I have also been told off for "speaking for all women". By men.
Has anyone objected on the grounds that it's appropriation? You just can't know what it's like to be a woman merely by riding a bike...
Oh dear gods yes.
I’d tweet it but you might not get it in all the viral popularity.
Thanks, Jessica. The thing that gets me the most about the response (because once the abuse gets to a certain level I just can't take it seriously any more) is that there IS lovely stuff in there, and I'm not getting to see it.
Just to note that I forgot to mention the weirdest reply I saw to this tweet. I got a sound telling off from a feminist for denigrating the bicycle, which had been such a boon for women.
I... got nothing.
As far as remembering something as a news story goes, it was Erebus. But I vividly remember the day Elvis died, because the woman from downstairs came up to see Mum in absolute floods of tears and I was very confused.
Though I take the point that it's often actually used as a block, "I don't need to know about it" is at least on the continuum through "it's none of my business" to the realisation "I don't get to have an opinion about it".
The thing about "I don't need to know about it" is that often it means "please don't interfere with my assumption that you are [default]". If people were assuming ignorance and coding everyone neutral, that would at least be better. But they're not. It's like saying "I don't see colour" when what you mean is "Wherever at all possible I will assume everyone is white". Not talking about it leads to ignoring and erasing diversity.
For those who haven't seen it:" http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/same-sex-marriage-results-ssm/9145636 62% in favour of more marraige equality, but 30% in my electorate. Ow!
Dude, you need to move. But yeah, the overall result for NSW kind of boggled me. That's a hell of a split between Sydney and... everywhere else?
I really don’t see any evidence more civics education is needed.
Rebuttal: Two minutes reading Stuff comments.
Further rebuttal: two weeks working in a polling booth. My son voted for the first time this year, and had no idea what to do or what the votes were for until I sat him down and explained it. Clearly nobody had done this for all the people furious and confused that they couldn't vote for Prime Minister.
If I'm reading this correctly, does it mean that if people were successfully enrolled at the previous election, and remain at the same address or in the same electorate, they should still be allowed to vote (from the dormant roll) if they show up to a polling booth at the next election? ie. Being removed from the main roll because an EasyVote card was returned-to-sender shouldn't make a difference. (60(c) states that any person who's qualified to be registered in a district, and was successfully enrolled "in that district", is allowed to vote.
They're not on the printed roll. Anyone who's not on the printed roll has to cast a special vote. So if they don't get shitty and walk out of the polling booth (we can't tell them why they're not on the printed roll, because we don't know), then they cast a special, and in the apparently far too long and drawn out process of counting the specials*, if they're on the dormant roll, that'll be picked up.
* (But whhhhhyyyyy does it take so long to count the specials? Because it fucking does, all right?)
Seems a very bad idea to just automatically unenrol folks where those forms are marked 'Return to Sender' - why not wait to see if they turn up to vote and then initiate a change of address?.
Well, at the moment, if you don't, then you send their EasyVote cards to an address you know they're not at, basically giving their cards to someone else. And they have the whole of the advance voting period to come in and cast a valid vote.