Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Henry, if the proportions seeking detox have historically been about equal, what do you think the likelihood is that the gender balance has altered in the space of a year to make 90:10 representative of the festival's wider attendance demographic?
Also, looking at photos online, it looks pretty even.
-
How does one not "gender" a story on the fact that 90% of the people seen by St John at R&V after drinking unsafely were women?
If you're taking umbrage at the various rent-a-quotes who're in there talking about the risks that excessive drinking poses to young women, when the stories are about young men they get quotes about getting into fights, DUI, and taking stupid risks. -
Danielle, here's the thing. This isn't a new "moral panic". The police and ED doctors have been saying for quite some time now that they're seeing increasing numbers of young women who've had too much to drink. For the police, as my friend outlined, men are three times more likely to get arrested for their behaviour while intoxicated as women, which masks the extent of the problem. For the doctors, it's not until you're really fucked that you'll see them, often after suffering an injury. Men are more likely to get injured by doing stupid things when drunk, so more likely to end up having to see a doctor.
Now, though, we have St John, who I think everyone will accept as being authoritative on the matter of how many people needed detox at R&V, suggesting that the issue of excessive drinking by young women is actually far more serious than previously suspected, potentially far more serious than excessive drinking by young men. Certainly the evidence, and it's based on five (six?) years of history, is quite clear that there's been a huge change in behaviour in the past year. Maybe guys are seeking help less. But 80% less? I've got a bridge to sell you. If it was 60:40 I'd be happy to write it off as a change in the habits of guys. 90:10, though, says that something's changed about the girls.
There's broad recognition that binge drinking by young men is an issue. ALAC's "Lisa" ad didn't do much more than get backs up about drinking behaviour in young women, though. Far more emphasis is put on advertising aimed at males and their drinking habits than on women and theirs. Is it such a terrible thing to report on data that suggests that the problem is far from limited to males? Because you're very definitely coming across that way. The implication is that you'll take offence at anything that's not impartial in its treatment of the genders, despite what's come out of R&V.
-
It's the "women are drinking like men = OMG PANIC!" I have a problem with.
I think you actually mean "Women are drinking worse than men", based on the R&V evidence. And why not panic? It means that the messages about drinking responsibly are clearly not getting through, because a group that historically hasn't been known for significant public drunkenness is now surpassing males.
The tone I've taken from posts in here is "How dare they report that young women are displaying drinking behaviour that's worse than that of young men." The excuses for why the figures might be so skewed were a perfect example: It's not that the girls are drinking more, it's that the boys don't seek help.
Interesting comment from a friend who works for the police as an analyst, part of which role is collating information about the role of alcohol in behaviour that draws police attention: "the kind of stuff that drunk chicks do don't get them arrested the same way as men which is why there a 1:3 women to men ratio in all my stats.
They do get really aggro though.. most incidents involving bouncers is where drunk chicks have called up complaining of assault"
-
recordari, look at the comments at the bottom of the linked article.
-
Why all this outrage over reporting that young women were the vast majority of the drunks that St John treated at R&V? St John said that it's historically been roughly even, but from last year to this it's gone to about 90% women. Is it actually that impossible for anything that makes women look bad to be an objective statement? The assumption that it's because women are more likely to take their friends to detox only works if, suddenly, men have become less likely to take their friends. After all, the last few years the numbers have been about equal. So something has changed with regard to the drinking habits of young women, be it seeking help, or how they're drinking. Or, and I don't consider it to be terribly likely, men are suddenly 80% (from about 50% to about 10%) less likely to see St John than in years past.
This is hardly the first reporting that indicates that young women are drinking just as poorly as their male counterparts. The police have been making the same observation for quite some time, about the ever-increasing numbers of females who're getting into trouble because of their drinking habits. Is it that they're drinking more? Behaving worse? Or just that society is becoming intolerant of drunk women behaving badly?
-
To speed things up you're really wanting a "Purple Heart" for being wounded in battling the fire, which is fair enough, but that would be a new award.
Not even that. The guys who were injured in the explosion and incapacitated, well, really, that's unfortunate but also a hazard of the job. The two who were able to retain their senses, rescue their colleagues, put in the priority message for assistance, and carry out some form of coordinating role of the emergent responders deserve a decoration. That is functioning above and beyond, particularly the one who had been seriously injured in the explosion but still kept it together - as I understand things he assumed command despite having been caught in the explosion, whereas the other fire fighter had been only slightly injured. There's a Fire Service-specific "Queen's Commendation for Brave Conduct", which may be appropriate, but one of the civilian bravery medals such as the NZ Bravery Medal also seems reasonable.
Also, the civilians who came to help despite not knowing if there could be another explosion. That is seriously gutsy, and they're being even more significantly short-changed with the ongoing lack of recognition.
-
This sucks, by the way. Row over cool store medals and compensation.
That comment from "JD" makes me so furious.
-
The reports of one firefighter reflects the bitterness and pain he is feeling. I think the jounalist has some fault here too, as it clearly isn't an award for bravery as the firefighter was reported as saying.
It's been 20 months, and there's been no formal recognition of the actions of those on the pointy end. Now we've got three people whose contribution was to manage the response (which is precisely what (Assistant) Region Fire Commanders do. They're at the Incident Control Point, not out there with BA and a delivery) being given medals. Whether or not they're gallantry medals is irrelevant, really, it's still a decoration being given for actions in relation to the incident. I'm not in the least surprised that those who were caught up in the explosion (and I suspect that the fire fighter who's spoken out is one of the two who had to rescue his colleagues) are bitter. I'd be bitter too, and very, very cynical.
-
Yes, awards went to senior desk-jockeys rather than those who actually got injured fighting the coolstore fire.
This has been a bit of a contentious issue on a volunteer fire fighter mailing list I'm on. The matter of the Queen's Service Medal being for, well, service has been pointed out. The contribution of two of the recipients to the welfare of the injured, in terms of long-term actions, is being recognised, but for the other three it very much looks like getting a medal for doing their job - taking command at a major incident and getting it done. That's what they're paid not-inconsiderable sums of money for, having spend decades working and training to reach those positions. They may well have earned a QSM for their service to the Fire Service, but that's not the same as what they did at Tamahere.
Graeme's observation about gallantry awards is well-made. The actions of the fire fighters who pulled their injured colleagues from the debris and carried out CPR, sent the priority message to advise of the explosion, and coordinated the emergent response by locals are not service in the sense that a QSM is given. Rather they are the acts of people in the immediate aftermath of a devastating event, and that is the stuff of awards for bravery. Similarly many of those who ran over from the fair and, at risk to their lives, offered aid. If none of those involved in the first minutes after the explosion are honoured, that is a true travesty.
there are plenty of firefighters, police officers, medical professionals etc. who get injured in the course of their duties who don't get QSMs.
No, but those involved in deadly incidents where their own lives are placed at risk while preserving the lives of others tend to be recognised. Tamahere was extraordinary, and it is the extraordinary for which bravery awards are given.