DANGER DANGER, gendered travelling

[slemslempike]

The gas fire is CONDEMMNED! It's not safe to use apparently, but this doesn't matter terribly much as the only time it's ever been turned on since we moved in is just now when the nice gasman discovered its unworthy nature. It's been isolated now, placed in solitary confinement so as not to give our other (perfectly working) gas appliances any ideas.

I eventually managed to get an appointment for more pills, so that's nice. It took AGES to get through, and the first time I did my phone cut out, and the second time halfway through the receptionist couldn't hear me so it looked like I was going to have to start all over again. I also need to ask about injections/anti-malarials, as I might only be back for a week between travelling and need to know when to take things. I also discovered that the NHS travel site has a section specifically about advice for male travellers, which was a pleasant surprise. I'm less than happy about some of the differences:

"If you do find yourself in physical danger try to anticipate the aggressors next move and plan ahead for it. As the innocent party in the confrontation you have the advantage of surprise."

vs

"In a confrontational situation a woman traveller is rarely a physical match for a man."

HMM. Also women don't get any advice about carrying condoms if they are interested in having casual sex, though at least men are told that if paying for sex then they should use condoms to protect the sex workers as well as themselves.

Comments

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

The quoted first sentence is in the women's section as well, though not under the same "mugging" heading. There does seem to be an assumption that the male traveller is more likely to try violence, though. Dunno how true this is - my anecdata does not suggest it - but I can imagine it being true with some men and maybe the advice is trying to work with the bloke who has got a bit of genuine experience of brawling and stop him being stupid, or to get men to think in advance what else they'd do, even if they are confident that they'll just respond with violence and all will be well. After all, the average man who says "I'd hit him", and wonders why women are so wimpish, is not, in the real event, actually going to need the advice not to escalate, as he's going to be quivering in fear entirely incapable of physical violence.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I hadn't seen that, but it's actually not the same - men's stops at "advantage of surprise", whereas women are further warned "if you are forced to strike back physically, make sure it is a crippling blow that gives you a chance to escape. "

I am aware of what they're attempting to do, and what attitudes they're expecting. But I am not at all sure that they are not contributing to the problem by changing their information like this.

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

The one I'm reading has that bit for men as well - maybe they are changing versions of the text as they try to get it right!

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see it's up in a different section. I wasn't reading very carefully so I missed it. It is better than I first thought, but I think the way they're presenting the information is significant. The advantage of surprise for men is apparently unconditional (though taken in conjunction with other parts of the advice it does suggest non-violence), but for women they need to be reminded at that point that surprise will only take them so far. I don't think that it's a deliberate strategy on the part of the NHS, but that it's part of a broader discourse about who needs warning about what and how.

[jekesta]

The pound! We call solitary confinement the pound. You're only allowed to put people into the pound for 48 hours, if you want them to stay longer than that the VJ has to come and permit it.

Hello. I hate john higgins.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

What's a VJ? A vice judge? Our gas fire is PERMANENTLY in the pound, it has a red sticker on it and everything. We'll probably get done by the european court of human rights or something.

... yes. Yes, I'm sure you do.

[jekesta]

The Visiting Justice. He is not terribly just, he just does what Erica says he should do and then gives you extra days when you point out that he isn't so much listening to you as ignoring you and what is the point of pretending it's a pretend trial if it's just DOING WHAT THE GOVERNOR WANTS???

They don't put stickers on prisoners in wentworth.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

Then how do they know which ones are faulty?

In happier snooker news, the BBC say Ebdon dropped out of the top 16, which is very nice if it's true. Also my man Maguire is not dreadful.

[jekesta]

He has. Dropped out of the top 16. I'm trying not to be TOO gleeful, because one of my friends has decided she likes him, and I feel slightly sad that it has happened because his wife left him and his life fell apart, and I don't hate him as much as I used to because he's not as good as he was, but inside I am DANCING. 16 years he has been there, RUINING SNOOKER. Unfortunately I think he's just the kind of person who might cope with qualifying entirely well, because it's a mental thing, and he is quite disgustingly capable of concentrating. So now all that will actually happen is that he'll be drawn as a qualifier against the people I like that are still in the top sixteen, so it'll be terrible. EVERYTHING IS TERRIBLE, everything that happens snooker has a way of making terrible. This is its beauty.

not dreadful

No. Perhaps he will reach YET ANOTHER semi final. Apparently his only ambition in life.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I like that about him. Perfectly happy to settle for "adequate".

[jekesta]

And that would be absolutely fine, obviously, if it didn't mean letting EVIL PASS. CONSTANTLY he lets evil pass.