Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My problem is that I don't understand the first substantial phrase of the website's/organisation's 'manifesto', ie what it's about:


" ONE BILLION RISING IS:

A global strike

An invitation to dance

A call to men and women to refuse to participate in the status quo until rape and rape culture ends

An act of solidarity, demonstrating to women the commonality of their struggles and their power in numbers

A refusal to accept violence against women and girls as a given

A new time and a new way of being"

BrandNewGuy-- I think (and I could be completely wrong about this, as Im not overly familiar with OneBillionRising) that their 'cause' is to bring awareness about places where say, marital rape as an example, is an accepted and normal practice. By joining in dancing, the participants are making an active statement of saying *I recognize this as a problem, I'm not turning a blind eye to it, and I don't think its acceptable*. I think the dancing is a form of positive protest (i.e. doing something joyful) rather than a negative one of traditional protesting, placards, signs reading Rape is Wrong! etc... (because who thinks its 'right' anyway?) Again, I could be totally off on this one...

Actually, I don't understand this phrase either :"refuse to participate in the status quo until rape and rape culture ends".


How do we 'refuse to participate in the status quo'? Do we not go to work, or eat meat or live in a house? Not have sex? What?


How will we know when rape culture has ended? For that matter, how will we know when rape has ended?


It's really not very helpful - as any fule kno, when faced with wooly or unachievable objectives the output is invariably to do nothing.


Furthermore, if we set targets based on OTHER people's behaviour or activities, the outputs are resentment, disengagement and poor cooperation.

I'm sure you're right, Gingerbeer, but Huguenot's remark probably comes nearer to what's going on here: "Furthermore, if we set targets based on OTHER people's behaviour or activities, the outputs are resentment, disengagement and poor cooperation."


It's the same-old same-old. Just the mention of tackling rape brings a few highly defensive chaps out of the woodwork bleating that 'oh, you think all men are rapists blah blah.'


Well, actually, the wonderful thing about this VDay lark is that many men (who are not defensive and so sensitive, and who realise there is a problem) are joining in the protest, and don't feel 'resentment, disengagement and poor co-operation'. They are able to look outside themselves to the actual victims of this crime and want to support them. The more men the merrier, in my view. I found it very moving and heartening to see the large numbers of men who also came out in protest against the unbelievably hideous incident in India recently.


In fact, and it may be non-PC of me to say this, without the support of men who also believe the current situation is an outrage, this movement will be stymied. But you win some you lose some. Hey ho.

Well, leaving aside that you still haven't answered the question, it seems odd that you reward these sensitive guys who join in the protest by refusing to have sex with them until the 'end of the rape culture'.


Idiotic.


I share your desire to see the end of these horrific crimes, but I'm rather at a loss as to know how to help something that sets up such stupid conditions.


Since myself and my other half have a loving and satisfying relationship, she would rightly feel aggrieved if I refuse to have sex with her until racist Australians stop abusing Aborigines, or members of the BNP launch a multiracial kindergarten.

Now you're just being plain old silly, Hugeunot. Whoever said women are refusing to have sex with anyone until the 'end of the rape culture'!!!!?????! Now that's the biggest defensive reaction I've ever heard on this subject, and no mistake.


There's no reasoning with some people.

which Nigel Molesworth, eponymous hero of Punch Magazine's precocious schoolboy comic strip


The Molesworth books, written I think by Geoffrey Willuns, were illustrated by Searle, but they were never comic strips, and I'm not sure to what extent Nigel could have been described as precocious - he seemed to be a very typical prep-school boy, if somewhat more forthright than many. Many school boys also, like Nigel, saw through adults (particularly schoolmasters) without being precocious.

'Summary for page 3:


Some young people decided to hold, or join, an event on a local roundabout with the intention of stopping local traffic.


There is an issue about whether this was done with due regard for public safety.


John K'


http://www.cool-smileys.com/images/10.gif

I'm not behaving like a troll buddug.


Both BNG and myself don't understand the manifesto (we both understand the overall intent), we've asked perfectly reasonable questions which you refuse to answer.


Instead you've said nasty things about both of us.


It doesn't really hold the organisation in a good light if its followers abuse anyone who asked them questions about it?


I'm guessing that your refusal to answer means that you don't understand it either? Fine, just say so?

buddug Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm sure you're right, Gingerbeer, but Huguenot's

> remark probably comes nearer to what's going on

> here: "Furthermore, if we set targets based on

> OTHER people's behaviour or activities, the

> outputs are resentment, disengagement and poor

> cooperation."

>

> It's the same-old same-old. Just the mention of

> tackling rape brings a few highly defensive chaps

> out of the woodwork bleating that 'oh, you think

> all men are rapists blah blah.'

>

> Well, actually, the wonderful thing about this

> VDay lark is that many men (who are not defensive

> and so sensitive, and who realise there is a

> problem) are joining in the protest, and don't

> feel 'resentment, disengagement and poor

> co-operation'. They are able to look outside

> themselves to the actual victims of this crime and

> want to support them. The more men the merrier, in

> my view. I found it very moving and heartening to

> see the large numbers of men who also came out in

> protest against the unbelievably hideous incident

> in India recently.

>

> In fact, and it may be non-PC of me to say this,

> without the support of men who also believe the

> current situation is an outrage, this movement

> will be stymied. But you win some you lose some.

> Hey ho.



Hear hear.... And, if you look closely it wasn't just women on Goose Green Roundabout or just women clapping and cheering...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I see a gap in the market and a stall in North Cross Road...
    • The lack of affordable housing is down to Thatcher's promoting sale of council properties. When I was working, I had to deal with many families/older folk/ disabled folk in inferior housing. The worst ones were ex council properties purchased by their tenants  with a very high discount who then sold on for a profit. The new owners frequently rented out at exorbitant prices and failed to maintain the properties. I remember a gentleman who needed to be visited by a district nurse daily becoming very upset as he rented a room in an ex council flat and shared kitchen and bathroom with 6 other people  (it was a 3 bed flat) the landlord did not allow visitors to the flat and this gut was frightened he would be evicted if the nurse visited daily. Unfortunately, the guy was re admitted to hospital and ended up in a care home as he could not receive medical help at home.   Private developers  are not keen on providing a larger percentage of 'social housing' as it dents their profits. Also a social rent is still around £200 plus a week
    • Hello, I was wondering if others have had experience of roof repairs and guarantees. A while back, we had a water leak come through in our top floor room.  A roofer came and went out on the roof to take a look - they said it was to do with a leak near the chimney.   They did some rendering around the chimney and this cost £1800 plus £750 for scaffolding (so £2,550 total).  They said the work came with a 10 year guarantee. About a year later, there was another leak on the same wall, which looked exactly the same size and colour as the previous leak. But it was about 2 metres away from it, on the other side of a window.  I contacted the roofer about this new leak, thinking it would be covered by the guarantee. However, he said the new leak was due to a different and unrelated problem, and so was not covered by the guarantee. This new leak, he said, was due to holes in the felt underneath the tiles. He said there are holes in the felt all over the roof (so if this was the cause, I expect the first leak may have been caused by that too - but he didn't mention the holes in the felt for the first repair). It feels like the 10-year guarantee doesn't mean much at all.  I realise that the guarantee couldn't cover all future problems with the roof, but where do you draw the line with what's reasonable?  Is it that a leak is only covered if an identical leak happens in exactly the same place?  There were no terms and conditions with the guarantee, which I didn't question at the time.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...