Punch on: Open thread 09/07/2012

Gregg says:

02:05pm | 09/07/12

Yep, seems as though Gillard has not come out with too much for the Indonesians to consider.

First comment could have been about stopping people smuggling would then have led to likely less people wanting to go to Indonesia - that’s if Indonesia has a problem with them coming and they likely do not.
Gillard needed to step up and talk some plain language about the situation.

Bill says:

08:16am | 09/07/12

It might even do some of the more rabid, ignorant posters here some good too, ‘ey acotrel?

KH says:

07:53am | 09/07/12

I read this - I can’t believe that anyone could think there was no favouritism - its kind of obvious….............changing points values of events which your fave is in; allowing your fave to change horses but not anyone else; even when your fave is beaten in a qualifying event, still give them the spot.  How can this not be interpreted as favouritism?

TChong says:

07:59am | 09/07/12

Money, sir ron, makes the world go ‘round…..,

sir ronald bradnam says:

08:17am | 09/07/12

KH its a f….. disgrace and I dont know why the media isnt all over it. If it was Ian Thorpe pushed aside or Sally Mclennan their would be hell to pay.

Mahhrat says:

08:29am | 09/07/12

Wherever there’s money, there’s favouritism.  Why do you think I’m so against betting on sport?

Mark G says:

09:57am | 09/07/12

I have been saying it for the last few weeks and I will day it again. The Olympics is a corporation these days. It ceased to be about the sport a long time ago. Sport is just the product they sell. Once you come to this realisation you will find that you are no longer shocked by these goings on. This is the reason that they practice strict brand management like their response to the recent photo scandals or their anal approach to preventing people from filming events and posting them on the internet sponsor free.

AFR says:

10:34am | 09/07/12

It sounds like there was a bit more to it than her being a billionaire’s granddaughter….

iansand says:

10:42am | 09/07/12

AFR - Said billionaire is a big funder of the sport.

Zeta says:

10:44am | 09/07/12

They’re also allowing cloned horses in this year - http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/313182.html

Now they just need to overcome the tiny genepools of the riders. If blue bloods just cloned their children they’d probably have fewer birth defects than if they continue to marry their half cousins.

Louie the Fly says:

12:20pm | 09/07/12

Zeta,
I remember Horse and Hound - that’s who Hugh Grant said he worked for when he was interviewing Julia in Notting Hill.

Robert says:

12:29pm | 09/07/12

Pooor, old Ronald!
It has ever been thus! Money can & does buy anything. Corruption in “Corruption-Free Australia” is alive & doing very, very nicely it always has & always will.
We hear our self-styled Pillars of Society with heaps of money complaining about how difficult it is to do business with all those “Not Quite White” countries because, “My, Dear, The Corruption is APPALLING!! You have to pay bribes, I had to hand over big brown paper bags of MY money to get anywhere”
Yeah’ that happened in Queensland under that oh-so-upright, Pure Christian Gentlemen when he was Queensland’s premier for so long & so dishonestly!
Really, Ronnie, what else can you expect from such an elitist ‘sport’ anyway? To be an horse rider…oooops sorry Equestrian or Equestrienne… you have to have heaps of money to start with.Is it really a ‘sport’ or just some kudos-earning passtime for poor, little rich boys & girls who can’t bear the idea that real athletes from, of course, the wrong side of the tracks may get one of those Gold Medals & they think they deserve one too!

nihonin says:

08:44am | 09/07/12

I wonder how many people would now say “don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for Labor or the Greens or Independent, last election”.

AFR says:

12:45pm | 09/07/12

Poor Andy Murray, who now goes back to being Scottish after being British for a fortnight.

acotrel says:

08:41am | 09/07/12

Is MotoGP actually an international sport ? Where did Cameron Donald finish on the IOM ?

John F says:

09:48am | 09/07/12

@ acotrel, you can tell those who have never ridden a motorcycle. Those people who have or do can appreciate how hard it is to push a bike THAT hard wile risking permanent injury or even death. Watching football on the other hand is (and I used to play) is gay in comparison. Seeing blokes get all touchy feely and getting inner leg massages from other blokes is just eeeewwwwwuuuuu ! I’m sure the girls like watching for that very reason. Now if we have girls playing football in skimpy attire I’ll start watching very regularly.
Back to Stoner, did you see how fast he got up after crashing ? I would have been a trembeling wreck in the same instance, geez those guys have balls !

Mark G says:

11:04am | 09/07/12

John F,
The definition of a sport is not just something that is physically taxing. Its something that tests various human physical abilities against each other. Basically its a competition where physical prowess is the determining factor in victory. Racing bikes is physically demanding but that’s not the determining factor for victory. The most physically able rider is not the one who wins. If the only requirement was physical activity then something like beauty pageants, modelling, singing, performing could all be considered sports. They all require physical exertion but that’s not how you win at them.

M says:

11:34am | 09/07/12

JohnF is right, football is gay as.

Slothy says:

09:07am | 09/07/12

That three month salary ‘rule’ bullshit has been around for years. It’s pretty bullshit. If nothing else, there’s no way I could handle the pressure of walking around with 1/4 of someone’s annual income on my finger.

A while back I told my boyfriend if he ever bought me a ring that cost more than a couple of hundred dollars, I would pawn it and chuck the money on the mortgage.

He just looked at me and said ‘why the hell would I buy you a ring anyway?’

Ah, love.

Ginger Mick says:

09:13am | 09/07/12

Odds are you would not spend the rest of your life with her, she would be off chasing rainbows in no time.  When life’s realities strike home she would be looking over the fence for greener pastures.

AFR says:

09:13am | 09/07/12

A female friend of mine said she expected a ring of around $30K, and then tried to tell me it was an “investment”.... and she wonders why she is single.

Ben C says:

09:15am | 09/07/12

Which jeweller did he go to? When I was shopping for an engagement ring, the shop that I went to (run by two brothers) made no such comment - we basically sat down, discussed a price range, and worked out what was available within that range.

Definitely an ICB.

Emma2 says:

09:20am | 09/07/12

The three months salary rule has actually been around forever. It’s an old tradition. You don’t have to subscribe to it though so settle down! :p

Oh and if you think the average wage is 80k you are so very much mistaken. Think more like 40k or less.

Elphaba says:

09:22am | 09/07/12

Agreed.

Personally, (and I am probably going against all womenkind when I say this), I’d prefer a manufactured diamond.  It’s cheaper, it’s chemically still a diamond, the only difference is it was made in 3 days in a lab, not millions of years in the ground.

And I can be sure it’s 100% ethical.

But that’s just me…

iansand says:

09:22am | 09/07/12

25 years ago it was one month.  But listening to a jeweller about what you should spend is like listening to an estate agent about the property market.  Unlikely to be objective.

Emma2 says:

09:28am | 09/07/12

Ugh I’ve spent too much time in London… Average Aussie wages are around 65-70k I think. Sorry!

Elphaba says:

09:32am | 09/07/12

“the only difference”

Okay, not the only difference, but still, you get what I mean…

che says:

09:41am | 09/07/12

I would kill my partner if he spent three month’s salary on a ring.

bella starkey says:

09:41am | 09/07/12

My sister manages to squeeze 15 000 dollars worth of diamonds out of her fiance which is a lot less than three months wages but a lot more than what is sensible. She did subscribe to the three month “rule” but he talked her down from the edge.

Apparently she also got him to blow 12 000 on some honeymoon that’s only 10 days.

Such a waste of money.

Slothy says:

09:53am | 09/07/12

Jewellers can be ridiculous. Today my graduate told me about trying to buy his girlfriend a birthday present. He went into a store, told them his budget (in the hundreds due to the whole being on a grad salary thing) and the salesman tried to sell him a $4000 necklace. Not an engagement thing, a birthday present. When he pointed out that the suggested necklace was 20 times his budget, the salesman said that was okay, he could just put down his budget as a deposit, and pay the rest off throughout the year.

Yeah… nice try.

M says:

09:54am | 09/07/12

Tell him to buy Cubic Zirconia instead of diamond, they can’t tell the difference.

Ally says:

09:54am | 09/07/12

That 3 months salary guide is bullshit. The whole thing was developed by De Beers’ marketing company to sell diamonds, as was the whole engagement ring practice to start with, as least for anyone who wasn’t nobility or royalty. After all, they had to find some way of peddling all those diamonds dug up in Africa.

You should get your friend to read The Heartless Stone: A Journey Through the World of Diamonds, Deceit and Desire by Tom Zoellner before he heads back out to the jewellers.

TimB says:

10:09am | 09/07/12

“A female friend of mine said she expected a ring of around $30K, and then tried to tell me it was an “investment”....

Like a hooker that you pay for 5 years in advance.

Mark G says:

10:10am | 09/07/12

As a male I don’t take exception to the cost of the ring. I take exception to the fact that it is scaled against my income. What the hell has that got to do with it? I would argue that feminists should be outraged by this too. You should note that when people make that statement they are not talking about household income, they are talking about the Man’s income. It’s not the 50’s. Women don’t get married to you for your income and livelihood anymore. It is not a man’s Duty to provide an appropriate income for the social status of the wife that he has chosen. This tradition has all the hallmarks of previous sexist attitudes to marriage. As I said, I am surprised the feminists haven’t picked up on this but I guess they are the ones with the expensive ring. They only oppose things that don’t benefit them.

miloinacup says:

10:15am | 09/07/12

My mum and I had this conversation the other day, whilst in the jewellers.

I would feel uncomfortable wearing a super expensive ring. I don’t have expensive tastes in anything (except maybe food…I like quality food) so it would be weird to be bought a super expensive piece of jewellery.

Just buy me a $99 ring that looks cool. I won’t know the difference to be honest.

John F says:

10:40am | 09/07/12

@ Mark G, too bloody right mate, it seems feminists cherry pick what suits them. This is only the first of many instances of men paying for love and if it all goes pear shaped we know that the paying continues.

Mark G says:

10:48am | 09/07/12

TimB
Yeah I have heard the ‘investment’ argument too. It’s pretty easy to shoot down though. You just need to say “So you think the diamond market is going up?” closely followed by “ok so when do you plan on selling it?” You normally get stunned silence after that. Firstly, something that you never intend to sell is not an investment. Secondly the definition of an investment is something that is going to increase in value or generate wealth. Diamonds represent wealth, they don’t generate it.

KH says:

11:03am | 09/07/12

Once upon a time, when women generally didn’t work once they were married (as the inevitable 100 pregnancies would ensue) the engagement ring was meant as a sort of insurance - first, the ownership doesn’t transfer from him to her until they are actually married (its a conditional gift, not a gift) and then, if he left her (which would normally mean she was widowed), she would have something to sell and not be left completely destitute - thus the more someone earned, the greater the value of the ring was. 

Nowadays, any self respecting woman should be able to support themselves if they got divorced or widowed - overly expensive engagement rings are not necessary - a couple of thousand is way more than enough, I would have thought!!  It isn’t 1950 any more….........

KH says:

11:08am | 09/07/12

Elphaba - hehehe agreed!! I would be happy with a nice antique piece with something red in it that maybe cost a couple of hundred - if that -  I happy to work for a living…...........

Mahhrat says:

11:46am | 09/07/12

I spent $3k on my lady’s, largely because I wanted to.

And when I say “I” spent $3k, it went on the mortgage so really “we” spent $3k (and yes, we’re paying extra off the mortgage so it’s not an extra $10k in interest).

I can’t think of a better way to do it.  She has a ring I designed and was hand-made by the master jeweller, she went in halves for it, but I still got to surprise her with a flowery proposal on the lawns of an old English manor house (where they filmed Pride and Prejudice; I am such a schmuck).

Fuck the “three-month” salary crap.  She earns as much as I do anyway; what would be the point?

SimpleSimon says:

11:54am | 09/07/12

I’ll have to make sure I’m a stay-at-home dad before proposing.

Economist says:

12:35pm | 09/07/12

What about us blokes? My wedding ring cost about $100.00. I don’t even where the thing because my finger gets all feisty.

Economist says:

12:48pm | 09/07/12

Holy crap how could you get “wear” wrong?

Economist says:

01:05pm | 09/07/12

And festy, Gee I’m doing well today

Slothy says:

01:45pm | 09/07/12

I don’t know Economist, I like the idea of a finger getting a bit uppity. My middle finger, in particular, is uncommonly feisty some days. Often when I’m driving.

And MarkG et al, I don’t think I’ve met a feminist who has ever bought into that three month’s salary engagement ring crap. And I’d be shocked if any of you have either. But hey, there are idiots in every group.

Gymmer says:

01:58pm | 09/07/12

No engagement ring for me. Just not interested in having one - not particularly fussed about jewellery, I find raised settings annoying, don’t like blood diamonds, I’m a pretty frugal person and I already own some rings I’ve inherited that I never wear anyway.  I think my partner went and did a little jig when I told him I didn’t want one!

I make sure to do the obligatory gush over friends engagement rings though when they are showing them off.

Economist says:

05:03pm | 09/07/12

Slothy thanks for the laugh!

Scotchfinger says:

09:45am | 09/07/12

do you want to look after my wife and kids for a weekend? I would be eternally grateful.

Elphaba says:

10:11am | 09/07/12

@Scothfinger, hell no, sunshine. Childless by choice.

Louie the Fly says:

12:19pm | 09/07/12

SCOTCHY, bring them all to the bookshop in August.

Anubis says:

12:26pm | 09/07/12

Hey there shortbread - Why are you trying to fob off the family for a weekend? Going fishing?

Economist says:

12:33pm | 09/07/12

Which bookshop? I visited, what I believed was “the bookshop”, my curiosity peaked, on the weekend, parted with plenty of cash and all I saw were three young casual staff working. Was I at the wrong place?  Hint, is a competition being run for a seven book series with all the trimmings?

Scotchfinger says:

12:36pm | 09/07/12

@Anubis, fishing? Hardly. If I had a weekend to myself I would:

Play heavy music at full volume
Have a long, leisurely breakfast out without a toddler trying to grab my coffee
Eat pizza and drink beer
Read for longer than half an hour at a time
Sleep in

All of the above are but distant dreams of the life I once had…
@Louie, good idea! You can take them skiiing; I will return the favour ha ha!

Economist says:

12:40pm | 09/07/12

Anubis, sometimes you need time to yourself for your own sanity and after your little break you can appreciate what you’ve got more.

Elphaba says:

12:54pm | 09/07/12

@Scotch - I did most of those things:

Slept in
Played music (though not too loud, I’m trying to set an example to my extremely noisy neighbours upstairs - f*ckwhits).
Ate pizza (homemade, Saturday night).
Finished 1 book and started the next.

Economist says:

05:04pm | 09/07/12

Scotchy ignore my comment hope I haven’t offended.

Economist says:

12:46pm | 09/07/12

I gotta say I don’t think there is any politician I’d bed. They can’t lie straight and they’d be too busy trying to screw you? it’s an oldie.

As for Thorpie, that’s pretty presumptuous of you. And he always seems to get asked some dodgy questions, what about the shoe size question *dirty wink*? I’m a size 11 for those interested….... which is nobody, but hey I do like to crap on.

Joel B1 says:

12:33pm | 09/07/12

Way to totally miss the point.

It’s the people drowning that are the problem. All 800+ of them thanks to Gillard’s stupidity.

Gregg says:

02:18pm | 09/07/12

Call those running the boat trips whatever you like Macca and also remember that Australia has been taking refugees from around the planet for a few decades now as part of our humanitarian stream of immigration.

Tony Abbott does not hate asylum seekers but does recognise the problems that can be caused by people not accepting there is a correct way and an incorrect way to go about the process, there being somewhere near 30M refugees globally who mostly have to sit out their lives for quite a number of years in refugee camps run by the UNHCR and other NGO organisations.

Australia cannot handle them all and so that is why you have the UN involved.
Yes, there are visa overstayers and they do get apprehended as it is possible and are dealt with accordingly.
Yes, people do arrive by air and claim asylum and their applications also get dealt with, the greater percentage of applications being refused.

Yes, you could say the system will work as best it can be allowed to and it’ll only be more difficult when the system is flooded by people arriving without visas.

M says:

12:33pm | 09/07/12

Forget ring of equal value, I’ll be happy with a new motorbike equal to three months of her salary. We’re all about equality these days aren’t we?

Slothy says:

02:04pm | 09/07/12

You’re absolutely right. There has never been a feminist criticism of marriage. Ever. No feminist has ever argued that the sexist traditions of marriage are fundamentally incompatible with marriage, or pondered how to arrange a family-pleasing celebration of a relationship that throws out things like ‘obeying’, white dresses and fathers ‘giving away’ their daughters, while retaining the legal benefits of marriage.

Seriously, do you people even bother to do a basic google search to familiarise yourself with the broad range of feminist discourse before you start proclaiming what they are or are not against? Or are you still relying on the imaginary straw-feminists that live in your head?

Marc says:

02:13pm | 09/07/12

Nope, feminist ideologys are all loopy.

miloinacup says:

02:46pm | 09/07/12

Slothy - men on the punch are of the belief that any opinion that isn’t “every man is great, they can do no wrong” is a feminist opinion.

Mark G says:

03:00pm | 09/07/12

Slothy,

Its not so much what they argue for. Its what they don’t argue for. Too often feminist arguments avoid the things that benefit women but are still sexist traditions. The focus of feminism (particularly in more modern times) is nearly always on sexist traditions where women lose out rather than sexist traditions that benefit them. If you want to argue equality, it needs to be equality and not just those things that benefit your marginalised group.

SydneyGirl says:

03:29pm | 09/07/12

Can I say as a feminist that I loathe the whole process of the diamond ring (itself a “tradition” invented by DeBeers as much as the whole new three month salary thing is driven by marketers).

My niece of 7 yrs unfortunately is addicted to fairy stories, this happened the minute she went to school and got bathed in pink peer pressure. I don’t interfere with this but I did have an interesting conversation as in the Disney world princes are always presenting gifts to princesses,  I told her wouldn’t it be nice if Princess X also gave her prince a gift? She looked flummoxed then nodded her head and said yes. It felt like a very tiny blow against the Princess Empire.

M says:

03:36pm | 09/07/12

Oh, let her have her childhood Sydneygirl.

Tim says:

03:51pm | 09/07/12

Miloinacup,
I don’t think I’ve seen a comment more split from reality than your last.

We’re fed multiple serves of the men = bad, women = good meme on this website constantly.

SydneyGirl says:

03:51pm | 09/07/12

What to then grow up and have some future M finding her a vain, spoilt princess?!

Jokes apart, we don’t really interfere, she needs to be like her peers.  But its good to now and then counterbalance banal princess stories - the seeds of unrealistic expectations are sowed right there…..

Fierce Snake says:

04:24pm | 09/07/12

My wife is a feminist.
I bought her an expensive ring and got down on one knee to propose like a knight of old.
She smiled delightedly behind her hand, which was cupped across her wonderful mouth.
Atavistic pleasures sound a deeper knell than the bright bell of social flux.

M says:

04:29pm | 09/07/12

Props to you Sydneygirl, props to you.

Slothy says:

04:48pm | 09/07/12

Mark G: “Its not so much what they argue for. Its what they don’t argue for. Too often feminist arguments avoid the things that benefit women but are still sexist traditions.”

Websites like The Punch and The Age may not report on them becuse they don’t make for as scandalous headlines, but that doesn’t mean feminists aren’t writing on them. Before you criticise a movement for not talking about the things you want it to, you have to actually take a look beyond the traditional media headlines to see what they’re saying that isn’t getting as much ‘let’s ban porn!’ style traction.

miloinacup says:

04:51pm | 09/07/12

Tim, please.

The amount of bitter men on this forum is insane. It seems every article, whether relevant or not, has some angry man bitching about women being entitled princesses.

Some of them obviously have no idea what the word “feminist” actually means, and throw it every argument as though by using the word it somehow adds to their point (even if said point has nothing to do with gender roles in society).

Also, just because there are a fair chunk of articles on this site dealing with issues facing women in particular doesn’t mean it is always “women are good, men are bad”. In fact I can’t really remember any articles where the main point was “men are shit and women are the bomb”.

SydneyGirl says:

05:32pm | 09/07/12

M - if you aren’t jesting - a historic first!

“Atavistic pleasures sound a deeper knell than the bright bell of social flux”.

Fierce Snake, awesome phrase but er for some of us atavistic pleasures are not rocks dug up from the earth

Ben C says:

05:45pm | 09/07/12

@ miloinacup

Way to miss a point. The “women are good, men are bad” attitude stems from the quality and quantity of articles on women’s issues compared to men’s issues. Women’s issues get far wider and better coverage than men’s issues. Why? Is it more deserving?

To highlight my point, I give you Anthony Sharwood’s article on Movember. Published one or two days after the event, while men on the Punch were screaming for an article in the lead-up and right throughout the month. Why? Do men not matter? Are men’s issues that much less deserving of publicity and comment?

Admiral Ackbar says:

06:18pm | 09/07/12

“Some of them obviously have no idea what the word “feminist” actually means…”

It’s when two women love each other very much and express it physically, in front of a camera, and post it on the internet. Personally I love feminists, it’s hot. I could go watch some feminism action right now. Did I do good?

Scotchfinger says:

07:53pm | 09/07/12

Admiral, you are a natural flirt, you old devil. You know exactly what to say to get a modern woman swooning. What’s your secret? Neil Strauss books?

Emma2 says:

02:28pm | 09/07/12

Maybe because it’s the weekend and the staff have lives and aren’t modifying comments full time like they are during the week?

Inky says:

02:38pm | 09/07/12

Probably because people have to push them through.

It’s a shame I know, especially as I’m one of the ones stuck at work most Sundays, but I’m not going to demand more people come in to work for my sake* :p

*Exception: If those people are from where I work, and them coming in means I don’t have to work said Sunday. This is fine by me.

pa_kelvin says:

03:09pm | 09/07/12

@Emma2 Agreed ,but only 42 comments posted all weekend on weekend Punch. I certainly don’t expect moderating 24/7 but these forums promote open discussion which cannot happen if no-one is moderating,otherwise why put up topics for discussion. The articles might as well just be stories.  @Inky I read your post yesterday afternoon,but didn’t post as per above..Working Sundays S%$KS

Inky says:

06:40pm | 09/07/12

Mm, it’s probably too late for this to be read by much, but yeah, it seems lately I have to work 2 of every 3 sundays.

I’ve also just received my roster for the week after next and it’s my third week in a row of the 2pm-10pm shift. I’m putting in a complaint about my roster.