Posts by Gee
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
So, so, so, so, so WRONG! So incredibly unfair and, well, just FREAKING WRONG!
I really don't know what to say except that I really hope you and Jen can get them to go the right way on this. Also, I hear Close Up and Campbell Live are still looking for people to tell their stories.... Who can we yell to/at loudly for you???
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Joanna,
In very simple terms Megan’s observation of signs in Samoa that say “rape is wrong” feels like the right approach to me.
- See, I think that's too simple an approach for New Zealand culture. People know rape is wrong, because that's the thing that happens to women in dark alleys and is done by strangers with knives or guns. No one I know would ever rape anyone.
Maybe it's both at the same time? A column in
Stuff today (__may be triggering__) kind of illustrates this....The rape charges on Strauss-Kahn aren't the focus of this column, yet it seems to read like this therapist-writer is calling sexual predators and attempted rapists "men behaving badly", as a consequence of "not retaining close relationships". The implied excuse/victim-blaming surely wasn't the author's intention.... but it's still there. But as a qualified family/marriage therapist, he'd have to have been educated regarding the realities of rape, in all it's many forms, wouldn't he? (At least, I really hope he would've been.)
Changing a culture, however, is about understanding, I think, rather than legislation. The most important thing to do would be to change the way ordinary people think about sexual assault.
This discussion has made me re-evaluate everything that I say and that is said around me in terms of "am I standing by and allowing this set of myths to perpetuate"? Reading the column from the Dom Post with this discussion in mind has really forced me to think more about how "ordinary people think about sexual assault"... I guess I'm trying to say thank you to all of you for the earnest discussion.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Jackie Clark,
There was one occasion, however, when I wasn't at all keen, in the slightest, and despite saying no the once, I understood that I wasn't going to get listened to, I just lay there, really. It wasn't rough but I explicitly remember thinking "I don't want this". I have always felt uncomfortable using the term "rape" for what happened.
This is where the 'no one will believe me' comes in, and ties into what Heather said above:
a person has said 'no' once but has (and these *are* scare-quotes, not trolling) "given in"** to either verbal or physical attack when they ignored the denial of consent. But it's amazing how many people would counter that this "giving in" is quote-unquote "consent". At which point they no longer consider the person a victim... Maybe that's why it's not easy for us to call this kind of situation rape? Because we've been guilted and/or indoctrinated to believe we "should fight harder" to "avoid" rape?** For clarity: There is absolutely no way I consider this 'giving in'. Sexual acts are still rape when one or more person doesn't want to. ALWAYS.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Dave Patrick,
Thanks for sharing that.
Thanks to Emma for talking about this more. My city's Slutwalk was two days ago, and I missed it, *because there was no publicity*. Hope you get a giant crowd.
-
Southerly: One Hundred and Thirty-one…, in reply to Biobbs,
Someone upthread said 'let's Denmarkise New Zealand' and while that is definitely something we *don't* want to do (there are some seriously fucked up things about Denmark), in urban planning it's hard to deny they've got it right.
Agreed. But if we could 'Denmarkise' our penal system as well as our urban planning that would be a brilliant thing....
It's also interesting to consider that compulsory classes in Danish high schools cover urban planning for at least one module.... (or at least they did in the 1990s).
-
Southerly: One Hundred and Thirty-one…, in reply to Maz,
Helmet safety is a myth, and hi-viz clothing isn't much better. It is all about awareness. The number of times I've been hit by motorists, who then burst out, "ooh, I didn't see you" (while I was wearing flouro orange and three flashing lights) is staggering.
And Lilith:
I think most accidents occur when motorists simply haven't seen a cyclist.I was saved by my helmet when I got hit by a right-turning car, threw my head into the driver's door, and bounced it back onto/off the asphalt as I fell. Of course, her words were "I didn't see you" (followed by asking if we could go halves on my extensive bike repairs). 'Saved' as in I only had moderate concussion rather than severe or worse.
It's amazing how "I didn't bother looking for anything but cars in my path" translates into "I didn't see you". Road safety, road rules. 'Nuff said. I'll keep wearing my (new!) helmet regardless. Bring on those cycle paths! -
Another sterling set of calculations. What's the chance of you presenting this to the Council &/or CERA?
-
Thanks for a very clearly explained costing, David. But thanks especially for expelling the rumours.
To Shulgin:
I presume you've never lived in a city with a central pond/skate rink. I've lived in several. It's a fantastic way of bringing families into the centre of the city, rather than just business people and shoppers. And it would be a welcome lo-/no-cost winter activity in the city (and we need things like this to encourage some international students, visitors etc. back once the CBD is open again). That CERA is already thinking about how the city should be rebuilt for the citizens should be considered a huge step towards redevelopment, should it not? Cantabrians want a say in how the city is rebuilt, and the overwhelming response so far has been for a city that encourages pedestrians, visitors, shoppers etc. into the centre, in lieu of cars, carparks and concrete highrises. It seems Sutton is taking that on board.
As for a park along the river.... Christchurch already has those. What the people of Christchurch _need_ is a continued appreciation of the aesthetic of our city. We've marketed ourselves as a "Garden City" and as being "English" -- these labels have always reflected our riverside dwellings with their spacious and tree-filled fronts. The ideal of living in Christchurch for many is generally about living in or near such open, green suburbs while remaining close to the city centre. We have a fantastic lifestyle that many overcrowded cities can't offer. If we relocate large proportions of the city to the satellite towns, then the reason for living in Christchurch is gone. (And as another poster pointed out, mass relocation to e.g., Rolleston would incur similar infrastructure costs.) Abandoning the riverside suburbs is tantamount to abandoning the city as a place to live.Also, just a note on using Rolleston etc. as an example -- I'm sure most people on this forum and elsewhere are not employing a "tone" regarding the _place_ itself so much as the _idea_ of wholesale relocation so far from the city. No offence intended.