Friends I hadn't seen for 30 years - we were at college together in Glen Innes - were discussing this last night. There are families with decades worth of entrenched abusive behaviour they are passing on to each generation. Some people escape, or were protected from it in various ways. Grand-dad abused all his kids and a lot of the cousins, but dad would *never* let his kids be unsupervised with his father.
So, there was the agency - the dad's refusal to act as his father did. But that doesn't mitigate from the actual family culture, and the fact that some of the uncles became abusers, and the fact that grand-dad is talked about in whispers, and not dragged to the cop shop.
So yes, individual agency, but I'm glad I'm not the only one to wonder at Tamihere family culture, and the different ways in which contempt for women and/or those more vulnerable than themselves may be manifesting.
Uh, are you being sarcastic, or is this yet another theoretical exercise, which seems to be the default stance of some people in this thread?
I don't know the current standard of law when it comes to consent, but logically thinking - and no matter how many young men a young woman chooses to get intoxicated with - consent pretty much stops happening when the person concerned is too impaired to actually, you know, consent.
If the response to the suggestion of group sex is anything unlike "Yes, please!", then it's not consent.
If an averagely-mobile person is unable to speak or walk properly, or they are unconscious or semi-conscious (yes, that includes someone "sleeping it off", then no, it's not consent.
If anyone can show me an example of what appears to be "buyer's remorse" - or a situation where there could be reasonable doubt - actually making it as far as a courtroom, I'd be fascinated.
Because its prevalence is nowhere near as common as some of those indulging in intellectual exercises here seem to think - women will generally default to blaming themselves first in a situation where consent was "hazy" (a friend continues to blame herself for her assault when she was passed out on a couch). To get as far as actually making a complaint to police is a big step up from "embarrassed about sex with uncool dude" scenarios.
The fact these young women weren't "brave enough" (FFS!!) to come forward is fairly likely due to the cultural bullshit about what consent actually means, and the perception that sexual assault is about strangers in alleyways, not "friends" who deliberately get you drunk so you can't say no.
what humour is acceptable?
If you can't think of ways to satirise or point out someone's stupidities other than making fun of their name or how they look, perhaps you need to think about exactly what it is you're trying to mock.
Because "you look funny and you smell" kind of lost any pretensions of being incisive humour when I was about nine.
[in response to Jackie]
Yes, I've been really fortunate that some people who've had that conversation with me have been really skilled at it. And that goes the range from "I can't really handle this right now" to "it's time to get your head out of your arse".
...Thinking more, it seems to be a skill I select partners for. Hopefully I'll acquire it myself one day.
The "ring theory" when I first read about it, felt like a really good codification of stuff that I was trying to implement in my own life. Vent outwards, not inwards.
I fall down majorly when it comes to the advice-giving thing. Unfortunately, my job is about troubleshooting and figuring shit out, so if someone starts talking about a problem to me, no prizes for guessing what my first response is. At least as I get older, I am more aware of how patronising that can be. It's an ongoing "learning experience", let's just say.
Another aspect, though, is my own personal limits. If someone seems to be stuck in constant rut of Problem X, from the fairly routine through to the quite serious, and my own reserves are low, there very much is a limit to how much I can listen to someone's tale of woe without feeling overburdened myself. I think one of the mechanisms of advice-giving - for me at my weaker times, and kind of independent of the troubleshooting tendency - is that if my empathy circuits are overloaded, advice-giving can be a means of trying to show that I care, even if I can't give them what it is they're really asking for.
While I actually know it's not productive, the conundrum of gracefully saying to someone who is seriously and genuinely struggling, "look, I actually have my own [less serious, perhaps] crap to contend with, and I feel like more and more is being dumped on me by you right now", while indicating that I actually still fundamentally care, is not one I've solved yet. Advice welcome. Heh.
No, because you don't pronounce those as "us" and "uke". You speak the individual letters, therefore "UK" and "US" are still appropriate. And even that's comparatively recent usage. Remember when it was U.S.A.?
All caps these days pretty much implies each letter is pronounced separately. And yes, of course there are variations to the "rule". It's English after all, and names for things, so if you want to style yourself as MARTIN, pronounced "Martin", fine by me. :-)
Because I’ve got all day.
All weekend too.
Damnit, late to the party again. *Stands forlornly with scones, crochet hooks, rope and carabiners*
Whelp, since I'm in a slightly different timezone, I can help cover the night shift.
(Who has read Dworkin, but who really does prefer others, for feminist writers of the Second Wave. But who appreciates her role in constructing ideas and food for thought (to argue against, mostly, but at least from knowledge)).
PS. I haven't piped up earlier, because my PAS reading has been spotty this week. And to be frank, I don't give a fuck about politicians fucking, unless it's exploitative, hypocritical (i.e. gay fundamentalist pastors fulminating against sodomy) or impedes their ability to do their jobs. I only got halfway thru the original article on the bus this morning, let alone the comments - not so much "invisible" as MIA.
Thank god that part of NZ is over.
Oh yeah. Never really got any 80s nostalgia that goes around periodically, except for some (certainly not all or even most) of the music.
This extends to those who get all nostalgic about demos, and the relative lack of people on streets these days - things were so shit in so many ways back then that there was a lot more impetus to get on those streets.
On another note, regarding the "triggering" thing, I personally find the term one of those slightly wishy-washy words that isn't as helpful as it could be.
Firstly, you can't cover all potential triggers - me, I get triggered when people talk about kids reading under the bed covers. But I think we all accept that there won't be absolute emotional safety in what we read or hear.
What I'd rather is if people just briefly highlighted what topics are mentioned that are of the often-triggering type. And leave out the word "trigger", because it actually adds nothing in that instance.
Also, some things affect us less than others - I don't want to look at graphic pictures of animal abuse, but I might want to read the news story about a sexual assault. The words "trigger warning" alone give no context. Often they are qualified, but then that seems redundant.
So, "Bob Jones opines ignorantly on sexual assault case". "Article on animal cruelty/puppy farming (graphic description, photos)." "News report on child abuse case", Etc etc. That approach works really well, I find.
In that way, it's not relying on some phase that is in most common use in particular corners of the internet (ones I frequent too, as it happens). I'm all about using non-jargon terms (as it still is) when plain English really isn't overly cumbersome in this instance.