I simply do not accept that “Nanny state” is a sexist term, far to many of our traditional words and phrases have been assaulted like this by the PC police.
Even the sport I love (cricket) has been affected, some now adopt the term “batters” to describe batsmen when for over 100 years the term batsmen was perfectly acceptable, only now is that term deemed offensive by some.

By all means use what ever term you want, if you are unhappy with the term “nanny state” then do not use it, but please do not tell me what words I can use and in what context I can use them.

I’d certainly love for the awareness of men’s rights and similar campaigns to be put in the limelight, but I don’t delude myself that it’s anywhere near as urgent as women’s issues.

Big Bro- Yes, Nanny State is sexist, (I’ve blogged on this recently in fact) and it’s insulting to nannies, who do a very important job that allows the rest of us to go off to work, and generally do it quite well. Especially seeing that the people, like yourself, who use the term, seem to be quite selective about what qualifies as a Nanny State- for instance, not refunding you half of your taxes is “nannying”, but attempting to spell out in law that marriage is limited to men and women- when it’s already denied to homosexual couples- is conveniently ignored by our “Nanny State” bashers. I know double-standards can be a tricky concept, but come on.

As for the “whaka” billboard- I think that’s used in good spirit and it’s not inherently demeaning, and looking at the coverage, it gave me a quick laugh. It’s a thin line though, and you’re better not to tread it.

SteveR- “Feminazis”, or feminists who go a bit overboard, do exist, but aren’t really listened to by other feminists, and certainly not by wider society. Used as a word to bash Labour, it’s particularly disgusting, as Labour has been incredibly restrained on the women’s issues it has legislated about, even though it has passed the most feminist laws of any party. Most of the instances of society going overboard with feminism have actually been men instituting rules that are overprotective of women’s interests- which in itself is sexist against women.

> most commented-upon politician for appearance must be winston peters. i recall one sublimely poetic passage in which jane clifton described (an unlikely thing) as being as likely as winston peters appearing in public wearing tracksuit bottoms.

I don’t think Winston’s appearance has really been commented on in a negative way. But Gerry Brownlee’s weight and Don Brash’s comb-over have.

single most commented about appearance-incident in the world in recent years would be dick cheney wearing a bulky jacket at a funeral or memorial or something outside when it was snowing. as if the fact that he’s a wicked imperialist doesn’t count for anything… strange what’ll hold people’s attention.

anyway don’t women like to be noticed for their appearance?
…well at least when aspects of their appearance are political, for instance flouting dress protocol in the presence of the queen, as strategic a wardrobe gesture for a prime minister as non-appearance related ones like putting a friendly arm around the queen or texting during her speech etc

I tend to think ‘feminazis’ exist in the same realm as ‘militant homosexuals’ that is, an alternate universe.

The male, feminist, apologists are welcome to their guilt-ridden club. The rest of us will be watching Top Gear.

They can call us if they need us to invent something…..

I thought the “whaka” advert was outstanding and I agree that the faux outrage is sickening.

Were are these people when it comes to other adverts currently running on our TV?, have you seen the one for “skins” it is without doubt the most blatantly racist advert I have seen for some time yet nothing is said because it features African Americans.
I can just imagine the howls of protest if speedo were to use a campaign promoting the superiority of white swimmers over other races.