Author: Mike Meredith

  • More Downs Images

    The following were made over a week ago around the village of Finchdean :-

    #1: Church In The Valley

    Valley Church

    Interesting church this one – an ancient hunting lodge chapel.

    #2: Follow The Path

    Follow The Path

    It’s hard to stop walking along this path.

    #3: Cloud Path

    Cloud Path
  • World Naked Bike Ride – Portsmouth

    No, there’s no pictures here.

    Today Portsmouth had it’s very first World Naked Bike ride to demonstrate against the car culture. I’m not a cyclist so didn’t take part (perhaps we should have a World Naked Walker day!), but thought it was a worthy protest done in a fun way. The organisers were troubled by the activities of a certain group of fundamentalist christians who were upset that anybody would dare to bare.

    I happened to catch them riding past as I was walking back into work. And the reaction of the onlookers? From what I could see from the reactions of the “crowd”, pretty much everyone thought it was fun – nobody seemed upset and nobody seemed overly “excited”. It brightened up an otherwise somewhat gloomy day – it certainly wasn’t the best weather for naked anything!

    Those fundamentalists who were more concerned with what others might be doing, than their own “issues” should learn that it was just fun. There was no widespread wailing and gnashing of teeth at the horrendous sight of a bunch of pervy old exhibitionists. Yes it was a bit exhibitionist – in the same way that any protest is because people won’t pay any attention to your statement if you don’t attract attention. And frankly a naked protest is a good deal more peaceful and fun than any other kind.

    Any “perversion” is solely within the mind of anyone who thought that there was anything perverted about it. Nudity can be sexual, but only in the right context – and someone cycling isn’t being sexual.

    Most of us have grown up enough to realise this was just good clean fun. It’s about time that the others grew up and minded their own business (at least).

    One of the specific points that the fundamentalists made was that children might be upset by the nakedness – either seeing naked people, or being naked themselves after the ride when it was claimed that one of the riders had a naked child in a seat behind her. Taking that last point first … I saw the relevant rider, and there’s no way you could know that the child was naked unless you saw him or her being put into the seat.

    Whilst I have no children, I do have some experience with them, and in my experience children are likely to find naked adults to be funny and be curious as to why they’re naked. And many of us have seen toddlers who whilst being changed think it’s funny to run around naked. Older children may react differently, and of course sexual exhibitionism is an entirely different matter. But this wasn’t sexual exhibitionism!

    To those who took part, I raise my glass. And hope it takes place next year.

  • Pottering Around Portsmouth

    All from this morning’s little stroll around Portsmouth :-

    #1: Southsea Castle

    Southsea Castle

    A bit bland really.

    #2: Slippery Slope

    Slipppery Slope

    There’s more than one kind of slippery slope!

    #3: The Shore’s Teeth

    The Shore’s Teeth

    The Door

    The Door

    A bit of a photographer’s photo.

  • Responding to “Schrödinger’s Rapist”

    This blog entry is written in response to an excellent blog entry from way back in 2009; if you haven’t already read it, go ahead and read Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced. Go ahead and read it now if you haven’t already; I’ll wait; I’m patient. Skip the comments by all means (although there’s a lot of interesting stuff in them too).

    Back already? That was quick!

    Now before I start responding to that blog entry (and to some of the comments too), let me emphasise that I mostly agree with it – say 95% agreement – and most of my responses to some extent are saying “Yeah, but you don’t go far enough”. Because some of what I’ll go ahead and say is a bit … controversial.

    Mostly because when people say “men” they should be saying “people”, and when people say “women” they should be saying “people”. I am one of those weird people who insist that men and women have far more in common than differences – that’s just as wrong as saying men and women are completely different of course, but that’s just the way I prefer to think. We’re all human.

    Yes, Men Fear Assault Too

    Third paragraph in, Starling asserts :-

    Now, you want to become acquainted with a woman you see in public. The first thing you need to understand is that women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted.

    I don’t know about most men, but yes actually I do continuously assess the risk of assault to myself. Perhaps not to the same extent as yourself, but probably more than some women. As for curtailing my daily activities, I can’t think of a recent example; possibly because as I get older I’m less inclined to indulge in activities that I used to find fun … and which carried a risk in themselves which even to the younger and more foolish version of me would cause me to think “No, it’s time to go home”. An example from about 15 years ago or so, I was physically assaulted in a nightclub, and because of the circumstances I stopped going there for over 2 years.

    I don’t know how many men are as cautious as myself, or more cautious. But some are – I knew several men who avoid walking through certain areas in my home town (in fact the area starts just across the street from my flat). Perhaps they don’t fear the same things, but they are still engaged in risk management.

    And if you include assault as a whole, it is probable that men have more to be wary of than women given that the most likely “group” to get attacked are young men aged 18-30 (or something … it’s been a while since I read that statistic). That is not meant to imply that women should not be wary if they choose to be.

    Don’t Bug Me I’m Busy

    Now I’m veering a little off-topic away from the subject of rape, and onto something that got mentioned again and again in the comments starting with Starling’s :-

    You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb her. Really. Even to say that you like her hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for women to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win her over with charm or flattery. Believe what she’s signaling, and back off.

    Now this concentrates on the unknown intruder being a possible threat, but many of the comments later on went for the basic respect angle. I can totally appreciate that – there’s something incredibly irritating about somebody sidling up to you when you’re engrossed in a book, and assuming their company is bound to be more interesting than the book. Most of the time it ain’t.

    And guess what ? On both of the most memorable occasions when that has happened to me, it has been women interrupting me. Both occasions ended after me telling them the polite equivalent of “Bog Off! I’m busy” with me getting an earful of verbal abuse for not appreciating their innate right to let me know how much more interesting their company was than my book. I don’t know whether my lack of interest was due to an unconscious risk assessment raising a red flag, or that I was just really into the book – the occasion was memorable for the verbal abuse.

    No I don’t think women are being unreasonable when they choose to be a bit twitchy when approached by a stranger; neither are men if they choose to be! And any such stranger who gets the “Bog Off” message from any person they approach should be retreating respectfully and not throwing out verbal abuse … or worse.

    But … I’m Not A Rapist!!

    This is addressed mostly to some of the men who responded to Starling’s blog entry with comments along the lines of being insulted that anyone might think they might be a rapist when approaching an unknown woman.

    I get irritated when women behave cautiously around me as if they suspect I’m a rapist. I know I’m not a rapist and that they’re perfectly safe around me. But I don’t expect women or men to be mind readers and know what I know.

    When I get irritated I get irritated with the people who are really to blame – the fucking rapists who make all this shit necessary.

    Are Rapists Also Sociopaths ?

    One of the themes that came up in the thread was whether or not rapists are (or can be considered to be) sociopaths  :-

    This, however, is just false [that rapists are sociopaths]. Our culture is so saturated with sexism that it is not a stretch for a man to think that women are not “real people” — that is, in fact, what patriarchy is all about. So no, rapists are not sociopaths; they are men who know they can get away with it.

    Well it turns out that the “trendy” term for sociopaths these days is anti-social personality disorder, but I’ll carry on saying “sociopath” because what little I learned of abnormal psychology was quite some time ago (just shy of 25 years ago) and the old word is more widely known. Using the WHO diagnostic traits for ASPD (as shown on the Wikipedia article linked to above) I would say that a rapist easily matches at least 3 of those traits. Using a more simple layman’s oversimplification of what a sociopath is – someone who is unable to see other people as people and sees them as objects to be used for their own amusement, you may well see (I do) that rapists are sociopaths.

    It is also helpful to label rapists as sociopaths (even if it possibly isn’t quite right in terms of abnormal psychology) to declare them as “broken” – as people who need “fixing” before they can be allowed free association in society. It is not as simple as “men who know they can get away with it” – most men don’t rape (remember Starling’s 1 in 60 men are rapists ?). I’ve been in situations where I could have “gotten away with it”, and I haven’t committed rape.

    And it is not just men who rape – women do too! In fact let’s get away with the whole “men rape”, “women rape”, or “people rape” – it’s the “broken people” who rape – sociopaths and rapists. And those broken people can be male or female – let’s not call them “men” or “women” as they’ve lost their right to carry the “man” badge or the “woman” badge.

    Why is it so important to remember that it isn’t just men who rape ? Well there are at least two reasons :-

    1. Every time that you neglect to mention the women who rape, you are belittling the suffering caused by those rapists. Victims of women hurt just as much as the victims of men.
    2. If every single male rapist disappeared in a puff of smoke overnight, and we were left with just the female rapists we would still have a problem that is far, far too large. I’ve seen an estimate of 1% of all sexual assaults are by women (don’t look for a reference … not only do I not really believe it, but the numbers don’t matter too much here), so for every 100,000 rapes, 1,000 are committed by women. I hope you agree that whoever committed those 1,000 rapes and whoever the victims may be, that it is 1,000 too many. One rape is one too many.
  • Super Injunctions Part 2 – The Footballer’s Affair

    So today – those of us who really aren’t bothered by who is shagging who – found out who the footballer was that obtained an injunction a while back to stop his alleged extra-marital affair from being published in the gutter press. Yes, we knew that his name was being widely published on Twitter.

    But today a combination of a Scottish newspaper (where the English&Welsh injunction didn’t apply), an MP who unwisely released his name in the Commons, and the wide publication of the news on Twitter incited various editors to go ahead and publish. Well I hope they get jailed for contempt of court.

    That is the editors of the gutter press who named the footballer. The MP also needs a slap for making use of parliamentary privilege for such a base purpose (discussing the issue would be fine; naming the footballer isn’t). And the original tweeter could do with a fine for contempt of court too.

    The moguls of the old media would have you believe that this is all a freedom of the press issue … it isn’t. It is about making money.

    They complain that it isn’t fair that tweeters can name the footballer where they can’t. Life isn’t fair; get over it.

    The truth is there is a basic conflict between public interest and privacy here. But just what is “public interest” ? It is easy to think that it means whatever the public is interested in no matter how puerile, but that is most definitely not the case. Public interest is a bit of a vague term that could be described by “common well-being” or “general welfare” (both terms stolen from the Wikipedia article I linked to).

    To qualify as a “public interest” item of news, a story needs to be about something of significance to the public’s well-being. For example, the chairman of a bank caught insider trading, a government minister selling government contracts, the Archbishop of Canterbury shagging the Queen.

    People quite rightly expect a certain degree of privacy … even well-known footballers caught doing something they perhaps should not. In such cases the “public interest” has to be sufficient to override the privacy needs of the individual. To claim that it applies in the case of a footballer caught having an extra-marital affair is ridiculous. A footballer is just that … someone who plays football. Whether he or she is having an affair will have no impact on how well the ball leaves the foot.

    Most of the fuss about the tweeting of the footballer’s name is simply caused by the old media who want to get in on the interest and sell newspapers. But the reasons why the injunction was obtained in the first place still apply – until the name was released by the old media, the tweeted name was little more than “tittle tattle” or plain gossip. Rightly or wrongly, a story being published in the gutter press gives that story an air of authenticity.

    Oh! And a certain footballer needs to have a word with his lawyer – someone who specialises in injunctions should know that you need to get the injunction in both the English courts and the Scottish courts. It is possible the footballer didn’t want to pay for a second injunction (or whatever the legal instrument in Scotland is called), but it is also possible the lawyer didn’t mention it. And there is no excuse for a lawyer to be that ignorant – if I know that much about the law, an English lawyer should also.