- Date published:
7:01 pm, February 15th, 2016 - 148 comments
Categories: Media, Minister for Photo-ops, newspapers, scoundrels, social media lolz - Tags: bgo, creepy key, ponytailgate
The NZ Herald was so desperate for a good news angle to Key’s humiliation at the Big Gay Out it used, without attribution, an Instagram post from a young woman, DavinaRuby.
It appears to show the pervy PM reaching for her hair while grinning inanely. That should have been enough to give the Herald a reason not to publish, but no, they had to find somebody, anybody, who looked like they were happy to see Key. Sadly for Granny, rather than being an example of how, ahem, “many at the event were positive about the Prime Minister’s presence” it was actually a pisstake.
The Herald’s Instagram capture shows the caption “Me & my Valentine John 💕 “.
Newsflash for Granny: that was a joke. Damn the young folk and their hard to get sarcasm!
I really have no idea why the Herald didn’t use the original Instagram caption instead, which is far more innocent, wholesome and indicative of the respect John Key enjoys everywhere he goes:
“We shelved a couple mdma pills and twerked for daddy”.
Tip of the hat to the Daily Indignation.
UPDATE: Comments are now closed. Cheers, ya’ll.
HA! Least he’s not scruffy, God forbid, he’s just ya pervy irony free uncle.
Spilled tea and tears!.
Unbelieveable ! if I hadn’t looked up the Herald link and seen it for myself !
This guy – who we sadly call our Prime Minister – cannot keep his hands to himself.
So Glitter Bomb John up to his usual hair antics…. it must be that there is a running competition between Glitter Bomb and his right hand man Dildo.
I guess the pair of them felt they didn’t get much notice or traction among the Big Boys when they signed off the TTPA so now their trying to put NZ on the map by being the most ludicrous politicians this country – or any other country for that matter – has ever beheld.
And judging by John Oliver and his brilliant endorsements of Dildo’s performance… I think the pair of them have certainly succeeded in putting NZ on the map fairly and squarely.
booed dido baggins and perv key at it again wait to john oliver sees this
All I see are his blokish remarks to his sports news audience about that “gay pink shirt”.
Just goes to show what dishonest chameleon that nice man Mr. Keys is…
“We shelved a couple mdma pills and twerked for daddy”.
Boy, I had to reach for the Google to understand that one. Interestingly, the Herald photo in the link had the young lady saying she had “twerked for the police officer”.
Boy, I had to reach for the Google to understand that one.
Me too mac1. Not for the first time here either. We belong to another generation…
When I read that instagram post on the day it said, “straight after this shot he asked to pull my ponytail”, or similar.
Something weird going on.
The poster used various captions on the photo, so I wouldn’t take that too seriously. But then again …
Quite, but then it further allows Key’s machine to dilute and dismiss the sentiment.
_sarahhj: “Stop changing the caption you freak Hahahaha”
[email protected]_sarahhj: “never”
She was trolling the herald with the photo, and it worked… noticed that the article linked above no longer has this photo
If there’s one person that could benefit from a dose of mdma, it’s Jkey.
Pervy slime much!!!! Yuk!
I don’t actually completely understand the “daddy” component of the twerking comment. Is she suggesting some sort of incest?
Why don’t you get on her Instagram feed and ask her? Surely you’d relish another chance to display your difficulty with gender issues.
Yes there are certainly difficulties with gender issues in this world. It keeps cropping up doesn’t it.
I will keep highlighting them for those of you who are unable to see.
… now post your most witty one-liner in response big manwoman
I’m serious: why don’t you ask her? Or shall we mansplain it? 🙄
OAB, fuck off with the useless gender politics and misuse of mansplaining. The original question was valid.
The original question was leading and disingenuous. I see that you deem me worthy of attack. Got more rank hypocrisy where that came from Weka?
I’m done discussing this with you.
I’m calling you out on misusing gender politics for your own agenda OAB. If you see your role here as a pre-emptive police whose jobs is to bash anyone whose past comments mean they are forever damned, that’s up to you, but if you continue to misuse concepts like mansplaining as part of that agenda, then expect to get criticised.
“The original question was leading and disingenuous.”
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. You have no way of knowing (and I say that knowing full well vto’s history on gender issues, I’ve probably had more arguments with him about that than you). As I said, the question itself is valid, irrespective of vto’s motivations for asking it.
“I see that you deem me worthy of attack. Got more rank hypocrisy where that came from Weka?”
I’m not attacking you. I’m telling you off for your behaviour. Remember the conversation a few days ago where you were having a go at someone for not understanding the difference between a personal attack and criticsing behaviour? Further, your behaviour is evident in your comments here, I’m not mindreading to see what your motivations are before you express them.
that was uncalled for and in no way helps with gender issues. Probably the opposite.
Read vto at 11.2.1.
The way I see it is: here’s a man about to make a complete Joyce of himself, perhaps I can dissuade him. Now he’s actually given voice to the attack he had in mind from the get-go I guess it’s too late.
Perhaps he is about to do that. In which case deal with as he does, in a way that doesn’t reinforce fucked up macho politics memes in a discussion that probably invovles gender and sexual violence.
And as always, there are other people in this thread than you and whoever you deem worthy of attacking, including large numbers of people reading and not commenting.
You fire off on these assumed and paranoid tangents all the time oab, pissing off pretty much everybody you engage with…
You don’t seem to understand the point that was being explored. Did you note the way the initial question was phrased? It was so as not to immediately jump to conclusions (unlike yourself) and leave the door wide open in case the discomfort at the back of the mind was misplaced. Trp’s response below indicated some further uncertainty around the placing of the word “daddy”, so the question would seem to have some validity.
… now, there you go, a whole bunch of sentences for you to dissemble into whatever you wish… fill yer boots goofball
It was a leading question. If you were serious about the answer you’d approach the author. Otherwise it’s all just a bunch of conjecture.
I wouldn’t go to that Instagram post and ask out of the blue for an explanation, because I don’t know her and because it would be naff. I certainly wouldn’t suggest that someone like vto does that. Plus, you need an Instagram account to comment.
It was a reasonable question. I bet vto isn’t the only person that read trp’s post and wondered the same. It’s normal to want to understand what posts on the standard are about, and it’s normal to discuss complex social contexts, including asking questions about contexts that are outside of one’s experience. Some people like to learn.
I did my own conjecture below.
Could be, but more like ‘who’s your daddy?’ at a guess. Either way, it’s a subtle way of calling Key a perve.
If it is a reference to incest then it goes into the same category as Key’s sodomy-soap joke
no ‘Daddy” is not a reference to incest.
Daddy, aka Sugar Daddy, usually refers to creepy older man hunting down younger women for sex or other erotic entertainment.
In fact ‘Daddy’ was widely used in the 50.
i mean seriously, we actually have to explain that?
He is old enough to be her ‘Daddy’ and he is creepy as fuck with his sexual innuendo and his hair fetish that involves very young girls and young women. He is the quintessential “Daddy” ….be nice to me and it will not be to your harm.
Be nice to me and it will be good for your career.
Be nice to me and i will help you with your grades.
Be nice to me and I will get you the job.
Daddy. Sugar Daddy.
Yes I am well aware of the use of the term/s, and I don’t like it. Never have.
To have the word Daddy associated with incest and sexual exploitation of young girls in such manner ……. can’t you see the problem????
The fact it has been around since the 50’s means shit-all nothing.
i not only can see the problem i was also at the receiving end of it.
However, Daddy in this term does not apply to incest, it applies to older men attaching themselves to women who would be of the age of their daughters, and for a little money aka sugar daddy the girls may twerk.
so please don’t insinuate shit.
Same problem no matter if it relates to incest or sexual exploitation of young girls
The use of the term “daddy” like this is outdated and offensive. Like so many other terms from the 50s.
“The use of the term “daddy” like this is outdated and offensive. Like so many other terms from the 50s.”
To you. But not in the cultures that it’s been used in in this case.
“Twerking for Daddy” contains inferences or insinuations that are not offensive to the culture of The Standard? Really?
I was talking about the culture that DavinaRuby posted in, and probably the cutlure that the song ‘Twerk It’ came from (if I am right that that’s where the term comes from).
I agree it’s a problem for the standard, but probably for different reasons than you and vto think.
I’ll also add that I see references on ts all the time that conflate sex and violence and there is very little comment on those.
Sheesh weka, talk about opening up a can of worms…..
I think you are off the mark there.
Who gets to define what is offensive? The majority culture prevalent at the time/circumstance is what you seem to suggest, and I don’t think that has any credibility whatsoever…
watch out for the worms squirming out of the can soon ……..
like – men at some men’s sports clubs, mouthing off some other shite from the 50s. Is that ok? Does that have some cred?
(….. you must excuse me I need to rush out now for some chores)
Well I disgree with the analysis that this is a 1950s reference. I think it’s a very modern one.
As for who gets to define offense, we all do. There are no absolutes. For me the problem isn’t offensivess so much, it’s whether harm is being done. That often goes hand in hand with offense, and it’s a more interesting conversation IMO.
vto notice how some people get to define when things are a problem or when they are offensive, and when they are not. But you don’t.
It is a historic and ongoing problem for TS
Another reason why people find the political left hypocritical and disingenuous. Your offence isn’t genuine and doesn’t matter but theirs is, and does.
Who exactly has said that vto can’t say what offends him? Please link. Otherwise I think you are making shit up.
Sorry weka, you can duck and dive on this but as you see from just above, vto agrees with my point.
If you are referring to me I think you are both mistaken. I don’t have a problem with vto being offended by the term (nor Sabine), their offense if understandable. All I’ve done is pointed out that in other sectors of society the offense is understood differently.
btw, you’re the one ducking and diving. If you can explain what you mean, what are you doing here?
I was here to support the point VTO was making ffs, how is that somehow not obvious?
You were implying things that turned out to be wrong.
I’m with vto that the use of ‘daddy’ in this context can be offensive. Not because it offensive to men, although I accept that he has a right to be offended on that score.
But because of the connotation that ‘daddy’ (or ‘uncle’ – real or stylised etc, etc) can give a ‘girlie’ (using 1950s language) a lolly and she’ll do anything for him i.e. a girlie can be bought for sexual gratification. It’s way beyond time for this notion to disappear. Using it may be empowering for the individual and very funny, as here, but in a wider context it may normalise the sexualisation of young girls.
However, suggesting the term in this context is about incest was disingenuous and inflammatory, I reckon. It’s pretty much impossible not to have come across the term being used for rich old men using their money to make out with younger women – in return looking after the girls financially as [they wished] their fathers did.
And yet the connections with incest are clear. Might want to ask survivors of incest about that 😉
This is a very complex conversation, lots of factors and interpretations involved.
“And yet the connections with incest are clear”
Well… it was more that I think vto put the comment up in a disingenuously, not that there in no connection between the term and incest.
In this instance, doubt the intention of the caption was to suggest incest, but rather, a sugar daddy. I object to the term precisely because is may normalise the sexualisation of young girls. I’m pretty aware that close relatives and ‘father figures’ are likely to be involved when that happens.
Here’s what vto said originally,
“I don’t actually completely understand the “daddy” component of the twerking comment. Is she suggesting some sort of incest?”
Are you saying that vto did in fact understand the comment and was simply beign inflammatory with his question?
Because I didn’t understand the phrase as used in the post and had to go and look it up. I wanted to see where it came from culturally in order to understand what the person who used it might have been meaning, as opposed to people here. That’s why I took vto’s question at face value.
I didn’t take ‘daddy’ = ‘sugar daddy’ so much as just being part of the vernacular in the US, particularly in Black culture, and thus where that’s overflowed to here. To me it was more akin to Bill’s definition posted below (a daddy is a girl’s boyfriend or husband who looks after her).
I do agree that there are problems with that for all sorts of reasons, which is most likely why DavinaRuby was using it.
Weka I can’t answer to your comment above as there is no reply button.
You said to CV : ” If you are referring to me I think you are both mistaken. I don’t have a problem with vto being offended by the term (nor Sabine), their offense if understandable.”
Firstly, I am not offended by the term.
Secondly, I only offered other alternatives of the meaning of “Daddy” to VTO as I found the link between ‘Daddy” in the context of the image and the full phrase used by DavinaRuby to be quite clear, and found it a stretch that it would insinuate incest. ( i think we should leave the daughter of the PM out of his business in NZ as she clearly won’t have nothing to do with it, considering that she does her own thing altogether overseas). DavinaRuby is not related to the PM so incest is not coming into play.
Thirdly, i do agree with you that the term may be offensive to some, but it may not be to others especially the younger generation that may use the term completly differently than us.
Fourth, the term has been around for a while, and i only pointed that out.
Fifth, i do find the caption appropriate as clearly the Herald was trying to put up a show for the PM to make him look like he was appreciated and welcomed at the event, and thus ‘pimped’ an image the Herald has literally stolen from an Instagram page.
And this was another case of much to do about nothing.
Thanks for clarifying Sabine, I think there has been some general confusion happening in this thread.
(in a long thread like this, the best way to reply is to scroll up to the first available reply button in direct line above the comment you are responding to. That way your comment ends up in the same subthread rather than in another one).
“I didn’t take ‘daddy’ = ‘sugar daddy’ so much as just being part of the vernacular in the US, particularly in Black culture, and thus where that’s overflowed to here.”
Now…. about Miley and Nicky and the misappropriation of black culture… 😀 😉
But yeah, you’re probably right. I can’t believe vto didn’t know the sugar daddy term and he could have just as easily used that to make his point.
DavinaRuby can use the term however she likes on her own post and it is funny. That doesn’t make it not offensive though, humour of this type always offends someone, usually it has been against women and it’s interesting to see the shoe on the other foot and it made me think about that.
However trolling the herald was pretty slick – and deserved. I admire that.
I hadn’t realised that the Herald had linked and so the title was changing each time, lol.
Re offensiveness, yes, this is why I think it’s better to look at issues in terms of what they damage or what harm is caused. If we frame it as no-one has the right to not be offended we miss the conversations where something that is offensive is also damaging. Key yelling at the opposition that they support rapists and murderers was obviously highly offensive to the women who walked out and for very valid reasons. I don’t want to see that dismissed on the basis that it’s merely ‘offensive’ but find ways to have a deeper conversation.
I found it pretty thought provoking too.
Best reads I’ve found on Black culture in the past week have been around Beyonce’s performance at the Superbowl and her new video. I learnt a lot there. Can’t claim to get the Miley reference though 😉
“Can’t claim to get the Miley reference though “
The short story….
Yes- Beyonce’s explicit entrance into the race politics and the reaction to that is absolutely fascinating.
In love with all
Those boys who call
On young cuties
But now I find
I’m all inclined
To keep my mind
On my duties
Since I’ve begun to share
In such a sweet love affair
Though I’m in love, I’m not above
A date with a duke or a caddie
It’s just a pose, ’cause my baby knows
That my heart belongs to daddy
When some good scout, invites me out
To dine om some fine fin and haddie
My baby’s sure, his love is secure
Cause my heart belongs to daddy
Yes my heart belongs to daddy
So I simply couldn’t be bad
Yes I’m gonna marry daddy
If you feel romantic laddy
Let me warn you right from the start
That my heart belongs to daddy
And my daddy belongs to my heart
(written in 1938 by Cole Porter – sung by Marilyn Munroe, Peggy Lee and Ella Fitzgerald among others – has all sorts of connotations)
OK then Sabine. But that’s only half the relationship. How would you describe the younger woman who accepts those gifts, money, cars, apartments, holidays, fine dining, lifestyle, etc.
And bear in mind that the “younger woman” you describe might be 20 or 30 years younger than the man – but she is a woman who might be in her 30s or 40s, while the older man is in his 50s or 60s. She is younger – but she is not young.
From a political perspective, there are issues where there are power differentials, both in the individual situations and in the society that they occur in.
Of course there are power differentials. That’s what society is. There is a list a mile long extending over centuries of powerful male politicians and younger women who have been in relationships; marriages, affairs, relationships of convenience, arrangements, whatever.
But the issue here is that some people are giving a pass to a ridiculous and offensive post title as if it is not, just because the target of the post is a politician that you happen to despise.
“But the issue here is that some people are giving a pass to a ridiculous and offensive post title as if it is not, just because the target of the post is a politician that you happen to despise.”
Just so I can understand what you mean (because I haven’t seen that), can you please point to the comments where you think that has happened?
The entire conversation here where you and Sabine are absolutely fine with keeping the post title “Twerking for Daddy” because it is appropriate and inoffensive.
But I haven’t said that CV and it’s not what I actually believe so I’m going to ask you to take a step back and try and check things out without running off with your own interpretations.
I don’t particularly agree with Sabine’s analysis although I certainly understand her feelings.
I also don’t necessarily think that the headline is inoffensive, but I took it as a media headline referring to an actual event, rather than trp simply putting up something that would offend people. From his comments below I think he was probably a bit thoughtless about it. But as I said, I think the problems I see are different than the ones you and vto see.
btw, I didn’t actually realise that this conversation was about whether the headline was appropriate or not, and whether it should be kept or not, until just recently. I thought we were talking about the Instagram usage, and most of my comments on this page have been in response to that (and what trp reported). Maybe I missed something.
actually from experience
i hated the advances older man made to me when i was a homeless pretty teen. And did not go with it.
i also know a few women who had relationships with older man that got them into appartments, through their studies, and sometimes ended in marriage.
There is a fair amount of abuse in these relation ships as clearly the power balance is out of whack in many cases. But then there are also a lot of relationships that have been consented too.
The worst ‘daddy’ in my life was my step father. The last advance he made was on the day my mother died. That was abuse, abuse that lasted for many many years and started when i was 11.
My sister however met her husband when she was 21 and he was 50. They have been married for almost 20 years now.
make of that what you want.
But to insinuate that ‘twerking for daddy’ implicitly means incest, in my books is going to far, and i have been on the record as to my not liking nor respecting the PM.
“Daddy” as well as “Mamma” have been used since a long time, and twerking for Daddy in my books only means that the Herald is using her to be putting up a show for the PM to show that he has cred with the younger generation, aka ‘twerking for Daddy’ , That in itself is enough humiliation for a man who pretends to not only be beloved by all, but also as someone who can get it for free anytime. Remember the Ladies in National Circles all offering their ponytails for him to pull?
Nothing to do with biology and not necessarily to do with finances. As insults go, that instagram eviscerates.
By some of the discussion here, some peeps might need to get out more 😉
some peeps might need to get out more”
+1000 to this
the girl was trolling, she had no other motivation than ” teh lulz”
no the Herald stole her image of her Instagram page to promote something without her permission.
It is her image and her instagram page and she can do with it as she wishes.
If anything the Herald is responsible, not the owner of the image and instagram page.
“no the Herald stole her image of her Instagram page to promote something without her permission”
exactly, which is why she was trolling (by changing the caption a number of times )
The herald are idiots for linking instead of just taking a screen cap, they walked right into it.
I say good on her personally !
Unless people are suggesting that family relationships were much more innocent in the 1950s.
i can’t reply to your above comment on where you insinuate that the post title is ok and I have no issues with it.
for the record, I have no issue with it.
I am not the one that made the post, i am not the one that made the caption, i am not the one that tried to score brownie points by appropriating an image without consent and put it in the public domain.
You might want to direct you ire at the young lady that captioned that image in the first place.
Then you might want to direct your ire at the Herald for appropriating the image and thus making it public for larger audiances.
You then may direct your ire to the person who posted the thread.
But no, i have no issue with the post title, as in my younger years, ‘Daddies’ have often asked me to do even worse. And you know what, they all very much looked like dear leader, middle to upper class, white, well to do and really really badly fucked.
In fact I think the threadtitle should be ‘ twerking for a mal baise’.
I remember at a Sabin hosted economic forum during the last election the old boys club of Key and Joyce turned up with young pretty teens kitted out in Natcorp blue tee shirts. It was creepy watching these grown men proudly showing off in front of what looked like a bunch of school girls. Most of the local crowd were scratching their heads in bewilderment what’s with the cheerleader squad Mike?
Didn’t they try and do a calender or photo promo with young women in tee shirts?
Yeah I heard something like that aswell. Sabin would no doubt have put his hand up to do the photo shoot. Speaking of which I have a camera crew on stand by for our own little shoot in March!
It was a calender,
Good spotting thanks!
“I don’t actually completely understand the “daddy” component of the twerking comment. Is she suggesting some sort of incest?”
I’m guessing it’s a reference to the song ‘Twerk It”, which in its own context doesn’t equate twerking for daddy with incest.
But from reading the Instagram comments it’s looks like Key is considered an arse and damaging NZ, and probably creepy (“creepadelic”), so I’d guess that DavinaRuby was also impying that Key is at least a sleaze in her post and original comment about Valentine’s Day.
Irrespective of whether she intended that or not, Key being equated with incest fits the general image of his place in rape culture, so it’s a pretty interesting piece of social media.
Also a major mistake by the Herald putting up a selfie of a young woman with the PM as a middle aged man and calling it a Valentine’s Day photo. Or perhaps that wasn’t as unintentional we are assuming 😉
Thanks for the always thoughtful response weka. It leaves me in discomfort, as explained in response to sabine above.
You’re offended by it, I get that. It’s very difficult for me to accept that your ire is entirely genuine; I’ll try and put that aside for a moment.
Freedom from being offended isn’t a human right. If it were, we’d all be living according to Garth McVicar’s rules, which I’d find grossly offensive.
Have you got anything other than your personal sense of unease? To put it another way, how many jokes can you think of that aren’t going to trigger negative associations for someone?
DavinaRuby’s comments poke fun at a familiar face,
Oh no, I used poke and face in the same sentence.
It’s so hard negotiating language in this narrow ravine.
It appears to show the pervy PM reaching for her hair while grinning inanely.
Get your eyes checked, his hand is on her shoulder.
What a pity that with this Prime Minister, it’s necessary to check.
Though should the PM be touching a girl anyway?
“Where to Touch?
It’s a hard question, but I will do my best to answer:
In general, your contact should feel casual, neutral and brief if that’s someone you barely know. Remember that by touching someone you invade their personal space for a moment, and if they don’t like it or trust you enough yet – your touch would feel alien and unpleasant for them. So you can apply a brief touch to a neutral part of the body like the hand, elbow or shoulder to “test the waters” and watch how they react.”
Another good way to touch someone you’ve never met before is to hold out your hand in the “shake?” position and maintain eye contact. If they don’t shake your hand you can bet they don’t want you touching them anywhere else either.
Just a little tip you may find useful.
Thanks OAB, I do find that useful when greeting someone, however it looks a little formal when posing for a picture together though. In contrast, no physical contact at all seems very distant and cold when asked for a photograph.
Shoulder-to-shoulder, arm around shoulder, or hand on shoulder all seem fine to me, but turns out I am actually just a pervert who is almost certainly about to pull someones hair, according to the vast majority of comments on this thread that is.
Maybe that is why Andrew Little didn’t get much coverage at the event, he was too scared to touch anyone for fear of being called “pervy” and all his pictures just looked cold and distant to print…
Ah, so it doesn’t matter that you have to check where the Prime Minister’s hands are, because Andrew Little!
All those photos and videos of the Prime Minister’s predatory behaviour around young girls don’t count because Andrew Little!
So much personal responsibility on display.
You could be right, roflcopter. It’ss a photo, not a video so we don’t know where his hand went next. But that touching doesn’t make it much better, imo. It just reminds me that the odious pro rape group who made the news a couple of weeks ago emphasise the importance of light physical touch to cement the false trust aspect of their ‘seduction technique’. John Key is simply not someone to be trusted near young women, as we learned last year.
Hands of the teens PM!
The girl should lay a complaint about granny stealing her image for their rag.
P.s to Granny, that’s what happens when you fire all your real reporters – those left just sit in front of computer pasting government releases – and making shit up – and then your former business rag looks like what it is, crap advertainment and propaganda for cronies.
At least we got a laugh out of this one.
Imagining something happening just makes you look sad. What did Andrew Little do on the weekend apart from not get mentioned? There is no such thing as bad publicity, Key is the winner yet again, this just plays into his hands.
Ignorant fail much?
Nice $170 Tommy Bahama pink shirt.Don’t imagine he will ever wear it again.
Lets be honest here, if John Key wore a dark blue shirt you’d criticize him for that as well
question to LPrent, some comments have reply buttons others not? why is that so?
it is very confusing.
Once a subthread gets very long there are no more reply buttons. This is because if there were eventually the thread would get very skinny and the words wouldn’t fit in in a way that can be read.
I explained above in a reply to you how to use the reply buttons in such a thread so that you stay in the right conversation. It’s not hard once you get the hang of it.
oh dear, you are speaking to a luddite.
i will try and get this right, but make no promises.
Find the comment you want to reply to, and scroll upwards until you see the first reply button and use that, easy 🙂
sometimes it pays to use the @weka or @vto to ensure the correct person is addressed especially true when someone else has commented after the one you want to reply to
have a practice above 🙂
good point. I find quoting people very helpful too so I don’t have to scroll up to see what someone is referring to.
now this i can understand 🙂
But how would a dark blue shirt look johnny ‘gay’ ???? …. the answer is it wouldn’t
Or are you just twerking around with that comment Puke ? 🙂
one of those go shelve a minty moments ……
People think hes wearing a pink shirt as pink is now (rightly or wrongly) associated with the LGBT community and hes getting flack for it
If he’d worn a neutral colour shirt (like dark blue) he’d get flack for wearing it and not wearing a pink shirt
If the political left think that pushing a Twerking for a “Pervy PM” angle against “dirty old man” John Key is going to help prevent a 4th term for National, it has another think coming.
it is funny.
yes it is. The Herald was trolled by a young women whom they stole an image from and you have an issue with us here at the Standard. You should direct your ire at the Herald in the first instance, then maybe you want to address the young women who initially posted and captioned the image and see what she has to say to you.
Maybe you should write a letter to the Editor demanding that they employ better journalists at the Herald lest they descend to gutter politics stage.
In the meantime people need to laugh. Among all the misery, the people that loose jobs, have to die in pain because medicinal aid is refused to them on a whim, and so on and so on we have to laugh every now and then, lest we become miserable mal baises as they are.
I spose at least he didn’t blame labour.
I’ve enjoyed reading the comments showing the wide gap between the youf and our commenting team. I’m pleased the gap is there and I’m really happy to have some of the youfish sayings going right over my head – they are for them not us/me.
Oh I have no problem with the idea that the Granny Herald has transformed from a pro-National pro-big business broadsheet into a pro-National pro-big business tabloid of trivia.
I don’t think anyone believes its a clincher – it is being discussed only because the NZH’s attempted counter to Key’s being booed (seemingly a cosy, friendly selfie) has turned out instead to involve Key being mocked.
Oh yes we can certainly enjoy John Key being caught out as a pervy laughable old man yet again.
New Roy Morgan should be out next week.
You are missing the point CV (not sure if that’s intentional or not). It’s not John Key being laughed at, it’s John Key the Prime Minister of NZ that’s being ridiculed precisely because he has bought the position into disrepute by his own ridiculous and often inappropriate behaviour. You might not think it’s inappropriate, plenty of people do. And I don’t think they should shut up because your political analysis is that the common man like JK or don’t care about it. This isn’t about garnering votes, it’s about addressing something in the culture that is just plain wrong. That we also get to enjoy Key’s humiliation is just a bonus.
You are correct, we all should clutch our pearls and faint.
Depends on the weight you give to such things I guess. A young woman making fun of the PM is hardly the first step toward a just and caring society. But it is a little bit amusing when the NZH stuffs up on the fanzine front.
CV – sounds like your default is “Key Rides High !” Why ?
Creepy John – strikes again.
Old fart joke. The signwriter’s boob. ‘Honest car – Used John dealer.’
This is the best Standard thread of all time. OF ALL TIME.
Thank you, Magisterium. Or should that be damn you? It’s hard to tell 😉
Hi, y’all. Just wanted to thank the commenters for some excellent debate. The post took an unexpected turn, as often happens, and it was interesting to read the opinions. Sadly, I’ve got little net access for the next couple of hours, so won’t be able to comment much. However, seeing as I chose the post title, I’m interested to know what was considered offensive about it. I see it as a straight precis of the instagram post and thus, inoffensive in its own right. If there is a genuine argument that it is offensive, I’d be keen to read it, because I take real care with the titles, as I’m sure regular readers know.
no offense was taken.
still think the picture and the caption is funny.
cheers for the laugh.
trp ” I’m interested to know what was considered offensive about it.”
The word “daddy” is used in a derogatory way, in particular with sexual overtones.
If you aint a daddy yourself perhaps you wont understand.
The offense is entirely genuine and always has been with this term
Cheers, VTO, though that doesn’t really address why the headline is offensive. The concept of sugar daddies, or bad dads in general, yes, but not the title of the post. I think all of us have the right to be offended at the behaviour of men who expolit women. This is a male problem and it deserves every bit of opprobrium that it gets. We live in a world where men dominate and when there is any hint of balancing the scales, women get shouted down.
We men really need to get to get over ourselves.
And that is exactly where your old jalopy swerves off the road and into the ditch….
just like labour
perhaps you should leave
things might come right for them
nah mate, the people and the organisation as it stands today are a perfect fit for each other.
Yes, and you should let them get on with it and do something constructive with your time instead.
Yep I begin to see what you have been on about..
Also interesting to compare the offense taken on the title to this post, to the offense taken on the title to this post http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-03022016/#comment-1127960
The left are never going to get there…
It was the photo mate – ‘daily review’ is okay by me. Just so we are clear – I’m a daddy and I was not offended by the title of this post – I actually got the reference and the wit of it. Perhaps you just are out of touch on this one. and before you go off half cocked – take 5 minutes to seriously consider my sentence before this one I BEG you.
Yes yes I know… will try to avoid ……
I realise what the photoshop was. The difference in approach by all and sundry between that offense and this one is worth consideration though, in the context of the hypocrisy charge that is so often levelled against the left. A charge that cripples the left in the eyes of so many others imo… cripples it
Don’t know that a decent answer will come of it, but there it is…
I took the post (and title) as reporting a current event, so it’s not offensive to me. I get that it’s confrontational though (and let’s be honest, you do like to push that boundary 😉 ) and that some people are going to feel offense and that we’re still not that great at talking about this kind of thing here. We did well to not descend into the usual, so maybe there is hope for us yet.
I used the term daddy as a joke regarding the term sugar daddys please stop your war.
Thank you Davina.
I thought what you did was hilarious and very smart. Well done.
+ 1 yes thank you Davina – very enjoyable watching the whole thing develop – from the herald to here and beyond…
Sure, that much is clear, however you are clearly unaware of the offense caused.
You do realise similar terms used over countless years, and considered inoffensive and used as “jokes”, have transpired to in fact be offensive. They are now frowned on – particularly around these parts. There are many such examples of this (with genders reversed of course) – surely they don’t need pointing out do they doris?
The interesting thing about the term “sugar daddy” and suchlike is that they are used, by definition, to describe people in positions of extensive socioeconomic power, rather than to belittle already marginalised groups.
It’s use also references the power dynamics of the “traditional” family.
You might well find the term offensive, but that doesn’t mean that you’re being marginalised. Equalised, maybe. There’s a massive difference between calling a man (even a father) a “sugar daddy” and calling a woman a “gold digger” or a “slut”.
Who said anything about being marginalised? It was about discomfort at the term and offense.
And who the fuck has “extensive socioeconomic power”? Certainly not me – why would you raise that? It is not applicable, not one iota.
Good pinhead dancing though pinhead
You made the argument that there were “many such examples of this (with genders reversed of course).
So what are these “genders reversed” now-offensive terms? Because I think you’ll find that every single one of these terms illustrates a completely different power position to that described by a woman referring to a man who is not her father as “daddy”
See last comment. You’re repeating yourself.
a woman referring to another man, who is not her father, as “daddy” is creepy
don’t care what you think, don’t care the history of the term
what do you think they mean by using the word “daddy”? When they are having sex? when they are having a secret affair? when he is buying her off?
what is the woman actually getting at? what does she mean?
Thanks for dropping by and clarifying Davina. I thought it was funny and sharp too. Don’t worry about the arguing here, it’s what we do.
Hi, Davina Ruby, and thanks for popping in over here at the Standard.
I imagine this whole thing has been a pretty weird, unexpected experience for you. I hope there are no downsides and you enjoy your 15 minutes of fame. With only a couple of minor exceptions which you should ignore, everyone here that has commented has seen the funny side of your instagram post. We don’t often get that much agreement across the political divide on this blog. Usually, as you’ve spotted, it’s kind of like a war.
So thanks for giving us a good laugh. On top of the Stephen Joyce dildo thang, you’ve helped make this the funniest week in NZ politics for a very, very long time.
thank you for confirming that. 🙂
T’was hilarious and a good laugh.
Thanks Davina – best comment all day.
Don’t worry about a war – this is just exploring ideas – you should see what happens when the ideas are already fixed 😉
[Deleted. Obviously. TRP]
Horrible comment – hopefully deleted soon – you are dropping like a lead weight again buddy – lift your game.
it was meant to be horrible
everybody is wallowing in it
left and right
Daddy’s looking more and more the cheesy middle-aged ‘watch that fulla’ wanker. It’s hilarious. He’ll probably recover but only momentariIy I’d say. Crosby Textor’ll find a brand new “panda is this year’s black !”. Maybe when he’s Richie’s best man. Oh what tragi-drama. All hopes dashed ! Sob sob……
Comments are now closed. This war has stopped.