Maybe there was a party at the Sydney Morning Herald last night and after seven schooners the leader writer remembered they hadn’t filed and had to pull something out of their arse.

Helen, did you know what you'd done?! Picture: Getty

Only that could explain the paper’s editorial this morning. Although the SMH website editors obviously think it’s a cracker, and have put it right up the top of its site, it is an unusual spot for an editorial.

After reading it three times, here is a summary of the Herald’s editorial position.

  • Helen Gurley Brown died this week, so everyone is talking about the woman who was basically the mother of modern women’s magazines and a strain of fun, sexually-liberated feminism.
  • This brand of feminism has had dire consequences - including a direct causal link with the fact Virgin has a policy of only seating unaccompanied minors next to women.
  • We’re very fearful of pedophiles.
  • The furor over Bill Henson’s photos are evidence of this.
  • Society is saturated with sex - a state for which Gurley Brown is significantly responsible.
  • Some bits of feminism are good.
  • But not all good.
  • Commercialisation of sex has changed our culture.
  • Porn is “almost chic”.
  • The web has normalised people who were once considered a bit freaky deaky.
  • A small number of men are pedophiles.
  • Society thinks the number is much larger.
  • Marriage was destroyed by the sexual revolution.
  • Which means more kids fly unaccompanied between cities to visit their parents.
  • Airlines have no choice but to cater to irrational fears of the parents of these children.
  • This might offend some men.
  • But they should get over it because of terrorism.
  • So don’t worry. Everything is fine.

Except at the Sydney Morning Herald.

Most commented

136 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • ByStealth says:

      12:11pm | 17/08/12

      What’s your position Tory? You belittle the Herald’s article, but where do you stand on the issues themselves? Is this Punch piece just an attempt to marginalise and dismiss the validity of people’s disgust at Virgin’s policy?

      How about you make clear statements instead of passive aggressive implications.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      12:30pm | 17/08/12

      Clear statements demand the courage of one’s convictions.

    • PsychoHyena says:

      12:47pm | 17/08/12

      @ByStealth I agree, the article is actually raising the inconsistency with which society acts. I notice Tory forgot the part, when mentioning Bill Henson’s photos, about Ella Dreyfus’ photos of pre-pubescent boys being accepted because “photos are okay”.

      I completely disagree with the articles’ summation unless it is non-gender biased and is stating that men and women should not be seated next to unaccompanied minors.

      Come to think of it I believe based on the available laws it would be possible to create an airline that only allows males over 18. 1) It highly reduces any potential chance of indecent activity or claims of indecent activity with minors or the opposite gender 2) It provides men the chance to relax in a male-only environment. I am sure there are other benefits that would result from this, and given that discrimination is allowed on other airlines regarding the seating of passengers there should be no problem.

    • Jeanne says:

      12:53pm | 17/08/12

      Totally agree.  Your article is as vague and pointless as the one you are seeking to ridicule.  Where are you going with this?????

    • BigKev says:

      12:56pm | 17/08/12

      From another punch editorial
      (Dick Smith)..  called them lazy journalists who couldn’t be bothered to write a story

      Ditto

    • Leah says:

      12:57pm | 17/08/12

      I think Tory is criticising the structure and direction of the column rather than its actual opinions. Are we talking about paedophilia? Pornography? Helen Gurley Brown? Feminism? The current state of marriage? It might all be tied together but crammed in a column that short it’s a bit rambling.

    • Luke R says:

      01:14pm | 17/08/12

      I do not understand what your article is about?  If you are trying to say that Womens Magazines and those that buy them have debased journalism and created a celebrity-obsessed culture devoid of all morality (and truth) then perhaps you are right but you certainly weren’t very clear about it.

    • Les says:

      01:15pm | 17/08/12

      Like out of context statistics that “prove” prove an government departments point, so do targeted quotes taken out of context.

    • Chris says:

      01:15pm | 17/08/12

      I think Tory’s position is that the SMH editorial is a load of crap. I think Tory expresses that very very clearly. I can’t see anything remotely passive aggressive in the above article.
      I also happen to agree with her 100 million percent and enjoyed her summary….

    • Sam says:

      01:17pm | 17/08/12

      “How about you make clear statements..”

      Tory’s is vague and jumps all over he place because the original article does. Just like virtually no one was able to follow Nell Schofield’s logic in her article on here the other day.

      If you look in the comments section on SMH it is getting a pasting from all but the rad-fems.

    • Sam says:

      01:21pm | 17/08/12

      ByStealth - the SMH article is sexist towards men.  Full stop.  That is the position.

    • Emmy says:

      01:23pm | 17/08/12

      What are all these SMH luvies doing reading a Murdoch rag. They wiil drive themselves to despair.

    • Mitch says:

      01:56pm | 17/08/12

      The public really really REALLY dont care about journos having a waaa at each other. for the most part majority of you are bottom feeders that couldnt do anything more thatn just barely get a BA at Uni and maybe sneak through jounalism. bottom line is we care as much about this article and your opinion as we do about Dennis Furgesons human rights

    • ByStealth says:

      02:15pm | 17/08/12

      I think Tory is criticising the structure and direction of the column rather than its actual opinions.

      In retrospect this is probably accurate, especially considering the link from the news.com.au front page. Her past positions on Men’s Rights & Feminism tend to not make me want to give her the benefit of the doubt.

    • ByStealth says:

      02:23pm | 17/08/12

      That said, why did she title this piece ‘Venerable newspaper blames feminism for pedophilia fear’, rather than ‘Venerable newspaper’s editing showing its age’?

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      12:15pm | 17/08/12

      There’s a storm coming Mrs Wayne.

    • Mahhrat says:

      12:17pm | 17/08/12

      And your rebuttals are what, Tory?

      C’mon, if you’re going to respond to inflammatory garbage with more inflammatory garbage, at least have the good grace to invite Erick in to comment - after all, inflammatory gargabe was what he was banned for.

    • LJ Dots says:

      02:37pm | 17/08/12

      Mahhrat, I think at the very least, a guest pass would be considered appropriate under these circumstances.

    • Tank says:

      12:20pm | 17/08/12

      Errm… you critique jounalistic standards by publishing a dot point list of same disjointed article and offer little other assessment than something is wrong?

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      12:34pm | 17/08/12

      You don’t often see irony defined so elegantly.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      12:55pm | 17/08/12

      I made similar comments a couple of weeks about another Punch article (not by Tory).

      This article came out about 2 hours after the source material did. As a result it was very shallow and looked quite rushed.

      My advice to Tory is, take a deep breath, go for a walk, come back and write the second half of this article - if you are as fired up as you sound it will probably be a good one.

      Stick a note up by your computer that says “Faster is not better”

      And enjoy being head and shoulders above the rest of Australian’s mainstream media just because you have figured this out.

    • James1 says:

      01:57pm | 17/08/12

      Irony: the use of words to convey a meaning opposite to their literal meaning.

    • Brian says:

      03:07pm | 17/08/12

      James1: Irony has several meanings, one of which is Socratic Irony, a questioner of some form pretending to be ignorant in order to expose the ignorance of others. It could be reasonably well argued that this entire article is an example…

      In any case, almost every time someone complains about the word irony being used incorrectly, it is a perfect (if often unintended) example of Socratic irony - the ignorance of the first showing the ignorance of the second.

    • doug z says:

      03:14pm | 17/08/12

      ”  You don’t often see irony defined so elegantly. “

      And you don’t often so cluelessness manifested as completely as it is in the comments on this article.  The dot-point list was a perfect way of highlighting the ridiculous segues in the editorial, that only someone suffering from a severe and debilitating hangover and desperate for something to write, could have come up with.
      Perhaps each of the points from the editorial, taken individually, are perfectly reasonable, but the sum of the parts is absurd.  And that many of you lot don’t get that….well, that’s the sad, sad, reality, I suppose, that society has become so dumbed down, and the internet gives a voice to the stupid.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      03:57pm | 17/08/12

      @doug z. I hear she’s single.

    • Marika says:

      05:28pm | 17/08/12

      Epic fail Doug Z. It’s always best to re-read what you’ve typed. Quality, not quantity buddy.

    • AdamC says:

      12:21pm | 17/08/12

      Yeah, it is a weird editorial. But I am not sure that it blames feminism for society’s ‘saturation’ by sex. It seems to finger the sexual revolution itself, which is reasonable. However, the oddest part is when, while conceding the whole notion is irrational, the editorial suggests we simply ‘shrug off’ the practice of not allowing men to sit next to unaccompanies children on planes. Why?

    • Ben says:

      12:22pm | 17/08/12

      Agree that the article was stupid, but honestly it beats a lot of the crap on the Punch…

    • Aaron says:

      01:21pm | 17/08/12

      yet you are here?

    • trev says:

      12:23pm | 17/08/12

      If paedophilia was as common as the feminist brigade would have us believe, it would have to be almost normal, well, as normal as homosexuality, say. As far as the feminist revolution (?) is concerned, the results are not yet fully in, but they are worrying, to say the least.

    • Gordon says:

      03:45pm | 17/08/12

      I don’t think paedophilia paranoia is restricted to feminists, or to women in general. Let’s hypothesise word gets around that accused paedophile X is found living walking-distance from school Y . Is it an all-women mob with the pitchforks, and the blokes saying “innocent until proven guilty”? No iit would be a full cross-section of the righteous armed to the teeth and a Herald Sun editorial for moral courage. And those dicks in the UK that beat up a paediatrician becuz they funk he wuz a nonce. Feminists?  I think you must have been upset by some sheila in a boiler suit once, and you are dirty on the whole mob of ‘em.

    • St. Michael says:

      12:24pm | 17/08/12

      “Some bits of feminism are good.
      But not all good.”

      This is the most relevant part of the article.  And strangely, it’s the part that feminists seem to hate the most when it’s mentioned.

    • Sundew says:

      01:22pm | 17/08/12

      ‘Tis true, much like some bits of masculism (ie “traditionalism”) are good - but not all good.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:25pm | 17/08/12

      And, Sundew, most thinking men have taken the hard lessons the feminism movement dished out to heart and adjusted their approaches to women accordingly.  Nobody gave militant Mens’ Rights movements much thought until they started to see for themselves some of the bad stuff that feminism brought in, and is still bringing in.

      I would argue that half the damage feminists are crusading against in the present day is perpetuated, ironically, by the feminist movement itself.  I’ve no problem with females being able to dress how they want and screw who they want, since men have the same rights (more or less.)

      It was Naomi Wolf herself who proclaimed that “The Slut” is the highest point of feminist sexual empowerment, but women’s magazines seem to have interpreted that as saying that explicit sexualisation equates to empowerment - thus the ‘stripper culture’ and so on.

      I don’t believe this is being driven by male forces, mostly because it’s women who predominantly design clothes for women - and women who decide what clothes go to the chain stores.  And lastly, women who decide what they and their daughters buy.

      Again, I’m not defending caveman masculinity here - being a fully grown man is so much more than having a penis - but at the same time, masculinity isn’t to blame for most of the self-esteem issues women at large seem to have with themselves.

    • Michael S says:

      02:45pm | 17/08/12

      Like the curate’s egg?

    • Fox says:

      12:27pm | 17/08/12

      The Punch has truly dived into dysfunctional drivel.  Death knell tolls.

    • M says:

      01:08pm | 17/08/12

      Nah, the punch has always been a feminist mouthpiece.

    • Susan says:

      01:40pm | 17/08/12

      I’m afraid I have to largely agree.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      12:29pm | 17/08/12

      Poetic justice: one of the fiercest advocates for one of the most socially destructive ideologies in history ends her days resembling the Dark Knight’s Joker.

    • ByStealth says:

      02:34pm | 17/08/12

      It’s funny because its true.

    • Ben K says:

      03:33pm | 17/08/12

      Hahahahaha, you’re absolutely right! Just make the hair green in patches and smear the lipstick a little - and you have Heath Ledger at his finest!

      Only this one isn’t acting.

    • Father O'Brien says:

      12:32pm | 17/08/12

      I think all people no matter their age or sex should be suspected of being pedos, even the children themselves. I can see how that may raise some complications, but isn’t it all worth it if we save just one child from being molested.

      Maybe children should only be allowed to travel in the company of a group of priests who could safe guard that child on behalf of his or her parents. Preferably only the attractive children.

    • n_dude says:

      02:38pm | 17/08/12

      I would prefer my child to sit next to man than a Catholic priest!

    • Dennis says:

      12:41pm | 17/08/12

      What a crap article. Still don’t know what it is about.

    • Fedupwithbadjournalism says:

      12:41pm | 17/08/12

      This article is lazy journalism that should never have been filed. Did you go to the same party you described and realise you had forgotten to file an article so you just quickly wrote something on your iphone and emailed it.

      If you are going to make up scenario’s about other news sites at least attempt to make it look like the scenario was made up and not a real life situation, that you have obviously been in, by the looks of your article.  You must think you readers are stupid. Try redoing your article, you might win some journalistic respect back.

    • Susan says:

      02:00pm | 17/08/12

      And Tory’s opening paragraph is both bitchy and pot calling etc.  The piece looks thrown together.  If you’re going to call others on what you perceive is their lack of dedication to craft, you’d better do something a whole level higher. This wasn’t it.

    • B says:

      12:41pm | 17/08/12

      I don’t have a problem with the SMH’s article. They raised some valid points that I believe are true and should be discussed. I didn’t know about the policy to not seat unattended minors next to males… Interesting.

      Perhaps you are the one that forgot to write something, so you decided to prattle on about someone else’s work… Very odd.  In fact I find your article a waste of space. Bullet points… really? That’s the best way you can critique someone’s work?

      If this was meant to be a “funny” article, you missed the mark.

    • Michael S says:

      12:41pm | 17/08/12

      Going to the subject of the airline policy:
      I don’t know how it works on Qantas or Tiger, I haven’t flown Qantas for years and never have on Tiger - but on both Jetstar and Virgin, when you book, there’s a field for “title”, with a drop-down menu of “Mr”, “Ms”, “Mrs” or “Miss”.
      Surely any airline booking system should be able to reject any seating configuration that has someone with the title “Mr” seated next to unaccompanied children.
      But it’s at the time of allocating seats that such a policy should be implemented. Not when people have already boarded the plane.

    • Luke R says:

      01:19pm | 17/08/12

      Exactly.  The entire row of seats should be left vacant if someone under 18 has been assigned a seat in that row.  That’s the only way we can be sure that a paedophile is not seated next to an underaged person.

    • Mike says:

      01:34pm | 17/08/12

      What about Colonel, Major, Doctor, Captain etc. ?  How do they know then…or do they just judge that all surgeons, pilots and soldiers must be men ?  (probably do).

    • LJ Dots says:

      01:44pm | 17/08/12

      Michael S, I can see your point in trying to find a solution to a business problem and that’s fine from a business perspective.

      The question should still be raised though, why is there a need to find an IT solution to identify and segregate 50% of passengers on airlines in the first place.

    • the cynic says:

      01:55pm | 17/08/12

      Michael, I disagree with this theory of yours . The whole concept that you have put forward is flawed. It gives into the whole notion that anyone with a ‘Mr’ monicker in front of their booking is instantly considered an evil pedophile and through aquiesence is agreeing to be cast in a group through sociali profiling, not unlike the outlawed policy of racial profiling. If we allow this action by any organisation then why not apply it across the board ? We could say all Muslums are terrorists and don’t even allow them on aircraft, all women are prostitutes so don’t place them beside men (or women for that matter going by todays social norms) or all children and babies cry so they should be gagged.  I am retired and teach English to young Chinese primary children part time in my home, always alone ,one on one 3 days a week, their parents are not concerned. in the slightest.  So I must accept that this automatically makes me a pedophile in the airlines way of thinking? I for one if were confronted by some upstart trolley dolly ordering me out of my seat next to a young unaccompanied minor due to the malicious assumption I was a degenerate pedophile there would be hell to pay and legal action would definitely follow.  So I gather by your thinking everyone should be profiled. Welcome to the Gulag comrade.

    • Michael S says:

      02:33pm | 17/08/12

      The Cynic, I’m not denying it’s a ridiculous policy.
      But my point was that if they’re going to have such a policy, surely it can’t be hard for them to apply it at the stage of allocating seats rather than by humiliating a passenger when everyone’s already boarded the plane.

    • Anubis says:

      02:40pm | 17/08/12

      But what about potential pedophiles amongst the flight crew and airport ground crew. Won’t anyone think of the children? Waaaaaahh

      But seriously Tory - what sort of crap is this?

    • Michael S says:

      02:50pm | 17/08/12

      @Mike, those titles don’t appear in the drop-down menu. Neither does “Rev” or various other titles.

      Maybe, as you mentioned, they’re assuming all pilots are male.
      Possibly they are all male. In all my time flying, I’ve never heard a female voice doing the announcement when they’re up in the air.
      Maybe that’s why the front of the plane is called the cockpit.

    • the cynic says:

      03:52pm | 17/08/12

      But Michael they shouldn’t even have this policy in the first place then this discussion would be irrelevant. They don’t profile any other groups or persons. What gives them the right to profile us men passengers? It is not about the children at all, they are protecting their bottom line againts loss of profits if they get sued.

    • Mike says:

      05:33pm | 17/08/12

      @Michael, they do on board other airlines, particularly European ones.

      I personally wouldn’t want to be seated next to a minor because it is WAY too easy to be accused of something you didn’t do, especially “in the dark on an overnight flight” and be falsely accused.  Mud sticks. 

      That’s why there are hardly any male teachers nowadays, all the shifty looks at you and people wondering why you are doing what you are doing in that job.  It is a disgusting mindset that is sadly, a sign of the times.

      I expect that when I have kids and they start bawling and carrying on in the supermarket, some do-gooder will come up to me and accuse me of “trying to abduct them” because they are crying and screaming and refuse to go with me.  I will know society has hit the low point when that happens, when fathers start getting accused.  Makes me sick.

    • Brian says:

      09:32am | 18/08/12

      To be honest Mike, as a father myself I would rather the passersby come forward and accuse me than stand back - because the consequences of someone mistaking me for trying to abduct my own child are very minor, but the consequences of someone assuming a kidnapper is simply the father are massive. Apparently when I was a four year old this exact situation happened while I was screaming in the shops (although with my mother not my father) - the concerned bystander realised what was going on when I hid behind my mother’s legs. No harm done, and I know my mother not only doesn’t hold a grudge but has told me it was one of the most reassuring things that could have happened - people still cared.

      The day that society does NOT heed a child’s screams is when it has hit the low point.

    • Ted says:

      03:59pm | 18/08/12

      The solution is to simply not allow unaccompanied minors on flights. It makes more sense to discriminate against lazy parents than discriminate against 50% of the population. What a gynocracy we must live in that people are looking to institutionalise discrimination via technology.

    • YoYo says:

      12:43pm | 17/08/12

      Gina Rinehart wrote then editorial.

    • Unopined says:

      12:43pm | 17/08/12

      Maybe there was a party at the Punch last night, and after 7 schooners Tory remembered she hadn’t filed and had to pull something out of her behind.

      Only that could explain this opinion piece. After reading it three times, here is a summary of the article:
      * Sensationalise the editorial being rubbished in bullet points by drawing long bows and taking most of the points out of context to make your obscure point, which you actually don’t even bother to make.
      * Don’t offer any reasons why the said editorial piece is actually rubbish, because that would require actual work.

      Wow, this journalism stuff is easy! Where’s my degree? Do I get paid for this?

    • YoYo says:

      12:43pm | 17/08/12

      Gina Rinehart wrote the editorial.

    • M says:

      12:45pm | 17/08/12

      “Some bits of feminism are good. “

      Some bits were good, when they were relevent.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      01:04pm | 17/08/12

      Some bits of communism were good - on paper.

    • Boris Badanov says:

      12:51pm | 17/08/12

      News Limited preaching to the Herald on journalistic standards. Joke Joyce. You guys sold your souls to Rupert years ago.

    • Ziggy says:

      12:52pm | 17/08/12

      Tors, you have launched the hells of heaven against yourself. So you are doing something right. Well said. Attempting to try and make sense of the SMH editorial is a waste of your intellect.

    • john says:

      12:54pm | 17/08/12

      People in glass houses Tory… some of the junk churned out here is no better

    • Luthien Nienna says:

      12:56pm | 17/08/12

      I think Tory may have had a tipple (or few) of her own, and forgot to post the rest of her article…

    • Sam says:

      12:57pm | 17/08/12

      Here is the rebuttal. This is sexist from Virgin and Fairfax. Both companies should be condemned. While the majority of paeodofiles are males, not ALL paeodofiles are male. Some are women. So for Virgin to only target males as potential paeodofiles is sexist profiling. Which is a disgrace. Imagine the uproar if Virgin only bomb scanned muslims. While the majority of terrorists are Muslim, not ALL terrorists are Muslim. Where is the uproar to stand up for the rights of men. Or is it that men have no rights? No voice? I encourage all males to join me in boycotting Virgin and Fairfax. Both companies have acted disgracefully.

    • Shano says:

      01:21pm | 17/08/12

      Be careful Sam - advocating men’s rights can get you banned from this site.

    • Sickemrex says:

      02:30pm | 17/08/12

      Why don’t you start a movement called personism and encourage all persons to boycott Virgin and Fairfax?

    • M says:

      03:00pm | 17/08/12

      No one would buy it.

    • Amanda says:

      12:57pm | 17/08/12

      Maybe there was a party at Tory Maguire’s house last night and after seven schooners she remembered she hadn’t filed and had to pull something out of her arse. 

      At least the arse-pluck by the SMH was a little original, yours Tory was a pathetic, unoriginal jibe at a rival which served no purpose whatsoever.  Really…. is that the best you can manage?  Try harder or go home.

    • mitch says:

      12:57pm | 17/08/12

      lol tank - exactly what i was thinking.

      that is the lamest smack down in the history of journalism….or did YOUR editor have a few at lunch?

    • Easy Street says:

      12:59pm | 17/08/12

      Another example of The Punch being a useful contrast to the concept of journalism. Me thinks Tory Maguire was referring to herself with her opening parqgraph, which can be rewritten thus: “Maybe there was a party at News.com.au last night and after seven bubblies the editor of The Punch remembered they hadn’t filed and had to pull something out of their arse.” Tory Maguire gets paid for this drivel? Damn lucky, I’d say.

    • pete says:

      01:00pm | 17/08/12

      Yeah, I read that about half hour ago. Should at least have had the name of the work experience kid underneath it.

    • Bee says:

      01:00pm | 17/08/12

      It’s good this issue is getting the coverage it deserves. It’s the greatest outrage in the history of Australia

    • MarkS says:

      01:01pm | 17/08/12

      While there is some sort of paedophilia witch hunt going on in our modern society. The issue gains far more than its fair share of attention. You would think that every second man is a pervert from the way same media portray the issue.

      I am not convinced that this has a direct connection to feminism. But I can see the way that modern feminism libels all men as evil fits the same sort of portrayal in the witch hunt.

      Cannot see where Tory is coming from in this article but for some kind of incoherent rage that feminism has been connected to paedophilia.

    • isis says:

      01:04pm | 17/08/12

      Thank you for drawing my attention to a well written editorial in SMH.

    • Ben says:

      01:06pm | 17/08/12

      Tank.
      *It is meant to be a sarcastic dig
      *It may be in dot points but it is funny as!
      *I like dot points as it means I don’t have to concentrate too much

    • A different Ben thankfully says:

      02:29pm | 17/08/12

      I bet you get a real chortle out of Bon Bon jokes too if you thought this sook attack of an article is , as you say, ‘funny as’.

      *Sound effect of Side Show Bob standing on a rake*

    • A different Ben thankfully says:

      02:30pm | 17/08/12

      I bet you get a real chortle out of Bon Bon jokes too if you thought this sook attack of an article is , as you say, ‘funny as’.

      *Sound effect of Side Show Bob standing on a rake*

    • Laura says:

      01:07pm | 17/08/12

      I get it Tory. Very cleaver! Great article!

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      02:45pm | 17/08/12

      Leave it to Laura.

    • SK_ says:

      03:06pm | 17/08/12

      I think you mean “clever”....Oh, the irony today.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      01:09pm | 17/08/12

      Tank, do you need some help to see the obvious?

    • fml says:

      01:11pm | 17/08/12

      Surely not being allocated a seat next to a child is a good thing for us men? They wont be able to accuse us of being untoward and we can drink our beer and look at our smutty magazines in peace.

      To look after a kid is a mothers job anyways.

    • Polly says:

      01:11pm | 17/08/12

      I had to make lists like this to make sense of some of the postmodern articles at uni.  Similarly just read SMH - yes, weird, leaping, psychotic, dizzying generalisations.

    • he who laughs at all says:

      01:12pm | 17/08/12

      who pulled what out of their arse?????????

    • Anthony Zarat says:

      01:13pm | 17/08/12

      For a second, I thought maybe this would be the first feminist to have the moral courage to say “it is wrong to assume that all men are child rapists.”  Apparently not.  Feminists are simply incapable of saying anything that might reduce the culture of anti-male hatred and prejudice.

      Which is why the Herald article was right on target.

    • ByStealth says:

      02:46pm | 17/08/12

      Rape Culture is one of the central tenents of Feminism. To challenge it would be to challenge the validity of Feminism.

    • Frank says:

      01:13pm | 17/08/12

      Any time I see Tory on ‘The Drum’ on the ABC from now on, her opinions will be diminished by memories of the vacuous nature of this post and the crassness of language used. What an uplifting read!

    • Jenny says:

      01:18pm | 17/08/12

      Sam - didn’t you get the Fairfax memo - it is aok to be sexit against males and rasist against whites.  If you are a white male - you have no rights!  You are cannon fodder.

    • Aaron says:

      01:19pm | 17/08/12

      I think a lot of people here are missing the point and don’t quite understand what the punch is. Hint: it’s in the tag line…

      Not all articles posted on this site are meant to provide deep, well thought out analysis. That is not what this site is about. A SMH editorial however…

    • Easy Street says:

      02:05pm | 17/08/12

      You’ve got that spot on, @AAron !!! “Not all articles posted on this site are meant to provide deep, well thought out analysis. That is not what this site is about.”  smile)) I actually thought “The Punch” meant something along the lines of ‘punchy, relevant commentary to provoke thought about issues of the day’. My experience reading The Punch agrees with your assessment. That is, the articles are generally so shallow, hurried, and simplistic, and poorly written that the only thoughts they provoke are related to the hope that one day an actual journalist might turn up and decide to put some effort into producing a piece of relevant commentary that provokes thought about some issue of the day.

    • Susan says:

      02:29pm | 17/08/12

      Ok Aaron but it’s a coward who uses an opinion piece without any editorial review, to ‘punch’ another writer who isn’t in the same playing field.  It’s becoming increasingly easier and easier for Punch writers to throw something together in a short time - often with errors - and attack the work of others.  Cowardly and soft option from people who have the biggest soft option of them all.

    • fraq says:

      01:20pm | 17/08/12

      I’m gunna do the NRL Fan Survey instead.

    • MondoStef says:

      01:25pm | 17/08/12

      I read the SMH Editorial this morning.  After realising that I wasn’t reading some crackpot feminist nazi’s oped but rather the SMH’s official stand on the matter I was outraged.  I am a single male and I would be grossly offended if i was singled out to be moved because of this policy and I would stand my ground and risk being bootted off the plane if necessary.

      The airlines have no business in assuming some people are potentail criminals and others not.  As I stated in my comments online at smh.com.au (yet to be published), parents have three options to guarantee the safety of their children form sexual predators:

      1. Fly with them
      2. Arrange for a responsible adult to accompany them to their destination, or
      3. Pay the airline to provide this service
      Unfortunately, parents are inadvertantly abbrogating this responsibility and the airlines are defelecting their responsibility onto the flying public with this lame policy of no males seated next to unaccompanies minors.
      Once an airline is successfuly sued for discrimninating against a male as reported this policy will change and it will responsibility will fall back onto the parents via a user-pays system, which is what it should be now

      I therefore agree 100% with Tory’s opinion.  The SMH’s editorial is pathetic and shows the Editor to be completely dillusional, which I hope one day they will shrug off.

    • the cynic says:

      02:13pm | 17/08/12

      Could have been summed up…..........1. ‘Don’t get divorced” ........  2. “Mum stays home to nuture the children”............ 3. Fly with them.

    • Dan says:

      01:27pm | 17/08/12

      I actually thought it was rather interesting. And Tory, I’d have plenty of fun putting many of your articles in dot-point form, and isolating the curious leaps of logic.

      Airlines now have policies of not seating men next to unaccompanied minors, over the astonishingly small risk they may be pedophiles. By that reasoning, men shouldn’t be seated next to unaccompanied women, because they could be rapists.

      It’s an absurd policy, that many have rightfully found offensive. And the SMH provided some interesting insights into how we got to this particular destination.

      It does link with the sexual revolution, which does tie into feminism. They don’t draw a direct line from women’s rights to the particular policy, but the ideas exist in the same environment.

      I don’t completely agree with their assesment however. The heightened sense of fear surrounding pedophiles, particularly men, has more to do with the string of high-profile cases to come out in recent years. Particularly those involving the Church, which helped create the image of single, lonely white men.

      But it is worth examining the highly-liberated sex culture of the 21st century, and the unusual impacts it’s having. It’s been a fantastic development in many respects, but, as the article states, it’s not all good.

    • Dan says:

      03:18pm | 17/08/12

      I’m pretty sure they have that policy too. Having flown too much, I can tell you that Australian airlines never seat a single woman next to me. Once I’ve had a 70 year old woman next to me.

      When I’ve flown domestically in other countries this isn’t an issue.

      We probably should just get over that one too fellas, its all in the women’s interests and they are obviously the only ones who matter.

    • Amy says:

      10:02am | 18/08/12

      I agree that cultural and technological changes play a role. Consider the pervasive popularity of ‘barely legal’ pornography for example. This is one of the most popular porn genres on the planet. Large numbers of men have created and profited from a culture awash with some very disturbing material and large numbers of men are celebrating and reveling in it. Don’t be surprised if some of us become alarmed. While it’s a mistake to tar all men with the same brush, men also have to understand that this is not a good look and they need to speak out and hold each other to account.

    • Werner Klopek says:

      01:28pm | 17/08/12

      HTTP logs would be an interesting read on this article and subsequent comments. I am sure there would be more than a few entries from: 203.5.59.241, 203.26.177.241 and 203.58.234.244 ranges.

    • Sloan says:

      01:30pm | 17/08/12

      Why is there a picture of a smiling zombie at the top of this article?

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      02:46pm | 17/08/12

      Sexist pig.

    • David says:

      01:33pm | 17/08/12

      “pull something out of their arse”
      And where was your editor when you decided to use gutter terminology more suited to an amateur street magazine? Oops that’s right. YOU are the editor. Epic fail, Tory. Go back to picking up cigarettes from the shops for senior staff.

    • Vile Sadyhands says:

      01:38pm | 17/08/12

      Thats half a rant…

    • Susan says:

      01:43pm | 17/08/12

      Tory, I think you liberally over egged your interpretive pudding.  I read the editorial carefully and, overall, perceive a great deal of balance there that you don’t.  In fact, I suspect you felt outraged within a sentence or two, stopped reading it with relative objectively, and went in for the boot.  You do the women’s cause…if that’s what you identify with…little assistance with this sort of piece.  It’s reactive and not analytical.

    • JD says:

      01:50pm | 17/08/12

      So Tory, generally when we read ” The Punch ” we’re usually confronted with a talking point opinion, that is to say, the Writer says ” This ” then “and this is my opinion of it “.

      Suggesting that they had drinks and couldnt figure out what to do,
      is a personal observation, not an opinion.

      So, quit being like the other lazy writers on ” The Punch ” and actually
      show an opinion, or delete the entire thing, cause its garbage.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      03:06pm | 17/08/12

      I find it absurd that on the day we learn the Punch got an apology from someone who attacked Tory – Tory puts up an article accusing rival workers of being unprofessional drunks. If you guys were offended at being called lazy, perhaps you should have pondered if calling someone a drunk hack might also be offensive?

      What’s good for the goose…..

    • John says:

      01:57pm | 17/08/12

      The sexualization of society which was an agenda by the Marxists who were funded by the international bankers to undermine Christianity, the family and western culture has most likely contributed to the increase of unnatural sexual fetish desires, pedouality being one of them. The more porn on the internet, sex on television and television, most likely contributes to pedophile growth, rape crimes, etc. I say we remove sex from society, get porn off the internet, get the porn shops off our main streets and ban Hollywood and their decadence sexualized music and move industry.

    • pink says:

      02:06pm | 17/08/12

      Mr Murdoch wants Fairfax ! the purveyor of page 3 nudies preaching ..! lol
      gotta love a man with gumption !

    • Two Dogs says:

      02:07pm | 17/08/12

      I too read the editorial rant on the Sydney Morning Pravda this morning, and was totally confused by the disjointed garbage that it was.
      Most men I believe are aggrieved by the Virgin assumption that all men are deemed to be kiddy fiddlers.
      I don’t think it was schooners the editorial writers were on either. Wacky baccy more like it.

    • Jack says:

      03:02pm | 17/08/12

      I see what you did there! Pravda! Because of commie, amiriteguys?!

      That’s clever. You’re clever.

    • Peter says:

      02:08pm | 17/08/12

      Tory, oh so true. Give yourself a stamp on the hand for good work, and an extra star for clear presentation.

      But I think the root cause is their calendar is out of whack at smh, and they thought it was April 1.

      Now for you smh apologists and armchair experts, please lift up your hand and smack yourselves across the back of the head. and repeat after me - hello paywall, bye-bye smh.

    • Gabby Cabbie says:

      02:10pm | 17/08/12

      We know all males are pedophiles.

      Proof is how mothers in their SUVs MUST stop right outside the school gate to collect their little one before one of the raincoat men that are lurking around in droves, snatches them. Double park, triple park, wrong side of the road. THEY KNOW that more that a 5 metre dash and it’s all over; too late.

      As for planes, As a male I am very happy NOT to be placed beside a strange child. Although I do feel bad when I see a child stuck in a middle row and I have the window seat with the view and they are trying to see out. I have swapped but sometimes that would put them beside another male.

      Driving a taxi, I won’t let lone kids sit in the front seat.  Even with the cameras I don’t want to risk delivering the child to some nutty mother who might shake into the kids mind that it had been touched. Same with drunk women.

      Sad, but unfortunately the feminists have won their war to alienate men.

    • Brad says:

      02:25pm | 17/08/12

      Bloody carbon tax again…

    • Jack says:

      02:29pm | 17/08/12

      Tory, I’ve said this before* and I will say it again: I love you.

      Perfectly sums up the stunning lack of logical thought that went into that keyword-heavy but intelligence-light ‘article’.


      *either via Punch comments or letters cut out of newspapers and slipped under the newslimited door.

    • Pot calling the kette black says:

      02:36pm | 17/08/12

      Wow this is a tad rich coming from an online rag that I constantly find typos, truncated copy and grammatical errors. I suspect your punch article has a bit of a limp wrist today ma’am.

    • M says:

      02:41pm | 17/08/12

      Considering some of the comments I’ve seen here about the dangers of letting your kids run around your local suburb and giving them lifts to school in cars, I’d be inclined to say, Yes, feminism is at least partially responsible for peadophilic fear.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      02:42pm | 17/08/12

      So Virgin only seats Unaccompanied minors next to women does it?
      I must remind my family members with minors never, ever to allow their kids to fly with Virgin ‘cos, given recent reports of adult women school-teachers having affairs, group sex with minors, the chances are that minor - male of female - might not get off that plane with their Virginity intact.
      Maybe they could adopt a new slogan:
      “Fly a Virgin with Virgin & lose not only your luggage”
      or
      “Virgins! Fly with Virgin & lose it!”
      Or is it that most paedophiles fly with Virgin & they know it?

    • Sickemrex says:

      02:45pm | 17/08/12

      There weren’t any longer bows drawn in that article than many editorials including some on the punch.  I did agree with Tory’s criticism of the implication that men should just suck up the suggestion that they are a potential sex offender just like we all do for bag x-rays and explosives searches.  Random pat searches are a hell of a lot different to moving and individual just because they happen to be a man.

      The whole issue is actually quite surreal.  I saw a comment on the Spurious Mail’s website this week that was totally in support of the man taking legal action against Virgin, saying that 90% of men aren’t paedophiles and that it was ridiculous all men had to suffer for the 10% that are.  10%?  Whaaaaaat?  People actually think 10% of men are peds?!

    • Emmy says:

      03:32pm | 17/08/12

      After watching news clips of Virgin promotional launches if ever flew Virgin I would be more worried about that obnoxious Branston bloke thinking it was his right to fill me full of champagne and fondle me.

    • Dave says:

      03:04pm | 17/08/12

      Let’s see if I can do *journalism*, Tory-style:

      - you wrote an inflammatory piece about an inflammatory article
      - you made disparaging claims about its journalistic integrity while displaying less yourself
      - your article was just a potshot at a rival company with no considered criticism
      - it’s better than some of the mudslinging yarns you are responsible for but not by much
      - many people in the comments can clearly identify the hypocrisy and irony
      - except for the usual rusted-on news.com.au right wing misogynists who make up your key audience
      - the carbon tax is bad

      where do I get my News Corporation paycheck?

    • hot tub political machine says:

      03:24pm | 17/08/12

      You forgot to point out that because the people picking up on the hypocrisy are sharp enough to have picked it up – they are dangerous inner city elites who, in the interests of free speech, should be excluded from the debate because what they say might be persuasive.

      So I’m deducting $30 Rupert Dollars (The universal global currency News Ltd will put in place after it buys every last national government) and 12 Rupert loyalty points – which can only be redeemed should you write and article about how phone hacking definitely hasn’t happened in Oz because Harto said so.

    • Badjack says:

      03:52pm | 17/08/12

      The luvies from SMH are still angry

    • BruceS says:

      03:18pm | 17/08/12

      If you had witnessed the received wisdom coming out of the black and white boob tube from university qualified “experts”,during the 60s and 70s, you might be a little less “judgemental” of the pathetic SMH.

    • Katie says:

      06:54pm | 17/08/12

      Haha, where did everybody’s sense of humour go? SMH has put together a badly structured and terribly written article and the Punch is having a little giggle and suddenly everyone is losing their minds about feminist pedophiles who fly with Virgin, or something like that. Maybe when someone actually writes a half decent article on these topics, we can all put in our honest two cents.

    • Wilma J Craig says:

      07:14pm | 17/08/12

      Come along, children!
      Just what was this old harridan’s claim to fame? It certainly wasn’t her looks or her dress sense.
      I saw an interview she gave some years ago and she came across as just another aroogant, up-herself, Ugly American who thought she & only she was always right.
      Maybe now women will start getting some decent, intelligent magazines to read rather than the garbage Helen pushed.
      Why is it that the uglier, harder, more badly made-up a woman is the more people bow down before them & grant them a status they have never, ever deserved?
      Here in Australia we have had similar women who no matter what they do or have done will always be ugly & look as if they have always been old a state which because of the appalling make-up they use make them look even older &, if possible, uglier. Not even some tired old drag queen could look any worse! As my Jason (gay grand-son) says they make a joke out of themselves all the while taking themselves oh-so-seriously!

    • Ben says:

      07:33pm | 17/08/12

      Tory, Tory, Tory. You just went full retard. You never go full retard.

    • Muggles says:

      01:17pm | 18/08/12

      I giggled. A lot.

    • Muggles says:

      01:16pm | 18/08/12

      Will the Punch be covering Virgin and Qantas’ discrimination against men?

      Or do we only talk about discrimination when it’s against women (the majority group) or dark-skinned minority groups?

      Or is it easier just to write articles attacking other journalists? (Hi Laurie!)

    • Jme says:

      08:36pm | 18/08/12

      I am thankful to read this article and thank you for the oppourtunity to have read this article. Way better than reading most of the predictable papers of late. ITs fairly sad to read however some of the distasteful, nasty and rude comments that followed. Seems everyone has cottoned onto critic mode something shocking. You are all such cut throat people….please. Why are you in ‘kill em and chill em’ mode, you sad and sorry society of people? Ask me what rock I have just crawled out from under if you will, but I still believe it is actually a privelege to have this sort of communication technique. I still use my manners, how about some of you adults using yours. If you dont like the writers style, shut your mouth and read another one instead of getting your own cream on pulling the shit out of someone elses. I like the freestyle spirit that some people still possess without being so bloody negatory to someone else’s effort. Say what you want. Write what you feel. You cant buy sincerity. And fuck the rest.  Reality check people; if you continue to build people up and then tear them down, online media will become a pretty war torn, sad and sorry site of complete wanabe recknecks that have morphed into newage online rednecks.

    • Greg says:

      11:40am | 19/08/12

      I despair of grievance groupies, I really do.  Feminists and airline risk management planning, aside, let’s remember who paedophiles are, people.  Men.

      Not one of you moaners talking about feminists putting all men in the moral gulag have bothered to mentioned the people who create the problem. Paedophiles. It’s is these people who let down all the good men in the world, who plant the seed of doubt about the rest of us.

      The issue is ensuring the safety of children, and the statistics do not lie. Men are much more likely to abuse opportunistically than women. Should an airline’s priority be massaging the fragile egos of the Men’s Rights Brigade (you guys are such a petulant version of the feminazis) by making children sit with men they don’t know, or think about the needs of the children.  Do children feel more comfortable with stange women than they do strange men? Isn’t this a question worth asking?

    • Former CPU Investigator says:

      09:01am | 20/08/12

      @ Greg

      This female (and a mother) former child protection unit police officer/investigator (of 27 years experience), both here and overseas disagrees. I’ve been involved in the survellience, arrest, interview and court proceedings of female paedophiles. Believe you me, there are more than what is reported. It makes the public very uncomfortable to learn of such an animal, as it clashes with the notion that women are “nurturers” and men are “predators”.  Well into mid 90 per cent of sexual abuse of children is commited by somebody known to, or within the child’s family.
      The rank “won’t somebody think of the children!!” hysteria (driven by the media) does more harm than good to our investigations. It makes our jobs harder. I suggest you work with a CPU for six months at the very least - (even then you’ll only scratch the surface). Women distribute child porn. Women are involved in sex human trafficking. We just hear about the men, and thus the mythology that “men are paedophilias!” is born.

      It’s very simplistic to assume that children are more at risk by having a man seated next to them. Simplistic, and, from my own experience, a massive distortion of truth. As a mum, I would allow my unaccompanied kids to be seated next to a man.

      Where do we stop with this? If a ten year old rides his or her bike to the local shop to buy an icecream, and a man is serving behind the counter, is he then not permitted to serve the child? Or do the other men have to leave the store whilst the child is there? If kids get on public transport, such as a train or bus, do any men on that train have to move themselves to a different carriage? If a few kids go to the movies in the middle of the day, and it’s a packed session, do men have to leave in case the kids sit next to them? If parents take their kids to the local pool or beach, and there are men swimming, and their parents are not in the water with the kids, do the men have to get out of the surf or pool?

      Sexual abuse by women is insidious and a lot more dangerous because when it happens, it’s so difficult to believe. It challenges our preconceived of what “women” are. Which is why society often closes it’s eyes to such crimes.

    • Rachel says:

      12:48pm | 20/08/12

      After reading the story I can summarise:
      * Reporter filed in a hurry
      * Offered no new insights
      * Used dot points to be witty, when it was lame
      After reading the comments I can say:
      * Your readers will find something better out there, so you ought to work harder

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter