工作室裡面有甚麼?

所謂的'真實的'語言 'Factual' Language

本文給了很好的例子解釋 所謂的'真實的'語言對於事實會呈現不同的意義.
特別是給了例子解釋報紙新聞標題如何模糊了男人對於性暴力所應擔負的責任, 讓性侵與家暴變成女人的責任. 我們要讓男人自我省察,不要成為加害者

This article gives excellent examples of how 'factual' language can present the apparent meaning of facts very differently.
It especially gives good examples of how men are disappeared from headlines about rape, giving rise to the idea that women are somehow responsible for their own rapes, rather than saying that men had better stop raping.
I Want a Twenty-Four-Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape

This is a difficult article. Difficult in that it is the transcript of a long speech. And difficult because Andrea Dworkin speaks the unvarnished truth. No prettiness, no vagueness. So it is powerful, and also hard to hear. I've read it twice in the past ten years, and only reading it this third time do I finally realize how clearly and exactly she lays out the situation. It was I who had to clean out my ears: she was speaking as clearly the whole time.

Edited to add: Stacy feels this article (in Chinese) is related to the above. I haven't read it yet, but will, before we meet.
Edited to add: I've read it now, and there is a new post about it here.

女性不要結婚?

情大家都相來參加這個禮拜一的聚會,在11/9, 7:30pm.題目是:為什麼這麼多女性不結婚?

Welcome to our next discussion, on monday Nov 9, at 7:30pm. The topic is: why do so many women not marry? Moderator is Maggie.

討論活動換到星期一.Meetings changed to Mondays.

因為交通的關係,周五7:30的一系列討論活動換到星期一.下次會在10/26,在Rethinking Ourselves中心的空間. 下次相約見面哦!

本討論會,10/26,將討論為什麼高學歷與高失業率有關?

New Discussion Series on Friday Nights, Starting 10/16!

我們現在開始了一系列的週五晚上的討論,每星期在7:30。他們將舉行新的空間,和平東路1段177號4樓之10。每次會議的公告將在這個空間和Plurk(後續three_circles)。

本週10/16,我們將討論是否奧巴馬有權授予諾貝爾和平獎。

討論將在中文。此外,如果每個人可以作出貢獻50-100NT,以幫助支付蛋糕,咖啡,將是很棒。

We’re now starting up a series of Friday night discussions, each week at 7:30. They’ll be held at our new space on Hoping E. Rd, Sec 1, No. 177, 4F-10. Announcements of each meeting will be made at this space and on Plurk (follow three_circles).

This week 10/16, we’ll discuss whether it was right to award Obama the Nobel Peace prize.

All are welcome! Discussions will be held in Chinese. Participants in the discussion are asked to contribute 50-100NT to help defray the cost of refreshments and air conditioning.

Law is the guardian of property, not people.

This post is for Julie, in case you actually drop by. We were talking about law, you said you were uncomfortable on some level with the study of it. When I read this quote from “Beyond Power” by Marilyn French, I thought it might be of use to you:

“Simple cultures have unwritten customs which bind the community through general consent. This is true even in societies we would not call ‘primitive’: J.M. Synge decribed how twentieth century Aran fishermen, if they had done wrong, would take the boat over to Galway alone and put themselves in jail. Simple communities ‘cannot be said to have “law,” because there is no way to distinguish . . . legal . . from other social rules.’ Law emerges with centralization, stratification, and the ownership of private property. Most early codes of law are concerned with property rights. Even the very early Mosaic code warns against coveting the property—wives and animals—of others. Although most of us think abut laws as guardians of life and limb, modern law is overwhelmingly concerned with property. And no profession is more bound up with the expansion of control, and the gradual shift towards totalitarianism, than law.”

Trust

Our next meeting is in our new space!! Yay!!
Rethinkingourselves finally has its own clubhouse!
The new space is called "Three Circles", and the address is
和平東路一段177號4F之10 (Hoping East Road, Sec. 1, No. 177, 4F-10).
Our next meeting is this Sunday, 10/11 at 3pm. The moderator is Angela.

The article this week is from Shakesville. It's very long, so if you don't have time, just read the words in boldface. (I've also simplified it a bit from the original.) Oh, and hey, here's an excellent translator for individual words, and here's a good one for short phrases. Cut, paste, and understand! :) They're awesome, I use them all the time for reading and writing chinese.


I am not a man-hater.



If I played by misogynists' rules, specifically the one that dictates it only takes one woman doing one Mean or Duplicitous or Disrespectful or Unlawful or otherwise Bad Thing to justify hatred of all women, I would have plenty of justification for hating men, if I wanted to.