[Politics] End of WW2 Kissing Nurse statue

[astralavi]

#metoo spray painted on this.

Important political statement or naive vandalism?

He did appently grab her, but it was the end of the war and people were just celebrating?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news...e-stranger-defaced-with-metoo-phrase-11642802

 

[GT49er]

#metoo spray painted on this.

Important political statement or naive vandalism?

He did appently grab her, but it was the end of the war and people were just celebrating?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news...e-stranger-defaced-with-metoo-phrase-11642802

Vandalism. It's the 'work' of a pathetic shite, probably with a small penis that doesn't work very well anyway (unless it was a very maladjusted woman).

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The graffiti was there for a few hours and cleaned off. The statue is still there.

 

[The Clamp]

The lady who was kissed, I forget her name, stated a few years ago that it was a surprise but she didn’t mind at all. The war was over. The statue “unconditional surrender” is still very much there.
This act has done the #metoo movement no favours.

 

[surlyseagull]

Pathetic ....end of the war ,end of being constantly scared ......jeez metoo .
Like a lady from the war years said to myself yesterday "how dare they ,not in my name" and I would think a vast amount of women feel the same .

 

[Goldstone1976]

The lady who was kissed, I forget her name, stated a few years ago that it was a surprise but she didn’t mind at all.

Hmm. I’m not so sure about that. Reading what she’s actually said about the event, it seems to me that she understood, which is not the same as “not minding at all”.

Here’s a transcript of an interview with her in Aug 2005. http://memory.loc.gov/diglib/vhp/story/loc.natlib.afc2001001.42863/transcript?ID=sr0001

In it, although she says “And so suddenly I was grabbed by a sailor, and it wasn't that much of a kiss, it was more of a jubilant act...”, she also says (when asked whether she’d do a re-enactment of the kiss when the two of them met again in Times Square in 1980) “...I didn't want to reenact the kiss...it wasn't my choice to be kissed. The guy just came over and kissed or grabbed.”. She uses the word “grabbed” four times in that interview.

To me, these do not seem the words of a woman who “didn’t mind at all”; more those of a woman who has accepted what happened with good grace, and who has suffered no ill consequence.

I’m torn on this. I do understand why the man did what he did, but the woman he did it to (and he did “do” it to her, she was a completely unknowing participant) has said multiple times that she was “grabbed”. So, under today’s mores, that’s a straight-forward case of sexual assault, isn’t it?

As I say, torn. Understand, but...

 

[Baker lite]

There are some scumbags that would say” it’s only a bit graffiti, get over it” absolute shithouses, graffiti is so disrespectful and brings an area down.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[clarkey]

The guy, or the guy they think is the guy, died on Tuesday

 

[Spicy]

The guy, or the guy they think is the guy, died on Tuesday

I am concerned that if it is the guy they think is the guy who did it and who they think died on Tuesday will have a decent funeral or will have to wait to know whether the guy they think is the guy who did it died on Tuesday and now think he was buried. Sorry.

 

[GT49er]

So, under today’s mores, that’s a straight-forward case of sexual assault, isn’t it?...

But it wasn't done under today's mores, it was done under the mores of 1945 or 46, so that argument is dead in the water from the minute #metoo bleated it.

 

[Goldstone1976]

But it wasn't done under today's mores, it was done under the mores of 1945 or 46, so that argument is dead in the water from the minute #metoo bleated it.

Agreed.

I disagree with the vandalism of the statue for that reason. But if you’re running a campaign with activists, it’s not hugely surprising the vandalism happened.

 

[The Clamp]

Hmm. I’m not so sure about that. Reading what she’s actually said about the event, it seems to me that she understood, which is not the same as “not minding at all”.

Here’s a transcript of an interview with her in Aug 2005. http://memory.loc.gov/diglib/vhp/story/loc.natlib.afc2001001.42863/transcript?ID=sr0001

In it, although she says “And so suddenly I was grabbed by a sailor, and it wasn't that much of a kiss, it was more of a jubilant act...”, she also says (when asked whether she’d do a re-enactment of the kiss when the two of them met again in Times Square in 1980) “...I didn't want to reenact the kiss...it wasn't my choice to be kissed. The guy just came over and kissed or grabbed.”. She uses the word “grabbed” four times in that interview.

To me, these do not seem the words of a woman who “didn’t mind at all”; more those of a woman who has accepted what happened with good grace, and who has suffered no ill consequence.

I’m torn on this. I do understand why the man did what he did, but the woman he did it to (and he did “do” it to her, she was a completely unknowing participant) has said multiple times that she was “grabbed”. So, under today’s mores, that’s a straight-forward case of sexual assault, isn’t it?

As I say, torn. Understand, but...

Don’t be fooled, they bloody love it

 

[Goldstone1976]

Don’t be fooled, they bloody love it