Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible Demure Lady Stroll
457 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 19 Newer→ Last
-
Just a wee aside to thank whoever suggested Mendeley... it's great. I've spent a bit of the afternoon figuring out Endnote first, then Mendeley, and well, Mendely looks promising. Thankyou.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
My point is why do representatives of the state acknowledge any of these cults by attending their events?
Sure, but it's also important to recognise the vast difference between some of the cults.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Lockwood Smith makes up more "rules" in the House than any other speaker has ever done, I believe.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
I disagree. A cult is a cult, from a state perspective. The only difference is whether you as an individual approve of how they operate, and that is entirely subjective.
-
recordari, in reply to
My point is why do representatives of the state acknowledge any of these cults by attending their events?
Votes. What other reason could there be? Moral turpentine?
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
A cult is a cult, from a state perspective. The only difference is whether you as an individual approve of how they operate, and that is entirely subjective.
Well, I'm no fan of the Dawkins line on religion - I think it's pretty bloody stupid to be honest. So-called rationalists have their own hang-ups, and political movements have their own irrational or quasi-irrational beliefs. Courting a religious group is no different from courting any other group of people that self-identifies according to a set of beliefs. But most religious groups also agitate politically, and it's the content of Destiny's political activity that ought to disqualify them I think.
-
James Butler, in reply to
Votes. What other reason could there be? Moral turpentine?
Exactly. I think the reasoning goes like this:
1) Even those with reprehensible views deserve representation in Parliament
2) As the <party name> Party, we are the best representation money can buy
3) ???
4) PLEASE VOTE FOR ME PLEASE!!!!!1!!! -
andin, in reply to
That’s a very scary thing to do i.e. to interrogate your own past behaviour.
Is this possible at more than the individual level? And maybe, come up with longer lasting solutions. But it makes me feel as if little has changed, the soup(society) we all swim in produces, with another generation, the same result.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Lockwood Smith makes up more “rules” in the House than any other speaker has ever done, I believe.
Really? There actually are dress standards in the Chamber, and if you like please make a case that they’re anachronistic or inconsistently applied but let’s not pretend the incumbent Speaker just pulled them out of his arse.
And you know something, considering what triggered Slutwalk in the first place I really don’t feel very comfortable drawing any equation between a poxy football jersey being ruled out of order in the debating chamber and women being told they’re asking to be raped if they dress “slutty.” (Or, for that matter, football hooligans kicking the shit out of you because you're wearing the wrong kit.)
-
I don't know, things like the SlutWalk seem to me to be making a contribution to that soup - a dash of lemon juice, perhaps. Making a loud public statement against the very commonly held idea that it's up to women to regulate their conduct to prevent rape gets people talking about the issue and uncovering their prejudices. Add some chili by discussing things men can do to prevent rape (like thinking again about what constitutes fair pursuit), and you've turned boring old chicken soup into tom yum.
-
andin, in reply to
Add some chili by discussing things men can do to prevent rape (like thinking again about what constitutes fair pursuit), and you’ve turned boring old chicken soup into tom yum.
Sounds good to me! So Akslutwalk then.
And did you see Campbell Live, extraordinary displays!
The smart one was keeping her mouth shut, letting the men do what men do...... -
Sacha, in reply to
inconsistently applied
differently demure, perhaps? (with pictures)
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
But it makes me feel as if little has changed, the soup(society) we all swim in produces, with another generation, the same result.
that would be the key for me, ensuring no next generation of mine does stupid shit he might regret.
doing us all a favour really.
-
Islander, in reply to
Kia ora - I truly hate the word "slut."
I am also one of a tiny unseen group - about 1.25% of humanity- tiny, but not unknown about. We are asexuals: we never seek sexual experience (normally.) And - going on my experience- we are often targeted by shitheads- because we are unavailable and rapist/fuckwits reguard that as a challenge- -
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
differently demure, perhaps? (with pictures)
That’s an entirely legitimate question. I’m still not sure anyone (least of all Claire Curran) would welcome me fronting up to the Chamber in my Dykes for Bush ’04 t-shirt. Then the again, we seem to have bullshit like this pop up with monotonous regularity. How hard would it be for the Speaker to sit down a reasonable cross-section of Parliamentary women and sort out something that's not so vague as to be damn near meaningless? (Someone might also like to to take Tony Ryall along to Kirks and pick out a half dozen ties that aren't "skull-fucked with a box of crayons" ugly. Really, bitch -- make an effort.)
-
In terms of things we can do, I have to think back to my teens, mainly, when I used to annoyingly referee the drinking games because there was one guy who used to rig then to get one young woman v drunk (not the same one each time). I'd point out his cheating and generally annoy him (and not really make any friends) until he gave up that ploy, at least when I was around. I didn't really understand what I was doing at the time; thinking about it now chills me a bit.
So I think about acknowledging our gut instincts; that when we think there is something not right we follow it up. Even when that's awkward and unpopular I guess. Give people an easy out - if they don't take it that's ok, you gave it a go. Maybe they'll know you're a safe person to go to if something goes wrong.
In terms of that looking back thing - it is hard. I was helping run an anti-date rape workshop in uni hostels one year when I suddenly realized that one of the scenarios we were discussing and naming, correctly, as rape, matched something one of my friends did to another one of my friends a couple of years previously. I was still friends with both of them., and they were still friends too. How could I call it rape when the victim didn't? But it was.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
waitaminute...is that an all whites shirt AND a pearl necklace?
now, i am not known for my fashion sense.
but i know i crime when i see one.
-
Also we can positively model consent. And communication. If we can teach people, especially our kids that actually talking about sex, actively seeking and giving consent, is the way to go about it, then theyhopefully start thinking about sex as something intrinsically and explicitly consensual.
-
Sacha, in reply to
not so vague
You're trying too hard. Nothing "vague" about it in this case. Adding a pearl necklace does not affect the fact that a netball top and a rugby top are both local sporting uniforms. Either both are allowable "standard business dress" for women MPs in the debating chamber or neither is. Though the class overtones of the Speaker's inconsistent treatment could prove interesting..
-
Now that we all seem to agree the obvious: that no woman contributes to her own rape by what she takes out of the wardrobe on a Friday night, we might want wonder about where we do draw the line on human responses.
Personally, I think we should cling to the right to think someone’s else’s dress – male or female – is tacky, tasteless or inappropriate, and perhaps even to say so to our companions. Jesus, we make small cultural judgements about each other every day – and may in turn be judged by what we say.
If I see a bunch of suits out on the town, their dress usually signals to me that they’re dorks before their behaviour does. And when I see drunk young women at the Viaduct falling over in their heels and handkerchief dresses (pick a Friday night, any Friday night), my response is always the same.
1. I’m amused by the spectacle.
2/ I hope someone’s looking out for them that evening.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
DELETED SO AS NOT TO OFFEND SACHA’S DELICATE SENSE OF RELEVANCE. AND, YES, I’M BEING PISSY UNTIL I CAN HAVE ANOTHER SLUG OF COUGH SYRUP.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
But most religious groups also agitate politically, and it’s the content of Destiny’s political activity that ought to disqualify them I think.
I wouldn’t even say “disqualify”, if you mean from having MPs attend. I just think that if an MP accepts an invitation such as in this case, they should either:
a) Make a point of challenging the organisation’s bigotry, as Metiria Turei said she would have in the Destiny Church case (if she’d received her invite), or;
b) At least own the fact that they agree with their bigotry. -
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Personally, I think we should cling to the right to think someone’s else’s dress – male or female – is tacky, tasteless or inappropriate, and perhaps even to say so to our companions.
And there's also a time to make sure that brain-mouth filter is in good working order. I may internally cringe every time I see a woman wearing hijab -- but I also need to STFU and respect the (presumed) agency and freedom of the women involved. It's very easy to be "tolerant" of people who look and think and behave the way you do; the real test of liberal values is being tolerant of those who don't.
-
Sacha, in reply to
because I know a woman who owns some vintage Donna Karan suits
eh? new heights of irrelevance I'm afraid
-
Sacha, in reply to
how much fucking effort does it take for Parliament to sort itself out?
What, like ruling consistently that sporting uniforms are not business dress? Not at all tricky for a half-competent Speaker.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.