Craig:

The fact that the security guard who stopped Jeanette was “fat” does not remove differences in physical strength and size …

(You’ve possibly chosen the wrong woman to dispute this with.)

I sorted out any “gender issues” that I may have had three decades ago.

My life’s experience includes:
Teaching recreational PE at university. A lifetime of alpine skiing (including international ski racing/professional skiing) and some mountain climbing.
Much of my time has been spent with male colleagues. Also, I have raised two physically strong and active children, one male, one female.

There ARE real physical and physiological differences between male and female humans. (In general, women are physiologically stronger!)

Eredwen

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Gee Craig – I guess you forgot that I posted that there had to be proof or there shouldn’t be a word said, immediately after that stupid speech. I don’t take it from any side. It is simply wrong to lie about party policies and people, election or no, simply to score political points with people who don’t know the truth. Lying like that pollutes the pond. It doesn’t work well for the Nation and it isn’t Green policy.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I suspect the security guard was probably more to keep back the 20-30 media and their crews. Of course DPF is just stirring, but it will be really interesting to see how this story pans out. Good on Jeanette for trying to set the story straight.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Eredwen wrote:
The security guard was very obviously bigger and physically stronger than the women… It was not “sexist� in that situation to refer to the physical differences between them.

I reply:
I think “fat” is the word you’re looking for, and there are more than a few women who aren’t going to let any man think that their size is going to intimidated them thank you very much. Perhaps you have some “issues” around gender and body image-based social roles to work through yourself.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Edge et al:

I paid careful attention to the TVOne News item.

Jeanette’s comment was entirely appropriate. In the context the word “women” rather than the word “people” better described the situation.

The security guard was very obviously bigger and physically stronger than the women… It was not “sexist” in that situation to refer to the physical differences between them.

To equate this comment with Don Brash’s previous comment is either mischievous or demonstates a lack of understanding of the issues.

Personally, having read “yous guys” posts previously, I opt for the “either” rather than the “or”!

eredwen

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Alistair:

Really? And which American politicians confirmed that the National Party is being financed by Yankee “bagmen” (Mallard’s word not mine) or that National’s policy is being “written in Washington”? If my memory serves, the only name Mallard came up with was… a chap who made a donation to the campaign fund of a certain Mr. Dover Samuels.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

not really craig: the US politicians concerned confirmed all the factual content, they only differed on the interpretation (overall, one gains the impression that the nats were desperately asking for guidance/orders and the Yanks were rather bemused and embarassed by it). No lies were told about that. And there’s no law against political speculation. Absolutely no parallel there.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

c’mon craig…you’d be hard pressed to define who controls national more..the yanks or the actites..or the business roundtable….it sure as hell ain’t the national rank and file…

we should call national the ‘other peoples’ party’….don is just the remittance man…

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

bjchip:

Yup, just like all the leftie bastards (including Frog) who spun that conspiracy theory that National is under the control of Yank bagmen should be dragged into court, and either forced to produce evidence or make restitution.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Reminds me of Karl Rove Peter, and that’s about the scariest person there is.

The pamphlet contains lies, the man who paid for it needs to pay for it. Swear out a complaint and haul his sorry butt into court. Force him to make restitution, make him apologize publicly. The difference here is that there is documentation and real evidence available to prove the lie. Such a mistake shows that he’s not really a pro, just a ba***rd.

His use of security guards is instructive. He expects direct confrontation. He doesn’t think the law to be used against him… it doesn’t apply to him.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

scary stuff fwog

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Frog,

I await your condemnation of Jeanette for saying men should be treated differently from women.

Does she want all women in the kitchen? Does Don Brash?

http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/08/29/foot-in-mouth-disease/
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/08/25/the-dog-whistling-continues/

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)