And it clearly does not have these issues to itself. But I saw too many people on social media blaming Christchurch and apparently forgetting in their rage that it was Christchurch that was attacked.
Yeah, I mean, look, we KNOW we're not the ones who were attacked, we're not the ones in the centre circle of the grief chart.
But also, there've been two large-scale losses of life in NZ in most of our lifetimes, and both of them were in Christchurch. The kids locked in their high schools on Friday pretty much have the quakes as their first memories. I won't be the only person here feeling ill every time they hear another helicopter fly over. We are suffering in a different way, we are retraumatised, many of us have untreated mental health problems, and we will need help.
Watching people dancing on pinheads debating whether grieving people are using quite the right words to express their grief is a whole pile of not-helping.
Realise that not travelling alone or avoiding Tinder isn’t any real solution.
Here's one of the many, many things that really irritates me. People object to attempts to centre this discussion on men, and say women should just take "sensible precautions" like never leaving the house under any circumstances, and their reasoning always boils down to the thing they were objecting to in the first place: it's because Men are Trash.
Women shouldn't use dating apps, it's not safe. Why? Women shouldn't get drunk. They shouldn't be out alone. They shouldn't talk to strangers. Why? Because men will Get Them. If the problem was Tinder, then (straight) men would also be in danger using it.
I would really like to see the police and the media buy out of this narrative. If a woman is attacked, just don't ask "What should women do to protect themselves?" I would really appreciate it if 3News stopped running pieces on the Evils of Dating Sites. We don't need to be any more afraid. We really don't.
"wait, Mum is Santa"?
Oh John, I don't know why but I feel really guilty about this.
Emma objected on the basis that participation is not optional
I absolutely did not say that. What I said, before you even entered the thread, was;
I agree that it's well possible to change this situation, of course it is, but the FIRST step is to acknowledge that the imbalance exists, and that the social pressures around it are real. THEN work out, together, with discussion, how your particular family is going to navigate it.
This shit started, for me, when I was ten and considered more capable of helping with Christmas than any of my brothers, who were in their 20s. Oddly enough, I did not have the capacity to sit them all down and talk about it then. Our last Big Family Christmas, my mother was dying. We took her out of hospice for the day so she could have Christmas with all her children and grandchildren, and it was... actually, it was awful. Ever since her death, on the 3rd of January, Christmas has been Extremely Complex for me, emotionally.
I think it's more that if you work a bit on making a less dramatic event you will find it easier to get through. Maybe think of 'don't do christmas" as the aspirational slogan and take small steps in that direction when you can?
I think when the suggestion is "maybe men could pull their weight and help out a bit more", the reply of "Well let's just not do it at all" is... unhelpful. Why? Why is it somehow more reasonable to Destroy Christmas than to spread the load?
Yeah, I was very aware when I was writing this column how heterocentric it was. One of the people I was talking about this to early on on Twitter was Scout, and they were saying how their family-of-birth still, when it comes to stuff like this, codes them as female, even though they've been really supportive of Scout. It's just ingrained. For myself, I am pleased to find that my expectations of my sons are both the same, even though I raised one of them as female. (But those expectations are also... really low. I mean, they're "Yes I will help but you have to ask me to do stuff.") And I also know that some of it is me being all "Look, just stay out of my way so I can this properly".
I agree that it's well possible to change this situation, of course it is, but the FIRST step is to acknowledge that the imbalance exists, and that the social pressures around it are real. THEN work out, together, with discussion, how your particular family is going to navigate it. And don't be all, "Well, you want me to help more? Just ask. Just tell me what to do." Because that is entirely missing the point.
Cheers Carol. I remember, but cannot find, an old Bogor cartoon with a bunch of female hedgehogs taking their kids to see Hedgehog Santa. One of them asks why they do all of this, and the other says it's so they can bring it all crashing down when they tell the kids their beloved Father Christmas isn't real.
It is a very interesting history, Governor Elbridge Gerry saw a way of manipulating a system designed to be fair and ran with it.
Governer Elbridge Redistricting, Bart.
Still, I think the essential difference is that here, our attitude is "People can vote unless" and in the States it's "people can't vote unless".
The whole American ingrained attitude to voting just... astounds and saddens me. We're the greatest democracy in the world! But generally we do not give a shit about voter suppression!
The guy who makes one of the podcasts I listen to is off to a reservation this week as an observer to make sure people are allowed to vote. Here, making sure people can vote is the job of the Electoral Commission. Nobody's dragging people out of queues and challenging their right to vote. Nobody's making sure you have exactly the right kinds of IDs, where your names exactly match and your signatures are identical. Machines broken and you've run out of ballot papers? GET SOME MORE FUCKING BALLOT PAPERS. Jesus.
Sorry. I have lost all sense of proportion.