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

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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