Women's liberation is now complete?

These are interesting indeed.

It seems that the main aim of the programmes is to encourage people to take action when they witness something like this, and it is very heartening to see that it is still true that if one person intervenes they will find support from other witnesses.

Less enouraging is the apparent conflation of different motivations, and I also found it sad that so many did not engage - although that seemed to be worst for the female on male violence, the numbers for the other situations were not a whole lot better. I would have liked the numbers to be clearer, rather than having to be picked out from the body of the films, but if I got it right the maximum seemed to be 20% for the scenes in the park. I wondered if that was just primary intervention, or if it included those who got involved once someone else had stepped in. We can't all be heroes, but we can maybe be sidekicks for heroes. The important element there seems to be whether we have confidence in the shared values of our society vis-a-vis violence because it is a lot harder to step up if you think you will remain a lone challenger.

As to your last comment: the motivation there seems to be separate. They seem to be saying they resent being placed in an awkward position where they have to take some responsibility for whatever they decide to do. Domestic violence as a social faux pas?

There is a row here about a university online "lad mag" which published some "jokes" about rape. They said they were jokes: and they were "jokes" which would not have been out of place in the 1950's. An example of a "joke": it said that since the majority of rapes go unreported that made for "pretty good odds" if your date refused sex

They were challenged on twitter and the first response was to ask if the challenger was a dyke: then to say it was political correctness gone mad; followed by the "you have no sense of humour" defence and questioning the sexuality of male opponents. Eventually they apologised and took it down.

It is amazing to me that anyone can suggest we have made a lot of progress. What is funny about that? I am asked to believe that it is knowing and ironic and all of that. Poppycock. It is mere sexism with the attendant reliance on the threat of violence as a casual and common phenomenon. Or "male bonding" if you prefer.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/0...t-sofie-peeters

Lest we think that sexism is less direct or less troublesome than it used to be

I had missed the incident with Russel Brand cos I am not very interested in celebrities or in films. It was drawn to my attention today and it is interesting that the only mainstream newspaper I can find which reported it was "The Sun".

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showb...obs-at-him.html

What is alleged to have happened is that Mr Brand delayed filming for two hours, because he wanted a wardrobe worker to show him her tits, and he wouldn't do his job until she did. It is my understanding that Brand was at his work, and I think that if anyone at my work had done this they would have been sacked. Apparently the woman complied because it was clear that they weren't going to get any work done if she didn't: after two hours!

Billy Connolly is working on the same film and is reported to have given Mr Brand a row: but is said to have been the only person who took a stand.

The report is interesting in its use of language. Mr Brand's demand is described as "cheeky". It is claimed it was "a bit of fun". It is noted that the poor lamb has had " a stint in sex rehab" (does that imply he can't help abusing his wealth and position? ). He is described as a "charming scoundrel" and we are assured that after a row with Mr Connolly " he settled down and gave a great performance and filmed the scenes like a consummate professional.” So that is all right, then?

Interesting use of language in describing the woman's behaviour too.



So I guess no doesn't really mean no, then? She probably just wanted to be coaxed......

How could this happen? Two hours? It was in his dressing room....nobody came to see what the hold up was? Nobody knew what was going on?

Maybe none of this happened. It does not seem to have been denied, however. Perhaps Mr Brand thinks it is in line with his persona and can do him no harm? Maybe the film makers think all publicity is good publicity?

If this is as reported then this is not a loveable rogue: this is a scumbag.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/...-rupert-murdoch

Recently Mr Brand has been making a bit of a stir here because he is attacking the state of our politics and our media. I like a great deal of what he has had to say and I like the fact that he has a platform to say it.

But I did think it was a little ironic that in this linked piece he addresses the use of language, because it was a part of what I objected to in the preceding post

Mr Brand is very far from stupid. I am glad he has taken a position like this, and although some of his past behaviour is indefensible, from my point of view, I agree with him that it does less damage than those who report on him are wont to do.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/up...3/photo-63t.jpg

I am given to understand that this is a page from "The Sun" "newspaper which was published in England but not in the Scottish edition.

The woman in the picture is the First Minister of Scotland, and there is no chance whatsoever that she posed for it.

I don't even know where to start.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06c0cj9

Marcus Brigstock on being a woman. Don't know how long this will be up, but I think it is funny

http://qz.com/521734/watch-what-happens-wh...ut-of-politics/

This is quite stark

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/1341190-thousa...logger-roosh-v/

The title of this thread is wrong. It should read " Women's liberation is wrong and must be reversed"

One RooshV openly promotes the legalisation of rape, ostensibly as a means of eradicating it. Go figure. Apparently, according to him, my body is worth less to me than my purse, and if I knew that rape was legal I would make sure I take as much care of it as I do of my handbag. Course stealing handbags is a lot less common than rape, so his case is unanswerable. Which is fortunate, because he is holding a meeting in Glasgow this week, and he has advised that any woman who turns up will be sorry: he will make sure she is, personally.

For some reason this is not being treated as hate speech or intimidation, so far. His plans are not officially challenged, nor his rally banned. Which is odd, since far less scary things are routinely prohibited here.

The meetings are not confined to Glasgow or the UK. He claims that it is like a day of action, replicated in other towns and countries all on the same day. Apparently the venue is a secret because men are frightened to attend. We are not told what the risk is, but it is rich that he claims women think they are "delicate flowers" just because we do not think it is ok to violently assault us if we choose to go outside.

Presumably he will shortly campaign to legalise GBH and murder, with a view to eradicating those crimes too.

Update

http://www.buzzfeed.com/robstott/these-leg...-the#.abl34z7M9

Edited by FionaK - 4/2/2016, 09:01

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1...curriculum.html

Frank Field is a labour party politician who is held up as an expert on poverty and welfare, but is in fact a nutter of the tory variety. He never changes his spots but he has excelled himself in the linked article, which is in the telegraph. That alone says a lot, for the telegraph is a right wing rag with pretensions to being a serious newspaper.

Essentially Frank Field reckons the best way out of poverty for women is to marry money.

"You need to find a partner who can and will work. No one underestimates the difficulty of finding such a partner, particularly if you are a young woman." It is nice that he says he understands the problem. Only it is not the problem, it is his particular reactionary fantasy. No mention at all of his own governments contribution to rising unemployment: no mention of policy decisions which ensure that outcome, though there is a sop to the idea that the rise in unemployment was an inevitable consequence of north sea oil. A rather curious rewriting of history, given that it is generally seen as helpful to find oil, in terms of the economy.

This man is batshit, but that is not news. His idea that one should teach children to marry for money as their only way out of poverty is more than batshit. It is nasty, insulting, and smuggles in more insults to both sexes than you could shake a stick at.