Posts by bronwyn
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Steven, I think there's still a tremendous amount of victim blaiming that happens in these cases, and that's one of the reasons people don't talk about it.
One excercise we do with students in class is looking at a scenario where a young woman victim wears what could be called provocative clothing. About half of the students tell us that what she wears is instrumental in her becoming a victim of sexual violence - she's "asking for it".
It seems old attitudes die hard - yet I'm reminded of how far we have come in some ways when I think of the case of my aunt, who, about 25 years ago, was subject to a gang rape out the back of a rural pub, then had to drive herself back to her farm 30mins away. When she called another relative for help, she was told to go have a bath in bleach, and then go out and get the cows in. I think/hope that she wouldn't be given the same answer today.
-
And on another note, two big thumbs up to a replicant Taj Mahal.
Take that Ohakune and your giant carrot!
-
Just what is the believable statistic on sexual abuse? In the past few days I have heard one in four women, then one in three. To me, innocently asking, these seem extremely high ratios not to mention significantly different.
As one of those people that throws about statistics like this, and is paid to do so, we generally fudge it at "about one in four" females. Steven has linked to one of the main studies we base this statistic on, and has nailed it to say that it's "some sort" of sexual abuse; this can range from anything from being groped through to rape. Of course, not all studies ask the same questions or define sexual abuse in the same way so that's why it's difficult to get an exact figure.
I don't want to do that thing of saying 'and lots of other studies say pretty much the same thing" and then not back it up with screeds of evidence, but the late-ish hour and my tiredness from jumping up and down to Scribe last night at Vector mean I'm about to do just that. One interesting study is the Youth 2007 report. I've copied and pasted the section below as it can be a bit hard to find if you don't know what you're looking for.
Unwanted sexual behaviour
One in five female students (20%) and one in twenty male students had experienced one or more episodes of unwanted sexual behaviour from another person. About half of these episodes had occurred in the last 12 months. Among those episodes of sexual abuse occurring in the last 12 months, one-third of the students reported the abuse as severe (pretty bad, really bad or terrible).The majority (60%) of students suffering sexual abuse had not told anyone about it.
To me, the salient point is this last sentence. As George has pointed out, most people don't talk much about this - this is why these statistics often seem so shockingly high. Of course these are averaged out over the whole population, and keeping in mind that many people who offend have multiple victims, it may mean that all of the siblings in one family are victims, whilst of course all of the siblings in the next five houses down are not.
Totally and utterly anecedotally, and after going into classrooms and talking about exactly this with thousands of students, I'd say the about one in four stat rings pretty true for me. I'm sure no-one would be surprised about the number of stories we've heard about the passed out person in the corner of the party and what someone has done to them just "for a laugh".
If the parameters include not feeling able to say no
... Technically, they do - feeling forced or threatened (even with verbal threats) into having sex is not consensual.
-
Re. the backmasking - thanks for posting Richard, I'd never felt like destoying my records enough to try and make them play backwards.
I never realised Beelzebub was so into toolsheds that he wanted to lead us all down the garden path to one. I suppose it makes sense though, what with all the pitchforks and all. You've got to have somewhere to file them tidily away.
-
<quote>This is all grist to my 'Dolly: She's So Underappreciated!' mill. (One of my ambitions is to go to Dollywood and buy ridiculous tchotchkes.</quote)>
A bit late on this one Danielle, but can I get a badge for the Dolly Appreciators Club too?
Apparently Dollywood takes on casual people to work there over summers.
-
Would American Psycho negatively affect under 18 year-olds in book form? Many have now seen it on DVD - isn't that worse?
(Oh no, I'm about to be one of those insufferable people that goes on about the book vs. the movie - please excuse me for a moment.)
Actually, the book is far far far more graphic than the film. It's pretty hard to read a book whilst peeking out from behind your hands, but that's what I had to do to get through it.
-
That list of challenged books makes for interesting reading. Some, it's pretty easy to think why some people may object to them. But How To Eat Fried Worms?! Do people really think children are so stupid and/or unevolved that a book will cause them to override basic biological principals such as the idea that if something tastes bad, you're probably not meant to fry it up with your eggs in the morning?
-
From the same article Russell has linked to above - Cr. Bhatnagar claims that without these changes:
...in suburban areas there was the potential for booze barns and the negative effects on neighbours.
Does he not see that is exactly what he is about to create in all these "entertainment precincts"?
The lack of foresight is truly striking.
The article also says:
he was generally supportive of the new liquor licensing changes which offered a consistent set of rules.
Just because I don't know much about it, is there anyone who does who can explain what's inconsistent about the current situation?
-
And re. 10pm (or 11pm, wow, really pushing the boat out there) closing - apart from the very real issues of encouraging beer barns etc. which others have already discussed, have we learnt nothing from the experience in the UK with one closing time for all licensed premises in one area?
As anyone who has had the misfortune to walk sober around an "entertainment precinct" in London 15 mins after closing time will know, this is hardly something we should try and replicate here.
At least at the moment our drunken brawls are spaced out throughout the evening.
-
But has anyone else found themselves vowing never to return to the King's Arms after an international gig in the past year or two?
Yes. It is officially No Fun to be at when this happens. If you were a savvy promoter, you'd charge everyone $5 or $10 more, and say "limited capacity" so people know that they will actually be able to see the stage. There's been a number of gigs that I might have gone to if I'd known that I could actually see what's happening.
To be fair to the KA, it's not at all the only place in town that does this. I suspect that all these over-sold nights go a long way towards subsidising all the other nights where new bands can get up and play to twelve of their closest friends, who are all drinking water because they can't afford anything else. Maybe a cheeky lemonade if they're feeling decadent.