Posts by Danielle
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
If every man stopped the first time a woman said "no", the world would be a much less exciting place to live".
Head. Desk.
I had blocked that out, but now the memory is back. Sigh.
-
I can't be bothered to go on, but really would that be fine?
Well, it would be if Angus was wearing a low-cut top. ;)
-
Hope I'm not one of the three because of my views on nails and heels.
No! :) I do struggle with some of those 'beauty' things myself, because I know impossibly Photoshopped people (for example) are bound to make some less media-savvy young women feel like shit. It's difficult and complex stuff.
-
those who would like to assume a lady's virtue to be unquestionable
Oh. ALSO. I might have happily fucked an entire provincial rugby team the night before, but if I turn you down the next night, tough shit. 'Virtue' has nothing to do with it.
-
You know, I totally get why feminist consciousness-raising was such a big deal in the early 70s. I'm finding it frustrating enough having women's experiences minimised, denied and ignored by about three people in this thread. Can you imagine what it was like to have a whole society telling you the same thing? It must have taken a lot of courage to keep talking about this stuff, over and over, until people really *heard* you. Thanks, second wave.
Prude is a word I used, because I do not have the Craig-ist gift for enunciating sentiment. Does evoke the 60s sitcom, for sure.
I used 'early 60s' to describe what you were saying because your attitude perfectly encapsulates what was happening during that period; the beginning of the sexual revolution was meant to be 'freeing' for women, but instead they were often insulted for not being 'free' enough (which basically just meant they wouldn't put out for everyone who asked. How astounding).
I'm not sure how many times we can tell you what happens to women in public, and then have you tell us we're imagining it, or brought it on ourselves, or are prudes, or are overreacting, or *whatever*, Angus. Are you ever going to actually hear us, or do we give up now?
-
Look. All I ever wanted was for people to stop making so many ads telling women what they should be afraid of (because believe me, we already know), and start making a few ads giving young chaps the heads-up on what constitutes harassment and what constitutes consent, and what constitutes full personhood (hint: I haz it no matter what I'm wearing). It's clearly not just psychopaths doing the harassing.
Here's an analogy: when Chris Brown beat up Rihanna, I remember reading a lot of scary articles about large proportions of high school students agreeing that 'she must have asked for it'. That isn't a group of damaged, evil folk - that's just high school kids, and they obviously aren't learning about how people should be interacting with each other. We could fix that, couldn't we?
-
But she hasn't been harrassed, she is just a prude.
Is it pleasant to exist in an early-1960s mindset? I imagine so.
-
if we're not careful, rapists are the new terrorosts which we should all hide from
So, let me get this straight. You're advocating that women 'act appropriately' (where 'appropriately' is yet to be defined) so they don't bear any 'responsibility' for being raped. I am most confused about how this is all going to pan out. Where on my chest is my top's neckline allowed to be before I bear responsibility for my attack? How long must my skirt be? How low should my heels be? What percentage of responsibility do I bear if my heels are higher than, say, 2cm? If I never leave the house again and wear retro Victorian garb, do I win a special prize for being modest enough?
You see how fucking stupid your argument is, right? If every woman acted demurely and never showed a single ankle, they would still be raped and harassed. It's not 'brave' to say what you're saying. It's not 'common sense'. It's the same tired old shit we've heard for centuries: putting responsibility for crime on women, because you think we're somehow in charge of policing people with penises.
(Also, team, I have bingo - the centre square was 'what feminists need to do is... [without actually knowing diddly about feminism]'. I hope I win a bottle of something alcoholic as a prize, which I can drink irresponsibly in public while wearing a low-cut top and high heels.)
-
In these circumstanmces, it's ridiculous (and naive) to say the victim bears absolutely no responsibility.
Please, do not tell me you just said that.
<looks again>
Oh dear: you *did* just say that.
There are plenty of feminist theorists I could point you to which thoroughly debunk this crap, but I imagine that you're not particularly open to digesting their ideas.
I should note that as a *human being*, I never bear responsibility for someone else attacking me physically. The person doing the attacking is the responsible party. That's how it works.
-
And back to Teddy Kennedy for a moment
Oh dear, serial posting. But I love feminism, shoez and the weird world of American politics, so this is like The Ultimate Thread. Anyway, I thought I'd note that the American consulate in Auckland is flying its stars and stripes at half-mast today. Aww.