First Women of Colour & Beauty Carnival kicks off…
Soaring is launching a blog carnival dedicated to women of colour & beauty:
Submissions from women and men of color are welcome, focusing on these areas:What does beauty mean to women of color?
What is the difference between beauty and ethnically based sexual stereotyping? How does stereotyping and white supremacy affect our concepts of beauty, and how can we create change? What kind of responsibility do white women who identify as allies have to analyze and take ownership of their privilege in this area?
How do popular standards of beauty based on generalized whiteness affect our relationships with ourselves, each other, and between different groups of people of color?
Click here for info on how to submit to the carnival.
Meanwhile, Sinclair at Sugarbutch Chronicles put together an excellent post which links gender identity and homemaking:
It isn’t until I unpack all the societal gunk that I can really see, really understand, what it is that the soft animal of my body loves, and what it is that I should do with my wild and precious life.
Jezebel highlights some female athletes to watch out for at the Olympics.
The Daily Mail “has reached a peace deal”, as the Guardian puts it, with the Polish community, agreeing to delete from its website several incendiary articles.
Finally, We’re gonna need a bigger boat calls attention to a horrendous case, in which a judge decided that banning a 74-year-old man from his local pub was an adequate punishment for murdering his wife - worse than prison, no less.
Edward Flaherty, 74, was convicted of strangling 69-year-old Ina Flaherty with a tie after she refused to give him money to go out drinking.Lord Matthews said Flaherty’s dementia made him unsuited to prison.
He imposed a year-long restriction of liberty order which will keep him inside his home during opening hours.
Posted by Jess McCabe on 4 August 2008, at 9:04 PM | Comments (6)
Have your say
In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.
- This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what's anti-feminist.
- All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.
- No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.
- Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.
- No anonymous comments - please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.
- Be nice.
Feeds
Qubit said:
The punishment was more thought out than it sounds
"He said: "I have read and considered a number of reports from experts. It is plain to me that if I were to impose that sort of sentence you would be released in a very short time because prison would not be able to cope with your condition. Sentencing you would just be a token gesture. I am anxious to impose a sentence that restricts your liberty."
I think it is good that the judge thought to make sure a punishment that would stick was chosen.
Posted on 04 August 2008 at 11:18 PM
Eleanor T said:
To be fair, in the case of Edward Flaherty the ruling was that preventing him from visiting the same pub he'd visited with his wife was more of a punishment to him as prison would have been unsuitable for a person with dementia. Revoking his freedoms (he's also on house arrest from 11am - 11.30pm every day) will therefore have more of an impact as the prison system doesn't have appropriate measures in place to cope with those with dementia and would have almost certainly released him early.
The part that disgusts me? The fact his freedom has been revoked for only a year. If you want to make the punishment fit the crime without prison, he should've been placed under house arrest for the next 25 years.
Posted on 04 August 2008 at 11:36 PM
Kath said:
I am a strong believer in penal reform. Custodial sentences are imposed far more often than is necessary or practical. I would agree with the judge that prison is not an appropriate place for someone suffering from dementia. Of course being banned from the pub is not the answer either. This man needs care appropriate to his condition which may include hospitalisation if he is assessed to be a danger to the public.
Posted on 05 August 2008 at 9:26 AM
Paul said:
Custodial sentences generally aren't appropriate or effective full stop, regardless of the crime. Prison doesn't work, it doesn't turn criminals in to citizens and if anything merely serves as a form of 'punishment', which helps no one. Unless someone presents a direct and immediate threat to the community, and cannot be contained or managed in any other way, I think we need to move away from the idea of prison other than for the most extreme sociopaths.
Posted on 05 August 2008 at 10:52 AM
chem_fem said:
looking forward to this feminist carnival - looks fascinating.
Posted on 05 August 2008 at 12:04 PM
skywardprodigal said:
Hi there! Thanks for mentioning the first Women of Color and Beauty Carnival. I am not launching it, however. delux_vivens @ livejournal is. The carnival will be posted at yennenga.
Thanks for the links on the Olympic athletes and Daily Mail.
Posted on 05 August 2008 at 3:18 PM