Fucking idiots

You seem pretty sure that the only reason a police officer would say 'be careful' is because it's a woman to whom he is talking (you say it wouldn't happen to a man, despite my knowledge and others' that it does) and it's part of a larger patriarchal issue with placing culpability at the door of women?

If you don't include all police officers in that, then feel free to deny it. At the same time you have to admit that the police officer in the op of the other thread might not have meant what you assert. Either it only happened because of misogyny and this is only ever the case (my dh is guilty by association) or it's not that simple and the situation in the thread we're discussing isn't necessarily representative of the very real problem that we probably should be focussing on.

LOTM - and I literally cannot believe I am about to say what I am saying: I note that you are very young, and I infer from your ambition to 'stay home and have babies' that your life experience is rather limited. And I am therefore going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that once you are a little older, have perhaps more experience of the world and others, and are better able to temper your arguments and your reasoning, you will be more useful to the debate.

I willingly own up to my ignorance and lack of intelligence on the subject: you may do well do to similar. We all have a great deal to learn, and we would all benefit from not only relying on others to challenge or inform what we have said, but to challenge it ourselves.

At present, however, I am not sure you are worth corresponding with, and Show you may find it better suits your blood pressure to do the same.

You said on the thread I had an 'apologist' attitude which I categorically do not. You have entitled this thread 'fucking idiots'. I asked you directly on here if you meant me in that grouping. You answered 'SOH I referred to idiots (pl) not idiot (singular)'. That is neither denial nor affirmation.

And I think you'll find LOTM that I never once said any woman should ever have to take precautions against or accept an ounce of blame for the decisions of an attacker.

My position all along was that it wasn't about gender. That I know for a fact that exactly the same line would be delivered to a lone male.

I do not deny patriarchy. I do not deny a long history of fighting against it and a distance yet to go. You don't know me at all, that much is clear. I suspect we'd meet on another thread another day and emphatically agree.

I never, ever, ever once suggested that any woman is to blame for the decision a rapist takes or that she is duty bound in any way, shape or form to change her behaviour or temper her decisions through any framework of patriarchy whatsoever. I suggested that a police officer approaching a person on a deserted road may be no more, no less that the remit of the job be you a man or a woman.

Excuse me - I just did a gigantic double-take: Show, is that really what LOTM said?! That my dear good husband, who in one year of service would do more good to damaged women and children than most of us can hope to achieve in a lifetime, is a rape apologist because he is a police officer? If that is what you said then LOTM you are utterly beneath my contempt and I regret having addressed you directly.

I am also duty bound to point out that my DH (and many other police officers) are 'feminist' in far more practical ways than the most vociferous internet presence (and I assume that both Dittany and LOTM lead lives of practical as well as theoretical good to the feminist cause: I wouldn't dream of suggesting otherwise; but I think there must be some who do one and not the other).

for example, my DH is on a 'response' team, and because he is rather older than the others and is known for a very gentle and unthreatening manner is often despatched - with female officers - to scenes of domestic abuse. I am more proud than I can explain that he has in a very direct and simple sense challenged violence against women by questioning, by supporting, by taking evidence, by pursuing and encouraging. I have more than once seen him moved to tears by a woman's refusal to press charges, and when the law changed so that a case could be brought despite this, he was thrilled. I only say this as further evidence that the personal can very strongly negate theories pursued on internet forums.

You have the right to call my dh a rape apologist because of the uniform he wears? And me a fucking idiot for loving him?

Well yes, we all make choices. You do as you choose LOTM.

And I wasn't defending 'the police'. I was making a case for them not being one homogeneous squirming mass. I acknowledged that the police officer in question could have been a sexist pig of the highest order. You acknowledged no such room for questions outside your rigid beliefs. Just like you rail against feminists being labelled as all the same, you should take care not to do the same to any other person who voluntarily stands up and makes a choice.

Bloofer, it is a relief. To not have to explain the dichotomy of being proud of a man you know implicity and not being proud of what an institution might represent historically. Being able to do both and know you haven't compromised or let yourself or a sisterhood down. It feels untenable sometimes.

LOTM you have every right to want to be 'governed' in the way you want to be governed, to interact only in the way you want to interact, but you do do not control other people's intentions, you do not project your beliefs universally upon others and therefore make your assertions 'fact'. You cannot possibly make assertions about every police officer in this country. And you cannot stop my dh caring about every person he is duty bound to protect. You can tell him, you can tell me, you can tell every forum on the internet what you believe his intentions represent, but you cannot know him and you cannot stop the genuine drive to protect that means he will always, always offer at the very least the knowledge of his presence to any person in any area where there might be any danger. And you have the right to say 'no thank you, I'm fine'. You do not have the right to point your finger and label that man an atrocious, despicable thing.

Hello LOTM - are you going to apologise?

I see you haven't answered the question about what you would say to your daughters? I assume your avoidance implies that you do not/would not suggest they take a safe route, an approach I cannot applaud.

As to what I would tell any son of mine: I would say that a woman should be able to lie naked and drunk in the middle of Tottenham Court Rd at 2am without fear of any contact except someone offering a coat and a phone call; that if he uses porn he is joining in the degradation of women; and that not only does 'no' mean 'no' but that anything other than a vocalised 'yes' means 'no'. It is possible, you see, to cover both sides.

As to having a say in how you are governed - the affirmation taken by all police officers includes the line "I will prevent offences against people and property." A person of simple mind (ie: me and a lot of others) might reasonably assume that a man who has taken this oath might seek to carry it out by safeguarding the person of a man or woman out at night alone in an area that might well have recently had a spate of attacks. Incidentally I have not least the idea why I am making this point since it has doubtless been made far more eloquently by others .

Christ LOTM, not doing much for The Sisterhood in your OP.

I considered you all to be knowledgable and educated in these matters (which I don't consider myself to be to the same extent and so lurk rather than participate).

Think you've let the side down there Lady.

No, sorry BlooferLady. It was to computermouse. But it might apply to you as well, although given that you brought up the tone thing....