Stupidest “debate” ever

45 comments on “Stupidest “debate” ever ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   15 June 2013 at 4:25 pm

   No! It’s not ok! Women should stay home and be baby machines!
   • Pascal's bookie 1.1

     15 June 2013 at 4:30 pm

     And if they are child free, it shouldn’t be by their choice, for the love of man. Who do they think they are?
   • xtasy 1.2

     15 June 2013 at 11:02 pm

     Mature women and girls can in many countries and places sit down quite comfortably, confidently and conveniently, at the breakfast table in many other countries, where education is promoted, against advertising crap, to hold sensible, mature and even connecting conversations with their male company.

     There are actually many “cultures”, or at least have been, where a female is taken as much of value and respect, and can be communicated with, not just for “breeding”, “non breeding”, sexualisation, or other “limited focus” purposes, so that some cultural equality exists.

     Now New Zealand as a society may claim a lot, but the media in NZ is inferior, disgusting and primitive, at most times that is. Sorry, but too many work in a “business”, where they have no place. Get a life and start living with the ones doing the “sweat jobs”, and stop fooling and ridiculing us with shit stories, over sensationalising non-issues, thanks, stop this you fake career minded over-rated useless “journos”, you are so undeserving!
2. Zorr 2

   15 June 2013 at 4:28 pm

   Women may have been given the vote but they should cast it the same way their husband does!
   • Pascal's bookie 2.1

     15 June 2013 at 4:31 pm

     Clearly, it would be unnatural otherwise.
     • Zorr 2.1.1

       15 June 2013 at 4:32 pm

       I know! Unmarried women are an abomination!
   • AmaKiwi 2.2

     16 June 2013 at 2:19 pm

     @ Zorr “Women may have been given the vote but they should cast it the same way their husband does!”

     You fool. Men vote the way we tell them to. We feed your egos by letting you think otherwise.
3. Colonial Viper 3

   15 June 2013 at 4:32 pm

   TVNZ picking social issues from 40 years ago?
   • felix 3.1

     15 June 2013 at 6:27 pm

     You risk alienating viewers if you bring up current social issues.
     • Rogue Trooper 3.1.1

       16 June 2013 at 12:27 am

       so true.
4. Rhinocrates 4

   15 June 2013 at 4:35 pm

   I’d like to know Alasdair Thompson’s position on this, and that of his kindred spirit, Hooton. Especially his position on “stupid maori” who become pregnant.
5. andy (the other one) 5

   15 June 2013 at 4:54 pm

   How do we know they ‘chose’ to be child free, do they wear a badge?

   How do we differentiate between ‘choose’, ‘can’t’ and “couldn’t’.

   BTW TVNZ breakfast, f&%k you with a rusty reinforcing rod. On behalf of my Sister who ‘can’t’, but would be the best parent in the world.
6. Descendant Of Sssmith 6

   15 June 2013 at 5:02 pm

   But what if they choose to have children but can’t.

   Or what if they choose to have children to different fathers?

   Or if they choose to not have children to different fathers. Would that be more empowering than not having children to just one father?

   What if they choose to have children but then don’t like them. Can they change them, give them away, swap them? That would be empowering wouldn’t it?
   • rosy 6.1

     15 June 2013 at 8:14 pm

     “What if they choose to have children but then don’t like them. Can they change them, give them away, swap them? That would be empowering wouldn’t it?”

     Well, now you mention it, according to a Mises Institute paper, The Ethics of Liberty …

     [A mother] would have the trustee-ownership of her children, an ownership limited only by the illegality of aggressing against their persons and by their absolute right to run away or to leave home at any time. Parents would be able to sell their trustee-rights in children to anyone who wished to buy them at any mutually agreed price

     You’re talking libertarian end game there DoS, but you omitted the ‘market’ principle.
7. Rogue Trooper 7

   15 June 2013 at 5:04 pm

   along with man-free, car-free, jewellery-free, TVNZ-free, cosmetic-free, bra-free, hand-bag-free, subservience-free, apron-free, (just free, is fine by me).
8. sanctimonious 8

   15 June 2013 at 5:35 pm

   Clearly it’s angry reactionary year on the stundurd.
   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     15 June 2013 at 6:32 pm

     Wait until the Right lose 2014

     They seem to specialise in angy ructionary
   • QoT 8.2

     15 June 2013 at 10:12 pm

     Because calling out a “debate” which reinforces conservative values is totally reactionary. 🙄
9. freedom 9

   15 June 2013 at 6:00 pm

   time for a singalong
   
   • Rogue Trooper 9.1

     15 June 2013 at 9:57 pm

     That is a hilarious video freedom.
10. Rich the other 10

    15 June 2013 at 6:28 pm

    Child free ,
    a great idea for green/labour women voters, it should be encouraged.
11. karol 11

    15 June 2013 at 6:41 pm

    “child free” – strange way of putting it.

    Could a woman give birth to a child and still remain “child free”?
    • weka 11.1

      15 June 2013 at 7:25 pm

      ‘Child free’ comes from the days when not having kids was seen as a failing, and the term childless carried negative connotations.

      But yeah, the way the question is worded is just about as stupid as trying to ask it in the first place.
    • AmaKiwi 11.2

      16 June 2013 at 2:21 pm

      @ karol “Could a woman give birth to a child and still remain “child free”?

      My mother did, which is why I am so f*cked up!
12. karol 12

    15 June 2013 at 7:32 pm

    More importantly, was it significant that Keynes was childless? Did it mean he had no concerns for the future of human kind?
    • Rogue Trooper 12.1

      15 June 2013 at 10:02 pm

      Keynes may have been a realist; neat linked article karol.
13. AsleepWhileWalking 13

    15 June 2013 at 7:39 pm

    Is it ok for airhead tv presenters to pass public judgement on a woman’s reproductive choices? TVNZ says “yes”.
14. Anne 14

    15 June 2013 at 7:40 pm

    …the term childless carried negative connotations.

    Well I’m childless and about ten years ago a relative (by marriage) decided to create a family tree and left me off it. :D.

    edit. Well, to be accurate I was left off the actual tree but my name appeared at the very bottom of the page as an addendum.
    • karol 14.1

      15 June 2013 at 8:56 pm

      Actually in my current extended family, and going back in my family tree, I think quite a few women (and some men) have been childless – well, at least officially, while not having married.
15. Huginn 15

    15 June 2013 at 8:21 pm

    Toxic
16. Rosetinted 16

    15 June 2013 at 8:31 pm

    Anne
    I think that an appropriate comment on you being put at the roots of your family tree is the bible piece from Mark I think.
    And have ye not read this scripture; ‘The stone which the builders rejected Is become the head of the corner:’
    • Rogue Trooper 16.1

      15 June 2013 at 10:09 pm

      Acts 4:11 Jesus is the stone the builders rejected.
      from Psalm 118:22 The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.(NIV) sigh.

      You have my word, on the bible, He Lives.
      • Rosetinted 16.1.1

        17 June 2013 at 11:05 am

        Thanks Rogue T
        I took my reference off google – yours seems to be the foundation for the phrase. That Jesus – he said some great things. I like him.
17. BLiP 17

    15 June 2013 at 10:11 pm

    ‘

    Yeah, its a stupid debate but TVNZ seems to be giving New Zealanders what they want. It doesn’t matter how much drivel is dished up, we’re just lovin’ it. The only significant viewer protest action I have ever seen is when Coro St was cut back. And here, take a look at what is currently the “Most Popular” links on the TVNZ news webpage . . .

    1 – Selena Gomez reveals baby sister’s name

    2 – Rihanna’s breasts censored on Diamonds tour billboards

    3 – Fishermen concerned over new snapper rules

    4 – Taylor Swift’s new perfume ’embodies her personality’

    5 – Rural bachelor competition takes trans-Tasman twist

    . . . and did you see Kate launch that new ship the other day. She’s just looking so radiant at the moment. Can’t be long now. Fingers crossed for a boy, eh?

    Okay, I’m off now to do some serious internet research. Its the wife’s birthday next week and I’ve gotta get something semi decent. I did find the most gorgeous little dress watch which would have matched this season’s colours perfectly. And then, silly me, I remembered: there’s a clock on the stove.
    • David H 17.1

      16 June 2013 at 9:11 am

      Blip
      You forgot there’s a clock on her phone too
    • Rosetinted 17.2

      17 June 2013 at 11:12 am

      Blip More time, usually that’s regarded as a good thing. And a jewelled watch underlines that you always have time for your great wife! It would be so much easier on the eye and the pleasure-receiving part of the brain than digital numbers that mark out the time to go and work at something and then something else.
18. georgecom 18

    15 June 2013 at 10:32 pm

    Dumb, silly, pointless. What more can be said. Trying to debate something where there is no debate.
19. xtasy 19

    15 June 2013 at 10:51 pm

    “Breakfast” on TV is just that, a rotten, cheap “breakfast” on crap food and little or no nutrition, like too many kids in NZ get. It is a visual diarrhea show of the too many types of shit media that this country has left. I am amazed that people still “watch” and “follow” such trash, and that they waste time thinking and writing on such.

    True “breakfast” should be taken in by mindful, mature focused and healthy people in a sound state of mind, to do this in the kitchen, to eat healthy food, to switch off advertising and trash, that most of such TV shows consist of, to prepare themselves for a day in a clear and sound mind.

    They should also avoid any television, apart from perhaps a brief glance at Al Jazeera or BBC, if they can get it, and otherwise only listen to National Radio’s Morning Report, preferably with Kim Hill to fill in.

    Otherwise stay well clear of any media pollution, as it will become too upsetting to your body, and leave you in a state of physical, mental and emotional distress and irritation for the rest of the day, it will ensure an early death, in pain, distress, confusion and alienation, otherwise that is.

    So switch off “sick breakfast” and choose a healthy mind and clear focus, on progressive life styles and progressive thoughts. The Standard may deliver the best “breakfast” diet in commentary on Open Mike for that!
    • Rosetinted 19.1

      17 June 2013 at 11:13 am

      xtasy
      You’ve got some golden points there.
20. tc 20

    15 June 2013 at 10:52 pm

    Thats a fair debate for the average breakfast viewer, its an awful show hosted to pertection by rawdon and whatever the other one is called. If they could put up a test pattern in between the commercials and still sell them they would.

    The nats would flog TVNZ but its more useful in keeping the sheeple dumbed down and providing slots for their message.
21. RedBaronCV 21

    16 June 2013 at 9:49 am

    I never watch breakfast TV but who advertises on this show. I’d be perfectly happy to take my disgust out on them via my wallet – which is an argument that they understand.

    BTW it is absolutely tasteless and insensitive – many are not childless by choice – and it causes great
    distress
22. Paul 22

    16 June 2013 at 10:08 am

    Sounds like someone wanted to stop the programme!
    “TVNZ’s headline morning show Breakfast was forced off air after a contractor doing burnouts in the company’s underground carpark set off a fire alarm.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10890831
23. Rosie 23

    16 June 2013 at 12:38 pm

    Oh God, how backwards are these TVNZ people having a “debate” such as this and still thinking its somehow “controversial” to make a choice not to have children?

    We got married 20 years ago and made a choice not to have children. We are not childless as we never “lost” a child or children. The word less equals loss which implies grief. Subsequently we had to deal with fall out from friends, family and workmates about our decision. 20 years on only a little of society’s attitude has changed, as far as we can see and given the ignorant reactions we still get. It’s tedious that TVNZ frame it as “a slap across the face of nature or……..” Are they purposefully trying to perpetuate a 1950’s ideal of women?

    ANNND, there’s no mention in the topic of men choosing not to have children. A child free man (free as in by choice, not circumstance) doesn’t seem to receive anywhere near the mistrust and judgement that a child free woman does.
24. joe90 24

    16 June 2013 at 2:45 pm

    ANNND, there’s no mention in the topic of men choosing not to have children. A child free man (free as in by choice, not circumstance) doesn’t seem to receive anywhere near the mistrust and judgement that a child free woman does.

    More often than you’d imagine Rosie – mostly “not man enough” or the charming “shooting blanks”.
    • Rosie 24.1

      16 June 2013 at 5:33 pm

      Fair point joe90. I was going by my experience of what I’ve witnessed over the years – my child free male friends, either as one half of a couple or as a single, when asked about social reaction to their child free status have replied that they haven’t really noticed much reaction. Maybe they were just the lucky ones eh?

      In a review of Theresa Riley’s book ” Being childfree in New Zealand: How couples who choose not to have children are perceived” the reviewers states:

      “As Riley’s thesis shows, the deviant identity of the non-mother and the childfree person is often
      experienced as rather more acute. The stigma attached to this deviant identity, for both women
      and men as Riley’s data show is historically aligned to the link between femininity and womanhood, and masculinity and immortality.”

      http://www.wsanz.org.nz/journal/docs/WSJNZ261bookreviewShaw34-36.pdf

      So according to Riley’s study, male participants did indeed report negative social reaction to their child free status. Probably similar to the kind of insensitive and derogatory comments you use as an example above.

      I just found it annoying that TVNZ only referred to women in their question/topic. It felt like “OH typical, here we go again!”

      The fact that they are even questioning a woman’s choice to have or not have children shows they are playing up their primitive side, one that is concerned with reproduction, like a bunch of animals wanting to kick the non reproducing ones out of the group because there’s something wrong with them.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS