elrond

Belle De Jour And Daniel Craig

9 posts in this topic

I see Belle was invited as a guest blogger at the campaign website Equals. (Sponsor of the Daniel Craig video) Interesting to let her speak as one of the co-founding organisations was the Fawcett Society. Comments on belles piece were generally favourable other than the first vindictive personal attack on her.

What message are you sending out by
letting this appalling person write a blog
like this on your site? I am just horrified that you have done this and will recommend women no longer support your organisation.

http://weareequals.org/blog/guest-blogger-belle-de-jour/#comments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the original responder is getting utterly savaged in the comments, as are the cowardly admins.

Good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the original responder is getting utterly savaged in the comments, as are the cowardly admins.

Good job.

Someone should write an essay on the way these radfems twist and misuse the English language. For example - and it's not the first time I've seen this - the original responder always refers not to "prostitutes" but always to "prostituted people". Guess we can all decode the implicit (and by now, surely discredited) assumption behind that one. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should write an essay on the way these radfems twist and misuse the English language. For example - and it's not the first time I've seen this - the original responder always refers not to "prostitutes" but always to "prostituted people". Guess we can all decode the implicit (and by now, surely discredited) assumption behind that one. :angry:

Yes the use the word prostituted.

In the thread on that site the antis say they don't hate prostitutes. (Well one said that, and other said they could all die as far as she cared). That sounds a bit like the recent statement from the Canadian Government in their hopefully last ditch battle in June to overthrow the Ontario Court Ruling. http://harlotsparlour.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/state-has-no-obligation-to-protect-prostitutes-ottawa-to-argue-at-appeal/

There seems also to be the concept that a women does not own her sexuality. A women's body and sexuality is owned by all women hood. So if a sex worker sells sex, then she is betraying the whole of the sisterhood. What ever happened to the freedom to choose? This feminism being spoken of seems to be a totalitarian concept, where you sell your soul to the sisterhood and do its bidding.

There seem to be two commentators M Smith and Geneva sticking up for the sisterhood in not uncertain fashion,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's ironic about her response is that rather than discussing the rights and wrongs of the issue, she immediately launches a vicious, bitchy, ad hominem attack against the author.

So not living up to negative sterotypes about women at all then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the office I hold in my sports club, I am currently stuck between the "wimin of the sisterhood" and the normal women.

The former filter every issue not through the requirements of the whole group and the sport but through some miasma of perceived gender injustice.

They preach "equity" & fairness but work as a closed cabal, excluding any woman who does not agree with their view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the office I hold in my sports club, I am currently stuck between the "wimin of the sisterhood" and the normal women.

The former filter every issue not through the requirements of the whole group and the sport but through some miasma of perceived gender injustice.

They preach "equity" & fairness but work as a closed cabal, excluding any woman who does not agree with their view.

I've encountered similar scenarios but I don't think it's specifically a gender issue. When any group of people come together with a shared sense of injustice - gender, disability, race, sexual orientation etc - the wider perspective gets lost in the single issue, whatever it is, that they're preoccupied with. Whilst often annoying, and sometimes counterproductive, it's not necessarily entirely a bad thing as it does provide an effective counter to general complacancy. That said, it can be really really annoying!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw Belle at the Oxford Literary festival last year. She was sweet and obviously had an infoed opinion about what she did (both being a scientist and a WG). (Sidenote, she mentioned one of her motivations for doing a good job was that otherwise she might get a bad review on Punternet). Most people had reasonable questions but one woman just stood up to say she was a uni teacher and even though her students were strapped for cash but even so they didn't do the awful things that she did. This was a sold out event, for which the heckler had to pay for tickets, probably quite a while in advance, just so she could try and make Brooke feel bad about some choices she made in the past that don't seem to have had a single lasting problem for her (quite the opposite really). Some people will always try to blindly force their morality on others. I just try and serve as an ambassador for immorality.

BB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now