Fucking idiots

[LadyOfTheManor]

I am extremely pissed off by the attitudes on this thread;

Here

Some women need a good clout around the head.

Hi there Show. Your post demonstrates why I had to stay away from the original thread - I spend far too much time trying (often vainly) to assert that my DH and every cop I personally know are good decent people doing an impossibly difficult job in impossibly difficult circumstances. And yes, it frequently reduces me to tears.

This is where I cling on to Iris Murdoch's view on all kinds of philosophy, faith and political ideology: that there is always this tremendous jarring between the demands of the philosophy and the empirical evidence of one's own eyes (in this case, on the one hand that a policeman is an engine of a woman-hating society and tacitly supportive of rape, and on the other hand my almost certain knowledge that no, he isn't).

I am not sure that I will ever reconcile the two (but as I say, I am willing and ready to at least try and understand).

And computer I was going to take up that point about 'newbie mistakes' and forgot - you've said what i was thinking far better than I could've done.

I was meaning the tone arguments and the like, rather than the issues themselves. I'm sure you came across that a lot back in the day. Would love to hear all about that - have you read the "I don't want to be a feminist" thread? Would be great to get your input.

Is that to me, AyeRobot? re. the 'I don't want to be a feminist' thread? (Don't want to wrongly flatter myself that it would be great to get my input!!)

on the off-chance it is - yes, I saw it, and was tempted to join in, but didn't for all the reasons as per outlined above!

I will forever live in terror of being labelled with an ideology so to that extent: no, I don't want to be a feminist. I don't want to be an anything-ist. I want to believe that I do what I do, and don't do what I don't do, because those are positions I have reached out of my own thoughts and life experience and not because they fit within a regimen of thought. I had 26 years of that, and I don't want to revisit it...

Bloofer, you know that we have similar 'issues' with being married to police officers. I've had a diet of feminist tomes for about 10yrs now since meeting some very inspirational women whilst at university. I do have definite views about the police force in general and I am forced to confront them and have them challenged daily by living alongside an institution in a very different way to just knowing it in theory.

The thread did tread that fine line that I think you must find between having some interesting ideas that I could otherwise debate, but implying something categorical that I just know cannot be empirically true.

But the way I know misogyny and the way I know dh are two very different things. And I have to reconcile the two. Sometimes I fail miserably, but I will not be called a fucking idiot and I will not have my dh labelled a rape apologist because of a single situation that is open to conjecture and interpretation.

Bloofer, I was raised by an old hippy who warned against labels because once the label doesn't fit in the smallest of ways, you either have to change in the smallest of ways (with a ripple effect outwards) or be seen to abandon a principle.

He would agree that you do what you do and don't do what you don't do through your own considered conclusions.

Not that I think feminism is rigid really. You just reminded me of my Dad. In a good way.

Show, I wish I could tell you the relief of knowing that you 'get it'. That we constantly have to walk this tightrope in terror of falling on one side or the other (No, Ian Tomlinson should not have been knocked to the ground. No, not all police officers are violent thugs etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam).

The love and respect I have for my DH will far outweigh any ideology I could ever espouse. And I know (from talking to people who vigorously disagree with me on every imaginable point ) that one of my 'failings' is that I simply cannot see the general, only the personal. Everything is filtered through an empirical standpoint: I simply cannot and will not throw all that away because it fits more neatly within a frame set by others. I am looking forward to learning more about feminism (see: I nearly called it 'the feminist agenda' but that is implicitly derogatory....) and about whether it is more flexible and capacious than I had feared....

Your Dad was right and I feel privileged!

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

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.

Sorry to have abandoned you all, I've had a very hectic day.

Bloofer- In regards to your point about "our daughters walking through an unlit area" would I tell her to be careful? Would it help? What is the thing to say "look out for any suspicious looking people..."? in the vain hope that she has time to escape? I think the issue should be how many women are educating their SONS that women are not targets for sexual abuse/assault or even muggings (women being targeted because they are "weaker"). So how are you educating your physical/metaphorical son against treating women this way?

I WILL start a thread about a thread, because I wanted a different input.
SOH I referred to idiots (pl) not idiot (singular) it referred to many posters on that thread. You, however, can defend the police until you're blue in the face but while I'm paying various taxes into their bank accounts every month I WILL have a say in how I am governed when walking through the streets.

Dittany I think you are an incredible poster.

Charity-Yes that was me; squeaky clean and shiny and new.

Oh and for the record I don't speak on behalf of all feminists.

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.

I hate the term "sisterhood" for future reference.

*or man for that matter.

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 .

So I presume you will tell your daughters and sons about how dangerous it is to embrace an attitude where either sex is less important than the other...? (it is through this that the fight for power begins).

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.

Thanks to women dying throughout history I have the right to do anything I please.

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.

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.

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.

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.

SOH I wasn't calling you or your DH anything.

However if I wanted to, then yes, it would be within my freedom to do so.

Bloofer I suggest you don't listen to everything SOH says. Please ask her to quote me saying such things.