Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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!

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 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.

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.

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)

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

    • Eh? That wasn't "my quote"! If you look at your post above,it is clearly a quote by Rockets! None of us have any  idea what a Corbyn led government during Covid would have been like. But do you seriously think it would have been worse than Johnson's self-serving performance? What you say about the swing of seats away from Labour in 2019 is true. But you have missed my point completely. The fact that Labour under Corbyn got more than ten million votes does not mean that Corbyn was "unelectable", does it? The present electoral system is bonkers, which is why a change is apparently on the cards. Anyway, it is pointless discussing this, because we are going round in circles. As for McCluskey, whatever the truth of that report, I can't see what it has to do with Corbyn?
    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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