View Thread
blakes7online » Rewatches » B7 Rewatches
 Print Thread
Rewatch Downunder - D5 Animals, Saturday 29th October
Tyce

M1795537OCVirn wrote: ↑

Going back to past agricultural decision-making... you Aussies didn't really get a good start, did you? Convicts dumped on the other side of the world had to use what they knew, sort of thing. That sort of history isn't easy to escape from. But at least Permaculture began in Tasmania!

Yep, a lot of problems that we’re still trying to sort out.
 
AnneArthur

M1795537OCVirn wrote: ↑

Seeing how she dealt with Og, I don't think Servalan would approve of pets in her Federation. Probably banned them.


A pity. A white persian cat would just suit her.
 
Tyce

AnneArthur wrote: ↑

Obsidian wrote: ↑

AnneArthur wrote: ↑

Obsidian wrote: ↑

AnneArthur wrote: ↑

Justin really is a piece of work - but the Dayna relationship makes him even more creepy. If it had been Cally he had been involved with, we would be focussing on the ethics of his work with the animals, rather than his involvement with a minor.


The legal age for marriage of women in Australia was 14 until the 1940s. Even until the 1990s, women of 14 or 15 could marry with permission from parents. I had a friend who married at only just 15 during the 1970s. 'Minor' is not an immutable construct.


No, I know that - and also that it is something of an obsession these days. When this episode was made, there would have been a less relaxed attitude than in the seventies, but we would not yet have got to the revulsion that is the general attitude now. Presumably the makers of the programme would have seen the animal experiments as the main ethical issue - but in practice it has not turned out that way., and that harms the episode.


It does harm the episode insofar as it's the ignorant and misinformed who make the most noise, not realising that they can lay no claim to the moral high ground.

Two words: Dunning Kruger


I suppose that one way of looking at it is that it does inform Justin's character. He is happy with starting a relationship with a young girl he is tutoring (presumably in her home, and under her father's nose), and he is happy to use questionable methods to create the radation-proof animals. In both cases he has no problem with ethical grey areas.

Yeah that’s true.
 
M1795537OCVirn

Obsidian wrote: ↑

M1795537OCVirn wrote: ↑

Going back to past agricultural decision-making... you Aussies didn't really get a good start, did you? Convicts dumped on the other side of the world had to use what they knew, sort of thing. That sort of history isn't easy to escape from. But at least Permaculture began in Tasmania!


It's more about which multinationals own everything.


Agreed - it is now, which is how most food production is in a mess, everywhere. They put profit before common sense, most of the time.
"You're not sulking, I hope?"
 
Obsidian

Tyce wrote: ↑

Obsidian wrote: ↑

AnneArthur wrote: ↑

Justin really is a piece of work - but the Dayna relationship makes him even more creepy. If it had been Cally he had been involved with, we would be focussing on the ethics of his work with the animals, rather than his involvement with a minor.


The legal age for marriage of women in Australia was 14 until the 1940s. Even until the 1990s, women of 14 or 15 could marry with permission from parents. I had a friend who married at only just 15 during the 1970s. 'Minor' is not an immutable construct.

Maybe not. But the younger a woman/girl is the more likelihood of an abusive/power imbalance situation. I’m more than happy with the current definition of legal age.


And I've attended the wedding of a 12 year-old girl and 13 year-old boy. It's all relative and depends on culture and mortality.

But I agree to bringing the marriageable age of women up to the same level as that for men. Actually, scrub that. Men are never old enough.Grin
Don't philosophise at me you electronic moron.
 
https://www.seraglio-design.com/
M1795537OCVirn

Tyce wrote: ↑

AnneArthur wrote: ↑

Obsidian wrote: ↑

AnneArthur wrote: ↑

Obsidian wrote: ↑

AnneArthur wrote: ↑

Justin really is a piece of work - but the Dayna relationship makes him even more creepy. If it had been Cally he had been involved with, we would be focussing on the ethics of his work with the animals, rather than his involvement with a minor.


The legal age for marriage of women in Australia was 14 until the 1940s. Even until the 1990s, women of 14 or 15 could marry with permission from parents. I had a friend who married at only just 15 during the 1970s. 'Minor' is not an immutable construct.


No, I know that - and also that it is something of an obsession these days. When this episode was made, there would have been a less relaxed attitude than in the seventies, but we would not yet have got to the revulsion that is the general attitude now. Presumably the makers of the programme would have seen the animal experiments as the main ethical issue - but in practice it has not turned out that way., and that harms the episode.


It does harm the episode insofar as it's the ignorant and misinformed who make the most noise, not realising that they can lay no claim to the moral high ground.

Two words: Dunning Kruger


I suppose that one way of looking at it is that it does inform Justin's character. He is happy with starting a relationship with a young girl he is tutoring (presumably in her home, and under her father's nose), and he is happy to use questionable methods to create the radation-proof animals. In both cases he has no problem with ethical grey areas.

Yeah that’s true.


And we all know about Dayna's 'healthy curiosity' don't we?
"You're not sulking, I hope?"
 
Tyce
Just to let you know, I won’t be here next week. I’ll be at a f-ABBA-lous function in Melbourne.
 
Obsidian

AnneArthur wrote: ↑

M1795537OCVirn wrote: ↑

Seeing how she dealt with Og, I don't think Servalan would approve of pets in her Federation. Probably banned them.


A pity. A white persian cat would just suit her.


What??? White fur on all that black? Maybe when she was Servie and not Sleer.
Don't philosophise at me you electronic moron.
 
https://www.seraglio-design.com/
AnneArthur

Obsidian wrote: ↑

AnneArthur wrote: ↑

M1795537OCVirn wrote: ↑

Seeing how she dealt with Og, I don't think Servalan would approve of pets in her Federation. Probably banned them.


A pity. A white persian cat would just suit her.


What??? White fur on all that black? Maybe when she was Servie and not Sleer.


Grin
 
Obsidian

AnneArthur wrote: ↑



I suppose that one way of looking at it is that it does inform Justin's character. He is happy with starting a relationship with a young girl he is tutoring (presumably in her home, and under her father's nose), and he is happy to use questionable methods to create the radation-proof animals. In both cases he has no problem with ethical grey areas.


He is a creep, although maybe he was less of a creep/given less opportunity to be a creep when he was Dayna's tutor.
Don't philosophise at me you electronic moron.
 
https://www.seraglio-design.com/
Tyce

Obsidian wrote: ↑

Tyce wrote: ↑

Obsidian wrote: ↑

AnneArthur wrote: ↑

Justin really is a piece of work - but the Dayna relationship makes him even more creepy. If it had been Cally he had been involved with, we would be focussing on the ethics of his work with the animals, rather than his involvement with a minor.


The legal age for marriage of women in Australia was 14 until the 1940s. Even until the 1990s, women of 14 or 15 could marry with permission from parents. I had a friend who married at only just 15 during the 1970s. 'Minor' is not an immutable construct.

Maybe not. But the younger a woman/girl is the more likelihood of an abusive/power imbalance situation. I’m more than happy with the current definition of legal age.


And I've attended the wedding of a 12 year-old girl and 13 year-old boy. It's all relative and depends on culture and mortality.

But I agree to bringing the marriageable age of women up to the same level as that for men. Actually, scrub that. Men are never old enough.Grin

LOL

It’s when they marry 12-year-old girls off to 50-year-old man that I throw up.
 
AnneArthur

Tyce wrote: ↑

Just to let you know, I won’t be here next week. I’ll be at a f-ABBA-lous function in Melbourne.


Have a great time! And nice to see you this week.
 
Tyce
By folks, see you in a fortnight.
 
Obsidian

Tyce wrote: ↑

Just to let you know, I won’t be here next week. I’ll be at a f-ABBA-lous function in Melbourne.


Well you have a f-ABBA-abulous time, won't you?
Don't philosophise at me you electronic moron.
 
https://www.seraglio-design.com/
M1795537OCVirn
OK, that's all folks! Time I did something useful, I guess. Hope you get some better weather in Aussie. Take care, everyone. Until next time, when we hit what, for me, is probably the silliest B7 ep of all. But never mind, I'm sure we'll find something tangental to talk about.
"You're not sulking, I hope?"
 
AnneArthur

Tyce wrote: ↑

Obsidian wrote: ↑

Tyce wrote: ↑

Obsidian wrote: ↑

AnneArthur wrote: ↑

Justin really is a piece of work - but the Dayna relationship makes him even more creepy. If it had been Cally he had been involved with, we would be focussing on the ethics of his work with the animals, rather than his involvement with a minor.


The legal age for marriage of women in Australia was 14 until the 1940s. Even until the 1990s, women of 14 or 15 could marry with permission from parents. I had a friend who married at only just 15 during the 1970s. 'Minor' is not an immutable construct.

Maybe not. But the younger a woman/girl is the more likelihood of an abusive/power imbalance situation. I’m more than happy with the current definition of legal age.


And I've attended the wedding of a 12 year-old girl and 13 year-old boy. It's all relative and depends on culture and mortality.

But I agree to bringing the marriageable age of women up to the same level as that for men. Actually, scrub that. Men are never old enough.Grin

LOL

It’s when they marry 12-year-old girls off to 50-year-old man that I throw up.


It does occasionally happen the other way round. But the problem is that 50 year old man can still father children, so are still valuable in the marriage market, whereas 50 year old women are much less useful.

I am currently reading a biography of Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy. She didn't remarry after her husband's death, although she was still quite young, and the fact that their marriage had been childless seems to have been a big part of that. As a barren woman (or so it was assumed), she wasn't very useful. The other part of it was that she was rich, and did not need to marry. She seems to have been quite happy with this state of affairs.
Edited by AnneArthur on 29-10-2022 10:38
 
Obsidian

Tyce wrote: ↑



It’s when they marry 12-year-old girls off to 50-year-old man that I throw up.


We go on about it in 'The West', but it isn't as common as our famously biased White Men's Media (WMM) would like to make out. It's part of building our revulsion of 'the Other', something that the WMM would like us to feel so that we keep okay-ing their little wars.
Don't philosophise at me you electronic moron.
 
https://www.seraglio-design.com/
Obsidian

M1795537OCVirn wrote: ↑

OK, that's all folks! Time I did something useful, I guess. Hope you get some better weather in Aussie. Take care, everyone. Until next time, when we hit what, for me, is probably the silliest B7 ep of all. But never mind, I'm sure we'll find something tangental to talk about.


I'm thinking on a tangent... 🤔

Yes, I find the robot very silly and Linda Bellingham type-cast but the ep. is waaay better in many respects to the last couple. Some good humour in it. Looking forward to it.
Don't philosophise at me you electronic moron.
 
https://www.seraglio-design.com/
Obsidian

AnneArthur wrote: ↑


It does occasionally happen the other way round. But the problem is that 50 year old man can still father children, so are still valuable in the marriage market, whereas 50 year old women are much less useful.

I am currently reading a biography of Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy. She didn't remarry after her husband's death, although she was still quite young, and the fact that their marriage had been childless seems to have been a big part of that. As a barren woman (or so it was assumed), she wasn't very useful. The other part of it was that she was rich, and did not need to marry. She seems to have been quite happy with this state of affairs.


Blokes were quick in the past to assume it was the woman's fault. Marriages amongst the Bedu are undone for this reason, but I know a lady who went on to have several kids after she found a new bloke. All power to her. She didn't need that first idiot after all.
Don't philosophise at me you electronic moron.
 
https://www.seraglio-design.com/
AnneArthur

Obsidian wrote: ↑

Tyce wrote: ↑



It’s when they marry 12-year-old girls off to 50-year-old man that I throw up.


We go on about it in 'The West', but it isn't as common as our famously biased White Men's Media (WMM) would like to make out. It's part of building our revulsion of 'the Other', something that the WMM would like us to feel so that we keep okay-ing their little wars.


Noble girls (and boys) were married very young in medieval Europe, but it was normal for them not to cohabit until they were 15 or so - the 'age of consent' was fixed at puberty, but there was less abuse of very young girls than is sometimes assumed.

Interestingly the earlier age of puberty for grils meant that they were considered to be adult earlier in other ways. The inquisition in 13th century Languedoc questioned all men over 14 and all women over 12 about their involvement with heretics.
 
AnneArthur

Obsidian wrote: ↑

AnneArthur wrote: ↑


It does occasionally happen the other way round. But the problem is that 50 year old man can still father children, so are still valuable in the marriage market, whereas 50 year old women are much less useful.

I am currently reading a biography of Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy. She didn't remarry after her husband's death, although she was still quite young, and the fact that their marriage had been childless seems to have been a big part of that. As a barren woman (or so it was assumed), she wasn't very useful. The other part of it was that she was rich, and did not need to marry. She seems to have been quite happy with this state of affairs.


Blokes were quick in the past to assume it was the woman's fault. Marriages amongst the Bedu are undone for this reason, but I know a lady who went on to have several kids after she found a new bloke. All power to her. She didn't need that first idiot after all.


In this case, the husband did have a daughter from his first marriage - but only the one, so perhaps not entirely the fault of the wife! I agree that it is generally the woman who gets the blame - the fragile male ego can't cope with the idea that he has any problems, I think! But to be a rich, independent widow would probably be most medieval women's idea of the good life, so I don't think we should feel sorry for her.
 
Tyce

Obsidian wrote: ↑

AnneArthur wrote: ↑


It does occasionally happen the other way round. But the problem is that 50 year old man can still father children, so are still valuable in the marriage market, whereas 50 year old women are much less useful.

I am currently reading a biography of Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy. She didn't remarry after her husband's death, although she was still quite young, and the fact that their marriage had been childless seems to have been a big part of that. As a barren woman (or so it was assumed), she wasn't very useful. The other part of it was that she was rich, and did not need to marry. She seems to have been quite happy with this state of affairs.


Blokes were quick in the past to assume it was the woman's fault. Marriages amongst the Bedu are undone for this reason, but I know a lady who went on to have several kids after she found a new bloke. All power to her. She didn't need that first idiot after all.

Yeah well look at Henry VIII he blamed all his wives (except Jane Seymour). Much more likely that he as the ‘common denominator’ was the problem.
 
AnneArthur
Headhunter is not a great favourite with me. The 'very powerful robot' is a tedious trope, I think - especially when that particular robot seems rather clunky and awkward. I'm afraid I'm thinking 'only two more episodes until the good half' now.

Anyway, nice to see you all on what is a cold and wet morning here. See you an hour earlier next week!
 
AnneArthur

Tyce wrote: ↑

Obsidian wrote: ↑

AnneArthur wrote: ↑


It does occasionally happen the other way round. But the problem is that 50 year old man can still father children, so are still valuable in the marriage market, whereas 50 year old women are much less useful.

I am currently reading a biography of Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy. She didn't remarry after her husband's death, although she was still quite young, and the fact that their marriage had been childless seems to have been a big part of that. As a barren woman (or so it was assumed), she wasn't very useful. The other part of it was that she was rich, and did not need to marry. She seems to have been quite happy with this state of affairs.


Blokes were quick in the past to assume it was the woman's fault. Marriages amongst the Bedu are undone for this reason, but I know a lady who went on to have several kids after she found a new bloke. All power to her. She didn't need that first idiot after all.

Yeah well look at Henry VIII he blamed all his wives (except Jane Seymour). Much more likely that he as the ‘common denominator’ was the problem.


I wouldn't like to be the one to suggest to Henry VIII that he had any problems in that department! Something even the most brazen courtier might balk at.
 
AnneArthur
Anyway, nice to see you all! Have a good week.
 
Jump to Forum