Paul Henry’s ‘perfect titties’ comment brings enlightenment
Paul Henry did an interview in a restaurant and at one point commented on a woman at a neighbouring table saying she had ‘the perfect titties’ and exchanging some further related thoughts with his female publicist. The feminist brigade have responded with outrage while white knights such as Brian Edwards have also waded in. Readers’ responses seemed about evenly divided. Many noted the hypocrisy of feminists who would criticize a male for ‘objectifying’ a woman but never mention that women also frequently comment on men’s physical attributes. It seems that if ‘objectifying’ comments are made with poetic, indirect or euphemistic language by men or if made by women using any language, that’s ok. Others have disputed the idea that most women might be expected to find admiring comments like that unwelcome. After all, attrractive women wield a great deal of power from their sexual appeal and can easily turn that into significant profit, so why would they object to men’s admiration of the physical appeal they work so hard to bolster?
We believe everyone has the right to state they are offended by Henry’s comments or anyone else’s comments, and to express their preferences regarding how others behave. However, demanding that others conform to your preferences is a step too far, while irrational, false and/or socially destructive responses deserve to be challenged.
For example, Jane Drumm from ‘Shine’ was reported as calling Henry’s comment a “nasty comment”. This is plain wrong. If someone likes the look of something and calls that ‘perfect’, how on earth could that be perceived as nasty? Only the most creatively feminist mind could possibly believe that. What is truly nasty is misrepresenting another person’s comment and sullying his intention by using the word ‘nasty’. Attacking someone’s well-intentioned comment by deliberately using the manipulative and misleading propaganda term ‘nasty’ shows seriously flawed ethics, much more socially dangerous than Henry’s comments could ever be.
Jane Drumm also claimed that Henry had showed “a sense of superiority which was at the root of violence against women”. This is false propaganda that is not based on research highlighting the many and varied causal factors in violence towards women (not to mention men). It’s simply false and manipulative to try to associate an admiring comment about a woman’s attractiveness with ‘violence against women’. That the admiring comment used schoolboy language in no way makes that association more valid. It’s dangerous for a society to condone misrepresentation of this kind for propaganda purposes. The outcomes can be expected to include deepened social division and ineffective or harmful law and policy. Causing such social damage is far more seriously unethical than making an unsophisticated comment that some others feel offended by.
Louise Nicholas claimed that Henry “clearly needed more education”. Yes well that’s what we hear from totalitarian states throughout history. The brain washing that causes adherence to feminist reasoning and ideology would impress the most successful dictators intent on ensuring obedience to their regimes.
Ms Nicholas also implied that Henry’s comment caused “verbal harm” that was “just as traumatic” as physical harm. It didn’t matter that the person Henry’s admiring comment was about didn’t even hear it, didn’t know about it or know it referred to her. Here again we see the propaganda of exaggerated language and false association. To suggest that an admiring comment about a woman’s physical appearance can be compared with physical violence is ridiculous in the extreme, but it’s all grist for the feminist mill. For feminists there’s no problem with dishonesty as long as it serves their propaganda purposes.
Both Ms Nicholas and Ms Drumm appear to see no problem with making comments about Henry that were deliberately demeaning and patronizing. Ms Nicholas graciously pronounced that she didn’t think Henry should lose his career due to his comment but needed more education; oh, why, thanks so much merciful emperor! Ms Drumm said “I feel really sorry for Paul that he has got to his age and he’s so angry and so flippant about other people and because that just means that he’s such a lonely person”. Surely that amounts to emotional violence much worse than an admiring comment about a woman’s appearance. Oh yes, but their white ribbons remind us that violence matters when it’s done towards women but it’s ok when women do it towards men.
The femaleist response to Henry’s admiring comment generally showed disregard for really important values and social ethics in order to prioritize much less important and highly questionable ones created by the religion of feminism. They disregard the right to free speech and free thought, seeking to censor men’s communication towards the dubious goal of protecting women from possibly feeling offended. They disregard the value of tolerance for difference, demanding that men’s interests be the same as that for women or at least consistent with the feminist religion. They disregard the values of honesty and fairness, believing it’s ok to misrepresent men, their behaviour and the research that has elucidated the phenomena they are commenting on. They go to great effort to express their deep indignation about a man’s admiring comment regarding an attractive female, whilst ignoring really important gender issues such as gender disparity in suicide, in arrest and sentencing, in workplace deaths, in homelessness and in life span. In summary, the feminist response to Henry’s comment highlights the poor, self-focused and socially dangerous ethics of femaleism.
The media standard is so hypocritical. Many women both here and overseas make objectified comments about men and it flies well under the radar. Why does Louise Nicholas never comment when Hilary Barry or her predecessor Nadine Chalmers-Ross objectify men on their shows? To me this just shows how biased the media and feminist commentators are in trying to demonise men.
Chalmers-Ross has openly on air gushed over how “hot” certain All Blacks are. This goes without comment. In the last couple of weeks, Barry and co-host Jack Tame had a Sex in the City star on their show and showed her images of prominent New Zealand men and asked her whether she would swipe left or right on Twitter for them. The men included John Key and an All Black and a handful of other men. Apparently this is humour. Apparently this humour objectifying men is acceptable.
Personally I don’t really care. I have a reasonable tolerance for what I will accept as entertainment. However I cannot abide the double standard where commenting on a woman’s body is outrageous objectification but doing the same to a man’s body is good intentioned humour.
Lets stop the hypocricy, Nicholas, Barry, Chalmers-Ross, Jane Drumm (Shine) and many more who are tarred with the same brush.
Comment by WayneBurrows — Mon 31st October 2016 @ 2:33 pm
Today I heard on radio news that a male bus driver in Ch.Ch. was hospitalised after being attacked by a female passenger.
I dont expect there will be any comments from supposed victims advocates like Loise Nichols about this violence.
Instead the bus company issued a report that bus drivers should not argue with passengers.
Comment by voices back from the bush — Mon 31st October 2016 @ 2:42 pm
So Hilary Barry is a political animal after all, and not a bright one at that. Her dig at Paul Henry was below the belt and also assumes that Jack Tane is not an admirer of the female body. Political correctness is driving the world crazy and is the reason why we have Donald Trump polling so high. Due to Trump’s lack of diplomacy he could well end civilisation as we know it with one push of a button. However, having Clinton at the helm will have the same affect only much slower.
Comment by triassic — Mon 31st October 2016 @ 5:23 pm
Who is Louise Nicholas?
Oh yes is she some sort of female icon, done something meaning full, to be admired? Like Barbara Kendel or Irean Vandyke?
What was it that she did to achieve some sort of self proclaimed status?
What happened to her as a young and troubled woman was totally disgusting, a bloody disgrace and the fact that the people involved were police makes it much worse.
This does not make her qualified to pass comment on what others should think or say.
Don Brash is involved in a movement called Hobsons Choice, he has recently sent out an email damming the “PC Press”. This is another example.
This is not Communist Russia, our parents and grandparents went to war, lost their lives and fought for the right for free speech. Millions died. A bunch of PC Gender biased woman should not be given the air time to undermine that as it makes a mockery of every effort the Allies fought and died for and if they had not done this (the men) these woman may well have been “comfort girls” for the Japanese army and guess what, they would be hoping the men, (the very ones they borax) would stand up for them then, as men. If we were to be over run with ardent muslims, by god they would be turning to Paul Henary to get on Air to Marshall the men to fight for them then, they are truly hypocritical.
Comment by Simon grant — Mon 31st October 2016 @ 6:40 pm
I couldn’t resist a chuckle at jonkeys comments today – regarding a female minister who has inconveniently leaving her station…
Would he require another woman to guild that roll, or will any er per-son do?
Johnny replies this way..
Its an insult to woman ministers that they be chosen because of thier gender, and -for any minister any minister not performing being a woman is no advantage..
I reckon Johnny’s been to a social managment coach after ponytail gate.
(The chiefs have got one now too)
I think he now knows that in every comparison of sexes you must mention female offence and oppression and remind us all that whatever you choose… you can get away with,- as long as your accusing the opposite of your choice – of sexism and oppression of females.
Every conparison -must begin with oppresion. Every summary concludes with validation of the origonal falsehood.
But female ministers for nats have been somewhat errant with thier interests much as Hillary clinton is.
She has run two sets of books about the secrets of her nation, Gained resources through means that she obveously intended to hide.
Her husband has gone from the bastard that was getting blowjobs at the helm- from his staff, to the old coot that makes metamorphosis seem like a costume change. It cost 80m to impeach him ,then America got bored so they turn him into the apologist that they just cant get enough of.
He somehow becomes the integrity factor in her campaign.
While the world now waits for clarity about her crimes..
I cant stand the Donald.
Id hate to see him become chief but there is no integrity since -Berny?
When they tell us this is the election of a lifetime.?
It seems like a threat no matter who wins.
Comment by voices back from the bush — Mon 31st October 2016 @ 10:55 pm
A couple of years ago, I came across an episode of this game-show. Its appropiate to the topic.I have not found the original one I saw – from memory it was an Amerikan version and may have gone because of copyright; BUT the females responses were most clear and graphic in that one. Other episodes of this one on line might be as extreme – I don’t yet know.
Of course women do not objectify males …….. ???
Check this out – and be sure to watch the female’s expressions, body language and the language they choose. Also of interest is that normal well known specifications which females require of males are reinforced.Its a lengthy item, about 41 minutes; and there are other episodes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3ECUgwDtwc
Comment by Jerry — Tue 1st November 2016 @ 9:03 am
Paul Henry is a halfwit. Even I am embarassed by his comments. Here’s a story you might consider following: Hilary Clinton doing OK in the polls, decides to turn it into a women vs men issue, most voters do not agree. Seems that what we say publicly and what we really believe and do when the censors are not watching are not necessarily the same thing. Most of us can see why she lost, I think.
Comment by Doug — Fri 11th November 2016 @ 7:59 pm