So Danyl, if I get your implications correct; not treating women as sexual objects for men’s gratification is akin to “Victorian attitudes”?!?!

Y’know, mate… I’ve seen, heard, and read a lot of political stuff in this country, so it’s really hard to surprise me.

Congratulations – you’ve surprised me. But not in a good way.

Euphemisms are about making a statement look better; more acceptable.

“look at her fucking ass, I’d own that”

If this is the clean, better, “nice” version, then what does he really think?

This isn’t about Victorian attitudes to sex. This is about the disgusting male sense of entitlement that leads to rape.

You are, in fact, within that category, which is pretty awful for you.

“You do realise that in your constant efforts to fight against the fight against sexual abuse and rape culture, you look like a total rapist apologist, right??”

BoT, you know that in excusing a call for gross violence against another human being as a “joke”, you look like a total violence apologist, right?

Frank:
“And his “heterosexuality” has zilch to do with it, by the way.”

Welllll, he hardly would have been making lascivious comments about women’s bodies if he was gay, right? Unless of course he’s a deeply repressed homosexual, which could also be an explanation for his behavior.

Oh, and as for:

BoT:
“he’s not discussing sex but picking apart women”

and…

“The Chef was not “discussing sex openly”. Quite the reverse, he was objectifying women and making crass remarks about their body parts.”

Excellent examples of the neo-Victorian, middle-class taboo about discussing sex I was talking about. Man at work talks about how he finds particular women sexually attractive and why, without hiding behind quaint euphemisms like “she seems nice”. Shock! Horror! Read all about it! Get over yourselves.

“Because this man is heterosexual, and doesn’t buy into the neo-Victorian, middle-class taboo about discussing sex openly…”

W.T. F?!

Are you for real Danyl?!

That guy was not “discussing sex openly”! That has to be the dumbest spin on sexism since Key opened his mouth on any issue…

The Chef was not “discussing sex openly”. Quite the reverse, he was objectifying women and making crass remarks about their body parts.

So you think it was “open discussion”, eh?

Really?

So tell us – why didn’t he say those remarks directly to the women concerned?

Keep posting, Danyl. You’re illustrating what’s wrong with attitudes/beliefs that tolerate the objectification and exploitation of women these days.

And his “heterosexuality” has zilch to do with it, by the way.

Isn’t that interesting, K…

So many people (quite rightly) get angry at the treatment of women in Afghanistan.

But then so many become apologists or ignore sexist behavious/comments here in our own supposedly “more enlightened” society.

We do the sexist thing here in NZ. We just “dress it up” better. So called “humour”. So called “free speech”. So called “saying what we all think”…

But precious little of actually seeing it from the woman’s point of view.

“Because he is heterosexual”

No. Because he is nasty, and his leering, abusive commentary not only reduces women to holes for his use, but equates to sexual harassment of his colleagues; because he’s not discussing sex but picking apart women, who don’t want and don’t deserve that sort of terrible treatment: because of THIS, a joke was made at his expense.

OH NO WHAT ABOUT HIS RIGHTSSSSSS NOT TO HAVE JOKES MADE AT HIS EXPENSE

Yeah… nah.

You do realise that in your constant efforts to fight against the fight against sexual abuse and rape culture, you look like a total rapist apologist, right??

The whole blog is about the ‘thinking’…the ‘thinking’ which legitimises the ‘doing’..
I’ve worked in enough kitchens to know what kind of potty mouths can gain their evil little domains there, and someone getting in an ‘accident’ with a grill would be all too easy, so I find your comment slightly dumb.

On a more positive note, I’m hoping were seeing another wave of feminism – because personally, its overdue.

Interesting argument. I came across this today: http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/02/ten-kiwis-died-for-this.html

It is about the law in Afganistan (I’m guessing there isn’t a hell of a lot of porn around, but then again why would you need it if you had access to your very own child bride that you could abuse at will?). “A new Afghan law will allow men to attack their wives, children and sisters without fear of judicial punishment, undoing years of slow progress in tackling violence in a country plagued by honour killings, forced marriage and vicious domestic abuse.

The small but significant change to Afghanistan’s criminal prosecution code bans relatives of an accused person from testifying against them. Most violence against women in Afghanistan is within the family, so the law – passed by parliament but awaiting the signature of the president, Hamid Karzai – will effectively silence victims as well as most potential witnesses to their suffering.”

Perhaps you are right. It may not be adsporn so much as an attitude which is allowed to dominate. The adsporn could just be reflective of that attitude to begin with but ultimately end up adding detrimental energy by reinforcing and stimulating those attitudes.