Shryke Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 but the WW2 image is an unacknowledged crime, whereas the vietnam image is an acknowledged crime. certainly that distinction is important?The WW2 image isn't about the crime at all though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I think that is exactly Terra's point, that because it represents some larger thing (the jubilation at the end of the war) the crime is irrelevant, and that says something about society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I think that is exactly Terra's point, that because it represents some larger thing (the jubilation at the end of the war) the crime is irrelevant, and that says something about society.The crime isn't irrelevant, it's just irrelevant to the picture and what it represents and why it's famous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I always thought I was seeing a spontaneous kiss in that picture, a sailor who came up to a girl in the delirium of post-peace announcement celebrations and just kissed her out of shear joy. The fact that it was an assault never crossed my mind. And frankly speaking, bringing this up and reviewing the past is the right thing to do. It was an assault. And it does speak volumes about what a man could do and what a woman was expected to accept, because he was 'forgiven' his actions. But even back in 1945, lots of women would have found his action unacceptable, and lots of men would have been angry about it too. As Shryke says, the overriding element of the picture is what it symbolically represents. But that doen't take away from the fact we can understand what's going on, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 heh. the fun way to say it is thatthe irreducible precondition that opens the possibility for bellicose photography's celebratory imaginary is the officially unacknowledged and apparently unacknowledgeable persistence of sexual assault against human female persons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elder Sister Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share Posted October 11, 2012 Just when I start thinking you're a real person and not a brain trust, you go and befuddle me again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I always thought I was seeing a spontaneous kiss in that picture, a sailor who came up to a girl in the delirium of post-peace announcement celebrations and just kissed her out of shear joy. The fact that it was an assault never crossed my mind. Isn't it, precisely, both of those things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Well, now we know from the interviews and books what the exact circumstances were. My mother told me about tears of joy, tears of grief, mixed with the urge to hug and kiss strangers when people realized the war was over. Her circumstances were different, though, they were running as fast as they could trying to escape the Russians. She actually made it to a town where the Americans and the Russians met head to head, and was in the town square and witnessed the forced retreat of the Americans, step by step backwards, rifles cocked at the Russians, who pushed them out of the town step by step forwards, rifles aimed at the American soldiers.The kiss in the picture might not have been an assault, the woman could have reached to kiss the sailor, and I think that most people over the years have assumed the kiss was welcome. It's that assumption that's central to this discussion, and the reactions to the disclosed truth that are so revelatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isalie Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 So, full disclosure, I was watching Hart of Dixie the other day, it really is a terrible show, terrible, but me and the missus are waiting for HBO Nordic and we are just kind of powering through it in spite of ourselves.Anywho, the protagonist is upset because something or other (they had not just won the war), and the supporting cast guy walks up and kisses her to shut her up. She stands there, takes it, and it's no big deal. Really? This works on TV in 2012? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 A very satisfying smack-down delivered by Jill Gillard from Australia on the sexism and misogyny of her opponent, Tony Abott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 A very satisfying smack-down delivered by Jill Gillard from Australia on the sexism and misogyny of her opponent, Tony Abott.I've been meaning to link that in here, but was going to do a more detailed post giving some context, and the situation is complicated. Also it's Julia Gillard :PWill try do that post with context later today or maybe tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinsdale! Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I've been meaning to link that in here, but was going to do a more detailed post giving some context, and the situation is complicated. Also it's Julia Gillard :PWill try do that post with context later today or maybe tomorrow.Please do. I read about this on Jezebel, and honestly I am thoroughly confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Yes, I know nothing of Gillard's record om feminism, so she could very well be as big a hypocrite as she's making Abott to be. But at least in that limited context, that take-down was cathartic. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elder Sister Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 Yes, I know nothing of Gillard's record om feminism, so she could very well be as big a hypocrite as she's making Abott to be. But at least in that limited context, that take-down was cathartic. :)I was sleepy til I watched her. Now I want to go slap some misogynists and/or Paul Ryan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Will Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Yes, I know nothing of Gillard's record om feminism, so she could very well be as big a hypocrite as she's making Abott to be.But at least in that limited context, that take-down was cathartic. :)I'm not sure what karaddin's take on it is, but as far as I know Gillard has a decent record on feminist issues generally. She certainly isn't as big a hypocrite as Abbott on this particular issue. But, I think there's little doubt that there was a certain amount of political opportunism at work here in that while Abbott and Slipper are almost certainly both raving misogynists, Gillard seems to be willing to live with Slipper's misogyny for as long as she possible can because it helps with the numbers in lower house (which are exceptionally tight at the moment). On the other hand, Gillard only went after Abbott because, in his own act of political opportunism, and despite his own history of very public misogyny, he tried to get Slipper fired on exactly those ground. So Abbott certainly had it coming.Even in context, and tainted by politics, that speech was pretty cathartic. Abbott is about as slimy a weasel as weasels get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Though the speech did come on the same day as Labor reinstated a conservative-era decision to take up to $140 per week out of 100,000 single parent payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna Stark Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Wow. I wonder how long she'd sat on some of those things. A lovely slap down though, even if it was politically convenient. She's far better when she's going in offense instead of defending.I wish we'd hear this sort of things more often. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillio Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I met her once, before she was PM. They were campaigning in my local area and stopped at the centre for a coffee (not mine!!!)she was walking through the food court, saw that I recognised her, and came over to say hello! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 And was she right when she said that Abbott had stood next to signs that described her as a "witch" and a "bitch?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brook Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Yes, that happened at this rally http://m.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/pinocchio-gillard-strong-antigillard-emissions-at-canberra-carbon-tax-protest-20110323-1c5w7.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.