May 272011
 

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.
May 242011
 

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.

 

May 212011
 

The news has been swamped with various items about the alleged rape of a hotel maid by Dominique Strauss-Kahn (the former head of the IMF). The alleged rapist has been paraded in front of the media wolves by the US authorities, vilified in the press with the stories containing the fig-leaf of the word “alleged”, and suffered worse in the “blogosphere”.

He has been effectively forced to resign from his job as the head of the IMF, and can pretty much say goodbye to his chances of becoming the next president of France.

Just the beginning of what he deserves, if he raped the hotel maid.

A gross injustice if he is innocent.

And as yet, we simply do not know if he is guilty or not. Despite those who believe in the old “no smoke without fire” saying, we need to wait until the trial before knowing if he is found to be guilty or to be innocent. Until his trial, he should be presumed to be innocent.

How On Earth Can He Be Innocent?

After all, the hotel maid has claimed he raped her, and identified him. Surely there can be no mistake. Actually there are a whole bunch of reasons why he may be innocent :-

  1. The maid was raped, but by someone else with a similar appearance. It is easy to imagine how a rape victim might be confused afterwards, and mistakenly accused Dominique. Perhaps it is not very likely, but it is possible.
  2. The maid is mentally unbalanced and imagined the rape. Again not that likely, but possible.
  3. Consensual sex took place, but the maid for whatever reason changed her mind after the event. Yes this does happen from time to time.
  4. The maid maliciously falsely accused him of rape. There are a variety of reasons for this, and the conspiracy theorists will like this one … if you wanted to get the head of the IMF “out of the way” because he was about to do something that would spoil your plans, there is pretty much nothing better than a false accusation of rape to do so.

None of this should be assumed of course … a woman has made an allegation of rape, and it should be treated as though it were true until it has been tested in a court of law. Indeed appropriate treatment (including counselling) could well result in additional information for a trial … whether it is supportive of the allegation, or refutes it.

How Can We Do This Better ?

At present, there is a presumably innocent man who has only just been released from prison into bail conditions that probably qualify as “house arrest”. His name is known, his family is known, and he has lost his job. All of this could happen to you whether or not you are likely to go out and commit rape (and women should note that this does include you!).

The victims of rape quite rightly get anonymity, but what about the alleged rapist ? If he or she is innocent, surely they deserve anonymity too ? Forget that you may be protecting a genuine rapist, at this point the alleged rapist is innocent.

Anonymity for an alleged rapist is the right thing to do. Difficult in practise to implement given that many will need to be kept in prison pending trial, and in cases of famous people like Dominique it may well be that their name escapes. But we should be trying to do the right thing even if it is difficult.

 

May 102011
 

Today a Tory let slip that some in the Tory party may be thinking of letting Universities supplement their income by offering additional places over the current quota to UK students which would be charged at the same rate as non-EU students. Of course they very rapidly back-pedalled from this position, but was it a slip or something that the Tories are planning … in a year or five ?

First of all, a little background. UK Universities are free to charge non-EU students pretty much what they want to within the constraints of supply and demand – pretty much like a business. This can be pretty lucrative for many Universities, and there is a fairly active pursuit of foreign students.

There are benefits and disadvantages to this of course. Foreign students may not always have the best possible English language skills which can conceivably have a detrimental effect on teaching. However offering a limited number of places to foreign students does have advantages that counter this – first of all exposing “native” students to foreign students widens the experience of both groups, and recruiting foreign students adds to the possible pool of expertise to hire the best researchers from.

But allowing Universities to recruit UK students on the same fees as non-EU students ? Well it might sound ok – allow the Universities to recruit students from anywhere to supplement their quota of UK students, but it is an obviously slippery slope from that. Over time the Tories could slowly cut the student quota and leave UK students with eventually little choice other than to pay the “full price” with no support for their education.

Of course the Tories claim that there are no such plans, but do we believe them ?

May 022011
 

We have all heard today about the death of Osama bin Laden. This of course is good news – whilst Al-Queda will carry on, removing their founder is certainly a blow. And who needs terrorists? But I’ve had a few thoughts from the ongoing discussions :-

  1. The celebrations of Americans at the announcement was understandable, but a touch distasteful … it may well have been necessary to kill Osama rather than bring him to justice, but celebrating any death no matter how unpleasant the man himself, is less than dignified.
  2. It is unfortunate that he wasn’t brought to justice to face an international court for crimes against humanity. Killing him was almost certainly unavoidable given his declaration he would rather be killed than captured, but he wasn’t ‘brought to justice’ – that would involve a court and being sentenced to some form of punishment.
  3. It is worth pointing out that Osama got at least part of what he wanted. Given the choice of being killed immediately or being brought to face a court and a lengthy trial, Osama wanted to be killed. Of course he would prefer to be free to create more trouble than he has already.
  4. I rather hope that the US authorities obtained some sort of permission to go into Pakistan – whether it was a blanket permission to “extract Obama” at some point, or whether it was specific authorisation for this mission.
  5. There are those who are saying that as Osama was found “hiding in plain site” as it were, then it is certain that he was being helped out by the Pakistani authorities. This is ridiculous. First of all he was hiding in a walled compound out of plain site. He was probably never in a position to be observed except by those closest to him. Secondly, whilst he may have received assistance from some individuals within the authorities in the past, that is not the same as receiving assistance from the authorities themselves … and the fact he was caught this time is an indication that his support is disappearing.