Author
|
Topic: Judes alert! CBC now!
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 16 January 2005 11:04 AM
Sunday Edition, that is; on Radio One.The panellists: quote: Judy Rebick is a well known feminist and author of the forthcoming book Ten Thousand Roses: The Making of a Feminist Revolution.Dr. Elizabeth Abbott is a Research Associate at the University of Toronto's Trinity College, the author of several books, including A History of Celibacy, A History of Mistresses and the upcoming A History of Marriage. In Montreal , Professor Daniel Cere is the Director of the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture and a professor at McGill University.
One thing that struck me about the discussion was how different it was from the debates over SSM that we often see on babble. In a way, Judes summed up that difference in her concluding remarks, when she was asked what she expected from the parliamentary debate coming up on the new SSM legislation. She said that she saw the debate already set up, not as an open discussion of the meaning of marriage, which the broadcast had been, but as a cover for debating homophobia. Judes and Abbott both spoke critically of "traditional marriage," although with different emphases. Judes discussed it as patriarchal in its origins and still patriarchal to its core. She talked about gay and lesbian resisters of SSM as critics, like her, of that patriarchal core -- and then of those who will be opposing SSM in the debate in Parliament as, basically, defenders of the patriarchy, although they are not going to be admitting that. Abbott spoke out of her own historical studies, mainly to take apart the very notion of "traditional" marriage, offering a wide variety of examples of traditional marriage, although she was agreeing that it was patriarchal. Cere spoke to a more "liberal" model that he regrets has been left out of current debates, although he agreed with the other two panellists' characterization of the parliamentary debate that is likely to take place. Well -- it was more or less like that.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 16 January 2005 01:26 PM
Something to keep in mind is that there are 25 local feeds of CBC radio available on the internet, including a 16 kbps feed that dial-up users should be able to hear.It's on the Vancouver feed now. http://www.cbc.ca/listen/index.html
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 16 January 2005 01:59 PM
Here you go:http://tinyurl.com/4wdj5 (And a great big thank you to whoever it was who suggested using google to search babble instead of the anaemic search function!) quote: Being so giddy about planning our lives together has made us think a lot about love. And with a recent court ruling in favour of same-sex marriage rights in Nova Scotia, 82% of people in Canada are now free to marry whomever they love, regardless of their gender. We say it’s about time. One of the factors that lead to our getting married when we did and where we did was our determination to not make use of any privilege that had been afforded to us just because we’re a straight couple. So as soon as Gays and Lesbians started getting married in Ontario, we decided to do the same!
In another article about it, Toronto couple Martin Traub-Werner and Tamara Kronos are also mentioned as a couple that postponed marriage until it was open to all.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 16 January 2005 02:52 PM
But you've never lived in an environment where gays and lesbians were part of everyday life, co-workers, family members, friends, colleagues, neighbours.For an awful lot of straight people, gay rights aren't an abstract issue in the news, nor is homophobia. This is, by the way, why our winning is inevitable. We do all have families whose hearts ache when they see us hurt. That's why evil men like Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary are doomed to failure. Those whose minds they seek to poison know better. They know their sons and daughters aren't sick, evil, immoral or any of the things he accuses them of.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 16 January 2005 02:54 PM
quote: I don't really object strongly to the bouquet thing, if it's all in good fun. The tossing of the bride's garter I find quite offensive, but I wouldn't mind it if the groom tossed his lapel flower
Honestly I always thought it was lame a bunch of women in dresses embarrassing themselves trying to go for the bouquet so they could say they are going to be married next. I always found it an offensive exercise and I didnt' do it. And the garter...that's offensive for a number of reasons...one is men sometimes turn it into catching a football and all of the pushing/shoving...the other is the personal nature of the garment...and the whole "contest" aspect.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795
|
posted 16 January 2005 03:20 PM
RealityBites & Hailey—While I don't agree with either of you on everything, I like both of you, and it always privately bothered me that your "discussions" (some would call them "run ins" ) here on babble were so fractious. I'd just like to publicly comment on how pleased I am to see you two discussing something in such an agreeable manner. Just goes to show you... What's next? Cueball and Macabee getting along? *ducking and running* But seriously, you two... good show, and good on ya both!
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019
|
posted 17 January 2005 01:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by RealityBites:
You would.
So? Why do you find it objectionable?
From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|