where you’re not going to encounter some huge misogynist turn-off. In other words, that women don’t look at porn is a supply, not a demand issue. The owners of one porn portal website aimed at straight women bemoaned their inability to meet the demand for new pictures, since they have to buy explicit pictures of men mostly from photographers who are aiming for a gay male audience, and then they have to work at it to recontextualize the pictures for a straight female audience. It was really interesting, and I went to their website to see how good a job they did, only to find that you have to pay to really see a lot of pictures, which I found interesting as well—if they’re able to make a living off this project, that pretty much does show that there’s more demand out there than the “women don’t look” stereotypes would have it. All in all, I found that section pretty persuasive.
-
Now that I think about it, Xtra's various changes have been on NZNOG this month too.
Sorting out SPF oughta do it though.
-
Russell, make sure that SPF records are set up correctly for the domain that you're sending mail from. (It doesn't look as though there are SPF records for publicaddress.net...)
The new Yahoo mail servers seem to use lack of or broken SPF as one of their main flags for potential spam. I don't think anyone at Yahoo is going to "fix" that.
-
Daleaway - "are we all playing let's pretend?"
Speaking for myself: not really. Kinda sorta. Yes in the sense that all kinds of rules of society could be characterised as mutual "let's pretend", including gender, which I believe is socially constructed.
Describing someone as their preferred gender when I don't see it that way may be a polite fiction, but it saves a great deal of awkward, inaccurate, periphrastic and quite probably hurtful verbiage. Likewise I don't see how treating a transsexual as they wish to be treated really hurts me, so I do. There may be contexts where making fine distinctions really matters, and then perhaps I wouldn't play let's pretend, but if your hypothetical FTM wants to use the same changing rooms as I do I couldn't care less.
I do think that using a transsexual as an example of their adopted gender is peculiar, maybe oxymoronic, and not really providing great evidential force. Using Georgina Beyer in this case seems a bit problematic to me too.
I'd be interested to know how Che thinks his theory of group identity (you can't proclaim yourself a member, other members have to acknowledge you) works out here.
-
Apropos pole dancing... (warning contains Steven Colbert)