Posts by Danielle
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Friday Music: Big Day Out, Out, in reply to Russell Brown,
this is not my experience at all
Yeah, the munter BDO was the Metallica-headlining one, but that wasn't its general vibe every year. (Also, that was the BDO at which I spotted a woman with the arm tattoo of the heads of *all* the members of INXS, so it was clearly a bit of a winner.)
-
I approached my MP about my husband's residency application in 2002. No one tapped me on the shoulder for a donation afterwards.
-
I just want to second Geoff’s recommendation of Sabroso in Rotorua. If you like Latin American food it’s actually worth driving a bit out of your way if you’re on some sort of North Island road trip. (We may have arranged trips to Rotorua based on whether or not they would be open that day. Ahem.)
ETA: I mean, look! http://www.sabroso.co.nz/food.html Who wouldn’t want to eat there?
-
Up Front: Dropping the A-Bomb, in reply to Hilary Stace,
TBH, Hilary, I’m beginning to feel a bit like a bad person for being hypothetically conflicted about raising a disabled child. ;)
-
I... no. That was not what I was suggesting. At all. In any way. Obviously.
-
Those screens aren't just for disability, though. They're also for abnormalities which mean the foetus isn't viable and will inevitably die, either eventually within the womb or very soon after being born. So it's not *totally* a question of the lack of social value of disabled people: it might also be a question of not letting parents suffer quite so much.
-
I’d agree the point could have been made in a way that seems less offensive
I think anyone who has the brass neck to tell a woman she needs to "reflect" on her insufficiently "profound" (for want of a better word) argument for being pro-choice is... probably going to come up against some resistance. Shall we say.
-
Up Front: Dropping the A-Bomb, in reply to blindjackdog,
It’s pretty astonishing that you simply assume that there’s a self-evident hierarchy of interests here, coming down on the side of the individual woman. Doesn’t that make you reflect on the levels of your own acculturation, even a little bit?
Here's what I think is pretty astonishing: that this is the approach you've taken in responding to my post. Do you think this is a winning strategy? Informing women who are trying to assert their own bodily autonomy that their choices are probably a corrupt product of neo-liberal false consciousness? (Hint: it's not.)
Choice and free will are corrupted by social structures and circumstance. No one would deny that. But you improve the likelihood of informed and uncorrupted choice by improving those social structures, not by wittering on about how if ladies would only think about their *responsibilities* to the *species*, they'd totally be up for diversifying it.
Fun factoid: 15 percent of women carrying a foetus to term have potentially life-threatening complications. I'm one of them: I nearly died twice to have my two children. Doesn't that make the hierarchy of interests *terribly* self-evident? Terribly immediate? Doesn't it make the question of whether any individual woman is appropriately questioning her own level of acculturation rather... insulting?
-
Up Front: Dropping the A-Bomb, in reply to Hilary Stace,
But if you're going to be an advocate for a specific impaired foetus I think you enter a really tricky area. No matter how laudable a goal a more diverse society is, you're still interfering with the choice of an individual woman. Wouldn't it be better to deal with this issue - like the others Emma discusses - before the focus is narrowed down to one woman and one foetus?
-
I greatly prefer his satirical work.
Oof. Yeah, I reckon he's going to want to take that one back.