Fire Escapes are for Escaping

Jacob Rees-Mogg and Andrew Brigden have apologised for their comments regarding the Grenfell Disaster in which 72 people perished in a tower-block fire.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50314112

Now, I personally don't feel either politician was victim blaming - these people died not because they made any kind of mistake but because the building had undergone shoddy refurbishment and consequently the instructions they received from the fire dept. to stay put and await rescue were...catastrophic.

The problem is that to stay put and await rescue in a burning building flies against not only common sense but also every human's instinct to preserve their own life.

The only reason for not evacuating that I can think of are:

• I am (or a person I am with is) physically incapable of leaving without help
• I can find no clear route of escape

Besides this, everyone is taught from an early age that in the event of a fire alarm (much less an actual, tangible fire) to:

1. Stay calm
2. Do not retrieve possessions
3. Leave, via the nearest available exit (often with the subclause of do not use a lift)

This is at school, at work, in hotels, on public transport, in shops and public buildings...literally everywhere.

So Rees-Mogg and Brigden asked the fairly obvious question - why, when instructed to do something that goes against logic, against self-preservation, against a lifetime of a very specific learned response to this particular kind of threat did the people in that tower block not go against that instruction?

There are several significant possibilities that spring to my mind:

First and probably most importantly is TRUST IN AUTHORITY. They trusted people to know what the right thing to do was, especially the fire dept. whose literal job is to keep them safe. I have issues with this cos I simply don't trust people. Like, ever. it's just not in my make up to do anything beyond listen to my own gut. And my gut can be wrong.

Secondly is FEAR. When people are afraid there are two key responses - firstly, Fight Or Flight where the choice is to fight the danger or run from it. This is were you either grab that fire extinguisher or make for the fire escape. Second is Deer In The Headlights, and that's what I'm thinking here. People who are frightened often freeze, people who freeze often look to others to tell them what to do, or are susceptible to being led...this is, in part, why runaways are so vulnerable - a frightened kid can go into things they'd never have dreamed of doing if led astray by someone malicious.

Third up is the controversial one: I blame the education system. Basically, SOCIETAL BRAINWASHING. From an early age, usually pre-school age, kids are taught to defer to adults - specifically authority figures: cops, doctors, teachers etc. Beyond this all through school are taught over and over not to act without instruction. To do ONLY as they are told.

To elaborate on this last point I want to cite experiences from my last two jobs.

My last job was in a shop. I worked with several school leavers who shared a common characteristic - they couldn't self-motivate, like AT ALL. They'd literally stand there waiting for someone to tell them what to do, even if there was a really obvious task at hand. Meanwhile, myself and other older workers instinctively looked for things to do - we disliked being told what to do like we were kids, also tasks done at our convenience made for smooth running of the shop - basically, it was to make our own lives easier to declutter, reorganise or whatever.

In my last job before that I worked in a school. One particular classroom disgusted me because the walls were covered in pictograms of 'acceptable behaviour' - no speaking unless spoken to, no moving unless instructed to, using a 'whisper voice' only, do not do anything until you have listened to all the instructions etc. At this time my own kids were in uni & 6th form college and I talked to both of them about these signs and both confirmed that this had been drummed into them at school. To literally not think for themselves but to defer always to someone else's instruction. I was appalled! If I had known this I'd have homsechooled throughout instead of the times I was otherwise obliged to.

Fortunately, what I taught my kids at home was very successful. Both my kids are capable of thinking for themselves, getting on with things, dealing with a crisis. At sixteen my youngest accidentally set fire to the bathroom - it is one of my proudest moments as a parent because she dealt with it - she calmly threw a fire blanket over it, even cleaned up. Did she call anyone for help or advice? Nope, she had it in hand. Conversely a story I saw on the news has stuck with me for many years: a family saw smoke issuing from their tumble dryer so they fled their flat and called for help (nice flight response) - only they didn't unplug the machine, they didn't grab a fire extinguisher...their home & possessions were destroyed as a result. Probably avoidable without any of them being in any actual danger. Very unfortunate.

This whole business makes me think of a couple of examples from history.

One is the Titanic. People look back and are VERY judgemental of the White Star Line for not providing enough lifeboats (there was a greater provision than required by law) and against the officers who allowed lifeboats to leave the ship far below capacity (partly because proper evacuation procedures were not in place, partly because 'women and children first' was misinterpreted) - much like Grenfell, a series of unfortunate misjudgements and mistakes. But there too the victims were criticised - in this instance, for 'not believing' the ship would sink...but this assertion was based on false information.

"White Star Line President P.A.S. Franklin announced 'We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable'" AFTER the ship was reported to be in distress. The ship was DESIGNED TO BE unsinkable, it was never claimed that it WAS so; and the myth surrounding the term 'unsinkable' largely came about after the disaster. 

Source: https://www.historyonthenet.com/the-titanic-why-did-people-believe-titanic-was-unsinkable

Certainly the passengers may have had faith in the ship, may have believed rescue would come in time, may have been in denial of their peril (because people often are) and may have been not unreasonably afraid to get into vulnerable little boats in the middle of an icy ocean. But unlike Grenfell no one died because they were told to stay, and no one died because of shoddy materials.

Another, more recent, parallel is from 9/11. Workers in the South Tower were told to stay at their desks, after all, it was the North Tower that had been hit. Director of Security at Morgan Stanley, Rick Rescorla, had other ideas. He'd been drilling the staff FOR YEARS, every three months he got EVERYONE to practice emergency evacuations - annoying executive types who resented the interruptions. People took the piss at his 'over preparedness', they thought him paranoid. However, on 9/11 Morgan Stanley Dean Whitter lost just SIX employees out of two-and-a-half-THOUSAND. One was Rescorla. He could have escaped, having done his duty to his company, but he couldn't walk away when there were still lives to save.

Not only that but employees of other companies followed the example. They'd seen Rescorla leading his evacuation practices and decided to join in. They ignored official advice and followed the guy who seemed to know what he was doing...not least cos it fitted in with natural desires to preserve your own life

Sources:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rescorla

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/leadership-on-9-11-morgan-stanley-s-challenge

Another story from 9/11 involves a group of ten co-workers who worked together carrying a wheelchair-user down a stairwell of the North Tower. They encountered a firefighter on the 10th floor who told them to leave the disabled man, John Abruzzo, with them and the fire service would take it from there. They'd already carried him 59 floors, they were tired...they did not leave Abruzzo but finished the job. The building collapsed just 15 minutes after they got out. They made a choice not to defer to the 'authority figures' and it worked out for them - clearly it might not have done, but they made the choice they could live with. If their escape had been delayed by their choice and they had died they'd still be heroes for trying.
Sources:https://nypost.com/2017/09/10/the-port-authority-yanks-an-honor-from-911-heroes/ 
https://www.911memorial.org/blog/colleagues-use-special-chair-save-quadriplegic-911 

Lastly, I want to use a thought experiment.

You're down in the London Underground and there's a fire alarm. The tunnel splits in two, both marked 'way out'.

One way (Route A) is wider, well lit but the smell of smoke seems stronger, the other looks like the path less travelled (Route B) but the air is clear. Which way do you go?

Same scenario but there are a dozen or so other people with you now and they're taking Route A, do you follow?

Same scenario but there's a scruffy type in ripped jeans and covered in tattoos saying Route B looks safer, do you believe them?

Same scenario but the person saying Route B looks safer is now a wearing a smart suit. Do you believe them more than the tattooed scruffy person?

Same scenario but the person directing you is now a member of staff and they're showing you to Route A but the smoke is now thick. Do you challenge them on why B is not an option?

You challenge them and they say Route A is the shorter route to the surface - the Route B tunnel leads to a neighbouring station where you can get to the surface but it'll be full of people from the trains that aren't stopping here. What do you do now?

Same scenario as before but now smoke is even thicker and the member of staff is saying 'stay put' - anyone who suggests Route B is rebuffed by being told they'll cause congestion in the other station.

My opinion is that Route B is always the best - regardless of whether you're alone to make a choice, others are choosing what is apparently a poor option, whether those recommending a safe route are smart or scruffy and whether an official is telling you an unsafe route is best - even if they provide reasoning.

It's my fear that we have a culture of discouraging people from thinking for themselves. No blame whatsoever to the Grenfell residents, just questions over why people believe counter-intuitive statements.

FOOTNOTE
On my Facebook's On This Day for 11th Nov 2011 is the following post:

G-Zeus! Woman rings NHS Direct re: daughter's migraine

that had lasted days. Advised to give her TWELVE Anadin

and ANOTHER TWELVE after 12 hours.

Daughter is now in hospital for the overdose.

For Gawd's sake peeps - double check the medical advice

you are given. Don't trust people.

I have no idea where the story came from as, pre uni, I wasn't so careful about citing sources. Quite possibly a totally fake story although I've been prescribed meds I'm contraindicated for and been instructed to use meds improperly by paramedics & nurses so I'm inclined to believe. What I struggle with is that anyone would follow such instructions. Sure X is a 'medical professional' but if they instruct you to take waaaaay more pills than the packaging says why would you believe X and not the manufacturer? One or two extra I can believe but 12???
I definitely feel our society trusts certain people implicitly. When I was at uni we did critical thinking of which PART was assessing the reliability of sources. I can understand why someone'd believe (in general terms) a doctor over the hedgewitch down the end of the village but if the doctor tells you to do something stupid you're supposed to look at that critically TOO. 
Question everything, do the reading (and still take it with a pinch of salt), think for yourself. PLEASE.

Friendzoning

Found this in my drafts from 18 March 2015. Again, no idea why I didn't post it.

This is not exactly a response to anything I have read about the friendzone but my own take on the concept.

First of all, we teach children that to find a relationship they should become friends. Maybe going up to someone you're attracted to and being forthright about it is a possibility for you but the shyer amongst us could never ever do that! Some people rarely experience attraction without solidly getting to know the person first...how would they cope with having to tell a prospective new person "just so as you know I may become attracted to you in the future"?!

So basically befriending someone with the intention or possibility of wanting to take it further is going to happen whether you like it or not. The risk of being hit on by a friend or being rejected by someone you want to be closer to is unavoidable unless you cut all human contact!

How you deal with that is where it gets problematic. The rejected party, let's call them J, is going to be hurt. The rejecter, L perhaps, is perhaps going to feel wrong footed or disturbed by the turn of events. So...

• J may say spiteful things to which I say to L "suck it up" - people say stuff when they're hurt and I bet you do too. At the end of the day it's just words. Yes, words hurt, but so does being rejected. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
• J may push things too far - this is obviously unacceptable - be it sexual harassment, intimidation or whatever. Although when I see young people in L's position posting about childhood friends please consider whether a lack of emotional maturity on J's part is a mitigating factor.
• J may push things WAY too far - physical assault, sexual assault etc are inexcusable...but again a 10 yr old's attempt to "steal a kiss" is, to my old fashioned way of thinking, is somewhat different to an adult doing the same...or worse.
• J may complain of being "friendzoned"...again, suck it up L. J is hurt - from their point of view they were investing in you as a potential partner. Maybe there were mixed messages, maybe there weren't but either way they had hopes you've crushed. A little understanding goes a long way.
• L complains that people are only interested in them romantically / sexually and bitch about people like J. Well, maybe that's a problem for you but J doesn't owe you friendship any more than you owe them a relationship!

It takes two people to make a friendship / relationship work and if the two are not singing from the same hymn sheet there's going to be a problem. But is it really anyone's FAULT? Two people who want different things is an ongoing theme throughout life. Apply the same idea for a moment to other scenarios, such as parenting:

• J being "friendzoned" has a hissy fit cos they hasn't got their own way. Now how is J going to cope with any other situation that requires giving up what they want? As a parent is J going to have a paddy every time their child's needs have to come first?! they'd probably be okay, actually. But would a parent take it calmly in a divorce and the kid sides with the other parent? Probably not so much.
• Or L, sick to death of people like J wanting stuff from them...how will they deal with the needs of their child??? Especially if left as a single parent...

People will want or expect stuff from you your whole life - be it your friends, partners, children, parents, employers...sometimes expectations are reasonable, sometimes they're not. Both parties can be out of line on how they react. Mostly I say chalk it up to experience and move on. An early experience of rejection, even dealing with it badly, can be an important learning experience so compounding it with extra criticism and blame is surely deeply unhelpful?

Perhaps it's easy for me to say that as I have never been in that position. No one wants to be my friend OR my lover! The most similar situation I have had was with my ex. We were in, what to me was, a committed relationship. He changed his mind, which rationally he had every right to do. In practice though I was definitely J, clinging desperately to my hopes of a future with him. Our wedding was booked, I was expecting our second child - I was not going to meekly let him walk away! And so I behaved badly. Of course I did! Everything was riding on my convincing him to stay - from my own happiness to my children's to our finances to my career prospects... I felt he, my L, owed me...because he'd made promises, we'd committed to having children - perhaps that makes a significant difference, because it wasn't a hope or a presumption but something more solid - and it was horribly unfair to just leave me to pick up the pieces. But I was still acting out of shattered dreams and wounded pride...

I want to add here that 'badly' is subjective: I acted without pride and dignity, I begged and cried, but I did NOT do anything like assault or manipulation or spreading lies about him...tbh it's a good thing social media wasn't available then...

I'm glad my ex walked away completely. I don't think I could have gone on seeing him 'for our children', I couldn't have been his friend. Sometimes that's just how it is, whether you were friends or a couple - if one wants more than they can have it'll never be right.

On Truth and Perception...and Alien Abductions

Just found this in my drafts...no idea why it wasn't published when I wrote it nearly a year ago. 
PLEASE BE CAREFUL - TRIGGER WARNINGS: Abduction, sexual abuse, sexual violence, rape etc.

INTRODUCTION
Recently* I had a big set-to on Twitter because I have issues with transexuality being self-declared. For me it is a matter of the philosophy of identity which is a subject most perplexing. The individual is seen as the epicentre of identity BUT is the individual best placed to determine their own identity when by its very nature identity is how we are seen by others? 

To clarify for anyone not following me on Twitter I have zero problem with transexuality itself. Regularly I see online that self-awareness of depression or eating disorders is not enough, you must be formally diagnosed. This is not to liken transexuality with mental disorders - just a comparison to other situations where a self-identification is regularly denied despite being fairly straightforward matters of self-awareness. Whether we think of the fictional Adrian Mole and his false self-identification as an intellectual or the real-world Rachel Dolezal who faked being black because that is the ethnicity she identifies with - there are a host of reasons why individual perception is not a great way to define ANYTHING, much less an aspect of the self where the ego can warp perception enormously. Lets face it, Muhammad Ali's assertion that he was "the greatest" is itself immensely egotistical...but validated by popular consensus. Similarly Agatha Christie couldn't bring herself to self-identify as an author despite her demonstrable successes.

I mention this as a precursor to today's musings on truth and perception as they revolve around the idea that things are not always as we see, feel or otherwise experience them.

For example, I identify as an empath (chiefly in science fiction a person with the paranormal ability to perceive the mental or emotional state of another individual - see the Doctor Who episode "Hide") so I live by my intuition a fair bit. I don't expect anyone to acknowledge or believe my gut reactions on any subject, it is purely a matter of my self-perception.

I mention THAT as today's musings begin though with, what to me was, an empathic experience. That I was being told a series of highly dubious tales does not make my impression of the teller as untruthful an empathic experience, just as my 'feeling' on the subject could be easily attributed to paralinguistic attributes (intonation, facial expression etc) but - to my way of thinking - the identification of the root cause of untruthfulness IS a matter of empathic experience.

ON TRUTHFULNESS AND PERCEPTION
When we think of a person being untruthful we come up with synonyms such as 'lying' and 'deceptive' but these only address one form of untruthfulness and there are several.

• Lying - deliberate deceit for gain, attention, amusement (either for the act of telling stories or at the gullibility of of others) etc Perception is deceptive and / or defensive 
• Confusion - honest yet mistaken: repeating a story as heard as if true without verification, misremembering, etc Perception can be confused or truthful, not defensive
• Conviction - the self belief that the stories are true such as with conditions preventing a person from distinguishing fact from fiction, delusions, false memory syndrome (being a step up from a simple act of misremembering) and so forth Perception is truthful and / or defensive *

* Defensive perceptions can also be present in truth-tellers who, for whatever reasons, fear or expect to be disbelieved making truth and conviction difficult to distinguish at a perceptive level.

From my perception of myself as an empath I looked at my perceptions of the person who was telling the improbable-to-the-point-of-impossible tales to try to deduce what form of untruthfulness was at play. The stories in question should have fitted into the first category with the deliberate intent of gaining sympathy yet I was struck curiously by sensing no deceit in them. There were certainly elements whereby confusion could be the culprit - especially when it came to misidentifying medical conditions yet that did not fit particularly well to the whole. The third category I also ruled out. I got no sense that this person believed what they were saying.

For me this indicates a fourth category of untruthfulness: the moral lack of distinction between fact and fiction. Sometimes termed a 'compulsive liar' or 'fantasist' (both of which indicate deliberate acts) I feel this is a separate category as, rather than deliberate acts of deception, the concept of deception itself is actually lacking; a form of amorality. Perception is neutral - because truth is irrelevant.

I have encountered such people before but they are, thankfully, rare. In this case the stories were implausible and raised my suspicions but obviously untruths can be highly plausible too.

This led me to thinking...truth itself is a perception. If you believe that something is so it is so, to you. And this leads me to my...

ALIEN ABDUCTION THEORY

At this point I want to stress that if you have had an experience of alien abduction 

I do not recommend you read on; similarly, if you know someone who has 

please do NOT challenge them with my theory. You could do a lot of harm.

I dare say most people are familiar with stories of alien abductions but have you ever contemplated WHY it's a story that is repeated to a very familiar pattern? Unless you happen to ascribe to the idea that aliens ARE abducting humans you probably put it down to mass hysteria or suggestibility from science fiction sources.

Once upon a time I met someone who had experienced alien abduction and I was curious as to what my empathic tendencies would reveal about their story...and what hit me most was the genuine trauma they were experiencing. In terms of untruthfulness this would sit firmly in the the conviction category - they believed it, they felt it, the perceptions I had of them were honest and accurate to their claim.

So what was going on? Admittedly this happened at a time when The X-Files was very popular - so a lucid dream perhaps or the influence of drugs? Plausible but I wasn't convinced, the trauma was just too real. The fact that accounts of alien abduction are SO similar led me to a different conclusion.

What do these accounts have in common?

• Paralysis (almost always not restrained, yet unable to move)
• Partially conscious
• Probing (physical violation)

Do any solutions present themselves to your mind? 

My theory is that the phenomenon of alien abduction, aided by popular media, is the mind's way of coping with a genuine trauma - specifically rape, especially when drugs like rohypnol are involved. Hence the comments in red above - if the mind is protecting itself it's probably best left that way. If a person would rather believe their experience was alien abduction then that's fine.

This brings me back to the concept of self-identity - I don't want to CHALLENGE anyone's perception of themselves in any way cos how you see yourself is pretty much irrelevant. What is an issue to me is validating someone's opinion of themselves...if someone feels they have been abducted by aliens I will not challenge that, especially not with my theory, but nor do I need to validate their experience and declare that alien abduction is real. Truth is in your perception of it. It's never nice to be called a liar or to be told "you don't really think / feel / believe that" but why do people put so much value in external validation? 

Gun Ownership Restrictions and Common Sense VS the NRA

All quotes: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/obama-to-gun-owners-im-not-looking-to-disarm-you/#

"Why don't we treat this like every other thing that we use? I just came from a meeting today in the Situation Room in which I got people who we know have been on ISIL Web sites, living here in the United States, U. S. citizens, and we're allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit these people from buying a gun." - President Barrack Obama

There were a whole bunch of responses to this statement, particularly of the "To restrict someone based off what they read is a dangerous course. I don't care if it's a book, a website or a letter, it is punishment without due process. Restricting the rights of a person without due process is the opposite of what we claim to be about." (Observations99) variety. Now obviously Americans take their civil liberties very seriously but what is the alternative? The same argument that is applied here - visiting a terrorist organisation's website does not make you a terrorist was previously used as a defence against child pornography websites, that looking at these things did not make you a paedophile...which is now understood to be nonsense. Websites generate revenue from hits - by visiting a criminal website you may be supporting that crime financially. It has been established that there is no legitimate reason to look at child pornography 'for research'; similarly there is no legitimate reason to be visiting an ISIL website. Waiting for a paedophile to physically hurt a child is irresponsible, waiting for a terrorist sympathiser to mount an attack is waiting too long. If someone is pointing a gun at a woman and her child do you wait for them to pull the trigger or do you call for help / attempt to intervene / cause a distraction BEFORE they get shot? Preemptive measures will always be unpopular and someone will inevitably suffer for it BUT is the right of the individual greater than that of the masses? I don't think so. I would rather be wrongly subjected to restrictions than have my children slaughtered because those restrictions couldn't be applied to someone who really deserved it. The idea that a person's travel can be restricted on suspicion but their ability to buy weaponry can't...totes illogical.

"Safety laws are applied to all individuals equally - both law abiding and non-law abiding.

The example Obama uses is that everyone must get a driver's license and pass a test to prove they can safely drive a vehicle. Even if you are a known felon, child molester, tax avoider, etc you can still get a license. Then everyone must register their vehicle regardless of how they acquired it. Again.. doesn't matter what laws you have broken (or not broken) in the past. I will also mention that a car is considered a deadly weapon depending on how it is used.

The only time special scrutiny is applied is after you have committed a crime directly related to driving (drunken driving, reckless driving, etc). Then your license and ability to drive be revoked or curtailed." - Sean

This statement raises some interesting points: the ownership restrictions on cars doesn't affect the majority and we don't question the existence of those restrictions anymore (once upon a time driving licences hadn't been invented and literally anyone could get behind the wheel without censure). Virtually anyone can own a car, virtually anyone (in America) can own a gun - but is that really such a good idea? And cars have to be registered, taxed, insured; the driver licenced...why isn't this applied to guns? Why are people free to buy multiple weapons without checks? Why aren't they required to purchase insurance against the use of those guns - to cover you if a bullet ricochets and hits someone or damages their property, for example? Procedures that would have minimal impact on the responsible but be something of a deterrent to others. A car has a valid, practical use...hunting is the only valid, practical use of a gun and that doesn't apply to most American gun owners.

"How does registering a car decrease crimes that utilize cars? When there are drinking and driving accidents who calls for stricter licensing, more training and bans of certain types of cars? Who calls for cars to be governed so they cannot exceed the speed limit? Nobody. Who calls for mandatory breathalyzers to be installed in every car (analogous to a background check for every gun purchase), Nobody. Who calls for restrictions on the amount of alcohol you can buy? Nobody, they call for stricter penalties on the perpetrators. Yet you demand analogous restrictions on all guns and their owners not just on criminals. Why is it different for guns? Because you want to take our guns, you have no interest in banning cars." - George Mason

Okay, this is gonna be fun...

• How does registering a car decrease crimes that utilize cars? - It's harder to commit a crime with a car that can be easily traced back to the owner. It's a deterrent and it means the gov't know you have that car...shouldn't the gov't know about that home arsenal you're putting together?!
• When there are drinking and driving accidents who calls for stricter licensing, more training and bans of certain types of cars? - not sure how alcohol and the crime committed by drunk drivers is linked here, but the sale of alcohol is licensed and restricted.
• Who calls for cars to be governed so they cannot exceed the speed limit? - plenty of people actually. The ability of cars to travel at well over the legal limit is contentious. The popular UK car Vauxhall Corsa has a top speed of 113 MPH; 43 MPH over the top speed limit in the country. Totally unnecessary to enable people to break the law.
• Who calls for mandatory breathalyzers to be installed in every car? - actually again plenty of people would like this to be a thing. Just imagine how many lives would be saved each year!
• Who calls for restrictions on the amount of alcohol you can buy? - again, this is actually a thing. It'd do a lot for public health too. And coming from the nation that came up with prohibition that's just funny.
• You demand analogous restrictions on all guns and their owners not just on criminals. Why is it different for guns? - because a car is a transport vehicle, because alcohol is an intoxicating substance but a gun is a WEAPON PURELY FOR KILLING. WHY ARE YOU TOO FUCKING DUMB TO SEE THAT???

Also, why are you so hung up on linking alcohol and driving? Car drivers can't use mobile phones, eat or drink while driving. Driving while on drugs, driving while tired...there are many factors in non-deliberate road deaths and I don't know about America but in the UK there are all sorts of rules and regulations aimed at preventing these things. A person receives points on their licence for infractions and at a certain point will lose their licence. A person who receives certain medical diagnoses can lose their licence as unfit to drive...why doesn't this apply to gun ownership? Infractions like improper storage and wrongfully discharging a firearm would incur penalty points; visiting terrorist websites and diagnoses such as psychotic illness would involve a revoking of a licence. No one can just go buy a car, they have to have a valid driver's licence...allowing any idiot to go buy a gun is all kinds of nuts. Only a true dumbfuck would put an individual's 'right' to own an offensive weapon over the rights of innocent people to not get slaughtered.

Mrs Rock-Star the second

Feeling inclined to write a sequel to an earlier blog as it ties in rather neatly (see: For Example, Being Mrs Rock-Star - Feb 2016).

Note: I am using a hetero-centric male rock star / female non celebrity partner dynamic throughout because that is the kind of fantasy relationship I am in LOL. I fully acknowledge that other scenarios are possible and valid.

Recent events which are none of my business brought some further hypothetical issues to mind. Without referring to specific cases I think we've all seen enough of 'fandoms' to realise that petty rivalries and general bitching can get way out of hand...and it doesn't take much of a leap to realise how an actual wife, girlfriend or significant other is liable to get treated in such an environment. Even in the nicest of fandoms a certain I-love-him-more-than-you attitude can fester away which can be bad enough when it's all hypothetical.

So how do I feel about this? Given my imaginary boy-toy I have given this a fair bit of thought.

Firstly, I think there are probably two types of rock-star significant other...those to whom fame is an inconvenient side-effect, and those who were attracted by it. I don't think either kind is innately better suited to the role - finding the IDEA of fame appealing does not equate to enjoying it as a day-to-day REALITY. What I do think is that the Mrs Rock-Star with her head screwed on will do better than the one who thinks it'll be all glossy magazine spreads. Facing up to reality is key here.

So, what is the reality? Obviously a huge amount depends on the specific people involved but basically just like when any couple get together and you have to deal with his family and friends getting involved with a rock star means you're involved with his fan base...whether you like it or not.

Regarding that fan base you can engage, keep to the sidelines or hide. There is no golden rule here.

Even if you think you will stay well out of it don't imagine for one second that some sneaky little so-and-so won't be posting about you on social media behind your back. They might even set up fake social networking accounts in your identity. Personally that is why I think maintaining a presence in the fan base is the way to go - makes it easier to avoid being blamed for stirring up shit storms that were nothing to do with you for one thing. So that'd be my first recommendation: own your identity.

Obviously engaging with a fan base is easier if you have really good self esteem and the hide of a rhino. But is that essential? Obviously I'm talking from a position of total speculation here but I don't think so. If you're going to take every hurtful comment to heart you're in for a hard time but it could be just as difficult imagining what is being said behind your back. It can also give you an opportunity to address criticisms and aid you to present yourself how you want to be seen.

I'm under no illusions. I know my fantasy rock star is never gonna pick me and if in some bizarre alternate reality that actually happened I know I would never have the full, unconditional support of the fan base. It totally goes against human nature! I'm definitely not drawn to the idea of dating a rock star but I love him so that's what I'd have to deal with to be his. So how would I deal with it? Badly, probably! My self esteem is shit. But I'd definitely own my online identity, I'd get pretty harsh about muting the haters; I'd save up the nice comments and do my best to see the negatives as petty jealousy.

What I would be exceptionally careful of is that I didn't allow it to affect my relationship. The worst this shit can really do is cause stress or make you a needier partner. No matter what kind of relationship you're in it's never up to your partner to make up for the shit other people give you. Bring, as far as you can, only good stuff to your relationship. Leave everything else out with the trash.

For Example, Being Mrs Rock-Star

This is something I've been thinking about a fair bit lately, and not because I've completely lost my marbles...I know I don't stand a hope in hell with the rock-star of my dreams but who HASN'T imagined themselves in a relationship with, or married to, a celebrity crush?!

Now, beyond my own musings and barely coherent ramblings with fellow fangirls a few things have inspired this post:-

• Watching The One Show's tribute to Sir Terry Wogan and the odd way in which his family, including his wife of 50 years, were mentioned almost as an afterthought - between being very private about his home life and being considered a national treasure the people who should've been considered first and foremost following his death seemed almost excluded.
• The following line from actress Pam Dawber's Wikipedia page, describing her marriage to fellow actor Mark Harman: "The couple is known to be private about their family life and rarely appear in public together with their children or speak about one another in interviews" 
• Reading an article about the two virtually unknown daughters of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

What makes people keep aspects of their lives so intensely private?  It makes perfect sense to avoid unwarranted press intrusion, to protect young children and to not go airing all your dirty laundry in public like some people do - *cough* Katie Price *cough* - but personally I find it a little disconcerting when people are SO private it's like their 'other half' doesn't even exist.  Getting married particularly is a legal, and often religious, unification of two people's lives so continuing to live and present yourself as a single unit strikes me as decidedly odd; especially when BOTH partners are famous as in the instance above.  If one is a completely private individual it makes a little more sense but when you're both in the public eye...you don't have to say a lot about your partner - or children - but time and time again I come across it on someone's Wikipedia or IMDb page that they NEVER talk about their partner; sometimes the dates of their marriage, or even little details like the spouse's NAME, are unknown.

Perhaps it comes of having been single since... *tumbleweed* ...well, yes, let's not go into specifics.  Anyhoo, after many MANY years alone the thought of being with someone who'd barely acknowledge my existence in a public setting is actually quite upsetting.  Like, dude, are you ASHAMED of me?!  Just to make it quite clear, I have no interest in being with someone for any kind of reflected fame, glossy magazine photoshoots or having my flabby bits papped on the beach, but the thought of being...almost 'edited out' of my husband's life doesn't sit well either.  I can't imagine anyone wanting to proudly show me off on a red carpet (or jump on Oprah's sofa for that matter) but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to be his +1 on occasion.

As a mother of two I can imagine trying to be discrete about what I said about my daughters in interviews, but I can't imagine never mentioning them at all.  As a parent your children are usually the centre of things; to me that level of 'privacy' sounds more like you're disowning them!  People ask after your family, it's considered polite and I can't imagine refusing to answer a basic question just because it refers to them.  My kids may be adult now but if they ever get a stepdad I hope he'd acknowledge them; my stepdad came into my life when I was 29 and he has fully embraced me and my children as his family.

EDIT 9th September 2024

I just saw a short by YouTuber Uyen Ninh where German Fiancé appears in a No-Face costume as they launch their new podcast and it reminded me of this blog... I have been following Uyen for a while (although due to notification issues I saw this late). Uyen is a Vietnamese YouTuber posting in English about her life in Germany.

I love the fact that whilst - for whatever reason(s) - German Boyfriend (now German Fiancé or German Husband-To-Be) doesn't use his name or show his face online he is clearly supporting of her channel and willing to be involved in content.

And that's what I was thinking with this blog post... Pretending your other half doesn't exist is a world of different (IMHO) than respecting their privacy.

I have ZERO interest in fame but I couldn't deal with being a non-entity or footnote in my partner's life.

I just love the way Uyen and German Boyfriend/Fiancé/Husband-to-be are managing his need for privacy while acknowledging their combined path in life. It really shouldn't have to be all or nothing; healthy middle ground can be found.