(no subject)
Jun. 5th, 2008 03:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
slemslempikeEarlier this week I read an article called 'An unusual pessary of dough and cocaine'. I thought that this was pretty much going to be the pinnacle of my article-reading day. Not so. In the same issue of that very journal:
'Accidental anal intercourse: does it really happen?'.
With graphs.
I also read the WNC priorities consultation, which includes the sentence: "We ensured that the views of women from Northern Ireland and Scotland were well represented, and we met with women in Wales." That amuses me quite a lot. Such semantic difference!
I have been looking at Dobash and Dobash articles. They are both professors at Manchester now, and have blurbs on their personal webpages. Rebecca Dobash's profile says: "Rebecca and Russell Dobash have won the World Congress of Victimology Award for Original Research and Publications in the area of Domestic Violence, the American Society of Criminology's Distinguished Book Award for Comparative Research and the American Criminological Association's August Vollmer Award and been visiting scholars at the University of California, Berkeley, University of Arizona, University of Melbourne and University of Sydney."
Russell Dobash's profile says: "He is an internationally recognised expert in the area of domestic violence and is co-winner of the American Society of Criminology's August Vollmer Award for significant contribution to research and policy. His research spans a number of areas - prisons, child sexual abuse - but he is best known for his research on violence." Weird, no? Or, rather, drearily predictable, I suppose.
I went to see What Happens in Vegas, and was really annoyed by a thing at the end. (And the whole thing, but this bit in particular.) Cameron Diaz's character is one of those shouty stockbroker type people in a yellow jacket, and it's shown throughout that her job is important to her, and she's up for a promotion, which she really seems to want. She doesn't seem unhappy - it's a stressful job, but she never mentions disliking it or wanting to do something else. Then at the end she is given the promotion, and instead she quits because she'd rather "do nothing than do something I don't love", which is something Ashton Kutcher's slacker character has said earlier in the film. Which is fine. It's an understandable, if utterly privileged, sentiment. But it's never been shown that it's something she doesn't love, it's just part of the automatic thing where she gets turned into a proper woman through heterosexual "love" and stops doing a masculine job because she couldn't possibly be happy in it and she's too uptight and bossy, and becomes more feminised and BLAH. Also, the enforced marriage counsellor calls her Mrs Fuller (his last name), as if the only way a marriage can be real is on those specific terms. I do realise that this is largely my fault for having seen it, and I didn't expect a feminist tract or anything, but this was more than usually disappointing.
'Accidental anal intercourse: does it really happen?'.
With graphs.
I also read the WNC priorities consultation, which includes the sentence: "We ensured that the views of women from Northern Ireland and Scotland were well represented, and we met with women in Wales." That amuses me quite a lot. Such semantic difference!
I have been looking at Dobash and Dobash articles. They are both professors at Manchester now, and have blurbs on their personal webpages. Rebecca Dobash's profile says: "Rebecca and Russell Dobash have won the World Congress of Victimology Award for Original Research and Publications in the area of Domestic Violence, the American Society of Criminology's Distinguished Book Award for Comparative Research and the American Criminological Association's August Vollmer Award and been visiting scholars at the University of California, Berkeley, University of Arizona, University of Melbourne and University of Sydney."
Russell Dobash's profile says: "He is an internationally recognised expert in the area of domestic violence and is co-winner of the American Society of Criminology's August Vollmer Award for significant contribution to research and policy. His research spans a number of areas - prisons, child sexual abuse - but he is best known for his research on violence." Weird, no? Or, rather, drearily predictable, I suppose.
I went to see What Happens in Vegas, and was really annoyed by a thing at the end. (And the whole thing, but this bit in particular.) Cameron Diaz's character is one of those shouty stockbroker type people in a yellow jacket, and it's shown throughout that her job is important to her, and she's up for a promotion, which she really seems to want. She doesn't seem unhappy - it's a stressful job, but she never mentions disliking it or wanting to do something else. Then at the end she is given the promotion, and instead she quits because she'd rather "do nothing than do something I don't love", which is something Ashton Kutcher's slacker character has said earlier in the film. Which is fine. It's an understandable, if utterly privileged, sentiment. But it's never been shown that it's something she doesn't love, it's just part of the automatic thing where she gets turned into a proper woman through heterosexual "love" and stops doing a masculine job because she couldn't possibly be happy in it and she's too uptight and bossy, and becomes more feminised and BLAH. Also, the enforced marriage counsellor calls her Mrs Fuller (his last name), as if the only way a marriage can be real is on those specific terms. I do realise that this is largely my fault for having seen it, and I didn't expect a feminist tract or anything, but this was more than usually disappointing.
