Oh, the assumptions....

For those of you who don't follow the news as closely as I do, here's a story you may have missed.

A bar in Australia is in trouble for offering drinks vouchers to female guests who are willing to hang their underwear up on the bar. See here for a few articles...

Now, I'm not for or against this idea really, to be honest. What a business wants to do to get attention.....which they've certainly got - is up to them.

But what gets me is the response of...well...let's call it "a certain vocal minority". Let's not name names though.

Not for a few lines.

But don't take my word for it, let's start quoting..

"Carolyn Worth of Melbourne Centre Against Sexual Assault ....... said: "It sends a very bad message, and it is one made very explicit. It's almost an invitation to sexual assault.""

Lets start with the purely pedantic. If you invite someone to sexually assault you and they do, it ceases to be sexual assault. Because you asked them to...and they did what you asked. What you would call it, I don't know...rough? Weird Adult Roleplay? I don't know - but it's definitely something you've *literally* asked for.

Now secondly, more on a "synchronise your dogmas" point of view - I was under the impression that a victim of a sexual crime was never to be blamed and that they were the Victim. (It's a point I'd quibble with to a degree, but that I do agree with, mostly. But that's another post entirely).

Here, this person is claiming that actually, it is possible to provoke an assault. Definitely off message...but moving on.

Yes - it's sending a bad message. I'd agree.

But short of stopping every other bad message, what's her point? Hell, let's look at her definition of "Bad". It's something she doesn't like. Bad is a moral judgement.

How about banning all those bad messages on eating unhealthy food (aka anything but salad), replacing all those models with Real Women and insisting that everyone should cover every inch of flesh in case something bad should happen. Like...um...sunburn. Or inciting every man in three hundred yards to do something unlawful.

Actually, yes. Men.

You know, if I saw a women drunk on the streets sans underwear...I'm fairly sure I could restrain myself. I'm pretty certain that every man I work with could say the same thing. I'd go so far as saying that 99% of men would be able to restrain that inner demon forcing them to rape, pillage and murder any men, women, children and underage goats they may come across.

Because most people don't like hurting each other.

But the simple assumption by this woman is that all men are rapists. That men can not control themselves. That a little bit more flesh will tip them into a frenzy of depravity.

By her reasoning, women should stay at home hiding themselves from view to stop men triggering this bestial desire.

My message to her?

Go have a drink and CHILL.


(All quotes are taken from The Register article...but they're sprinked though out the rest of the reports. The register just happens to bring them all together. I was going to use more then one....but the rage...)

Equality junk...

Now, if you've been here for a while, you may have noticed something.

I believe in quality - not the biased, me first equality of most modern feminists - but Equality, between everyone. After all, isn't fairness....fair?

But "Being fair" doesn't often come into the matter - take for example, this report by the UK government quango that complains about the lack of equality.

I'm not going to deal with the whole report - my lunch just isn't that long. But lets look at a couple of points, while I'm here..

First, I'm going to ignore the "Are these really the most powerful jobs?" argument - because that's very open to debate. Certainly they have power...maybe not The Most Power, but...

But anyway, back to the point. From the press release..

"There are fewer women MPs in Westminster, where they make up just 19.3 percent of all MPs. "

That's from the third paragraph. But looking into the report, the change, this "fewer women" was a drop of....wait for it...0.2%.

Or, to be clear - one female MP died, Gwyneth Dunwoody, the longest serving female MP in Parliament. So to make their point, they use the death of a long serving public servant (and no matter your political views, she was a public servant) to make their case.

They don't mention that a female candidate attempted to replace her - Tamsin Dunwoody, her daughter. They forget that she lost the seat because, by a huge margin.

But - nope - this is evidence that "women's power" is increasing ever so slowly.

One death.

Talking of one...let's talk about Prime Ministers...let's talk about Margaret Thatcher- one women. How many years in power...?

Nothing like a fair, unbiased report...but no, this report has an axe to grind.

--

Or another little quibble.

One of the categories they look at is..."Small businesses with women the majority of directors" - no direct link, it's in the PDF they link to.

So lets be clear here - based on last years figures, 14% of small businesses were controlled by women. Sounds clear, right? Or maybe not...

• Husband and wife teams don't count - not a female majority
• Small businesses with only one "director" don't count. Definition is plural
• Any even mix doesn't out
• If you've got an odd numbered board - which is common to prevent deadlocks - and it's even apart from the casting vote...it doesn't count

So this "clear" definition hides a multitude of excluded directors. And it's such an odd definition to use...not the percentage of small business directors who are female - but the majority of female controlled boards. It's not directly comparable to well, anything - it's a useless number.

Call me cynical, but why pick such an odd definition - unless the more typical one doesn't show the point you want?

--

And one final point. I'm willing to believe "female power" is slowly increasing, over all. But I'm finding it increasingly hard to take this report seriously. Take this paragraph, copied completely without edits - but the bold is mine...

"This year's report, which traditionally estimates the number of years at the present rate of progress it will take for women to achieve equality in key areas, indicates that compared to previous year's predictions it will now take 15 years longer (a total of 55 years) for women to achieve equal status at senior levels in the judiciary, and women directors in FTSE 100 companies could be waiting in the wings a further 8 years (a total of 73 years)."

55 years + 8 years = 63 years.

This report has odd non-obvious definitions, uses the death of one person as a significant statistical point and can't even COUNT.

So being interested in Equality, what do I think of this report?

Well, what do you think I think?

I have a dream...

There are many dreams that people dream.

Some dream of equality and opportunity for all. Others dream of chocolate and summer. Still others wake with memories of dreams that really shouldn't be mentioned near anyone under, ohhh, 25. Even then, cold showers advised.

This morning, I wasn't any of those people.

This morning I climbed into awareness from the deepest, darkest pits of childrens literature. A den of sin and depravity that would shame the worst of us.

I was dreaming....of the Famous Five.

Yep, that's right. Island off the coast of a small fishing village and all.

And in this dream, all I wanted - no really, ALL I wanted was a cold ice cream on the beach.

Sad, isn't it?

Mornings

Morning is not my favourite time of day.

There's no real surprise here - you're warm, cosy and tucked under a quilt, with eyes closed and mind a million miles away...

So being ripped from that little spot of paradise is always going to be aggravating. But what's really annoying me of late is other people in the morning.

Here's a little guide to Me in the Morning.

1) If you wake me up and tell me to do something, or want me to remember something...don't bother.

The odds are if you're lucky - and I mean extremely lucky - I might remember you woke me up. Maybe.

I live with cats, so I'm perfectly used to being woken up then falling asleep with virtually no memory of it. If you do happen to try and it fails, it's your own darn fault!


2) My alarm in the morning is annoying. I accept this.

Complaining about it won't help.

Why not? Because I use it because it's annoying!

It's on my mobile, so it could be hidden anywhere - and I have to get out of bed to search.

It goes off every five minutes so if I do hit snooze...it's not for long...

It's loud so I can hear it.

And it's the most annoying tune I can find - because it has to be!

So if you find the thing annoying.....find me a replacement that works, rather then complain!


3) When I go running in the morning, I like to have a shower the minute I get back...mainly because being hot and sweaty isn't my favourite thing in the world.

So asking me to do something when I get back might annoy.

Asking me to do something that involves going upstairs will probably annoy.

Saying that I need to go downstairs and then upstairs will certainly irritate.

Doing it twice, before I've had a cup of tea will make me sarcastic.

You've been warned..

Oh, the sanity

The joys of joined up thinking....

I'm working for one public body, which has sites co-located with another publicly funded body. The teams are integrated, because...well...it makes sense. It would make more sense for everyone to belong to the same organisation, but that's life.

The problem though? Between the two organisations, on the level of IT there's no trust what-so-ever.

We're talking so little trust that the computers here for my organisation can't access any IP addresses outside of a tiny, tiny range....we've got so little access that actually installing a printer - one of the most basic tasks imaginable is taking an hour...

....because they need to permit this IP address to contact another IP address...which was blocked, by hand, on the switch....

...and I've had no tea for hours...

....aarrrgggghhhh!!!!

A comic interlude

Because of the request in the comments, here's another post.

I may talk about death at a later point - but now is not a good time. I've had far to much to drink to do that incoherently.

Instead, I have a fundamental question.

Both this and last saturday I had to go into town for trousers. The first time to buy them, the second to replace them. Now, both times I went to the same store - BHS - and both times I tried them off first.

Now, that store has rooms to try things on in, and both times I did what I and most other people would do. I used the first room on the left that was empty. (Most people look from left to right...no, really, we do. Try it sometime.)

The first time, I hung up the trousers, took off my jacket, went to hang it up - and noticed there were a few things which had been left in there. Specifically...specifically someone had taken in a number of things that I'll simply term "Skimpy and Revealing".

Oh well....try on trousers, no problem, I went to buy them.

Next week I went to return them and get a different pair, after they failed me in an unfortunate manner. However - this time, before heading into the changing rooms I checked for any signs indicating male or female.

I kept an eye out for such indications, but finding none, I used the first room to the left again. Only to be confronted by more products that on very casual observation appeared to be made...well, not much.

Now, my question?

Was I just unlucky, or is there women's underwear in every not strictly male changing room on the planet?

If so, Why??

To live and die in sunlight