Fucking idiots

Fuppy says the wise words above.

Yup, that's fine by moi!

I also think (I know no one cares but Im ploughing ahead anyway ) that there is a difference between people that ask questions politely because they want to have a discussion and are genuinely interested and not trying to cause offence, just thinking (typing) out loud (I would put Bloofer in this category, hope thats ok Bloofer, oh and me!) and idiots like Andre that are posting just to derail the thread.

So, the one type, if you chose to (and if you wanted to/had the time) you could help instruct, the other type obviously tell to fuck off.

I know that from lurking I have learnt lots. I had very different ideas when I first started reading and I have this section and the intelligent posters on it to thank for that. But it would turn me off if I'm called a fucking idiot just for having a different point of view and asking a question.

What I mean is that I didn't pretend it was an outrageous conclusion, I was defending the fact that nobody can make any definite conclusions and stick to them so rigidly when we just do not know.

I've asked LOTM three times what my 'apologetic attitude' is. She talks about rape apologists in the same breath. Forgive me for the leap. She will not answer me.

I've asked her twice if she means me when she says 'fucking idiots'. Twice she has refused to answer. It's hardly a discussion and I'm forced to try and understand the implications.

And is it sexist to say 'be careful when walking here alone' to a woman if they've said the same thing to a man 2 minutes earlier. I asked this on the other thread too and LOTM refused to answer. I do not see any basis for the definitive assertion that the officer in the op under discussion was sexist. You have no way of knowing he said what he said because she was a woman. I acknowledged he might have. LOTM acknowledged no such opportunity for it being something we can't know.

Indeed you do speak for me, Show: and it is endless, tiring, sad, and ultimately rather dull.

it is also why I so passionately espouse and return to the need to shape one's ideology by life experience.

When there is no room in the other thread for the police officer in question to be acting according to anything other than patriarchal moulding.

I am allowed to challenge sweeping statements about how a pc would never say the same thing to a man, that it was only ever done because it was a woman, that it means xyz because of these assumptions.

And I suspect I speak for bloofer too when I say we're very used to having these generalisations and accusations levelled at these 'men we love' by token of the uniform they wear. And it's impossible not respond personally to that.

"The more sanctimonious posts about this thread being inexcusable, shameful or whatever and that you should be apologetic for ever more LOTM the more I think maybe you did the right thing or at least not totally the wrong thing."

What?! Are you saying that the more a thread is challenged and the more offence it causes, the more serious and more worthy of applause it is? And thus that one's standpoint or opinion is of no intrinsic value, but that it should be judged largely on the reactions to it?!

What an absolutely extraordinary thing to say! I'm going to have to think about this one...

Dittany a) that's not entirely what it has turned into, and b) it stemmed from a perfectly reasonable development of thought; ie, that some of us struggle between the desire to understand and pursue a cause, and the demands of the empirical evidence presented by one's life experience. The two things are often not compatible, and Show and I have very similar experiences in that regard.

Hope that explains it satisfactorily.

"Any woman who thinks a woman should have to take precautions to prevent herself getting attacked implies that she is to blame should the precautions not have been taken and she is attacked. Yes, I think you are stupid if you think otherwise". LOTM

I'm not quite sure I understand this and I didn't on the other thread either. Do you mean in this real world or an ideal world?

Of course a woman should never have to take precautions to avoid being attacked, the attacker shouldn't be doing the attacking. But as I have no sway over any potential attackers and their decisions to attack, then surely I would take precautions to stay out of their way?

I am (currently) in no danger of any abuse in my home so therefore the only abuse I need to fear is from a stranger. If most stranger muggings/rapes happen at night in lonely places then I would choose not to walk there because I don't want to be attacked (however slim the chance). Obviously it should be the case that there are no attackers, but as there are...

I have a feeling Im missing the point, but I cant work it out. Genuinely and new to this although been lurking for a while.

towards those even.

[tired]

Only a PC. No such thing. I'm married to only a pc too. His colleagues are an interesting mix of young, free and single and shacked up with other officers (sometimes after marriage breakdowns). Not convenience I now know, but the sure certainty that at least they 'get it'. They were taught about this during their training. The gravitation to those that understand you and the struggles of maintaining relationships outside of that where there is always the potential for conflict. It's not easy at all.

I think those women who died would find your attitude of entitlement to do as she pleases shameful.

No one is entitled to do as they please. No one is entitled to to be disrespectful. And if you don't consider starting a thread calling an anonymous number of women "fucking idiots" then you should perhaps acquaint yourself with the notion of common decency and general politeness.

You've made yourself look like a right idiot from the thread title and OP alone. So whatever you have to say about the subject is lost before you've started. Shame that.

Har har, count me in! I do sometimes wonder what other policewives think of all this. Many of my DH's colleagues are far too young and wet behind the ears to have wives.

and no, it is most emphatically not only a job! Mine is only a PC as he has no ambition but it is a whole mode of being. And, actually, he is a tireder sadder man because of it .

computermouse, it means a rousing chorus of 'fuck you, I won't do what you tell me'. I saw somebody play that on a ukelele once.

Bloofer, fancy coming to dh's next work function? When I find myself saying things during a lighthearted discussion and I can hear that tone in my voice that means I'm descending into something serious when everybody else is just trying to enjoy a canapé, I could do with an ally to just nod and understand. I hear the other wives/husbands say 'ah it's only a job' and sometimes I think 'well, no, not really is it?'

I prefer matronising myself... Meh. You may wish to work on your ability to form and defend a coherent argument before submitting your thesis.

Apologetic attitude about what then?

And I do know that it's not about me or dh but when you live this life, when you know a side of the police that is not theoretical or general then of course my views are tempered though that. Thank goodness.