Lordy, I am tremendously hungover today. I woke this morning and actually had a glimpse into how it must feel to be slowly dying. It's like someone has microwaved my brain and is slowly stirring it with a wooden spoon.
From last Sunday's paper, published 2/12/2007.
--------------------
Last week, it was revealed that a 15 year old girl had been detained in jail for one month in Brazil. Arrested on shady accusations of robbery (formal charges were never laid), the girl was thrown into a jail cell with more than 20 men, systematically gang raped and forced to exchange sex for food. She is the second woman to have endured such vile abuse at this particular prison.
Recently, a Saudi Arabian woman was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail after she and a male friend were gang raped by seven men. Her crime? Being in the presence of a man unrelated to her.
We hear stories like these and naturally rail against the injustice of it all. It suits us to think of such heinous crimes being committed elsewhere, because we can reflect on how different our own society is. Rape might happen here, but it's pretty rare...
Here's the reality. One of my female friends has been gang raped. One was raped by a friend. One has been assaulted three times. Three have been drugged. One was molested as a child.
And these are just the ones I know about.
Sadly, sexual violence against women in Australia is rife. Approximately 1 in 3 women will experience sexual assault in their lifetimes. Of these women, approximately 20% will report the crime. Of all sexual assaults, the majority are perpetrated by men and are known to the victims. Very few rape trials result in convictions. The increase in use of drugs like GHB and Rohypnol make it increasingly difficult to prove a rape has occurred.
'Date rape' is the new black. Victims are often lambasted in the public eye as she-devils who cry rape after they've changed their minds. Because 'date rape' often involves the breaking down of intimate barriers between perpetrator and victim, the implicit suggestion is 'you must have known what you were both there for'. Who can blame a guy for what happens next?
Listen up folks - a woman can get as naked as she likes with a man. She might want to do things with him that would make your grandparents blush. She may have done them already, with him and hundreds of others. None of that gives a man license to do any of it without her permission.
The misnomer 'date rape' is perhaps singlehandedly one of the most damaging terms to be associated with sexual violence. American activist Periel Aschenbrand has gone so far as to create a t-shirt featuring the slogan, "does DATE RAPE mean i also get dinner?"
Following recent changes to rape and sexual assault legislation in SA, people complained pedantically that we'd now need to record consent before getting jiggy with it. Boring!
But the purpose of the legislation was to ensure greater support and security for victims who are consistently questioned over both their sexual history and what measures they took to stop the rape from occurring. Sure, they didn't say yes exactly, but you know...their bodies did. And they've done it before! How's a guy to know?
To this I say the following: if (as defence lawyers regularly argue) a woman's body is so capable of demonstrating it wants to have sex without needing her mouth to say so, it is thus equally capable of demonstrating an emphatic aversion to the idea.
Without needing her mouth to say so.
The lesson here is simple. There's no such thing as 'date rape'. Only rape. Men, if you've ever had sex with a woman when she was nearly unconcious due to alcohol, if you've slipped her a drug to make her 'relax' then had sex with her, if you've pushed on when she says no simply because you 'couldn't' stop - if you've done anything of these things, you're guilty of rape.
Pure and simple.
-----------------------------
Sadly, I received a letter from a man who said that it was time women started taking responsibility for their own actions and stopped blaming men. What, for drugging them? Bad girls, drinking the drinks and being the sluts!
*heaves big sigh*
On the tail end of this comes this post on feministing today. Karen Verdito was raped 11 years ago by her boss, Jose Custodio, former president of the Davao City Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DCCCI). The court basically ruled that the rape couldn't have happened, because Verdito calls into the category of the 'unrapeable' woman. She's now taking her case to the UN.
In remembering the way she was treated throughout and following the trial, Karen recalls a heinous joke being told on the radio. Because laughing at rape is fun!
"Karen said that she remembered hearing one joke made by dzMM radio commentator Ted Failon who supposedly called the rape of a young woman as “Jalosjosism” (referring to former Zamboanga del Norte congressman Romeo Jalosjos who was convicted for the rape of an 11-year-old) and the rape of an old woman as “Custodioism.”
As sickening as it is to make jokes about rape, it is even more disgusting to somehow label the act based on its victims. The implication with Failon's crude and frankly appalling joke is that it is somehow more preferable to fall into the 'Jalosjosism' camp. After all, who wants to screw an old shrew?
In Karen's words:
“It could have been anybody else. But it landed on my lap -- pardon the pun. And I did not and will not back down until I see the light of justice. I fight for the young woman (Kai) who reads this to you now. I fight for her daughters, and her daughters’ daughters. I fight for you -- every one of you, and your daughters as well. I fight because I am given the opportunity to make this world more respectful of women,” she said.
Incredible.
Peace out (and spare a thought for all the countless women who have been victims of sexual violence. we can all do our part to try and make the world a more respectful and safer place for women and children.)
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Columns the thirde.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 apples:
To start with, rape is bad and all. Totally agree on that point.
Everyone, if you don't agree with anything audrey says ever. Post as anonymous. Other wise expect a public naming and shaming for daring to oppose the all powerful fembots.
I am referring to the Amanda Blair and Clementine Ford publicizing a private heated discussion between them and Graham Cornes. I don't agree with what he said, but he was defending his wife who was being attacked behind her back. If you are bagging a guys wife in a heated discussion you've got to expect him to get defensive and say things like this back.
Then you take what he said and QUOTE HIM ON AIR!!! That is such a heartless attempt at winning the point.
I used to respect Audrey, even though I didn't agree with everything she said. But not now, I have no time or patience for people like her and Amanda. I also was posting here under my first name. Not any more, I'm joining the anonymous hordes because I don't want my career destroyed by a public personal roasting.
Wow, take that Graham. I totally agree with anon. No more names on here in case she turns on me.
Audrey, how do you sleep? That was just wrong, you must have a really messed up moral compass.
Thank you Amanda and Clem, Hitler would be so proud.
Oh yeah, I forgot to say. Rape is wrong, don't rape.
Hitler? Ouch, take that Audrey. I don't think Hitler would like her views though. Her methods maybe, but not her views.
Oh I'm so disappointed based on the last few days I was hoping to click on the columns and read all about how women bring on rape themselves, but instead all these anonymice are telling me rape is bad. BOO.. that's no fun.
Now I didn't hear the radio story, but I can't help but feel, if your wife puts herself out in the public eye ala Mrs Cornes she does so without fear nor favour. If you then choose to defend her, expect your defense to also be open to such criticism. Sure its your wife, and you are open to defend her but you, as a high profile personality, which we must not forget Mr Cornes is, must expect your defense to also be open to fair criticism.
We aren't talking about people here with no media savvy. Mr and Mrs Cornes are hardly defenseless babes in the wood.
Personally, I think husbands and wifes should butt out of their respective partner's political dalliances. Nothing smacks of desperation more than having to pull your partner in to get you out of a jam. I don't pull the lovely Dark Lord in for my performance review so WHY would Graham do the same for Nicole.. or worse Caroline Pyne feel it necessary to write a letter (from one working women to another) on behalf of Christopher?
Surely their performances should speak for themselves? That's the cornerstone of democracy is it not?
As for the criticism on Audrey, with the proviso that I did not catch the story on the radio:
1) it was public comment on public figures;
2) it was NOT criticism of private figures expressing their opinion but was criticism of a public figure who has put his opinions out and indeed made a great deal of money and built a base of power and influence on putting his opinions out in the public arena for discussion; and
3) if you truly fear a naming and shaming, why come here and post? surely if naming and shaming is your fear, you would keep your thoughts to yourself.
There is faaaaaaar too much angry in this room. The expression of an opinion needn't have such vitriol attached surely?
Finally, rape is bad and I appreciate that the anonymice agree.
I can't believe the comments I have read here.
If people like Graham Cornes insult others in such a petty way, the consequences of his actions getting out lie with him for doing it in the first place.
How on earth can you argue that those who were attacked in such an inappropriate way should remain silent about it to protect his reputation?
Both the original comment and the other anonymous say one thing to me. Don't talk to women. Ever. Unless you are married to her, because you are legally protected (husband - wife privilidge) and also because it's not rape if you are married.
I agree, always insist on dealing with men and don't talk to women unless there is another man present to act as a witness.
Ok I have no idea what Graham Cornes has to do with this posting ... so excuse my ignorance I do currently live in Scotland and I haven't lived in Adelaide for over 5 years so Cornsey isn't on my list of interesting topics to discuss.
Back to the post - I loved it Audrey. You are a fantastic writer keep up the good work.
Oh and how the hell is it not rape if you are married???? WTF? Rape is rape no matter what and by the way No does not sometimes mean Yes.
I'm sorry, but what happened in no way warrants the question 'how do you sleep?' Honestly, get some fucking perspective.
First anon, Graham Cornes stormed into MY radio session with Amanda Blair. We hadn't been attacking Nicole at all - in fact, we'd been discussing the Labor strategy that saw them nominating her in the first place. I think we can all agree that it was a bad move on behalf of a big party (trying to WIN) to nominate a candidate who clearly has no idea of any of the policies, no media savvy at all and no history of even being involved in the party. Graham Cornes had written a ridiculously paternalistic defense of Nicole in that day's Advertiser, basically saying that it was all convoluted strategy on Labor's part to deflect attention away from Makin, Wakefield and Kingston. He said that Labor had never intended for her to win.
I'm sorry, but do you not feel like such an article is worthy of comment? Of discussion? Of at least a suggestion that such an argument is suspicious at best? In response to a caller who was discussing the failure of Nicole to win Boothby, I said:
"Well, according to Graham Cornes in today's Advertiser, they knew she was the sacrificial lamb."
Which is how I, Amanda and at least one other caller later that day interpreted the article.
Quick as a flash, Graham storms into the studio and starts yelling and screaming at me, trying to bully me by not allowing me to finish any of my sentences, disagreeing with patently correct arguments like "Nicole faced public opposition from the beginning" ("From WHO?!?!?!" he yelled) and basically throwing his weight around because he was upset that his wife (who, I might add, elected to be thrust into the political spotlight) and her qualifications to represent an electorate were being questioned.
I might remind you that it wasn't actually me that announced what Graham had said off air - it was Amanda. And I fully support her decision to do so. What Graham said was grossly offensive, not because it upset me or made me feel bad about myself, but because it was borne of the same sexist rubbish that women always face when they dare to voice an opinion. To basically suggest to me that I was only criticising Nicole (which I wasn't actually doing - more the sense in her running. I never EVER got personal about his wife) because I was jealous of her looks is so fucking annoying and insulting. It's very rich for him to say that his comments weren't meant to be made public, but that only means that he's happy to be an offensive schmuck in private as long as the adoring public never finds out. Not acceptable according to me.
Also, Amanda told Graham she would be announcing the comment. She actually said "I'm going to repeat that if you don't mind" and he didn't put up too much a stink.
Frankly, if you've lost respect for me because I think it's important that public figures be accountable for their actions if those actions are disrespectful to another then I don't want your respect. I'm frankly outraged that you would even think I'd indulge in naming and shaming of people who comment on this blog. Even if I had the desire to, I wouldn't have a clue how to identify anyone based on their first names. More importantly, I would gain no pleasure or satisfaction in 'destroying' someone's career because they left a few stupid comments on a blog. I hardly think Cornes' career has been destroyed over this - but perhaps it has woken people up to the fact that he really doesn't seem to have that much respect for women. In fact, based on what he said he seems to think that the greatest thing a woman has to offer is the way she looks.
If you've been reading for awhile as you say, you know that this is a feminist blog. You know that attitudes like Cornes' are not acceptable to me and I blog about sexist bullshit frequently. Why on earth do you think I should behave differently simply because it happens to be Graham Cornes? Meanwhile, can't his wife defend herself? Nowhere else has a politician's spouse ever written a public explanation and defence for the candidate's failure. It smacks of paternalism, and that alone is worth commenting on.
I imagine that, having lost all your respect for me, you'll not have much interest in coming back here. If that's the case, I hardly think you need worry about whether or not I'll use your first name to try and destroy your life.
As for comparing me to Hitler, anon @ 10:53 you can just kindly fuck off and never come back. In one sentence you have disrespected all of the people that went through Hitler's camps and suffered under his regime. You disgust me. To compare my 'methods' to Hitler's isn't just despicable, it's downright stupid and belies an idiocy in you that I think I'd be hard pressed to match.
Sakura, I think the anon talking about marriage and rape is being sarcastic.
Thank you last few anons for restoring my faith in anonymous posting.
Meanwhile, if anyone's interested, I'll be writing about the Graham Cornes stoush in this Sunday's paper. And yes, anon, I'll be revealing what he said. What a vicious harpy I am, poor Graham etc.
Sorry my bad - apologies to that anon comment.
So you are one of these people who believe that public figures entire life is open to scrutiny. Like when an actress has her tits photographed through the window while getting changed. It's OK paparazzi, they have opened part of their lives to the public, that means the comments made by the spouse of the public figure are public record.
He was defending his wife who was not present. If my wife was being attacked in her absence, I would defend her, right or wrong.
I just read your post again. I'm sorry I forgot your a feminist, that makes your actions completely justified.
"Maam, your under arrest for shooting this guy."
"I'm a feminist"
"I'm sorry, my mistake. Here have my gun"
No, I don't believe that at all and I think you're rather silly for trying to link the two. I didn't march into the Cornes household and start mouthing off about Nicole. I never actually said anything personally nasty about her at all. I was discussing her political acumen, which was my right given that she put herself in the position where she asked people to elect her.
Graham burst into MY discussion and started attacking me. I get that he's entitled to defend his wife but am I supposed to just sit back while he rips into me and not do anything about it? Graham Cornes puts himself in the spotlight in this town. This wasn't a private discussion between acquaintances - he has never met me before in his life. So what right does he have to speak to me in a way that far eclipsed the gravity of anything I said about Nicole?
I think you're being ridiculously childish about this. Everyone's going to defend their spouse, but I would hope they'd do it without resorting to personal attacks and unfounded claims. Aren't you anonymice the ones always going on about backing up your argument rather than relying on insults? Start practicing what you preach.
Meanwhile, if you're going to continue to attack me, just don't. I'm not interested. But then, I am just a feminist who'll go out and shoot a man and use it as an excuse.
God, your ignorance astounds me.
Sarcastic? Who many married men do you know who have been charged for raping their spouse? If your married it is domestic violence at worst, rough sex at best.
Sorry - were you seriously suggesting that rape can't occur in marriage? I assumed it must have been sarcasm because it's such an obviously wrong statement.
Or are you merely commenting that society looks at it more as an incident of domestic violence and this is wrong because it lessens the gravity of the sexual assault?
sure, criticise the politician. Argue with the husband. defend youself. put him in his place.
But don't publicise the things said in that discussion. That is inexcusable. You and Amanda have painted him as this big sexist monster when all he was doing is defending his wife. I would have found it more offensive if he had stood there listening to people bagging his wife and said nothing.
a little from column A a little from column B.
Hey Clem,
I just wanted to say that I still have some respect for you. I was wondering if you always write exactly what you believe or if you add or say things that will get more of a reaction? I don't mean about the third column, cos there is not much you can oppose about rape. But the first 2 sounded to me like you were desperate for a response, either trying to offend people who oppose gays or people from older generations (the second one sounded a little more desperate for attention and public response).
In short, do you mean everything you write?
I haven't painted him out to be a monster at all. I've painted him out to be a stupid old man with no respect for women and no ability to conduct arguments. Defending his wife? He didn't do a very good job of it - in attacking me, he basically reduced her own talents to her looks. I'd hardly say that's a glowing defense.
Besides, Amanda didn't announce it on air and say 'ooh, he's a monster, he's evil! bad man, let's shoot him!' She announced what he said, and we both laughed at it, because that's exactly what it was - laughable. And sadly reflective of the way in which a lot of women's opinions are still sidelines today. Look at the way people treat Hillary Clinton and Julia Gillard, always reducing everything to the way they look. I think it is entirely within out rights to expose Graham Cornes as the kind of man that would disregard everything a woman has to say by claiming that ultimately she's just a fat old jealous hag.
I'm sorry if you can't see this issue as being the same, but frankly I'm more sorry that you consider that personally attacking a person in order to defend another is acceptable.
Like I said (which you don't seem to have addressed at all, conveniently) I was NEVER attacking Nicole. I never said anything personal about her. I didn't comment on the quality of her articles for the paper. I didn't comment on her appearance in a negative way. In fact, I acknowledged that towards the end of her campaign she began to do very well, but said that the public had already made up their minds because of her early performance. Even Cornes acknowledged that at the end - if he'd actually listened to what I was saying rather than yelling over the top of me (and I have the audio file of the argument) then he would have realised that what I was really saying was that it was Labor's mistake to run an inexperienced candidate who didn't know what she was doing. That's simply a fact - and he could have defended her in a way that was honourable and added to the discussion, but he chose instead to bully, yell, not let me finish anything I was saying and then finally resort to an attack borne out of crushingly obvious anti-female sentiment than any kind of valour for his wife.
And yet you still argue that I'm the villain in the scenario! If you still refuse to listen to anything I've said after this, then I don't see any point continuing this conversation.
anon @ 1:47 - I didn't expect the second column to get the reaction it did actually. I certainly didn't set out to offend the older generation in its entirety. What I tried to do was demonstrate that, despite what is regularly reported in the media, young people do indeed take an interest in politics and they have been paying attention for the past 11 years of Howard rule. I am desperately frustrated by the constant snipes that Gen Y are self obsessed airheads with no interest or knowledge in the world around them. I see it being greatly attributed to the fact that a proportion of the older generation don't understand things like My Space or Facebook or You Tube or even blogging - rather than accept they may be genuinely important platforms or even, shock, attempt to learn how to use them, they dismiss them as being brainless vapid activity from a generation that couldn't tell you the title of one Shakespearian play let alone recite any lines from one. I almost wonder if its borne out of a sense of jealousy at the freedoms we enjoy today. It's almost like the naysayers are saying, 'well, look at you selfish, greedy lot. Don't know how hard we had to work so you could enjoy those freedoms and look at you just doing your own thing.' I don't understand this, because surely the reason they worked hard was exactly because they wanted our lives to be easier and filled with more opportunity. Now that they are, it's as if they want us to suffer hardship because they did.
I also genuinely believe that Australia lost a lot of its social conscience during the Howard years. I didn't manage to fit this into the article, but I wanted to make the point that it was rather sad that people finally decided to throw Howard out because their own pockets were being threatened, whereas issues like the war, children overboard, refugees, detention centres, and the blatant american arse kissing were dismissed.
I expected a big reaction from the gay article, mainly from anti gay campaigners. I'm surprised (and pleased) that it didn't illicit a huge response. But then, it was also the first piece so I hadn't quite built up the number of old folk that seem to hate me now ;)
In short, I wouldn't say I deliberately exaggerate to generate response. I think my writing naturally has a sort of larger than life quality to it, which may be why you think I've exaggerated. I can assure you, it is unintentional and is instead a written picture of the way I incorporate rapid flapping of my hands when I speak.
Wow Audrey, You have made some people angry, and by the looks, they have done the same to you.
I'm all for backing up what you say without resorting to name calling, but am not going to go on air and say bec. said this, Franzy said that. I know they were angry and weren't making a decent arguement. I find that funny, but I'm not going to publish it or broadcast it somewhere that future employers would likely hear it. I have a go at some people (as mentioned above) when they get emotional, but I would never hold it against them and I don't believe their heated comments are what they would say if the discussion hadn't become heated. What you and Amanda have done is low (You can say it was Amanda and not you, but you also said you fully support it and will be writing about it next week, and unless the topic of your next column changes, that makes you guilty)
for such a hairy armed feminist Audrey, you can really suck. Tell me, do you enjoy kicking dogs too? o0oo if something doesn't agree with you, lets delete it. I can see you expressing your opinion, shouting it out if you will, but when i decide to make known one of my opinions you delete it in case someone else reads it. censor
I've heard what you've had to say and I don't buy it. "We didn't paint him as the villain" "We didn't attack his wife". He thought his wife was being attacked as I'm sure she has been quite often recently and you may have coped the brunt of his anger about this. But the fact remains you took and off air conversation and broadcast it. He felt the need to stand up for his wife and rather than see it for what it was (an angry and frustrated man defending his family), you exposed him to public ridicule. I'm sure you've had tantrums before and I don't think you would want the things said there made publicly available.
Bloody femenists
So now he was defending his family? Please. Can't Nicole defend herself? If Therese Rein called into a radio station to defend Kevin against some nasty comments, you would have a field day laughing at her. Nicole should bloody well grow up and start looking after herself. As for Graham, you don't just say things without some kind of basis in them. What he said obviously came from some place of conviction inside. It's pathetic for him to hide behind the notion of privacy. He doesn't know me, therefore anything he says to me can be made public. Anyone else would have done exactly the same thing.
Did you even listen to the radio segment, or are you just going based on what you've read or heard?
Meanwhile, yes, I've switched the commenting policy. Obviously I am a big mean hairy feminist who can't take your scintillating additions to this conversation. From now on, if you want to comment you'll have to identify yourself in some way.
As for deleting comments, I only delete the ones I find utterly utterly repugnant, like anon#9879834275 talking about raping a girl while she's asleep.
Haven't you anything better to do? It's really very sad and pathetic.
Audrey, I've been reading and enjoying, but not commenting...
Thank you for your posts, your sensitivity, your insight and the expression of such.
I appreciate it, and although we disagree on many things, I would be so proud if my four daughters grow up as strong and determined feminists as you.
Feminism is NOT a dirty word.
Hey Audrey,
I've read your blog for a long time, but rarely commented. I almost always agree with what you write, and when i don't, i still appreciate the passion with which you put your argument. Your writing makes me think, which is the biggest compliment i can give.
As someone who works in the media I can't see what was wrong with broadcasting the off-air comment in the way that you did. (granted i didn't hear the show, I'm going off the comments here).
I wish there were more writers out there like you.
Cheers,
Nomes x
Wow. I've been thinking about the rape issue all night, and was going to make a comment expressing my disgust that there are still people- and yes, they are largely men- who feel that rape is about the woman. That it is somehow inherent to how she looks, how she acts, how she dresses. Experts have believed for a long time now that most rape has nothing to do with sex, more to do with power. I find it hard to believe that there are people out there who just don't get that- and yet there clearly are.
As for the Cornes debate, I haven't heard the broadcast, however having experienced a similar situation myself a few years ago, I do have opinions on the matter. I think the crux of the matter here is that Cornes burst into a discussion between two members of the media, in a place that no one could describe as the private domain- it wasn't his loungeroom. As a public figure, you must take responsibility for your actions, and I believe that Cornes should fully expect that anything he said in that conversation, on air or off, was likely to be cast into the public domain. To expect to be able to insult someone in such a grossly personal way without repercussion is absurd- particularly when the people you're insulting are connected to the media.
If it was you or I in the street, perhaps I wouldn't expect either Audrey or Amanda to broadcast the insults we might spout. However, the fact remains that the Cornes are public figures, have chose to be such, and therefore anything they may say to members of the media, particularly so insulting, is liable to be broadcast and discussed.
Remember the 'rougher than usual handling case' in SA back in the 90s? And Justice Bland in Victoria who implied rape was less psychologically damaging (and therefore a less serious crime) if the victim was unconscious (even if it was the rapist who'd made her so).
That's pretty much why I'm a feminist. Because I think I have to be in this society. One day I hope feminism becomes truly redundant. But today is clearly not that day, as the gutlessly anonymous have proven over and over.
Oh for crying out loud! Nicole Cornes was a poor choice and I was horrified that the ALP could be so stupid. An intelligent celebrity candidate with some political nous is one thing - for example, Maxine McKew - but picking someone solely for her surname when she's clearly going to be out of her depth in any sort of political debate is suicide. There was also the problem that South Australians already knew way too much about her "modern woman" perspective from that rank Stepford Wives column she used to have in the Mail.
And let's face it - Graham Cornes isn't exactly a mental giant either. Do not even get me started on that appalling racist crap Mahatma Coat that he and KG allow on their radio show. For him to leap to his wife's defence may be just lovely, but it's unprofessional. Would Therese Rein or Janette Howard wade in and start kicking arses if they heard someone talking about their husbands? Of course not. They understand that talking about the merits of politicians and potential politicians is part of the democratic process. And for anyone to suggest that one woman criticises another because she's jealous of her looks is offensive.
And something else, how did Graham Cornes's big whinge manage to overshadow the more important issue of rape? How in the name of Christ is there such a thing as an unrapable woman!?
Congrats on another great column, Audrey. I think it was David Goldie who did a rape doco on the ABC about 15 years ago that brought it all home to me. The only problem was it was all about rape by strangers, not where the victim knew the perpetrator. I don't see your views as controversial at all. Can't understand why it isn't crystal clear to everyone.
Audrey, I miss the days when I could read the comments on your site and not be assaulted with this type of asshattery:
Thank you Amanda and Clem, Hitler would be so proud.
Time to ban anonymous commenting?
Holy crappo!
I'm still having fun with the pesky anonymice (I hate that word - it's so fucking twee) on the last post!
Although, it's interesting that something I said about a million years ago about anonymous posters being scared of being tracked down because of their negative posts turns out to be true: turn off the anonymous posting and *poof!* all negative comments are gone.
Anyway - re: Hitler - look up Godwin's Law on wiki.
Re: The Corneses - I've heard from other media types that Nicole is actually quite lovely and intelligent and that she got a hard go from the start because of Labor's cynical and diversionary running of her. But, eh, whatever. No one really thought shed make such a difference, eh?
Re: rape. Every time I hear that stat - 1 in 3 sexually assaulted - I a) instantly think of three women I know and b) entertain extremely violent fantasies about torturing rapists. It's fucking awful.
The word "cunt" used to be the last insult for a woman that would make me squirm. Really. I hate that word and the way it sounds. I've got a new one: "unrapeable".
Please stop using it.
The more we say it, the more commonplace it will become and the more easily it will slip into the mouths of teenagers, boys and girls, as a way of really cutting up their enemies. Men will chuckle it at at flat-chested women in nightclubs, women will spit it at people who cut them off.
Just as with "slut", girls will actually start wondering if they really are so worthless that no one would attack them to use their screaming bodies for their own selfish pleasure. As though that were normal.
Boys will picture themselves raping their classmates. "Yeah, I probably could hold her down," they will think. "She's totally rapeable."
I don't want anyone thinking like that. Fucking hell.
UNRAPEABLE?!?
How the fuck can this word even exist?
It's ok, we're not 'femenists', we're feminists.
Yes, rape is vile. I'm unsure how it is possible to convince a nation to go to war to save us from bombs that don't exist, and yet there are some in our society who remain unconvinced about the undiscountable atrocity of sexual violence. I don't understand arguments that somehow imply there are degress of rape.
Hey Auds, have you noticed the spooky fact that your, Amanda's and Graham Cornes' photos all line up on the columnists page of AdelaideNow? Whoooooo...
And, you can wear one of our big b&w Nicole heads at the party if you'd like ;)
what woodwork are all these anonymii crawling out from under? sheesh... i've been hanging around here for ages, and i liked it better when people weren't too afraid to hide behind an anonymous web persona. (heh..) things felt a whole lot more transparent, back then... now we've got all these anrgy fuckos yelling in their 2c from the side-lines, then running away. coming back later, to hurl another round of abuse, and then running away again.
anonymous comments are gutless and one sided. create a forum where people can contact you at will. for all we know... you make these ignorant comments and never bother to come back and read the response - how's anyone supposed to know one anonymous from another.
i can't even believe anyone would ever bother to argue with this post, it's so fucking spot on.
people who are public figures (much less, politicians) should excpect to be dicussed. it was interesting that graham wrote and artice talking about why nicole didn't win her seat. i didn't see jeanette writing an article for john. a worthy topic of discussion, i would have thought. and if he didn't want to be discussed, he shouldn't have put himself out there in a public forum.
ugh, this is pointless, and i'll probably get slammed for this... but at least you can come and abuse me at will.
i'm leaving.
Nice point Mars. I guess the flip-side is that our beloved Audrey is now also a public figure and we must all expect the twitch-mouthed crazies to trickle in a little bit.
Audrey has actually disabled anonymous commenting, which may or may not be a shame, depending on how entertaining you find the whole business. I was having a similar discussion with an anonymous poster in Audrey's previous post until she turned off the nutjob tap in which he used IT-speak to suggest that my creative career should be deleted.
He never posted back.
On Audrey's blog.
He did, however visit my own blog (which still allows anonymous posting - I'll take all the attention I can get!) with the following comeback:
Anonymous said...
sorry, "mv * /dev/null" wouldn't actually work. I meant "cat /dev/null > Franzys_Book.txt"
At 8:45 on a Friday night.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we are not dealing with human beings here! We cannot win! They cannot die! For (with apologies to Matt and Trey) you cannot kill something that HAS NO LIFE!
Go Audrey, stir some shit up!
I'ts geneuinely entertaining (no sarcasm intended).
Although, keep in mind you are also a public figure and hence this criticism although perhaps wrong, is not uncalled for.
By the way, you are quite clearly being flamed by these people and reacting in just the way they would most probably like you too.
Well, Godwin's law wins again. It only took 3 comments! that has to be some sort of record... Do you think that whoever that was has any idea who Hitler actually was? I have to think not, or else wtf? Wait, no, I can see how acting as part of the media and doing what the media does us equivalent to killing millions of people and devastating Europe. Yeah. And the Cornes are the Jews. Yeah. That's right...
Jeez. I can't believe people get so het up. The Cornes shouldn't be real news, they're like a human interest story. They're that insufferable kitten stuck up the media tree. Only they ARE real news, since she's doing a public job and in the public eye.
What I came here to say, though, was about the actual post/article. I was abused when I was - oh, 8, I think? It wasn't major, I mean, as far as that goes. I blogged about it here, to save me going into detail. http://craftastrophies.blogspot.com/2007/06/is-this-inappropriate.html Anyway, I told my mum, and she reported it, and as far as I was concerned, that was that. Then we found out that he'd abused several other girls, none of whom had taken him to court. I was the oldest, by a couple of years. So I took him to court.
I didn't care, I was done with it. But the fact that he'd done it that many times and gotten away with it? Not cool. He made a plea, and went to jail.
No happy ending, though. When he got out, he went back to the organisation that my parent's had worked, and volunteered again (which was the reason that we knew him in the first place). The single person who was still there and who knew about it raised the issue - and she was booed down by the whole organisation, for being mean to disabled people. She stuck it out for 6 months, and then had to leave.
For a very long time I have kept it a secret that I was raped. I guess I really blamed myself and excused the behaviour since I happened to go home with the person. What makes me more ashamed, is that I let this person get away with it. One stupid drunken night after finding out the guy I had been seeing was still telling his ex that he loved her I thought it would be a good idea to hit on his friend....So I went home with, let's just call him J for now. When we got to his place I just couldn't go through with it, my heart was with someone else. J seemed ok with this and we went to sleep. I woke up later with him on top of me, telling him to stop. It's really a bit of a blur I couldn't tell if he really even knew what he was doing. I tried to leave but he held on to me, not in a bad or violent way, more in a desperate and sad way. I couldn't leave even if I wanted to it was early morining and dark and I didn't really even know where I was. I actually don't think this guy even remembers... I've seen him around and he'll say hello like everythings fine. I completly hate myself for been so stupid. Sometimes i want to scream out hey buddy you're a rapist but i can't.
Post a Comment