Posts by Lucy Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Has anyone suggested that if she's ineligible to compete against women she'd also be ineligible to compete against men?
No, but looking at the 800m record times she would be grossly uncompetitive - the world record for the men's 800m is around 1m41.11; she won the gold in the world champs with 1m55.45, which is not even in the top ten women's 800m times, and is in fact pretty standard for this event for the last thirty years or so (best times of the year range from 1m53.28 to 1m56.85.) Admittedly some of those times were set during the period of dubious practices in Eastern Europe, but a lot weren't, including times quite a bit faster than hers. She's very fast. She's no Usain Bolt. Her career would be over if she was forced to compete with men.
And that's why I find the fuss weird - okay, maybe she's intersex. The record suggests she's competing in the right field; again, she's not smashing records like Bolt is. He obviously has fairly freaky genetic advantages. Maybe she does, too. Until and unless she starts running anything *close* to male times, I think it is patently unfair to say she can't compete with women.
-
She may have been raised as a girl, but if she is intersex, then she can't legitimately compete against women.
Then what can she do? I think that's why this *is* a legitimate feminist issue - because it brings up questions about gender binaries, how we define gender, and the exclusion of intersex people.
Interesting that a country that, for so long, saw no nuances in race should find nuances in gender.
I see it as less accepting nuances than denying them - because she has been accepted as female, it is insulting to question that, to blur the gender boundaries, no matter what the physiological realities of the situation might be.
-
Lucy. That was a simple piece of information in answer to the question about overseas. Baffled again how you put "I think that's the analogue you're going for. " into it.
Context, dude. Context. If you weren't trying to make a point about wearing "appropriate" clothing in certain places, what were you saying?
-
My wife is working in the UAE and she must cover neck, arms, and dress to the ground. Those are the rules at work. They are told to be careful in the street in Abu Dahai or Al Ain when wearing more exposed skin, as this would be a signal apparently that they are loose women.
Dude, last time I checked, sharia law hadn't made it to New Zealand yet. "Wear certain clothing because the law of the land is sexist" is not the same thing as "wear certain clothing because certain people are being sexist assholes", though I think that's the analogue you're going for.
And, hey? That still wouldn't make the people who harassed your wife for being a "loose woman" any less morally culpable for doing so.
-
Lucy: A long time ago drink drivers were excused by the court because they were drunk at the time???? It is true that agressive angry people are much worse when there is alcohol or some drugs involved. Not an excuse.
Did I say it was? I was trying to suggest that maybe because men in NZ generally know that it's less societally acceptable to harass women (c.f. Giovanni's comment about Italy) but don't necessarily believe it, such behaviours might tend to emerge more when they're drunk, indicative of underlying attitudes.
-
I was cautiously inching my way towards the thesis that perhaps in New Zealand it's a product of the drinking culture but, yes, I think that's something destined for the rubbish bin.
Possibly this behaviour is expressed more in NZ when people are drunk, because of the inhibition-lowering qualities of alcohol? But generally that only allows expression of what was already there, so I don't think it's the entire answer.
-
May I humbly recommend an enrolment at Charm School?
Just assume varying degrees of euphemism, dependent on the situation.
-
I imagine it could be if you're wearing a burka.
There's a test: go into a pub wearing a burka, then return wearing a miniskirt, and see which one gets you harrassed faster. It's not gonna be the miniskirt.
-
Do I think that a girl skimpily dressed accentuating her bare body, and entering into dark and lonely space is wise? No. And when my daughter was a teen she chose not to.
Is it okay if she's not skimpily dressed, then? Is it okay if it's a man and he only gets beaten up? Is it okay if she wears a burka? Can you see that what she's wearing is not the problem or point?
-
Is it pleasant to exist in an early-1960s mindset? I imagine so.
I'm thinking more late Victorian - fits better with the Charge-of-the-Light-Brigade-esque stupidity/bravery wire-crossing going on.
If the lady in the article were a prude and upset by male attention to her tits then she is probably going to believe she is harrassed. But she hasn't been harrassed, she is just a prude.
Tell me, Angus, do you have a harrassment scale we can refer to? Is there some objective chart by which we can measure it? Are you, as an earlier commenter was, telepathic?
It's probably a little late for the anecdatum, but what the hell: the only time I have ever been sexually harrassed, I was on a bus in broad daylight wearing a jacket zipped up to my chin with a backpack on my lap. Clothing has jack-all to do with it.