Posts by Russell Brown
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Megan Wegan,
There’s a very big difference, as Russell has just demonstrated, between owning your own experience and weighing its importance to you, and negating the experiences of others.
I possibly could have been clearer about that. What stays with me is how passive I was about the whole thing. You'd think I'd have shouted, or jumped out of the chair -- dude touched my cock! -- but I didn't. And I thought that was instructive.
OTOH, when some guy felt my bum as I was going in to the bar at Family one time ... that was sort of flattering.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Moz,
Deborah, I don’t think I’m implying anything about you other than perhaps that you’re happy with your behaviour. You never mentioned that you’d stopped, only that situations had arisen when you doubted consent but chose not to explicitly ask. The implication of your post is distasteful, yet you’re criticising me for making it explicit?
I think you need to back off, or be more specific about your own experience.
Deborah was simply being honest about personal feelings and reflections that all of us experience. Without wishing to state the obvious, human sexual relations is a complexed, nuanced and highly individualised sphere. No one gets it exactly right. There are grey areas all over it: you might enjoy being told you look hot by one person and find it creepy coming from another.
I do think one of the dangers of this sort of discussion is defining-down rape. Sometimes "I wasn't really that into that", or "maybe he wasn't that into that", or "I wish I hadn't done that" just are what they are.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Moz,
I do think there’s an argument that if alleged victims don’t want to describe something as rape they shouldn’t be forced to. But I don’t know enough about psychopathology to have an informed opinion as to whether it’s actually a good idea.
It's probably a better idea than telling them they've been raped when they don't believe they have.
-
Hard News: Bishop Brian: It's worse than…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
So far behind the bloody scenes they exited the theatre and ended up in the middle of the parking lot. I’m sorry, but folks like Campbell Roberts neither deserve nor will receive any credit for their moral cowardice and silence when it really mattered.
See above. No one seems to be looking for a medal.
-
Hard News: Bishop Brian: It's worse than…, in reply to Christopher Dempsey,
Perhaps they have. But it took until oh, 2006 or so for them to partially apologise for their behaviour in 1986.
Just so people don’t have to search down the page of the Rainbow Wellington newsletters, here’s the relevant part:
September 2010
We were recently asked about the current relationship between our communities and the Salvation Army. As you know, the Army organised the infamous petition against homosexual law reform in the 1980s, an act which damaged relations for many years, so that many gay people still feel unable to contribute to the SA’s fundraising efforts. So the board wrote to them.
A rather partial apology, or rather statement of regret in 2006 did little to clear the air. Although there has been no official statement since then, the extensive reply we have received from their National Director of Social Services and Social Policy, Campbell Roberts, goes considerably further in an attempt to heal any remaining rift. Interesting points in the letter include:
“The SA currently accepts the law and works happily with it. The SA has no current official position on decriminalisation, Our present international leader General Shaw Clifton … has written “we stand neutral to legislation that seeks to address issues of human sexuality or of sexual behaviour, knowing that deeper issues are at stake that legislation does not even begin to recognise. We neither encourage nor discourage the decriminalisation of sexual behaviour between consenting adults.”
Mr Roberts noted that the SA supported the removal of legal impediments that discriminated against homosexual relationships at the time of the Civil Union legislation, and confirmed a number of further points:
“The international SA did not support the actions of NZSA leaders in 1986 and correspondence exists in which they recommend no opposition to the Bill and counselled the NZ [branch] against becoming involved in opposition”.
‘The SA senior leadership in 1986 were very divided on the actions of the Territorial Commander that involved the SA in opposition to decriminalisation”.
“The SA in NZ would wish to be as reconciled to the gay community as the gay community felt appropriate”.
“We would see the right of homosexual people to be protected by law without discrimination as a very important tenet of New Zealand law”.
“The SA has gay people in its congregations and employment. It works with a significant number of gay people in its social programmes. I am not aware of any complaints from gay people who have felt discriminated, devalued or not accepted by the organisation while participating within SA programmes or activities. The SA acknowledges that its action in 1986 were unjustified and deeply hurt gay people and the gay community.”
“I would be keen to learn further from the gay community on ways in which you feel we can further build bridges of understanding and respect to gay people”.
The RW Board certainly intends to follow up on this detailed, frank and positive response from the Salvation Army, and a further meeting has already taken place.
If it’s good enough for Rainbow Wellington, it’s good enough for me. I think it’s only decent to acknowledge such positive change.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Megan Wegan,
There’s a very big difference, as Russell has just demonstrated, between owning your own experience and weighing its importance to you, and negating the experiences of others.
Sharing of experience, rather than mere opinion, is often a productive way through a sensitive debate. It's an important part of the culture here.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
When we were in Syria (and Jordan to a lesser extent) one of the neatest revelations was just how fashionable the women were. Yes they had the hair covered and their ankles covered but the materials and colours were stunning. Within the restrictions of their own (self imposed?) dress code they expressed tremendous individuality and taste.
See Hot Chicks in Hijabs, which is actually run by a Canadian guy, but seems to stay the right side of the appreciative/creepy line. I love how instead of a "contact" tab in the title navigation they have "issue a fatwa".
Also, from British website Hijab Style, the recent Dubai Fashion Week. Clearly, heels are not ruled out.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Emma Hart,
It’s fascinating in a way, because the criticism I’m getting for SlutWalk is completely different from the criticism I got around Boobquake. When to me, they’re pretty much functionally identical. So where is my mail telling me what a Bad Feminist and a horrible person I am and how I’m making women feel terrible and making light of sexual violence?
The Slutwalk topic continues to surprise.
I guess the thing about female-on-male rape, or sexual assault, is that it is really rare. By comparison, Craig is not my only friend to have been raped by men.
But I think men also perceive the power relationships differently. I can recall a couple of times being subject to what amounted by to sexual harassment by one woman -- who, ironically, spoke impeccable university feminese when she wasn't tanked up -- and I didn't like it, but it was more annoying than anything.
I knew I wasn't under any real physical threat (which may be in contrast to your original example at the KAOS party) and that I could always tell her to fuck the fuck off.
Which I didn't. Which is also how I acted when I was subjected to the only sexual assault in my life: by a middle-aged barber in his shop in North London. I just sort of sat there not really believing it was happening. It was minor and I'm not remotely traumatised by it. But do I think of it as a useful learning experience.
-
Thank you, Craig. I was aware of your experience and I can't imagine how awful it must have been. I do understand that it informs your view of this topic.
But jumping tracks from something else altogether to pin the Hopoate "joke" on Curran when she had publicly slated it is unfair to Curran and a bad way to win an argument. (The Trade Me thread has been deleted -- presumably it got nasty, but reports suggest she was very frank. David Farrar crowed about it, as you'd expect.)
We could make a list of National MPs who failed to denounce Quinn, or party members who didn't resign when Doug Graham had his "it's not rape-rape" moment -- and he was overseeing new rape legislation. But what would be the point? I just think it's a bad way to win an argument, especially when the argument is about something else altogether.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
And I could really get bitchy and say it’s a shame Curran’s stunt got her more media attention than any actual policy coming out of her portfolio, and she apparently has NOTHING to say about her party’s own essay in rape culture. ( TRIGGER WARNING FOR RAPE, SEXUAL ASSAULT AND EPIC COMMENTS D-BAGGERY )
Awesome segue.
Actually, Curran did publicly express discomfort about that. She discussed it frankly when it came up in the Trade Me forums. But don’t let that stop you raising it all again and pinning it on her. Perhaps we could talk about Doug Graham’s opinions on when rape isn’t really rape. Or perhaps we could not make a party political thing out of it.