Sorry it's been a while, but...

Oh my sweet God in Heaven, this is bloody marvelous.

God Bless Robert Peston for having the brains to work it out, and the guts to say it despite his Y Chromosome.

I won't go into it further at the moment, because I don't want to spoil the big grin running all over my face right now...

:D

Reading between the lines

Ok, just a brief one (at least intentionally, but these things tend to grow...) to point out a particular piece of reportage

Now, just to clarify, I don't want to comment on the whole Labour CTD* issue. I' just commenting on this particular article.

Firstly I'm concerned about an accusation that women in the Cabinet are "Window dressing" (Flint's words not mine) which, considering she herself has recently been involved in a photo shoot for some glossy fashion magazine (unspecified), plus the official reason for her resignation was that she didn't feel she was trusted by Brown, does seem to have a scary ring of truth about it. Are our female ministers just vote-winning "window dressing"? hmm.... Now you can accuse me of having watched too much Yes Minister recently, but it would be worrying if absolutely nothing has actually changed in politics, whilst at the same time the illusion has been created that some things have moved on...

Secondly, I'm concerned at this section:

"The week had also seen the resignations of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Communities Secretary Hazel Blears and some other ministers before Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell walked out on Thursday evening with an open call for Mr Brown to quit.

This was widely seen as part of coordinated attempt to challenge Mr Brown's position as Labour leader, but Ms Flint said she was not part of any plotting.

She said "negative briefings" from Downing Street had wrongly attempted to suggest she was part of a group of senior Labour women ministers wanting to unseat Mr Brown."

I'm sorry, a conspiracy of women? Who form considerably less than 20% of the government? Being able to de-stabilize the PM? Surely not.

I've been looking, and can't at the minute find a comprehensive list of all the people who've resigned from Labour over the past few weeks, but looking at the quote above, I'm starting to worry that it's not disproportionately the women who have been leaving. If it is actually them making a decision to leave, then fine, it almost suggests that they have principles, but if it's them being forced out, made into a convenient scapegoat (and isn't it telling that both Blears and Smith are out - the two most prominent (powerful?) female politicians that we had...) and quietly got rid of in order to preserve this lovely little boys-club that is parliament...

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but it's at least as likely as saying there's a plot against the PM coming from "senior women ministers". I'm not going to draw any firm conclusions at the minute, but as the facts stand, we have a lot of senior women in government "resigning", one amid an acusation that women in parliament are merely "window dressing" and that the PM doesn't trust them. Is it too much of a leap to suggest that maybe women in government aren't particulalrly welcomed by their male collegues?

*Old doctor-slang.

Yay! I'm not alone!

There are other people out there blogging about the same kind of thing.

On livejournal, but let's not hold it against them...

Charm/Offensive

And the Post that Spawned it

And another one. My favourite quote from which is from the comment at the bottom:
"The best option available [to prevent rape] is to teach everyone from a young age that female bodies aren't public property, to hold rapists responsible for raping people, and to stop holding girls and women responsible for not getting themselves raped."

This is almost a post for my own sake, rather than for anyone reading (helooo... Is there anyone out there....?) but still, they make good/angry reading.

Follow Up

BBC Documentary asking "Why can't women succeed in the workplace?"


Solution, from my point of view:

6 months mandatory paternity leave.


Wont go down easy with bosses and chiefs of industry, but it's absolutely, 100% the easiest/best/only option. The others being:

Women stop having children. (downsides would include destruction of human race)
Women go back to the home. (About as fun an option as above)
Being able to control the female "biological clock". (we don't yet have the science)

We need to get more men in the home. Simple as. Men find it easier to succeed because they don't have the pressures of family - they have a wife to take care of that for them. Women find it immeasurably harder to do the same as men if they don't have the support network that men do (ie a wife/unpaid domestic labour*). In order to get more women into careers, you have to get more men into the home. Once it's seen as "normal" for men to stay at home if they want to (or if their wife needs them to) then it should follow** that it will be seen as "normal" for women to be bosses. We need to dissociate gender-roles from biological sex.

Interesting point raised about half-way through, is that women in investment banking are eminently desirable, because it would probably stabilize economic trends. High levels of testosterone are responsible for the boom-and-bust phenomenon, as men take more risks. Women as women (not women behaving like men - see previous post) are better at assessing those risks, and while they wouldn't "boom" quite as often, they'd be far less likely to go bust.



* The "unpaid" being the important part. Most women find there's no point in earning a top salary if most of it has to go on hiring the nanny, chef and cleaner. If they could get that for free, they'd most likely keep working instead of staying at home.
**I say should, but there's a bit more to it than that.

Entitlement

A couple of things in the news at the minute that caught my attention.

Women, even in the same job as men, still earn less.

It's not going to get better for another 180-odd years.

Apparently they don't earn as much because they have less of a sense of entitlement than men do.

Though I see an interesting correspondence with this, and wonder whether or not the women claimed as much as the men... interesting

And an interesting article about how even other people view men with more of a sense of entitlement than women. (ok, it's not quite about that, but I wanted to make it all fit nicely.)
Seriously though, if anyone has any doubt that women are still treated like second class citizens in this world, take a look at some of those comments under the article. Plenty of straight-up woman-bashing like:

"What exactly stops women forming their own corporations and filling their boards with women? Oh no that's too hard, easier to legislate yourself onto boards that don't want you"

"Half the cabinet wouldn't be there but for all women quotas."

Commenter1 : "the woman filling the post has to have at least the same skills as a male applicant."
Commenter 2: "I disagree. Rather, the same or better!"

"If a man is currently filling a post, then a woman replacing (displacing) him must be at least as competent and qualified as the person she is replacing, if not more so." (my italics)

Lovely. A woman has to be better than a man to get exactly the same job. This is, and has been the status quo for decades. My Mum had to get better grades at A-level than her male peers just to get an offer at a university, and that was thirty years ago, give or take. You'd never see that today, and yet as soon as it gets beyond education and into the actual jobs market, that's suddenly fair? Hmm...

Oh, and of course the whole bell-curve IQ argument gets dragged up again. In summary, for those of you who don't know, there has been research done to suggest that the spectrum of IQs runs like this:
Women: Very pointed bell curve; Lots of women in the middle range of IQ, not a lot at either end (so not many really stupid women, but not many exceptionally smart ones either)
Men: Flatter bell curve; generally wider distribution of IQs with both ends higher than the female line. (So the bulk of very high IQs are male, but also the bulk of really low ones)
Never mind that the standard IQ test is a highly artificial way of measuring intelligence, people keep trying to suggest that this is a good thing for men; that because most of the high IQs are male, that men in general have a higher IQ than women. Wrong. Firstly, the average IQ (taking either the mode or mean average) is higher for women (using the medium, it's exactly the same). Secondly, that top section where men do better is only the very top end of the spectrum. In general, people being hired for board management are somewhere below that, so actually, women are still going to have better IQs at that level. And thirdly, statistics can be manipulated and presented in a way to show anything you damn well like, so really, I wish people would stop using this argument to try and suggest something it doesn't.

When it comes down to it, I'm actually in favour of this kind of quota as a temporary solution. Because the only other way, it seems, for women to get into top jobs is to act more like men. Once you have a good percentage of women at the top (rather than one or two token females), the criteria are going to change - You're going to have people at the top who can recognise the positives in typically female traits, and how they can be an asset to your business, people who can understand that soft-spoken is not the same as lacking confidence, that there is not just one set (male) way of doing things. And this is the clincher: they can hire women who are as good as men, but not, as the case is now, exactly the same as men. People have got this confused. They judge success by a purely male yardstick, and so in order for women to succeed in companies where men get to set the standards of merit, they have to behave like men.

It wouldn't surprise me that some people will think, with a quota system in place, that women at the top got there purely because of the quota. Yes, people are going to think that. But just because some people take a prejudiced view isn't a reason not to impliment a measure that could be immesurably beneficial.
People are going to see what they believe to be less-qualified women promoted above more-qualified men, but what they don't realise is that these women may actually be more qualified than the men but their positive qualities are not being recognised and, in fact, that at the minute being a woman in itself is a positive quality. The unpalatable thing to accept is that a woman in a top position is (at present) intrinsicly better than an equally qualified male candidate simply because she is a woman, and because she can start re-setting the yardstick to include the typically feminine merits that are currently being overlooked by men in charge.

I don't see quota having to be in force for long. A generation at maximum. Just enough to make people see that women can be successful and can promote success in their orgnaisations without having to behave like men. The thing is that if we don't, at the pace change is coming, we aren't going to see equal gender representation until 2225. And I don't even see that. Because unless we do something radical now, even the women at the top in 2225 are all going to act like men, because that's what they had to do to get the job.

We need quotas, no matter how unpalatable they may seem. Unless there is another measure we could take that allows women to succeed without having to compromise their identity and integrity, but at the minute I can't see one.

Dont Panic!

So the big story to hit the headlines at the minute is this Swine Flu problem. Which probably isn't as big a problem as all that. Only the BBC and to a certain extent the WHO* seem to be trying to make it worse. Yes, scandal and fear sell papers, but really BBC, I expected better.

The thing is, when you look at the actual facts, we have a virus which has, outside of Mexico, been very mild, and outside of the Americas has had less than a handful of cases. It's no worse than the average dose of human influenza. And lets face it, human flu is a bit of a crap virus. It makes you feel grotty for a few days, maybe a week, and then you make a full recovery. The only problem with that is when you get a secondary infection, such as pneumonia - which is treatable, but which can cause deaths in people whose immune systems are already compromised, or people who are less robust, such as the very young or the very old. I would be prepared to bet that the majority of deaths in Mexico aren't actually down to Swine Flu, but down to this kind of secondary infection. It doesn't help that Mexico doesn't have the healthcare and resources that Britain or the US have. Even if Swine Flu does start spreading among the UK populous at large, I highly doubt we'll see more deaths from it than we would see in the average year from regular human influenza.

But when you get the press jumping up and down on a story, you get terror and panic, and that just ends up causing more problems than it solves. Being the massive hypochondriac that I am, phrases like "There are numerous cases elsewhere - the highest number outside Mexico is the US - and Europeans have been told it is certain there will be deaths." really, really don't help anyone.
From the same article:

"It really is the whole of humanity that is under threat in a pandemic."
and
"It is not a question of whether people will die, but more a question of how many. Will it be hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands?"

And it's not just the press who are fueling this - the first quote was from Director General Margaret Chan, of the WHO, the other from Robert Madelin the European director-general of health and consumer protection. These are really people who ought to know better. I have no problems with telling people about the risks, I don't condone lying, but phrasing things in such an emotive way is just as bad as lying because you're giving them a false impression of the situation. Now is NOT the time to panic, and comments like that from officials, supposedly in the know, are just going to exacerbate an already tense situation.

The other thing is that people are splashing around the word "Pandemic" without telling people what it actually means. So you can see why Joe Bloggs on the street is confusing it with "apocalypse". When another WHO person is saying that "Clearly we are on track for a pandemic in the coming months." might it not be a good idea that we know what he's talking about?

A pandemic, just so everyone is clear on this, just means an infectious disease, with human to human transmission, affecting people on more than one continent. Stage 6 of the WHO guidelines require "increased and sustained transmission in the human population". So there's actually a few pandemics already going on without us noticing, we've already got an HIV pandemic going on, for example. And a TB one. And they're much more serious than the flu.

Really, right now it's time to take advice from Douglas Adams...



*Be careful to pronounce this "double-you aitch oh" not "Who", or you might get the same thing I did, which was my fiancee thinking I was accusing Keith Moon of scaremongering...

Furious

This made me so mad when I read it on the bus the other day.

Now let me get this straight; he claims she consented because
""I thought she gave me the come-on - the body and eye contact was there and she did not give me the brush-off.""
and "she did not stop him helping her take her jumper, bra, tracksuit bottoms and underwear off"
and, worst of all
"he thought that the woman had enjoyed the sex.
"She groaned," he said. "I'm not saying she had the time of her life, but she was there," he told the police. "She gave the impression she was enjoying it.""

So from this we can deduce: firstly, if a woman looks at you, or touches you, and doesn't make it explicitly clear that she does not want to have sex with you, she is giving you a come on, and it's ok to have sex with her.
If she does not attempt to stop you taking her clothes off (no matter whether she is capable of stopping you or not), then she wants to have sex.
And finally, a woman enjoys sex if she was "there". So any sex where the woman is present, she enjoys. And therefore there's no such thing as rape.

This is the problem when you assume consent until told otherwise. If the woman is then not capable of making herself clear, because she is drunk, or drugged, or whatever, then according to this judge and jury, she cannot be raped. Well thank you very much Patrick Hooton, your honour. You prick.

According to him "the woman's comment that she could not give consent because she was drunk was "completely wrong".
So I take it he was off sick the day they covered "diminished responsibility" in law school?

And Ms Kahn, the defense lawyer obviously skipped that class too, if she can say "there was no evidence that the woman had given consent or not, and that drunken consent is still consent." ... so, there was no evidence that she had consented either? But because of the way our stupid, stupid law is at the moment consent is presumed until proven otherwise.

What if this woman had been unconscious in a hospital bed, instead of drunk? Or if she'd been severely autistic? Or there was some medical reason where she could not give informed consent? What kind of sikko would he be portrayed as then, taking advantage of her? Why is this any different? Because she consented to getting drunk. Not sex, getting drunk.

It is still seen as the Woman's responsibility to a) not get into a situation where she can be raped, and b) if she does, issue a loud and clear "NO!" to the man involved (whether she is capable of doing so will not be taken into account.) It's practically Biblical - Deuteronomy 22, v24. "The woman is to die because she did not cry out for help"

Sadly, the woman was not right when she said "'the law has been changed for f like you, if you are too drunk to give consent it's rape', or something along those lines',", but she should have been. And it's worrying that a solicitor could have made such a mistake. If she could, who else could have? How many women are there out there who've been getting drunk, believeing that the law offers them the same protection as it would if they were sober? Because that's what this ruling says. It says you are no longer protected by the law if you are drunk.

And the worst part is, the guy is now complaining that his life has been ruined because of a false rape charge hanging over his head. Well surely, the solution to that would be don't f***ing sleep with women when they are pissed. It is called "Taking advantage". Guys, if you're really concerned about being brought up on rape charges, then it's really simple: think to yourself, "Does she really want sex, or is she just doing this because she's drunk? Is my need for sexual gratification more important than her physical and emotional wellbeing?" and if there is any doubt at all on the first question, remember the answer to the second is always, always No. If you respect a woman as a human being, and not just as a walking vagina, you will have nothing to fear.

Seriously, do you care that much about getting sex, and that little about the woman involved that wou're willing to take the risk that she might not actually want this and sleep with her anyway? She collapses on the bed, fully clothed, completely hammered, and any normal person would tuck her in and let her sleep it off. Instead, he decides to undress her and have sex with her?? And doesn't think this is in any way a violation of her rights?? That is rape, no matter which way you cut it, and to think that this man has been aquitted??? I feel sick.
Seriously, I've been that badly drunk once or twice (and I've known boatloads of men who get worse drunk regularly, and have nothing to fear from it) and right now, I'm just counting myself lucky that all the guys who've walked me home in that state have been kind enough to plonk me on the bed, leave me a bucket just in case, and quietly let themselves out. Because apparently, if they had decided to rape me instead, they'd be getting off scot free.

If I honestly thought anyone reads this who has any power to change things, I'd be down on my knees right now, begging them to campaign to change the law, so that consent is not presumed, and women can have a little bit of justice for once.

Mens Rea

I have often argued that in rape cases (and only rape cases) if it comes to court, the burden of proof should be on the Defense.

My main reasoning for this being it's much easier to prove that something did happen than it didn't - ie in cases when it's already been established that sexual intercourse did take place, it's easier for the defense to prove that the woman did give consent than it is for the woman to prove that she didn't.

The whine then comes from every section of male society (even some of the nice ones) "but if we actually make it easier for women to secure a conviction after they've been raped, then what's to stop all women who've had a one-night-stand and regretted it the next morning from hauling that poor little innocent man in front of the judges and ruining his life?" (I paraphrase, obviously.)

There seems to be this paranoia from men that if female consent is not presumed whenever they have sex, and must explicitly be given, then women in their thousands will start vindictively ruining men's lives on trumped up charges of rape. Guilty conscience/ fear of revenge much?

Why is it so hard for men to just suck it up and deal with the fact that women are not just there as something to stick the vagina to? What is so hard about treating women with respect, and making sure that sex is something she actually wants before you do it with her? Apparently it "kills the mood" - well sod that! Any man who puts "the mood" ( ie his pleasure) before a woman's safety and/or wellbeing isn't worth the time of day (I have a similar argument for men who won't use condoms). Similarly, if a woman's obviously drunk - what is wrong with, I dunno, not taking advantage of her?? Is a man getting his jollies really that important?

Presume non-consent until proven otherwise, and no-one's going to try and convict you for rape. It's that simple. The onus should NOT be on a woman to stop herself getting into a situation where she might be raped, it should be on the man to not create such a situation in the first place.

And even if a change in the system would lead to abuse - and I don't believe it would - I don't care. That is a problem for another day, and not an excuse to not change the system which is already open to horrific abuse, only the other way around. It is vanishingly rare these days to get a conviction on a rape case. Go look at the stats if you like, they're not hard to find. Sorry, guys, but with a system as crappy as this, you have no right to whinge that a positive change for women "might possibly be open to abuse". Boo fricken hoo.

But here I have it, the one piece of evidence that should finally shut men up about this "open to abuse" "problem": Mens Rea.

It means "guilty mind" (and not "men's excuse", as I would love to joke...) and means, in British Law, that if a man honestly believes that the woman was consenting, he is not guilty of rape. Seriously. Check it out on the 2003 sexual offenses act.

Now stop whining.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Evidence grows to support the former theory - that I am, in fact, plain stupid sometimes. It's long enough after the event that I can say this without ruining it for anyone...
I tuned into the first episode of the new season of Heroes* just a bit late. And by that I mean I caught the last, say, 5 minutes. The scene - some sort of flying craft, many characters from the show in orange jumpsuits, strapped to their seats. The hull of said craft has just been accidentally breached, and air is rushing out at an alarming rate, we see inside the cockpit, the view out the front, they're about to crash horribly... roll credits.

My reaction? "Wow! Heroes in Space!"

I am politically blind, sometimes. Orange jumpsuits still say to me "astronauts" rather than "Guantanamo". I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

...

In other news, Microsoft have delved to a new level of moral cowardice.
I was discussing this with a friend, and he pointed me towards this further example.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think this kind of attitude is absolutely abysmal. It comes down to Microsoft and Blizzard and similar organizations actively condoning homophobia. You just do not ban anyone from using your services because they're openly gay: that is called discrimination, and as far as I am aware that is illegal, never mind completely unethical. It's like saying "no, you can't eat at my restaurant, you're openly black" - you see how prejudiced this sounds now?

This kind of homophobic attitude seems to be endemic on the interwebs. I've even seen some dude on Youtube suggesting that being harassed online is the gamer's fault for self-identifying as gay, and she should expect that kind of prejudice. Oh, and that if you have to tell people you're gay, then you obviously have no personality. Most people seem to think that a blanket ban on all references to sexuality is ok online, because it avoids the issue entirely... well, no it doesn't. As Lambda say in the above mentioned article "although preventing harassment is an admirable goal, a requirement that LGBT people remain invisible and silent is not an acceptable means of reaching that goal."
And it doesn't seem to apply the other way at all, despite what Microsoft may claim. Seriously, go onto any online MMO like WOW or X box live or similar, and you will find people regularly using terms like "gay" or "fag" as perjoratives, and no-one's pulling them up for it. To use my previous metaphor - do you really think this would be ok if they were yelling stuff like "Shit! I lost a life! That is so Black!" or, "Dude, you killed me! You are such a nigger!"... Something tells me Microsoft wouldn't be quite so blase. And yet apparently it's ok to bash queers. Joy.

I find it really odd/cowardly/abysmal that when a woman complains that she is being harassed by other gamers for being a lesbian, she is the one who gets banned. They're effectively condoning the actions of the bigots. What Microsoft are doing is saying that this woman asked to be harassed because she told people she was gay. That's a lot like saying a woman asked to be raped because she was wearing a short skirt. It's exactly the same logic, and it's disgusting.

I can see how it must be easier for the big companies to do that - I mean, what's easier, tackling one lesbian, or a whole crowd of bigots? I've heard suggestions that it's almost impossible to effectively police harrassment online, that "considering that it's an environment in which almost all communication is over unmonitored and unmoderated voice channels, there is nothing they can to to prevent anonymous Nazis from being vocally offensive - you can report a player but with no proof they can't take any action." but that didn't seem to stop them when someone reported Theressa for identifying as gay. Or when Andrews was plugging her LGBT friendly guild in, again, an unmonitored chat channel. People reported them, and the companies took action. Obviously they have the ability to prevent harrassment, but the moral cowardice to tackle a prejudice that has become endemic on their systems.

As someone famously said: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good [people] to do nothing.


...


In happier news, chimps might be conscious.


...

Also went to see Watchmen at the weekend. It's good.

It's probably the most faithful adaptation of the Graphic Novel possible - a lot of the dialogue and shots are lifted almost verbatim. Obviously they had to change a few things, but that's understandable, and thankfully, what they did change wasn't too glaring - it was only in retrospect when we were all sitting around afterwards that we started to notice some of them.

As a film in and of itself, it's fab. Beautifully, beautifully shot, but then from the director of 300, you'd expect that. You can definitely tell he was behind it. He does like his slo-mo, but in context it does work, and the colours and the choice of shots show so much care and attention to detail, it's stunning. It really captures the look of the book, if anything even more gritty and dark, because you can do more with shades of dark colours on film than you can in print.

The actors are absolutely fantastic, some stunning performances - none that stand out above the others, but no weak links either. It really is an ensemble piece.

The only possible point where it lets itself down is in the music. It's all fantastic music (with the exception of the worst rendition of Hallelujah I have so far heard.) but it's just not always appropriate to the scene. It's not quite as bad as having Live and Let Die at a funeral (Shrek III... oh dear) but it's stuff like that Hallelujah over a rather gratuitous sex scene - a little distracting, and doesn't quite work. And All Along the Watchtower as Nite Owl and Rorschach are approching Veidt's Antarctic base. At the same time, there are a few moments where they get it spot on - The Times, They are a Changing over the opening credits, which are in themselves The most stunning montage I have ever seen on film. Ever. Without exception. And there are a few moments that I thought it worked, but I'm sure people would argue with me over - Mozart's Requiem near the end, and The Sound of Silence at Blake's funeral (much more appropriate than Live and Let Die...)

A couple of things bugged me - mainly to do with the Sally/Blake stuff, in that the film comes out much more apologistic than the book - I'm sure for some naffy PC reasons that suggest someone just didn't think it through - but I'll leave that for a later date. I'm actually quite happy, in some ways, that they did what they did - simply because it gives me more to put in my thesis :D

Also, I think the focus of the film has changed a little from the book. Whereas the book is very much about universal decay and collapse, because of time restrictions, and the fact that the film has to focus soley on the protagonsits (I want to say Heroes, but no...) it comes out a lot more about individual tragedies. Which makes the end feel a little tacked-on, but there you go. It still works as a film, and I'm still going to see it again (partly because the Thesis demands it) and will almost certainly get the DVD.








*First Episode of volume 4, which I think is something like the beginning of season 3, or half way through it, or something.... It's complicated. But it's the first one of the new lot they've just started showing in the UK

Either I am stupid, or Comma need to link properly...

Alicia Flagged this up on Wednesday; apparently I am actually published online. It's just a bit difficult to find the link from the Comma Website.