From top: Amber Heard and Johnny Depp; Anne Marie McNally
Anne Marie McNally writes:
‘No way, it can’t be true, sure I LOVE him.’ – Me, in a fleeting moment of ridiculous ignorance upon hearing of the Johnny Depp abuse claims.
It’s true, I’ve been a fan of Johnny for as long as I can recall and apart from his obvious charms, there’s all the lovely fuzzy stories of him in full Jack Sparrow costume visiting children’s hospitals and bringing joy to smiling little faces, there’s the lovable rogue element to him but a wife beater, not in a million years surely?
Without casting any aspersions on either Mr Depp or Ms Heard in this particular case, it got me thinking about our attitudes, in general, to such allegations.
How could a good looking, intelligent, articulate, lovable man do something so heinous? Shouldn’t they be huddled figures with gnarly noses, sleeveless vests with beer and sweat stains and a general air of menace about them? But if they were, who would ever fall in love with them?
My initial, albeit momentary, reaction surprised me. How dare I make a judgement so quickly on a woman’s allegations just because I had a particular image in my head of her alleged abuser.
SAFE Ireland, an organisation that helps women and children in dangerous domestic situations, have previously called for a large scale study into domestic violence and its type and severity.
But in a survey with 40 women who had interacted with the criminal justice system on issues of domestic abuse over one third of them reported suffering either physical, emotional or psychological abuse on a daily basis while over half reported a serious threat to their lives.
Were they all partnered up with Vlad the Impaler or was it Joe that you have a pint with on a Friday or Paul who you get a lift to work with – you know, guys as respectable as Johnny Depp appears to be? You know the answer to that and it’s as scary as is it unpalatable.
Now let me say, to be clear, I’m very aware that domestic violence is not a women’s only issue and we are increasingly seeing men presenting to services as victims of domestic abuse but by a country mile female victims outnumber them.
SAFE Ireland estimates that on average 4000 women and children a year spend time in the extremely limited (and under-resources) refuges for victims of domestic violence. 4000!
And they’re just the ones who find the capacity to make a break for it and seek help. How many others are physically, emotionally and indeed financially trapped in a violent home life?
Women’s Aid, another organisation engaging with victims of domestic abuse, saw its funding cut by 31% during the recession and it has yet to be reinstated.
Despite that cut, the organisation managed to establish a 24/7 helpline and in the first month of operation the demand for the ‘out of hours’ service surpassed expectations by 283%.
There also currently exists a loophole in our laws which means that women in ‘dating relationships’ are not protected by the Domestic Violence Act.
Many victims presenting to organisations have never lived with their partner and are therefore not protected under the Act.
We’re also now firmly in the digital age and online interactions have become a significant part of any relationship yet there is no legislation to address cyber-stalking for example.
The laws are inadequate for the protection of people who are victimised in this way but the criminal justice system has more serious issues than that in this regard.
A couple of months ago I had cause to ring the Guards in the early hours when a horrifically violent scene played out in a house I was overlooking. I could not only hear, but see, the assault being inflicted on this woman. I rang 999 and desperately pleaded with them to come immediately.
The dispatcher calmly asked me was it ‘an assault or a domestic?’ I retorted ‘is there a difference?’ and she told me yes, yes there was. An assault would illicit a faster response time.
Seriously. (I like to think she told me that in a female solidarity kind of eye-roll way but either way the truth of that was horrific.) ‘Well then put it in as a serious assault and get someone here immediately’ I told her.
She did and they arrived very soon after to be fair but not in time to stop the woman requiring removal in an ambulance.
There are myriad nuances to be worked out but work them out we must because domestic violence is a real issue that’s not going away and as a society we have to be prepared to confront it and address it head on.
So it is conflated with other serious crimes against the person rather than considering it somehow ‘less than’ because it was between a couple or ‘behind closed doors.’
And that stands whether it’s Johnny gorgeous lovely fuzzy Depp or Tommy sweaty beer guzzling wifebeater down the road.
Anne Marie McNally is a founding member of the Social Democrats. Follow Anne Marie on Twitter: @amomcnally
Top pic: PA Wire
They have a barney after his mum’s funeral, he chucks a phone, it hits her in the face. Not the smartest move, but no prior, no previous. If it turns out he’s shouty with his fists, then of course, string him up. But with only this to go on, it seems a bit premature to make him a Hitler wifebeater.
Oh you were there. Great.
* holds up mirror *
Didn’t know you were there too.
Owen didn’t defend him, but explained how a situation “might” be. he never claimed to be there.
I didn’t say I was and you know that. Amazing how many comments on this entire thing are from people who 1) were there and knew what happened and 2) know JD personally.
Let the courts handle it yeah?
Fine, but it should be noted that the courts have form on bias in the US.
Full of feminists amiright?
No Don, just bias.
Ladybias. The worst kind of bias.
I dunno man, I’m not sure there’s much of a moral difference between punching someone in the face and throwing a solid object at their face.
Never got so frustrated that you chucked something without caring where it’s going to land? It’s just so… flimsy, for all the column inches and judgment this is getting. Wait a minute. Why do I care?
*chucks Grazia angrily across room*
I can’t say I have, no. I’m not trying to condemn the chap but I’m not defending him either. If he knowingly threw something at her, it’s as bad as punching her. *looks up Grazia in the dictionary*
Ladybraineaters. That’s another name for such magazines, coined by Adam and Joe, I think.
Just looked it up. Same people make Heat. At least they’ve decided to dumb people down with a touch of class now.
The difference between getting frustrated and hitting someone and getting frustrated and throwing something at someone is that in the latter you used a weapon, which actually makes it more serious, I would think. Either way it’s assault and abuse.
Johnny Depp, buddy of convicted child killer Damien Nichols and buddy of Hunter S Thompson who appears to have enjoyed making snuff films according to witnesses. Discuss.
Ok, ill discuss.
Neither of those snide statements are true.
I watched the two HBO documentaries on the Memphis Three and was convinced that they were innocent. Then I independently looked into the case and concluded that they were obviously guilty. And were, of course, convicted. If you think they were innocent based on the documentaries I’d encourage you to look again. Jesse Miskelley confessed a total of 6 times. As for the second, I don’t know how you would disprove the claim of an alleged witness but do try.. I’m all ears.
You should probably forward all this evidence of their obvious guilt on to the authorities because they have all been released from Prison. And its Damien Echols, not Nichols, thought your extensive research who have maybe brought that up but I guess not.
Also, how do I disprove the claim of an alleged witness? Easily, that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
I heard of a rumour that your mother is a whore, as an alleged witness said it, I assume its ok to presumed true until proved otherwise?
They were released from prison because they were innocent? No sir. They took an Alfred ruling thereby acknowledging their guilt. And they had a review coming up in which they could have presented evidence of their innocence.. but they didn’t do that. And I love your convoluted argument that witness testimony is always useless. I must send a letter to every legal system in the world telling them to update their jurisprudence.
For anybody who is interested in the case:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=opperman+william+ramsey
You really are a deluded simpleton,
The Alfred ruling does not acknowledge their guilt, it is in fact, the direct opposite of that, asserting their innocence. Despite all your claims of “Researching” the case yourself, you don’t even know the name of the main person involved in it and you don’t even know what the Alfred plea is. Absolutely delusional.
Also, “Witness Testimony” is not a rumour that some anonymous person said to another person. What you describe is actually referred to as “Hearsay” which isn’t even admissible in most courts and is as far from anything approaching prove that you can imagine.
As I said before, simpleton.
You are so confident. And so utterly wrong. Nice combination.
“After weeks of negotiations, on August 19, 2011, Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley were released from prison as part of a plea deal, making the hearings ordered by the Arkansas Supreme Court unnecessary. The three entered into unusual Alford plea deals. The Alford plea is a legal mechanism that allows defendants to plea guilty while still asserting their actual innocence, in cases where defendants concede that prosecutors have sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three
“Also, ‘Witness Testimony’ is not a rumour that some anonymous person said”. You’re right. But who is talking about anonymous claims? I’m not.
Finally, your resort to name calling like a six year old who just had their lolipop taken, reflects more on you than you obviously realise.
Your own copy and paste job refutes your own point, that saves me the trouble I suppose.
You said earlier that they acknowledged their guilt and then post the exact opposite claiming they asserted their innocence. Thanks, I suppose. No need for me to further argue my point when you’ve already done it.
And yes, you are talking about anonymous claims. Who made the claim and before what legal body was their testimony recorded? You didn’t name the person, that is the exact definition of anonymous claim.
You complete and utter simpleton.
An Alford Plea IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF GUILT in law.
It’s not called “an Alford GUILTY PLEA” for NO REASON.
And I’m the intellectually challenged one here.
You’re either mentally challenged or a pathological liar, I was being polite in assuming the former.
You saw the same evidence and links I saw yet claim something that is not only demonstrably false, it is easily demonstrated.
Here is from the very first paragraph of the Wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea
“whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence. In entering an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence the prosecution has would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
As you can clearly see, its the exact opposite of admitting their guilt as you repeatedly and stupidly claimed.
The complexities of why it was used and why it was accepted by the court are another conversation but seen as you don’t even know what the thing is, it wont be a conversation that anyone will waste having with you.
@Rowsdower ….frustrating…. init.
Keep it up!
Indeed, yes. Of course beating people or throwing stuff at them is wrong except when you’re under stress or provoked. In those cases, it’s understandable.
But maybe he hit her because he loves her
I love you.C’mere til I smash your face in.
xoxo
I love you so much that I need to know where you are every minute of the day.
I love you so much that I am jealous of anyone who looks at you so I have to control your movements.
I love you so much I’m overcome with passion so I have to smash your face in, so no one else can have you.
Looooot of twisted people out there.
I know that guy. He’s a creep.
You just described my ex
Did we learn nothing from the tragedy of Ross Geller? Straight men and lesbians shouldn’t get married, people!
http://www.thewrap.com/johnny-depp-is-being-blackmailed-by-amber-heard-heres-how-i-know-guest-column/
+1
Interesting. A reminder to us all of innocent until proven guilty.
Not when feminism has it’s teeth in :)
MY FRIEND SAYS I’M OK, JUDGE. NO, HE WASN’T THERE BUT STILL, MY FRIEND WHO DIDN’T WITNESS THE INCIDENT THINKS I PROBABLY DIDN’T DO IT AND HE DOESN’T LIKE MY WIFE ANYWAY SO YOU KNOW, HE’S A CREDIBLE WITNESS HERE.
My friend, who has admitted he was so afraid of me not liking him any more that he only ever told me what I wanted to hear, has now finally taken the brave step of telling me what I wanted to hear.
Hmmm. Not sure if Stanhope is worthy of much criticism for that article. Surely it’s not too far fetched; the idea that someone might feel that telling a friend their spouse is bad news is a bad idea? And that someone might feel ok with saying it after said spouse has gotten his friend arrested?
Johnny Depp hasn’t been arrested. In the depths of his grief (which explains and excuses his assaultyness) he’s touring with his sad mid life crisis band.
I wasn’t aware that Depp had been convicted of assault, when was this?
“Johnny Depp hasn’t been arrested”
Grand. Accused in public then. It doesn’t change the point in the post.
He should never have been accused, clearly. I mean, his wife is clearly injured, successfully filed a restraining order but you know, he never assaulted me which is proof that she’s probably a liar who hit herself and caused those injuries to herself somehow very plausible.
Strawman. I’m not arguing about whether she’s lying or otherwise. I’m saying there’s nothing wrong with Depp’s mate defending him in public. At least nothing *more* wrong with it than you practically declaring his guilt.
I’m just one of those feminazis who believes women when they say they were assaulted, even above the word of actual men who weren’t present at the time. Now, I know in some cultures it’s necessary for a number of men to bear witness to a woman’s testimony before she could be held to possibly be telling the truth, but I’m forthright in rejecting that.
Doug Stanhope wasn’t there and however great he thinks his friend is, he wasn’t there. Amber Heard was. That, to me, means that she knows what actually happened and he does not. Whatever he thinks of his friend’s wife and whether he wanted to broach the subject during the marriage is completely immaterial, but the fact that people are using this article to suggest that Heard is lying because some bloke reckons she just must be cos his friend is such a kewl dude is desperate stuff.
“I’m just one of those feminazis who believes women when they say they were assaulted, even above the word of actual men who weren’t present at the time”
So, you’re someone with no critical thinking facilities. Makes sense.
“Doug Stanhope wasn’t there”
Neither were you. At least he has *some* first hand knowledge of their relationship though.
+1
The Real Jane says…. “I’m just one of those…. who believes women when they say they were assaulted”
Isn’t that the problem – representative heuristics – you’ve learned to think that way, because that’s the way the feminist ideology wants women to think of men – as evil doers; and wants women to think of themselves – as victims.
A reasonable person would not assume to believe either side until all the facts are out.
Which wave of feminism do you keep referring to Clampers? Do you mean TERFs? Do you mean SWERFS? Black feminism? Intersectional feminism? Post-feminism? Or are you just going with the all feminists are nasty mean women who blame all men approach?
Ooops, something went amiss, please see reply at 4.02pm below.
The 5 comments so far proving Anne Marie’s point we need to learn how to have a mature conversation on this topic. Keep up the good work.
Well, the comments found here on this one small online publication are undoubtedly going to change the world.
There’s an opinion in there somewhere. Come on, let’s have it.
Maybe they’re so flippant because domestic violence is universally condemned already so commenters didn’t feel they had much to add?
And it’s fun to have a bit of a mess!
universally condemned and yet it isn’t treated as seriously as assault…many miles to go on this
depp is clearly guilty anyone who disagrees is bitter misogynist we need stronger hate speech laws against such people
Una?
We also need commas and full stops…
Doubtful.
‘Men still hidden as victims of violence in the home – Una Mullally’
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/men-still-hidden-as-victims-of-violence-in-the-home-1.2012221
It’s a half hearted platitude still playing to the notion of a ‘patriarchy’. A nonsense based on the idea that women won suffrage from men. Nonsense, they won it from people of property. It was the system, not the man…. but hey, let’s not let facts get in the way of a good emotional outcry.
“It’s a half hearted platitude still playing to the notion of a ‘patriarchy’.”
Whatever it is, it contradicts the notion, one you yourself have put forward here, that she’s a vacuous mouth piece who hates all men.
“but hey, let’s not let facts get in the way of a good emotional outcry.”
Mate…..
Una is fond of her own double standards.
The issues that need addressing are
-The culture
Ireland sat up and for years women and men in abusive relationships were told to sit back and take it. You cannot divorce your husband , its a sin etc etc. This attitude now permeates into patriarchial sections of society writing women off as hysterical
-The loophole
Needs to be tightened to take account of the specifics of relationships and bring it up to speed
-Resources
Again the funding of these services are under threat because of cutbacks. 24/7 helplines and shelters are closing because of funding cannot be found
-Male victims of abuse
More research needs to done to see the effect of the problem. Psychological abuse is just as ardous and tortorous as phyiscal abuse.
15% of women and 6% of men suffer severe domestic abuse
• 29% of women and 26% of men suffer domestic abuse when severe abuse and minor incidents are combined
• 13% of women and 13% of men suffer physical abuse or minor physical incidents and
• 29% of women (1 in 3) and only 5% of men (1 in 20) report to the Gardaí.
Source: http://www.cosc.ie/en/COSC/Pages/WP09000005
Fascinating isn’t it to see how these kind of statistics are ignored because they don’t fit with the dominant discourse around the subject. Men are more physically resilient so the risk to male victims of attacks is not equal to that faced by female victims but it doesn’t explain why so little resources are spent helping male victims.
A few weeks ago, I heard Martina Devlin (I think) talking about rape and consent, quite rightfully addressing how rape isn’t just about feral predators roaming side streets etc. but when one caller pointed out that by the criteria set down in law, most of their male friends have been raped (too drunk to give consent one assumes), she scoffed. There’s a real resistance to the notion that men can be victims of certain crimes.
As for the domestic violence charges against Depp, the point regarding people finding it difficult to imagine “nice” people as perpetrators is valid. But there is also the issue of people being innocent until proven guilty. She has a right to be treated as a victim and he has a right to be treated as innocent. That’s very difficult to manage when it is taken into the public domain in the way it has.
I do not necessarily agree with your point on male domestic victims being more resilient. A knife or a bottle to the head has the same impact on anyone across the board but yes the dominant discourse around the topic is predominantly how it affects females with male domestic abuse getting scant attention.
Was that piece by Martina Devlin on Radio 1?
Domestic violence is a strange beast as in there are those who will violently beat someone but who won’t ever use weapons. Most offenders do not use weapons but women are more likely than men to use weapons.
There are also quite a high number of couples who engage in mutual domestic violence. One of the founders of the first refuges in the U.K. estimated it at approximately half and believe that some research supports that. In heterosexual couples who engage in mutual violence, where the female is not effectively using a weapon, the woman is at a higher risk.
Other interesting statistics I seem to recall from a police survey in the UK included the fact that the figures for gay and lesbian couples were broadly similar to heterosexual couples.
I agree with a lot of what Anne Marie says but her argument that male on female violence is far higher than the opposite does not seem to match the statistics. There are nuances within the statistics and overall one suspects that risks to victims of male on female violence are higher but this does not justify the failure to provide for male victims. It’d be easy to blame the organisations who offer support to female victims but ultimately they are doing the state’s job.
“some research supports that”… roughly half of domestic abuse is instigated by women… ‘Some research’ you say.
….try this instead… “a finding CONFIRMED by more than 200 studies of intimate violence”
“But when subsequent surveys asked who struck first, it turned out that women were as likely as men to initiate violence—a finding confirmed by more than 200 studies of intimate violence. In a 2010 review essay in the journal Partner Abuse, Straus concludes that women’s motives for domestic violence are often similar to men’s, ranging from anger to coercive control.”
Source: http://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/
The Devlin piece can be found here:
https://player.fm/series/the-pat-kenny-show-highlights/exploring-the-murky-issue-of-sexual-consent
Great post Fluffy! With you 100%
“Without casting any aspersions on either Mr Depp or Ms Heard in this particular case….”
and yet
“How could a good looking, intelligent, articulate, lovable man do something so heinous? ”
you’re a gas young wan altogether…
Well said.
It seems you can make any argument and allegation you like these days as long as you feel you are right and justified.
“Now I’m not a racist but….”
When I say “all men” I mean “all the bad men” – Una Mullaly
Haste marries BS and nobody ends up repenting .Bodger, any chance you could ask your
LeftieLite “contributors” (“Jules”, “Annemarie” and Ribena boy “Gavin”) to approach serious subjects with rationality, logic and facts? Am tired of reading these shouty, shrill Daily Mail/Sindo anecdotes .
Don’t read them then? Never tire of the sense of entitlement from your average online troll.
@ TrollboreMoyest : I am a glutton for punishment and just LOVE to roll my eyes and curl my lips.
Ew. You can troll someone else now, thanks.
Julien is spot on most of the time, as is Ann in some columns
I just wish they would stop giving oxygen to Leather jacket twit
Dan Boyle is improving
PS been ages since we had a pop at loveinDublin
@Fluffy : More Vinny Browne with a lolly than Newsnight so?
Fluffy, it’s been a while since Harbo has had a product to sell, that’s the only reason you were thrown the harbo stories in the first place.
The truth about Domestic Violence and how feminism has band wagoned it.
Now, before the feminists get in a twist, please watch, and learn the real history of modern feminism and the damage it is doing to everyone.
…. (yes, I know I posted this in Da Wednesday Papers earlier, but I didn’t know Depp was coming up)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=332&v=jnUwxxijr3g
Look away feminists, you may find the reality disturbing….
http://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/
“But when subsequent surveys asked who struck first, it turned out that women were as likely as men to initiate violence—a finding confirmed by more than 200 studies of intimate violence. In a 2010 review essay in the journal Partner Abuse, Straus concludes that women’s motives for domestic violence are often similar to men’s, ranging from anger to coercive control.
Critics have argued that the survey format used in most family violence studies, the Conflict Tactics Scale, is flawed and likely to miss some of the worst assaults on women—especially post-separation attacks. Yet two major studies using a different methodology—the 2000 National Violence Against Women Survey by the National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey published last February—have also found that some 40% of those reporting serious partner violence in the past year are men. (Both studies show a much larger gender gap in lifetime reports of partner violence; one possible explanation for this discrepancy is that men may be more likely to let such experiences fade from memory over time since they have less cultural support for seeing themselves as victims, particularly of female violence.)”
A lot of people initially thought Heather Mills was a victim too
But she donates so much time to charity!?!?
CHARITY!!!
Apparently Paul’s daughters stubbed their cigarettes out on her leg under the table at the wedding, such was their dislike of her. No idea where I got that nugget from.
I shouldn’t laugh…
This, which ‘wave’ of feminism do I mean question is a typical ploy by feminists to dismantle the argument against them.
Feminists, when they want to make noise, speak on behalf of all feminists by not making the distinction of whom, or what ‘wave’, they are representing.
Therefore, the only position when a feminist spouts nonsense or decries all men as evil, or claims a victimhood… the only position that can be taken is to call out “feminism” for it.
The very idea, that I am supposed to call the feminist out for the wave she represents within feminism is just a ploy to silence the objector. If the feminists don’t make the distinction, don’t be so arrogant to feel the genuinely aggrieved should make such a distinction when it is not declared. Get your sisters to declare their ‘wave’ when they speak, make claims, etc. as men do when a man acts violently, and the man condemns it, then so to should women call out foul women’s behaviour done in the name of ‘feminism’.
No it isn’t. That’s like you calling someone a right wing politician and failing to make any distinction between political approaches that fall under that umbrella term. It’s not hard to find out about. You seem to be angry and mad and taking it out on a political ideology that you don’t understand. Your entire “critique” of feminism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of it and “mean ladies blaming men” for god’s sake, one step from bra-burners.
I expect more from you of all people.
“It’s not hard to find out about.”
Yes.
It is.
Am I supposed to research any or every attack in order to make a rebuttal, hell we’ve been throwing comment back and forth here and all I know is you are a ‘feminist’… I’ve no idea what ‘wave’.
I’ll take Crenshaw’s advice over your opinion Don. Thanks.
Given that you were the one posting multiple wah-wah feminist posts on here, maybe you need to research what the point of that was?
I’m surprised you would even dare to take her advice given that she uses an ideology that wants women to think of men – as evil doers; and wants women to think of themselves – as victims.
In answer to the ‘wah-wah’ comment…. None of my points were wah-wah posts. All were responses with direct application to what I was responding to. That’s no wah-wah.
And your second… How else am I supposed to engage with it Don? It’s feminism that teaches women not to engage with what they don’t like, to shout it down, to protest men’s groups, etc. to not allow the other voice.
Hopefully not to wah-wah for you.
Ah come on Clampers, “oh the feminists won’t like this” and “look away feminists” posts are complete wah-wah. Disagree with it if all you want but the way you are doing it now makes you sound like a fedora-wearing MRA living in his mothers basement crying about the new Ghostbusters movie because it full of scary icky girls. If you’re cool with that, great.
You can start engaging by not making such silly assumptions. SOME feminists do and you know what, after I’ve read a bit about their experiences, I would too if I got the kind of comments and reactions they do. The same thing goes for any group with a “political” (if that’s how you want to define it) identity – POC, Muslims, travellers whatever who are told their opinions and viewpoints do not matter and are secondary to everything else, a “lifestyle” choice, that they are irrational and seeing things. The reaction they have got for years and continue to get. You engage by listening to what people are saying. I do not and cannot know what it is like to be a black woman today. But I can listen and I can learn and I can try and understand what it must be like. Men do not and cannot know what it is to be a women these days but can do the same.
That is the majority of feminism. What you read in the Mail or whatever is not the majority. Every political leaning has extremists that do not represent the majority and I’m surprised you can’t see that.
“Am I supposed to research any or every attack in order to make a rebuttal,”
Yes. Unless you were taking pony when you said the following further up the thread;
“but hey, let’s not let facts get in the way of a good emotional outcry.”
*talking pony.
Apologies, I should have been clearer in that point.
I was asked to check a ‘persons’ position, each and every individual, and their position within feminism. I was not asked to research the point being made. That’s a given.
Researching individual persons is not practical …unless it is an organised debate, then of course :)
Further to the above… Kimberlé Crenshaw would also encourage women and feminists to make their distinctions known.
Seeing as you brought up intersectionality, and Kimberlé is the mother of intersectionality in feminism then I’m sure you know that she espouses and encourages women to make their distinctions known within the ‘waves’ of feminism…. “say what difference it makes that it’s not you” says Kimberlé.
The context of that quote…
““When I was writing in the late 80s, there was a strain of discourse among women who were not the subjects of traditional feminism, to simply make critique a difference,” she says. “So just the claim of ‘woman’ or ‘feminist’, prompted some women of colour to say, “but that’s not me”. Well, yeah – that might not be you. But say what difference it makes that it’s not you – what difference does it make in what kinds of interventions come out of a feminist frame that doesn’t attend to race?””
Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/04/kimberl-crenshaw-intersectionality-i-wanted-come-everyday-metaphor-anyone-could
So, when ‘feminism’ hijacks an idea you don’t agree with, feminists should make that distinction known… not the aggrieved.
“aggrieved”
Jesus…..
:)
LOL and a *hug*
And nice dismissal… men don’t feel ‘aggrieved’, we’re all manly like :)
And that, my friend, is patriarchy
No, it’s sarcasm Don :)
You’re an idiot
Ah the final cry of name calling… on top if your personal.insults above, which I chose not to respond to above, a true feminist indeed.
The funny thing is Don, you avoided answering the Kimberle point, and still refuse to declare where you stand in rge ‘waves’ of feminism, which in fairness dies go some way to proving my point also.
Thanks
Sorry bout the typos… on the ph like
You both need a big bear hug
So you have a pet feminist who you believe. The rest you completely dismiss as well as my longer comment above. Why bother?
You’re being idiot so you one. Low tolerance for this kinda nonsense atm.
And the wave thing is stupid. Extrapolate that to its logical conclusion. *Insert opinion* as a race, gender, ethnicity, political spectrum, home town, street you grew up on, experiences of violence, experienced of university, street life, travel, the list goes on.
Delighted you see the wave thing is stupid…. particularly after you asked me to declare which wave. … albeit confusing to request i declare and then you call it nonsense…..
What I take from this article.
“Respectable” men who batter women = evil.
Poorly educated working class men who batter women = ok / can be excused by upbringing etc.