Dancers on the Goose Green Roundabout

[hpsaucey]

Well - agree, that some of it is probably badly worded ...

Jessie Wrote:

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

> I'm a woman with strong feminist leanings and I

> don't understand the manifesto either

[buddug]

Anyone reading this thread through (if they can bear it) will be hard pressed to find any nastiness or abusiveness from me, Huguenot.

[edhistory]

Before, or after, all your edits?

John K

[buddug]

I'm a former sub-editor - it's in my blood to edit. Can't help myself! http://www.cool-smileys.com/images/284.gif

There, see! I've done it again...

[Huguenot]

You still haven't answered the question buddug, and calling me a troll or suggesting that BrandNewGuy is somehow pro-rape because he doesn't understand the manifesto is both nasty and abusive.

[Lord Danny Poppins]

Dancers on a roundabout..............rape.......O_o I haven't read a single post in this thread but it's hurting my brain working out how the two are connected and why people are even discussing it if it's a troll attempt.....

[BrandNewGuy]

Er, well maybe reading the thread will help you find out how they're connected. Sheesh...

[RosieH]

I suspect, though I may be wrong in this, that the wording is such that it can mean what it needs to to different people. In much the same way that a song or a piece of art is open to interpretation by its audience.

Eve Ensler is a formidable and brilliant woman - I doubt beyond measure that she lacks the wit to state her point clearly. That is why I have made the assumption I have.

For me, "A call to men and women to refuse to participate in the status quo until rape and rape culture ends" ties into "A refusal to accept violence against women and girls as a given".

To me personally, the status quo is many things - it's not, contrary to your deliberate devil's advocacy Huguenot, a sex strike. If you've read the Vagina Monolgogues, you'll know that Eve Ensler, and the women involved in the writing, are not anti-sex.

I see it more as a refusal to accept that things considered the norm must inevitably remain the norm. As a for instance: page 3, a full-page Reeva Steenkamp in a bikini beside the story of her brutal murder, soft-porn in lads mags, violent images of women as victims used in high fashion shoots, the fact that I have breasts interpreted as an invitation to grope, the notion that only stranger rape is "real" rape, facebook pages dedicated to rape (and described as humour to evade the censors).

That's what it means to me. You can call it a cop out if you like, but the website doesn't call it a manifesto. I consider random acts of dancing in the street a refusal to act according to the status quo (and I think edhistory's response on this thread backs me up).

I don't think buddug has suggested brandnewguy is somehow pro-rape. And neither did she (I think she's a she) call you a troll, Huguenot - there was a suggestion that you were behaving like one, which isn't exactly the same thing.

[buddug]

Rosie, I am a she and I couldn't have put it better, especially your fifth paragraph, which describes the status quo in this case brilliantly I think. I didn't bother trying to explain it to Huguenot as I felt he was being deliberately contrary as it isn't, as I said before, rocket science. And your point about edhistory's response to something out of his comfort zone is a good one.

I suppose, really, the refusal is just one big NO! It's finally showing men who act this way - through the publicity VDay and suchlike creates - that the majority of people in the world, men and women, believe violence against women is wrong, especially those in countries where it's the norm and there's hardly any legislation against it, or if there is it isn't actually used.

This message has never been put out before, amazing as that seems. It's similar to how slave owners were finally shamed into not colluding with slavery, which eventually led to a change in public opinion at large and finally legislation which brought a stop to it - legislation that was enacted in that case.

[Huguenot]

Okay, so it's been left deliberately vague - a dangerous recipe for factionalism perhaps?

Whilst I support the general theme, I'm not happy offering blanket endorsement for an organisation whose goals and strategies are so unclear.

For example, there was a campaign calling for life terms for rapists in India. It overlooked the fact that leaving a victim alive after a rape significantly increased the chance of capture, and if the penalties for rape and murder were the same then the rapist may as well murder the victim to increase the odds of getting away with it.

I had a problem with a similar organisation that I signed up to called 'Sum Of Us', which pursued worthwhile campaigns against corporate abuse. The problem is that they used my membership as evidence of support for stupid affiliated campaigns such as those against GM food.

Same thing with Greenpeace too - they need to be more specific about exactly what endorsement they are seeking.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you buddug that this message has never been put out before. It's been a persistent issue since I became politically aware.

[buddug]

But most people, sadly Huguenot, are not politically aware, especially in some of these countries where things are really hard for many women. But if the TV and newspapers keep showing protest events on this subject from around the world the message may eventually sink in. It's worth a try.

As to organisations whose goals and strategies are unclear, just look at our three main political parties at the moment!

[RosieH]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Okay, so it's been left deliberately vague - a

> dangerous recipe for factionalism perhaps?

Yes, the UN and all those other crazy man-hating factionalists. They're cooking up a witches' brew and no mistake.

This is a specious argument, and again, I suspect you're playing devil's advocate. However...

One billion rising is a campaign from V Day, an organisation that describes itself as "a global movement to end violence against women and girls".

Simple, straightforward, readily understood and nothing to argue with here.

[buddug]

Absolutely.

[Atticus]

6th form bullying at its best by usual suspects, pushing people into corners over petty semantics. get a grip, the fundamentals here are correct even if not articulated to standards demanded by forum's 'well read'

[hpsaucey]

a big hurrah for sense, perceptiveness and civility from rosie, atticus and buddog. Long may this thread continue in the same vein...

[buddug]

Atticus, great insight. And thanks hpsaucey and Rosie - it was good to have a bit of support there! I'm off to watch some rubbish on the box! I'm exhausted! (sorry about edit!)

[edhistory]

buddug Wrote:

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

> I'm a former sub-editor

Then you will know the difference between an immediate edit to make a correction or improve clarity and an edit made later to change the content of a post that someone has already replied to.

Do you not?

John K

Edited in deference to our sub-editor:

1) to remove an exaggeration for effect

2) to correct a fat finger

3) to expand a contraction

Edited again to correct a new fat finger.

[Atticus]

ED History, what are your views on the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?

[edhistory]

I have seen some of the Norwich background paperwork as my son is one of the civil engineers who worked on this.

It looked to be a reasonable compromise, but I'm not qualified to judge as I don't use it.

I do use the Goose Green roundabout.

John K

Edited to insert correct pronoun before our sub-editor spots my error.

[RosieH]

I refuse to have sex with Status Quo until I've seen an end to rape culture.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.shakenstir.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/quo1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.shakenstir.co.uk/index.php/2010/02/?paged%3D4&h=194&w=259&sz=1&tbnid=7rADuUIiwrJsmM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=151&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dstatus%2Bquo%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=status+quo&usg=__Or5b86LkJ5KXI7iSb5Xyij3JmOw=&docid=Gylz0NBnfqzHMM&itg=1&sa=X&ei=DlshUd7sJOaG4gSbkIGADw&ved=0CMABEPwdMAs

[buddug]

http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/CBSS/smileyvault-cute-big-smiley-static-001.jpg

[buddug]

edhistory posted:

"Then you will know the difference between an immediate edit to make a correction or improve clarity and an edit made hours later to change the content of a post that someone has already relpied to.

Don't you?

John K"

John, if you care to look back, the longest time between one of my original posts and an edit was 35 minutes (between 12.19 and 12.54). I am most surprised and disappointed at your error. You are normally so precise.

You've let yourself down badly John. Very badly.

And by the way, it should be 'Won't you?'

and 'replied'...

(just thought I'd throw in a few more edits before I go)

[edhistory]

Thank you, buddug.

I have partially implemented your sub-editorial suggestions.

Now, what is your considered view on the safety aspects of the event?

John K

[Stresshead]

Can I just have a link to the video please so I can see what I missed ?!

[edhistory]

If the video is made available again it will be interesting to see if it has been edited to remove the final sequences.

John K