Most of us are prejudiced in one way or another. Me, for instance, when I notice a guy and a girl quarreling, being a feminist, I will immediately conclude that the guy had done something wrong. I knew that to assume is to make an ass out of “u” and me, and I know what I think does not necessarily reflect what’s actually going on, but I will subconsciously perceive it in that manner because I am prejudiced that way.

Our ability to perceive accurately is affected by a number of factors. Basically, we see what we expect to see. What we expect to see depends on our cultural expectations, past experiences, personal prejudices and momentary expectations. For me, cultural expectations, to a very large extent, depends on our personal prejudices. I have friends who think all Englishmen are good-looking, so when they get to know real Englishmen in real life, before they were introduced to each other, in their minds they were already expecting to be introduced to a Robert Pattinson-look alike.

  I’ll like to adduce evidence to prove my opinion. Allow me to share with you guys something I’ve came across when I was reading Andrew Choo’s article on hearsay rule, The Rationales for The Rule.

  In the 1940s, a series of experiments were conducted by Allport and Postman. They used a picture which showed the interior of a crowded subway, with two people standing up, talking to each other. One of them was a well-groomed black man. The other man was a white man, who was holding a razor blade. This picture was showed to a subject, Subject A,  for a brief moment. Subject A then has to tell Subject B about the contents of the picture, who then have to repeat the information to Subject C. The process keep repeating itself until it reaches six or seven subjects. This experiment was conducted on a number of people. It was found there most people end up recalling the picture as showing a black man holding the razor. Some even ended up recalling the black man “brandishing it widly” or “threatening the white man with the razor.”

  Conclusion? Don’t always believe in what you see.

P.S. I suppose that’s the reason why my boyfriend always tell me: Just because I’m looking at somewhere else, it does not mean I’m checking out hot chicks!

  Anyway, are you guys prejudiced against anything?

  Ladies, when you get to know a new guy, please take off that rosy-colored spectacles. Use the magnifying glasses to scrutiny him: You don’t want to end up with nothing but sadness and sorrows like the ladies in the cases below.

  Look at what happened in Chhokar v Chhokar [1984]. In this case, a husband and wife purchased the registered freehold of a matrimonial home (In simple English, they purchased a house). They both contributed to the purchase price and upkeep of the house, but guess what? It was registered in the name of the husband only. In the next year both of them went to India but the husband later returned home alone. Few weeks later the wife, who was seven month pregnant, returned home too. She was unaware of the fact that her husband had mad arrangement to sell the house to someone else at a price below market value. The wife and the new born baby returned home after discharged from hospital to discover that all the locks had been changed.

  None of us would want that to happen to us, right? For me, I would want my future husband to be by my side when I’m giving birth. Ideally, he should be there to hold my hands and comfort me as he watched me struggle. I want him to be there for me, not to be at somewhere else doing something that will ruin my life and break my heart. It’s bad enough that I’m breaking my vagina to give him a child; he doesn’t have to break anything else that could further enhance my detriment.

  Now let’s look at another case: Kingsnorth Finance Co Ltd v Tizard [1986]. Here in this case husband had the unregistered title of the property in his name only, but he held it on trust for sale for himself and his wife (meaning the wife was not the legal owner of the house). The marriage the broken down and the wife occasionally spent nights at her sister’s house. However, whenever her husband is absent from the house for business, she will return to their matrimonial home and continue to take care of the kids as well as to prepare herself for work.

  What happened next? The husband negotiated a loan with Kingsnorth Finance and he applied as a single. When an agent for Kingsnorth Finance inspected his property, he confessed to the agent that he was married, but he then claimed that his wife and left him and is currently living somewhere else, which is untrue.

  Tell me why: Why is it that a wife can continue to tolerate and take care of the kids when she is so angry with her husband, but the husband cannot do the same?

  We shall look at another case called Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1989]. This is a case where husband and wife purchased a semi-derelict farmhouse, where the wife had a beneficial interest in the property. The husband sought a short term loan without his wife’s knowledge and he had left his farm and wife when they were faced with matrimonial difficulties. The loan was not repaid and the bank now sought an order for possession.

  Why are some guys not only heartless and cruel but useless as well? I mean, if you are good-looking, smart, intelligent but you are cruel and heartless… well at least you are not a piece of crap, even though you obviously are nothing but crap in the eyes of the woman who had her heart broken by you, but at least to the rest of the world you are still reputable. You will be something like a vampire: you are dreadful, you are evil, people are scared of you, but the ladies will still pay money to watch you in the cinema. On the other hand, if you are cruel and heartless, and you have neither looks nor brains… you are nothing but crap towards everyone who is aware of your existence.

  Of course, while we point the finger of blame at the men, us ladies ought to learn a thing or two from these cases as well: Just because you are in love, it doesn’t mean you have to be a noble person and allow your man to do whatever he wants. Know your rights and protect your rights so he can’t take advantage of you. Being in love does not mean you have to stop being rational!

P.S. Studying land law sometimes make me hate men. So far I haven’t come across any case that portrays man as someone fantastic!