I fell on last weekend's report of Paul Henry's latest gaffe less with outrage than relief. What a happy change from what Americans call wieners, as in Anthony Weiner's wiener, currently, and its indirect blow to Hillary Clinton's chances in the race for the White House.
Women, of course, do not think about men's body parts, let alone make crude or juvenile comments on their supposed dimensions. We are too mature for smutty jokes and risque references, let alone tall tales of adventures in the sack. We are respectful of others, and indeed of otherness, without the need to giggle, snort or snigger, which is the province of small boys and the popular broadcaster.
Henry was made to sit on the naughty stool for commenting on a woman's breasts. He was in a restaurant with his publicist, being interviewed, when he commented on what he called "perfect titties", and lamented when the owner put her leather jacket on, covering them as she left. She would not have heard his comments, he said, "but if she did, you know what? She's going to walk away 1) outraged, which is a feeling people love, and 2) very f.... proud. Outraged and Proud, of Remuera".
She'd more likely be annoyed, but whatever, his juvenilia called for comment from likely disapprovers. Michelle A'Court provided golden copy, as in: "I would call that sexual harassment. I believe she was being objectified as a woman." I'm not sure how you harass someone who isn't aware of your babblings, but I get the drift.
As someone who hosts a news programme, she added, Henry "should be someone we trust and respect, and look up to". I am not sure which should trouble me more, Henry's outburst or the worrying thought that anyone would expect a broadcaster to be a role model.