Posts by Cecelia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I have just watched Michelle Obama's speech (YouTube I love you) and I can see its political good sense but have a niggly sense of unease.
Yes I want Obama to win but wouldn't it be nice to have a speech that wasn't pandering to what Americans want - that doesn't have to tick the boxes, that could dare to be angry.
That "servicemen and women" bit gets me and the sentimental start and finish.
Imagine - if Helen Clark had kids - her daughter calling out to a video projection: "I love you Mommy!" Poor kids. If he wins, their life will never be the same again.
-
Poor Leanne. She should have been honest about her line of work to begin with... she would have had the ovarian fortitude to carry it off.
But if she had been truthful, the gorgeous Liam wouldn't have fallen for her!
It gave Janice a chance to take the moral high ground for once. But she didn't turf her out - she still loved her.
Someone at work had the temerity to say that Coro St was low culture today. Welllll!
-
But if all else fails, I damn hope this would sink in: "You're my child, and I love you ESPECIALLY when I vehemently disapprove of your choices. And if things turn to shit, you know where I am and, no matter how pissed off you make me, my door's always open."
Great words - I've just had a situation this weekend where I've had to support a child in a situation I disapprove of - your words remind me to bear with it without being judgemental! (It wasn't prostitution, but...)
Do any of you watch Coro St? It has been looking at the issue of sex working in its soapy way. Our Leanne has been working as a call girl to make money to get herself ahead.
-
I found this on wikipedia - looked it up as a response to Emma's reference to 3rd wave feminism. It clarifies so many things for me.
I wondered why some of the the university educated daughters of friends were teaching pole dancing and/or having big fancy weddings and all the things I'd thought were terribly tacky when I (sort of) went through what must be 2nd wave feminism in the 70s.
Also considered part of the third wave is sex-positivity, a celebration of sexuality as a positive aspect of life, with broader definitions of what sex means and what oppression and empowerment may mean in the context of sex. For example, many third-wave feminists have reconsidered oppositions to pornography and sex work of the second wave and challenge existing beliefs that participants in pornography and sex work can not be empowered.
And Craig if you're there, I wasn't being an old fogey when I said "Is this what the suffragettes lay down their life for?" I was trying to be facetious. There was a line from Wilfred Owen ringing in my head when I looked at Lisa Lewis et al: "Was it for this the clay grew tall?"
-
<quote>some alternative views of pornography, if anyone is interested.<quote>
Yes that was interesting. And thanks to Emma I have found out why younger women defend porn and pole dancing - it's called third wave feminism and I didn't even know about it! Good old wikipedia gave me a bit of an idea and I've got some research/reading to do in the weekend.
But whatever the third wave says, I can't see how http://www.stuff.co.nz/4661598a11.html adds much to society. Was it for this the suffragettes lay down their lives?
-
And pole dancing empowers women? (Came up in discussion of boobs on bikes at work today - us oldies who witnessed the 70s are a bit confused.)
-
I think your local dairy is pretty crappy, or you're not look up the top of the magazine shelf.
South of the Bombays we are dreadfully morally superior.
But breast, on their own attached to the chest of a woman on the back of a motorcycle are not pornographic, regardless of the occupation of their owner.
From Oxford University Press Political Dictionary "Female pornography is seen by feminists as a mode of oppression and exercise of power by the stronger sex. The woman's body is sexualized and various parts of her anatomy are used to provide pleasure to the male gaze. Pornography entails sexual exploitation and male violence."
If those gals sitting astride the bikes with little pants on and boots and bare boobs ain't "sexualised" and geared to "provide pleasure to the male gaze" I'll eat my hat:)
Okay - the "male violence" thing is OTT but I still sympathise with the feminist marchers because Boobs on Bikes DOES objectify women. someone on Nat Rad said Crowe was a "pimp". Hmmmm.
-
Indeed - I feel very little call to "protect" my children from the things their eyes first focussed upon
But this is not a group of ordinary women going around topless. It's not a group of breast feeding mothers marching for their rights. Don't the bare boobs belong to women who work for erotica/porn maker Crow? Isn't that a heck of a difference?
It's not the boobs, it's what they're doing with them.
The knowledge that if we stay within the boundaries of the law we do not have to fear arbitrary action against us by authority because they think we're "morally wrong"?
Our society regards racism as morally wrong and I think a pro-white skinhead march would be banned. Isn't the same principal involved?
I thought that our society tolerated pornography as long as it wasn't flaunted in the full light of day. You don't see dairies or bookshops flaunting their dirty mags - mostly we don't have to face up to in your face porn. (I think the way we are geared to see the women on those bikes is pornographic - might be wrong.)
-
As an old person who grew up in Auckland, I'm really surprised that the parade is legal. Blocking the main street of the biggest city for a pornographic parade - how can that be defensible?
The women are not just baring their breasts but titillating the crowd with their overall get-up - the knickers, the bikes etc.
If all the bikes are driven by men and the women are passengers, isn't that terribly demeaning to women? And aren't a lot of the women porn stars - not exactly good role models to any youngsters out there.
And isn't Queen Street a public place where we should have the freedom to walk and drive without being confronted by this abomination?
And how could Hamilton ban the boobies (police - no fuss) while Auckland made such a meal of it.
I fail to see this as a freedom of speech issue. Some things are - yes - but this is like showing adult material during kids' primetime. I think arguing that the council can't ban an advert for a porn exhibition is just plain silly.
-
But why Joanne Black on Media 7?
Yeah, when my eye sees her page - which I don't read - my heart feels that someone's stolen my Listener.
I know I have to get over it - I'm searching for meaning on the internet - curling up with a mag is no longer as satisfying ...