Media Stories about the Bad Gender
This story from London shows a video monitoring clip of a male jogger pushing a female pedestrian causing her to fall and almost hit by a passing bus. The news stories all implied that pushing her into the path of the bus was deliberate and apparently the male jogger has been charged with causing grievous bodily harm, interesting given that the female pedestrian did not suffer any such harm. The video evidence suggested the push was deliberate and the jogger deserves to be prosecuted and, if correct, punished for assault. However, an MRA view of the video noted some gender issues.
The video shows the jogger running clearly on his side of the footpath and passing a male pedestrian who is walking appropriately on the left side of the footpath giving the jogger room to pass. It’s likely that the male pedestrian saw the jogger approaching and moved over a bit to give him room. In contrast, the female pedestrian keeps walking right in the middle of the footpath, in the path of the jogger who would have had to move aside to squeeze past her, possibly requiring him to break his stride to reduce the risk of injuring himself on the wall. The incident appeared to be an example of female self-entitlement. A man should be chivalrous and move aside for a woman and women shouldn’t be expected to show any consideration towards males. The same attitude appeared to underly the false allegations made by has-been actress Souad Faress at Waterloo Station last year. Any man should move aside for a woman, and if he doesn’t then he deserves to have his life ruined.
It seemed likely that the jogger’s push was his nonverbal way of saying “get out of the way and show some consideration”. The jogger would not have known the bus was coming from behind him and he didn’t consider the risks of his push. The incident highlighted the foolishness and unacceptability of expressing one’s feelings through violence, and the risk of causing serious injury or death even when unintended. However, the media portrayal of the incident included no attempt to consider the male jogger’s perspective fairly.
Then there was today yet another story about bad men attempting to abduct children on the way to or from school. Children have been reporting that strangers in cars pulled up beside them, tried to get them into the car, and chased them when they refused. These accounts appear to have been accepted as gospel by the school and authorities, with newsletters going out warning parents and special lessons provided about stranger danger. However, we would bet money that some of these stories are fanciful and others are highly embellished, in an atmosphere of male demonization and great supportive attention given to any child who has been marked by a male devil. Any male ‘approaching’ children now seems automatically to be considered offensive and with bad intent. Isn’t that a sad indictment of our society’s attitudes towards men? If a woman approaches a child it’s assumed she has innocent reasons. but public reaction and media coverage portray any attempt by a male to communicate with a child as tantamount to rape.
In the criminal charge of assault, the action whether threatened, attempted, or actual is still an assault.
There is also a principle in law as to what a person could or should be reasonably aware of.
Let me put this bluntly. This post is a totally irrational load of rubbish, and gets even more screw loose, as gender politics often does, when you try to draw a comparison to the Faress case.
If it was categorized in gender politics we could all have a good laugh, but since it is in general conversation, then it should be treated with the contempt it deserves, because that is what any reasonable person should be thinking.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 11th August 2017 @ 12:16 pm
I’m reading ‘very slowly’ to make sure I understand this.
I’VE taken the PLEDGE to Never Commit, Condone or Remain SILENT about VIOLENCE.
Sometimes it is good to point out the sarcasm, just in case people don’t get it.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 11th August 2017 @ 12:54 pm
When you turn the pear upside down, looks a lot like a mushroom.
Comment by Evan Myers — Fri 11th August 2017 @ 1:06 pm
The footpath was very wide. The jogger had plenty of room to avoid her and yet appeared to move toward her in his last few strides. There is more to this story for sure…..
Comment by Jack — Sat 12th August 2017 @ 3:39 am
1. We looked again at the video and did not observe the man changing his course towards the woman, except perhaps slightly just in the process of pushing her.
2. The footpath looks plenty wide but that may have been a somewhat misleading artifact of the video angle. The jogger was running towards the left side and was already quite close to the wall. Regardless, the woman walked in the middle of the footpath and gave little indication of moving over a bit to let the runner through.
3. We still believe that the man’s actions were likely to be a hostile expression of “move over a bit you inconsiderate bitch”. That in no way implies that we condone the use of violence to deal with dissatisfactions towards women or men, as was made clear in the post. The point of the post and its title was to highlight how ready media, police and the public are to jump to conclusions, to see men in the worst possible light even by misrepresenting matters, and to fail to consider the perspectives of accused men or the possible reasons why they acted as they did.
4. Inspecting the video again it was clear also that even if the bus had not veered away it would not have hit the woman anyway. By the time the bus veered the woman was already lifting her head away from its path. That is no credit to the assaultative male jogger but again it highlights the extent to which media and others misrepresent and exaggerate the evidence in order to paint men in the worst possible light. We’ve all seen this in Family Court affidavits and elsewhere, we maintain this is a gender issue, and it’s important to draw attention to it when it happens.
5. Downunder, much of your response was unintelligible and pretentious as is the case for most of what you write. For example, your reference to ‘assault’ was irrelevant and confused. Firstly, our post already stated that if the evidence was correct then the jogger should be prosecuted and punished for assault. Secondly, your claims about the law were faulty. Neither threats or attempts to assault amount to “an assault” as you claim but would be prosecuted as ‘Threatening Behaviour’ or ‘Attempted Assault’. That’s all irrelevant to the post anyway. The point was that charge suggested by police regarding Grievous Bodily Harm was a ridiculous exaggeration given that hardly any injury occurred, and that any valid prosecution could only be for some other less serious crime such as assault.
6. Downunder, the fact that you were unable to understand the comparison with the Souad Faress case did not invalidate the comparison made. Obviously there were differences but the point made was that both situations appeared to arise from the women’s self-entitlement concerning their right to maintain their path as if royalty and that men should be obliged to move aside for them. But that was clear in our post.
7. Downunder, you are welcome to your opinion but you are not welcome as far as we are concerned to insult other posters with words such as “totally irrational load of rubbish” and “screw loose”. Why do that? At least take the time you might need to properly understand what you are responding to. Our analysis of the jogger incident may turn out to be incorrect but it was perfectly intelligible and reasoned, as was the main point of the post that men are portrayed badly without efforts to consider their perspectives and actions fairly.
8. Downunder, your responses are not so much blunt as rude and unjustifiably arrogant. We look forward to seeing your real contributions to men’s issues such as submissions to select committees, media releases, organizing events or even turning up to them, and even some constructive suggestions to those who put such effort in rather than sitting back and constantly criticizing and discouraging others’ efforts and ideas. And if you will insist on critiquing everyone else’s contributions with your pretence at superior intelligence and knowledge, at least do so intelligibly and in well-reasoned, fully explained ways. We can only ask.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 12th August 2017 @ 8:52 am
In contrast, what about this glowing story about a female criminal Joyce Eileen Blondell, portraying her as the poor victim of a scam when she ‘risked it all for love’. What nonsense. She had a long history of dishonesty and violent offending and had only been out of prison for a few years for murder (which the article even tried to confuse as if she hadn’t really done much wrong) when she entered into a lucrative money-laundering operation for fraudulent theft including from local businesses. Her claims to her family and others that it was all to do with her starry-eyed love and a suitor were all likely dishonest, designed to provide an excuse for when she was caught. The gullibility of people and media about the ‘sugar and spice and all things nice’ gender is incredible.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sat 12th August 2017 @ 9:33 am
Straight out of the Gas-Lighting Manual – as Hornet would say.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 12th August 2017 @ 10:32 am
With the case with the runner I think there’s one thing not mentioned.
It could also be the case that he goes on this run regularly at the same time and regularly at the same time passes the same women. It could be the case that there’s more to this than first impressions.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 12th August 2017 @ 12:06 pm
Good point Darren. I was wondering if the walker may have a sight impediment and found navigating footpaths a difficult task.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 12th August 2017 @ 12:25 pm
Exactly Downunder. There could be quite a few unforeseen quirks to the case. I don’t think the female was in his way at all and there is some kind of purpose to his actions. Some people have uncontrollable thoughts that out of the blue things happen. I don’t see this case as a gender issue apart from it’s a male being really stupid, something that’s sadly not uncommon. Also I see the point about how the community views male stupidity and seeks to be vindictive using the media and legal processes. Females do get a more apologist and charge reducing treatment.
Gynocentric apparenty.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 12th August 2017 @ 1:34 pm
Years ago when a Police Helicopter collided with a fixed-wing plane over central Auckland, I was in the vacinty and witnessed the crash. The first person I spoke to immediately afterwards, a Herald photographer at the time, asked me if I had heard the news.
“MAATE, I saw it.”
“Did you get a picture?” Came automatically out of his mouth.
Yes, that’s the way the media operate, and as we often see a representation of here, to an excessive point, but not always.
Not before time, journalists are questioning the commercial nature and integrity of ‘the business’.
The media side of the story is there, but as you can imagine, those opinions are equally unwanted, in the same manner, as are many that are shared here.
When I go about my business and meet people, hear little stories, I often write of those, not only here, if there was the assumption that this is my sole purpose in life, but in other places too.
Yes, a meager contribution, I know, as sometimes they serve as nothing more fruitful, than as an unrecognized contribution to later works, perhaps the best comparison of which we have here is ‘A Penguin History of New Zealand’.
I don’t need arogance explained to me Mr MOMA, I’m all to familiar with it – but can I say I am more grateful that the best writers, these days, seldom die in gaol.
Regardless of your world view … I will continue to aspire to mine … and it may be necessary to make one very important point:
THIS DOES NOT COME WITHOUT A WILLINGNESS TO LISTEN TO WHAT OTHERS SAY, AND READ WHAT THEY WRITE, and I will continue to encourage others to be valuable writers in this dialogue.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 12th August 2017 @ 1:44 pm
Cicero M Tullius
Comment by Evan Myers — Sat 12th August 2017 @ 3:09 pm
I am disappointed at your take on the situation.
Do not agree with the statements: “the female pedestrian keeps walking right in the middle of the footpath” and “incident appeared to be an example of female self-entitlement.” If you follow the shadow (of the wall) on the footpath, you will notice the woman was moving to her left with each step she took.
This is most likely a case of ‘displaced anger.’ Perhaps, he was having a bad day – probably an argument with his female partner before his run. Not unusual to come across people who target the vulnerable – explains why he did not push the man and chose the woman instead.
Agree that this was possibly a case of ‘assault’ as opposed to ‘injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.’
Comment by Victor Franklin — Sat 12th August 2017 @ 3:25 pm
#13 Victor Franklin. So if she was “moving to her left with each step she took”, a few steps later she would have fallen off the pavement on her own and perhaps under the bus. He could have saved her life !
Comment by golfa — Sat 12th August 2017 @ 4:04 pm
14. golfa. Unsure what you are trying to say, but yes, he possibly would have saved her. Thanks.
Comment by Victor Franklin — Sat 12th August 2017 @ 4:53 pm
That jogger is running right down the middle of a wide footpath and the woman is slightly to the left, sorry but there is no way you can excuse his actions and if it was deliberate then he should fry for it. Comparing it with what that evil woman in the train station did doesn’t seem relevant and she should fry too but I bet she didn’t.
Comment by Doug — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 10:46 am
I do not think the runner push the woman in the way of a bus. The runner was looking forward and did not see the bus coming.
I don’t think it was necessary for the woman to get in the way a runner or the runner to push the woman. They both could have moved to their respective left. But only if they saw each other.
However if we are going to start prosecuting people pushing other people out of the way perhaps we could start here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTr50aHGDnI
It is notable the public clapped when these men pushed an man out of their way. And the man was called “stupid man” in video title.
What do I protest is the way in which the media was able to obtain a person name and photo and publish it before they were found guilty of anything or had the opportunity to plea. As it turns out the person arrested was out of the country at the time but was still arrested and charged. That person will be in a google search for the rest of their life and beyond. And of course that person was male.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4784466/Millionaire-banker-CLEARED-Putney-Bridge-assault.html
Comment by Lukenz — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 11:22 am
Really? This is not a male vs female issue. We see so many stories in the media where slightly batty feminist commentators try to portray everyday situations as male oppression and people here are doing the exact same thing from the opposite perspective.
The media reporting may be skewed, so attack that. This person (regardless of gender) pushed another person (regardless of gender) in the path of a bus and didn’t even care what he had done. I find that disturbing on levels totally unrelated to the male vs female thing, I think it discredits the men’s movement to be defending someone like this jogger.
Comment by Doug — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 3:46 pm
Doug @18:
That is exactly what the post was about. Media portrayed the incident as a male deliberately pushing a female into the path of a bus. That’s not credible when one looks at the video because the bus was behind him. Our explanation, that he was annoyed that she didn’t move from the middle of the footpath, fits with the video evidence. Our explanation may be wrong but it’s quite possibly right, yet the media did not consider any explanation that might provide some understanding of the incident and the male jogger’s perspective. We suspect the woman’s behaviour was related to female expectation of male chivalry, that a man should move aside for a woman. Anyone is entitled to disagree with our take on the matter, but we have read nothing to change our view.
Your statement that the jogger pushed the walker in the path of a bus and didn’t even care what he had done is assumption and conjecture somewhat inconsistent with the evidence. Nobody knows whether the man cared or didn’t care or even knew about the near miss with the bus because he had already run on by then. A more realistic interpretation of the incident was that he pushed her aside deliberately as a statement but without intending she would fall over and certainly not that she would fall close to the path of a bus. Who knows? Perhaps we will hear his explanation one day.
The media portrayal, like yours, that he deliberately pushed her into the path of a bus would discourage him from coming forward with any hope that he might get a fair hearing.
In no way do we condone the pushing action. He could have expressed his annoyance verbally. We also don’t condone the woman maintaining her place in the middle of the footpath when a male jogger was approaching.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 5:29 pm
#19 So, you want us to accept the possibility that you’re an idiot, but not talk around you.
Some sort of male equality test?
Like Feminists – every woman’s voice must be heard.
You might have to explain further, because I’m not getting it.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 5:50 pm
Well this is interesting.
“Police said officers had “reasonable grounds” to arrest Mr Bellquist, from Chelsea, West London, in connection with the offence.”
Well what the hell were those reasonable grounds because he is undeniably not the offender.
I suspect that’s a go to statement when things go wrong.
“was woken up by the police, dragged out of his house and thrown into a cell for hours.”
So some level off police brutality as well.
“A MILLIONAIRE banker who was arrested over the “Putney Bridge Pusher” video has been forced to hire bodyguards after receiving online death threats, it’s reported.”
So people don’t get the concept of innocent.
Have they just listened to the police, IE where there’s smoke theirs fire. He got off on a technicality.
“The 41-year-old has now gone into hiding and is under the protection of ex-SAS veterans despite proving that he was in America at the time of the incident on May 5, according to the Mail On Sunday.”
So who’s paying for that?
What would have happened if he was just as innocent but not out of the country at the time?
That’s the real question in this case.
http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/cleared-jogger-in-hiding-after-threats/news-story/b315a7e39681232c8d0294b76a09ed16
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 14th August 2017 @ 10:02 am
Might be one of those weird stories like, I don’t know, where he finds out he was a twin separated at birth.
Comment by Evan Myers — Mon 14th August 2017 @ 10:07 am
Maybe they were not separated and had been living in the same house.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 14th August 2017 @ 10:17 am
Taken from his home and put in a cell? Yes I know that feeling.
Then after they figure out you couldn’t have committed the crime their first reaction is to double down rather than admit the mistake.
Its a long time since I heard a policeman referred to as “detective”.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Mon 14th August 2017 @ 12:37 pm
I do recall watching a New Zealand video of our current Police Commissioner suggesting that his watch had a problem with unconscious bias.
Interesting though, that our media could only see that as a racial issue and not a gender issue.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 14th August 2017 @ 1:31 pm