IABU to think I shouldn't be told off by the police by daring to be a woman out alone after dark?

[MsScarlettInTheLibrary]

I was walking through a deserted cut-through at around 11pm, on my way home. I'd been shopping and to the gym, as evidenced by the bags I carried.

I happened across a pair of policemen on bikes, who saw fit to brake and tell me I 'should be careful walking by myself at this time of night'.

IABU to feel angry and offended by this?

I guess that may be all it was SOH. But I don't really see why we took 14 pages to get to that. I'm not having a go, just surprised this isn't a simple 'oh, they used the wrong words, they shouldn't have said that as it sounds as if they are accusing her of being careless, but maybe they thought she was up to something'.

I agree SGM, it was just the juxtapositioning of the two comments that appealed irresistibly to me. That and having being accused of saying that LOTM was a woman-hater, based on my comment.
I am aware of how broad the spectrum of feminist opinion is on the boards and in the wider world and would never assume that one spoke for many.
As individuals, we can only post from our own understanding.

They wouldn't give a list though would they. The op was already annoyed they'd slowed down, she didn't think they had any right to stop. They probably saw that it wasn't going to be a friendly chat and exchange of words and knew that a whole list of things that might happen was patronising. They saw she was fine, noted the bags, made a comment, moved on. Maybe. Who knows? My point all along. People are projecting their own interpretations on it. They might be right, I admit that. Maybe the police officer was a misogynistic bore. But from that one statement in the op? Well I'd rather assume the best of people from a straightforward statement.

"but I don't think it's on for them to try to make their lives easier by making someone else feel as if they're being careless and inviting crime" Back to my purse on display example. They don't do this to avoid work, they do it to try and prevent you becoming a victim.

I feel so sorry for dh. People seem to think that everything he does is due to some sense of power or interference or laziness. He genuinely cares. He could never, ever, ever cycle past a lone person (gender irrelevant) on a deserted cut through without slowing and saying something because you just never know. He makes an assessment, he says something hopefully friendly, he moves on. He does it because he worries and he cares. And when he comes home in tears sometimes because of the way he's treated or because there was something terrible that happened at work, the lumping together police as a homogoneous mass with terrible intentions makes me upset on his behalf.

In fact, if that thread in the Feminist section gets going it will reflect a range of opinions as wide as those here I hope.

Add message | Report | Message poster LittleRedDragon Sun 10-Apr-11 13:27:03
kungfu 'LRD - I understand the concept of reasonable force extremely well. I also have a very good understanding of what my responsibilities are in terms of extracting myself from a situation rather than exacerbating it.'

Sorry, you've lost me. Explain again please?

What don't you understand? I was responding to your question as to whether I would be in trouble for using what I know to defend myself and as to the advice on not fighting back.

There is a legal principal of reasonable force - this is relevant to self defence. I understand this principal. I understand that if someone kicks me in the shins I can't

I am also aware that it is my responsibility to get myself out of a situation using the minimum possible force, not to hang around and kick someone in the head for fun.

Our very high-ranking martial artists are all given extra advice on making sure that anything they do stays within the law - I know one person who has been advised by their discipline's national body that she should at least make an attempt to inform any attacker that she is capable of killing them. Whether or not that is practical, that is the advice she has been given. But there are very few people who are that highly skilled of course.

Lots of responses!

I am happy to be told IABU or over-reacting, both are probably true. I was in a bad mood yesterday. I also accept the thread title is unnecessarily provocative, in fat I was when I read it back, it does come across too strong.

No, I have no evidence to say that they wouldn't have said the same to a male in the same situation.

The reason they were in the cut-through is simple and most probably not for any sinister reason - it's because it's the way to the police station.

I didn't say anything back to them, with attitude or not - they braked, spoke, and then were off.

I was not texting or listening to an ipod or doing anything apart from walking in a straight line through the gardens (which are lit) carrying one gym bag (backpack style) and one carrier bag.

SGM, I understand the problems with the police as an institution and actually I don't particularly like a lot of aspects of the service. I'm a leftie liberal who has form for being fairly anti-establishment (great fun in our house I tell you). And yes it should be possible to talk about the institution without seeing it as a slight on any individual officers. But I think likewise this thread is about an individual situation and an individual officer (operating within the remit of his job) and extrapolating out from that with conjecture to say things about the police (and that particular officer's) attitude to crimes perpetrated against women is similarly unfair. I think maybe the discussion is a valid one, but hanging it on the officer in the op is foolish at best and weakens the discussion somewhat.

Thanks kungfu. I know you know when to use force - I was just asking for clarification as I don't. Sorry, it didn't make a lot of sense in the context but I understand now. Thanks.

SOH - I'm sorry your DH feels so bad about his job, and I'm sorry you feel as if he's being got at. I certainly didn't mean that. But I do think it'd be much better if the officers here had actually said something specific, instead of what they said, which as we've seen can easily be interpreted to suggest they thought the OP was being careless and/or that she shouldn't be out alone at night.

"Of course the streets should be safe for anybody to walk on, day or night, but they aren't and you can either take a little responsibility for your own safety or bleat on about it after an assault as if it were a consolation that you were 'in the right'."

I don't like this positioning of victims of crime as "bleaters" and the implication that if someone has not adhered to a list of "safety rules" that will vary wildly from one person to the next, then they have acted irresponsibly.

In most situations there can be found something that the victim did "wrong" - that what victim blaming is. Stating that they should follow an inexhaustable list of rules and then if they get attacked and have the affrontery to complain they are "bleating" is appalling.

I did karate once. Got dragged along by a friend and the one thing I took away was is you're ever in danger RLF. More waddle like f*ck with me tbh but I'd certainly be going in the other direction.

LRD, you're probably right. They could have been more constructive perhaps. And I too can't understand how the thread took off in the way it did. There was a lot of stuff hung on that one statement that seemed wildly out of kilter with what actually happened.

And dh adores his job. But people can be cruel to him. They assume an awful lot about him, just because of his uniform and it's wearing more than anything.

The OP wasn't walking to her car Kungfu and many people who spend a lot of time walking around after dark don't have cars or don't have them with them. That's usually why they are walking! So your comment about car keys confused me a little and I thought you must have meant housekeys.

I'm not an avid driver so the idea of always having car keys to hand when travelling on foot threw me.

People keep talking about how the OP should have taken precautions. She has now explained where she was and what she was carrying etc, what do people think she should have been doing in order to be more careful?

SardineQueen, no a victim of crime should never, ever be accused of bleating. The blame will always lie with the criminal.

But when you start marginalising the issue so that it's only about attacks on women and what they should/shouldn't be doing in a public sphere, it colours the basic premise and implies things that detract from the perfectly reasonable suggestion that we remain accountable for our actions in some general ways.

I lock my house when I leave it for example. It is perfectly acceptable for a passing person (police or otherwise) to point out to me if I neglect to do this and I am somewhat culpable if I leave my property unlocked. I understand that it's different with something like rape where there should always be every effort made to remind everybody that there is NOTHING at all any woman could ever do to cause nor prevent a rapist choosing to do what they do. But the situation in the op isn't about rape. Or about gender. And a simple statement from a police about a general recommendation does not fuel any suggestion of culpability of the victim where rape is concerned.

SOH - that's rotten for you and him.

SardineQueen... As another anology then, if you swim in a shark-infested sea, you run the risk of being attacked. If you realise the risks yet choose to put yourself at risk then does it really help if the shark is caught after the event?

Of course the victim is blameless but blame is neither here nor there when the event can have such awful consequences and maybe some preventive measures would have stopped it?

It isn't a perfect world, people are not of the same standard across the board, they have different values and in view of that, just because we all have rights to go about as we wish, day or night, it is really foolhardy to put yourself in harm's way when you know it.

There's no way I'd be teaching my son or daughter that their rights will act as some kind of 'talisman', because they won't - and I want them to be as safe as possible.

You don't know whether it's about gender, or not, SoH. The OP felt at the time that it was. She may be wrong or right. I don't think it's reasonable to say that it definitely wasn't about gender - how can you know?

Also saying to someone "be careful" when they are not doing anything obviously careless, is different to pointing out to someone that they have forgotten to lock their house.

What do people think that the OP should have been doing, that she was not? In what way was she being careless, that this word of (non-specific) caution from the police was warranted?

What should she have been doing, Lying? What was she doing wrong, in your opinion? In what way was her walking back to her home, equivalent to swimming in shark infested waters despite prior warnings? How should she have been behaving differently to how she was behaving, in order to mitigate this (apparently enormous but in reality not very great) risk?

SardineQueen... I know, not a great analogy. There's not a lot that OP could have done differently, other than drive a car and be a few feet away from it?. I know, I've drifted away from the subject a bit into generality.

OP's post was about the police comments to 'be careful' and perhaps they felt concern for her, walking on her own. I know that many women and men are capable of defending themselves but they shouldn't have to. I don't know how the problem will be fixed when the police force is facing massive cuts and losing staff as a consequence.

There are loads of adverts out there which tell people to ensure that their houses are safe that valuables in cars are hidden and that the car is locked because whilst everyone should be entitled to being risk free the fact is quite simply shit happens.

I have been told by police officers to 'be careful' before it often does not mean you are being careless but that because you are on your own in a secluded areas where if you were attacked no one would be around to help that being that extra bit attentive would be common sense.

Police men and women are fab brave heros! (majority of them).

Lying my feeling is just that the OP wasn't being careless, and the police implied that she was. A lot of people have said that the police were correct and she should "be careful" but no-one has really said how. I tell people to be careful if they are doing something that I perceive to be risky. I don't say be careful to eg DH if he is going to the supermarket or my mum if she is going out to see her friend in town.

So I think the implication is that the OP was being careless - but she wasn't, she was doing something completely reasonable. That's why the comment is getting the eyebrow from some quarters I think.

SardineQueen... I suppose it depends how the police's comment was perceived. My Mum is forever telling me to 'Be careful and be good'.... I'm 42. Perhaps it's a way (however inappropriate) of somehow trying to heighten somebody's awareness? Perhaps in the case of the police they said it to just re-emphasise the risks out there? Of course they wouldn't have meant that the OP had done anything wrong, she hadn't. I don't think I'm explaining well, but I know what I mean.

Even though the thread's moved on from the subject I'm going to say what I think anyway.

It's not that I think LOTMs posts speak for everyone, but if the only time someone comes across a feminist perspective is on MN and the perspective they see is angry and confrontational, and the aim of feminism is to challenge the patriarchal structuring of society and needs discussion and consensus to achieve that, I can't see why LOTM would post in this way if she classes herself as a feminist.

The way I see the feminist section on here talked about makes it sound worse than AIBU, I would think there are some really interesting topics I'd enjoy talking about on it, but not to the extent that I'd savour getting my head ripped off for not agreeing with someone.