Central Park Incident

[Coyoacan]

I saw the video when it first came out and saw a woman who play-acted on the phone to the police while torturing her dog for sound effects and using the colour of the man's skin in the hope that he would be shot on sight by the police.

It turns out that, as a feminist, I should have seen a poor woman, scared of a man in an isolated area, making a call for help and giving a limited physical description of the man.

In one discussion, where I suggested solidarity with the mothers of teenage black boys who never know if their sons would come home again when they left the house, that that is not a feminist issue.

Does feminism trump the fight against racism?

There seems to be a lot of deliberate misinterpretation going on in this thread. I get the impression that there are people with an agenda here who want to make it look like FWR posters agree with the racist behaviour of the woman in that video, and they are distorting things other posters have said - and inventing from whole cloth shit that nobody said - in order to accomplish this.
This . It'd also hazard a guess that they come from the same group who usually post disingenuous threads on the FWR boards.

accost: approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.

No evidence of that at all. Unless we are saying that asking a dog owner to leash their dog in an area where dogs are not permitted unleashed is by definition accosting. Simple solution to this, regardless of your sex, put your dog on a lead where required and certainly do so if someone notices that you are not doing so and ask you to.

Wow, you are completely ridiculous. I'm not going to quibble with you over whether the way he approached and addressed this woman based on his own description of the interaction was sufficiently bold to count as "accosting" but I will suggest to you that it's a subject that reasonable people could disagree on - although very few reasonable people would bother.

It may seem weird, but then there's women who call themselves feminists tying themselves in knots trying to justify racism - very weird, but happens

I don't see anyone justifying her racism. Going around with pockets of dog treats and offering them to other people's dogs is weird behaviour whether it's done by a man or woman of any race.

It did not justify what she said to him; it may well have justified her feeling uncomfortable and/or reporting it.

He's not the dog warden but he is involved with the Ramble area of Central Park. Not that that matters

You're right it doesn't and it still doesn't entitle him to feed dog treats to someone else's dog.

It's an incentive to dog owners to leash their dogs.

It's not weird at all in context of a bird habitat with ground level planting that gets wrecked by selfish dog owners who allow their dogs to run around the area unleashed.

If she hadn't been so enraged at being asked to put her dog on a leash she would have seen that easily. Just put your dog on a lead in a lead-only area, not hard. Unless you are selfish and entitled, and bring a racist sense of injury to being asked to follow the rules by someone you see as subordinate to you.

I certainly see a lot of feminists trying to sweep racism under the carpet, the term white feminism is rarely mentioned on these boards without it being shot down. That’s something that should be discussed more.

It is not a feminist position to not care about how racism effects all parts of society as a large part of the female population is not white.

She was entirely wrong and racist and using her white damsel in distress act to get her own way, revolting.

It is possible for all those things to be true.

Now now, no nuance allowed here! Everyone is either an angel or a demon, no uncertainty or middle ground allowed.

Half the population of the world is female. No reproduction of our species is possible without them. Every family contains them.

Yet every other social justice movement is allowed to focus on its own specific constituents, while feminism isn't.

I personally find white feminism an offensive term and I keep away from discussions of it. I've left the two other threads discussing recent racist events in the USA as I wasn't welcome as a white feminist. Fair enough. I'll stay in my lane.

'not care' is not even vaguely synonymous with 'not centre in your justice movement'.

I certainly see a lot of feminists trying to sweep racism under the carpet

How many more times does it need to be spelled out? What she said to him was wrong. If she had been genuinely scared she lost all moral high ground at that point. And it's not for you to determine whether she was scared or not.

It's an incentive to dog owners to leash their dogs

Utterly irrelevant. He has every right to ask her to or report her to the park authorities/park police. He has no right to feed anyone else's dog.

Feeding the dog treats is weird behaviour. He knows dog owners don't like people feeding their dogs, that's why he does it, to force them to put the dog on the lead. There are numerous reasons why people might not want strangers to feed their dog, but the main one for me is that I would worry it was poisoned. Near me a few years ago someone was laying dog treats out in the park that were poisoned and a few dogs did get sick. Can't remember if any of them died. So from the woman's point of view I can see why the situation made her feel alarmed. But of course what she did next could have very dire consequences and she would have known that.

His intention is not to feed the dog. His intention is that when offered the treat, the dog makes a move for it and the dog owner goes 'oh yeah, that's why I should have my dog on a lead, if I can't do it for reasons of public good at least I can do it for selfish reasons'.

In what universe does she think that he wants to harm the dog by giving it a treat rather than just have it put it on a lead - like she has been asked to do just a moment before?

In what universe does she think that he wants to harm the dog by giving it a treat rather than just have it put it on a lead

I would have thought there was a chance he meant harm to the dog. She didn't know him. How is she supposed to know what his intentions are?

not care' is not even vaguely synonymous with 'not centre in your justice movement'
Exactly.
The fact is that women working in grassroots organisations; women working in campaigning groups and women who are genuinely committed to feminist have been working for decades on global feminist issues.
There's no 'gotcha' with telling feminists about global feminist issues. The only people who think so are people who haven't been involved with active feminism at all.

Because the first interaction was about the dog being unleashed, and the 'threat' to give the dog a treat is conditional: if (and only if) she doesn't leash the dog, he will offer the dog a treat.

Perhaps the red mist had already descended which meant she couldn't see this that this is the conditional nature of the exchange, but then you have to ask why she wouldn't put the dog on a lead in the first place when asked, given it was an area in which dogs should be on leads. Is it because she was asked to do so by someone she clearly sees as her subordinate? (evidenced by the nature of her racialised threat against him later).

I can understand him carrying dog treats. I’m rather sick of dog walkers in my local park who don’t or can’t stop their dogs from jumping up at kids and adults but don’t leash them. If he’s had an idea that makes the owners control their dogs, more power to his elbow.

Someone pointed out on Twitter that she was VERY paranoid about the well being of her dog

I'm not sure Christian Cooper's strategy for dealing with off-lead dogs was terribly wise, but I'm also not sure why it has become the focus of discussion when it is quite a minor aspect of this incident.

It's a minor aspect but has become greater because of posters' determination that it wasn't odd behaviour. It is.

I wonder what the reaction would be if it were a "Karen" who had behaved in this way and it had been posted? I bet she'd have been told to mind her own business.

The simple fact is that if she'd put her dog on a lead when asked that would have been the end of the matter.

She knew dogs should be on a lead in the Ramble but didn't think the rules applied to her.

Her response was absolutely racist and she knew what she was doing as evidenced by her threat (which she then carried out) to call the police saying an African American man was threatening her life.

Offering her dog a treat is not threatening someone's life and arguing the toss over if he should have done this is a senseless distraction from the core issue at hand which is that she "upscaled" the incident whilst simultaneously weaponising Mr Coopers race against him for calling her out on her breaking park rules.

There's no defending her behaviour whatsoever.

Everyone making excuses for this woman- take a long hard look at yourself.

Why are you making excuses for her, but have no understanding for him? It was addressed on Twitter that he had treats to distract dogs who might threaten the birds. Doesn't take half a brain cell.

Why even bring up the treats? Is that a justification for lying to the police and attempting to get someone arrested or killed?

The only reason you're making excuses is because you empathise. You relate the woman in question and not the black guy.

Utterly irrelevant. He has every right to ask her to or report her to the park authorities/park police. He has no right to feed anyone else's dog.

---

You're right, it is utterly irrelevant. You're arguing about dog treats when this man could've ended up like George Floyd.

I can't believe people are claiming she was concerned for her dog?!? She is seen quite literally dragging the poor dog around by its neck.

Why even bring up the treats? Is that a justification for lying to the police and attempting to get someone arrested or killed?

Noone said it was. Doesn't mean we're not allowed to discuss the events that led up to it.