The Broad Brush? Women and Men; Prejudice and Necessity

Got to love the cops, parma. Not the fucking brightest, are they? This story might make you laugh.

I've called the cops twice to investigate car break-ins on my vehicles. The first time someone broke in, stole a friend's video card and rented movies.

They had him on camera at the counter. We reported it and waited. This is a rough transcript of the actual conversation, no lie.

[hr][/hr]

Cop calls up: "Yes, Mr. P? This is Constable R."

Me: "Ah! Great to hear from you!"

Const. R.: "Well, we reviewed the videotape from the store and we noticed something interesting."

Me: "Really? What have you guys got?" [so excited at this point: are they going to catch this asshole?]

Const. R: "First off, we noticed he has glasses.

[I'm thinking... is this like a cop's version of that board game where you guess people's identities from their facial characteristics? 'Hey! It was Timmy who broke into your shitty Neon! Oh, Timmy, you scamp!']

Me: "Yes, that's right!" (We'd gone to see the video first; short guy, 5'5", maybe 130, blond hair.)

Const. R.: "And we also understand, from talking to the store owner, that you too, Mr. P., have glasses."

Me: "Yes, that's right."

(Long pause.)

Me: "Oh, for God's sake, you must be bloody kidding me."

Const. R. (smug): "Well, we just think it's kind of an unusual coincidence, don't you think?"

Me: "...Yeah. Yeah, sure! I mean, I have glasses, and he has glasses... and what, maybe 30% of the Canadian population has glasses?"

Const. R.: "Okay, fine, but - "

Me: "Never mind the fact that he's about five and a half feet tall and has blond hair - which you can see in the video that we told you about - while I'm SIX and a half feet tall with dark hair." a few other... minor details here also "But aside from all those things, he's a dead ringer for me. Good job."

Const. R: "Hey, now look here - "

Me: "I mean, sure, when I called you people up, I figured it was a long shot. I didn't think you cared about petty crime from this. People told me not to bother, but I said: this is a crime. Surely it couldn't hurt. But it actually has hurt, because instead of trying to find the guy that did it, you're trying to blame it on me."

Const. R: "Look, we just think it's funny that - "

Me: "No. No, you're wrong. It isn't funny. It's not funny at all." [long sigh] "You know what? I don't think I want your help after all. Just pretend I never bothered, and thanks for nothing, Columbo." [hung up]

[hr][/hr]

Second instance: Shitty Neon broken into in different place. Competent thief gang from Toronto breaks into and steals thirty Neons from area. Fails on our vehicle because we have installed a kill switch. On a Ford Neon. Which is in the defrost switch right beside the steering column. There are no words.

Geoff calls cops. Nice young woman officer arrives. How do I know it was attempted to be stolen? Because the ignition cylinder is sitting in the passenger seat. It's not supposed to be there. Did they move it? Not sure. Can't remember where it was parked and the ignition cylinder is out. "Prints?" No, no prints, she says. Smart gang; wipes prints. Darn.

Second cop shows up. Short guy (5'5"), blond. Similarity to felon from earlier story: coincidental, surely.

Cop: "What happened?"

Geoff relates story.

New Cop: "Was it moved?"

Geoff: "I'm not sure."

Cop (exasperated): "Well, has it got any additional miles on it?"

Geoff: "I can't say. The ignition cyl is sitting in the passenger seat. The mileage only comes on with the battery."

Cop: "Is there a lot of gas gone?"

Geoff: "I can't say. The gauge only comes on with the battery."

Cop (exasperated): "Well, here's what I want you to do. Got your keys there? Great. I want you to get in your car, sir, and turn the engine over and look at the gauge. Okay, sir?"

Geoff: "Well I'm afraid I can't do that."

Cop (furious): "Why the hell not?"

Geoff: "Because the ignition switch is sitting in the passenger seat, officer."

[hr][/hr]

Motto: Cops? Haha. Fuck, no.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On occasion, I’ve tried to imagine scenarios in which cops might prove helpful—to no avail. When you need help of some sort, what can a cop possibly do for you? More likely, you need medical attention, or a mechanic, or someone with shrewd investigative skills—definitely not a cop.

In truth, there have been instances in which a cop has proven helpful—but the cop was not acting in his/her capacity as a cop, but rather, more as a helpful citizen: while traveling cross-country on bicycle one time, I found myself in a land littered with strip malls and nary a place to pitch tent—a cop allowed me to camp next to their station (so as to keep eye on me?) and avail myself to their depressing facilities. Countless good—and ordinary--citizens have done the same. There’s just not much that a cop can do as a cop that’s going to be of much help to anyone. But they can make a report.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow Geoff... those cops were serious winners 0o'

Had an officer one time write me a ticket for speeding... doing 98 in a 45 in my 1990 Nissan Pathfinder... as in, big ol SUV with all the aerodynamic properties of the broadside of a barn, 147 horsepower on a good day... was in 2005, which made the truck 15 years old. Oh, and I apparently managed to do so in a quarter mile.

Shit... if my truck could do that, I'd be out making money...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141726-War-on-Drugs-Bomb-the-Baby-Edition

 

Hello, I know I might be reviving a slightly older thread.. less than 2 weeks. I'm new here, I did just register but I registered because I had one point specifically I wanted to note on this topic.

I did skip to the last page after reading the first 3 pages of this thread and had enough of Bells using her awful tragedy, that I wouldn't even wish on my worse enemies, as if it was some victim card to discredit anyone on a whim. That I found disgusting in nature but wasn't what I registered to post.

As I quoted of Bells above, from I believe the 2nd page.. I don't believe you directly said "all men" but how you, and many men and women alike, phrase themselves where it almost implies "all men". IF you are NOT talking about ALL men, or ALL whatever.. indicate that you are talking about SOME men, or some women, or some whatever.

Men are evil.
SOME men are evil.
There is an enormous difference there, especially towards any ignorant people that might be reading our posts. If you disagree with what I just said, fine but tell everyone that jumps down our throats when we just say "women this" or whatever, that spams us with #notallwomen or #notallblackpeople or #notallwhatever that we aren't implying ALL of whatever group of people.

Sorry if my first post here came off as slightly distasteful, I'm just tired of people (women AND men) trying to make me feel directly responsible for what some crazy lunatic did or said. That should NOT be put on my shoulders!

 

Welcome ... You're On

Welcome to our humble bedlam.

You're on:

"Bells using her awful tragedy ... as if it was some victim card to discredit anyone on a whim."​

Please do demonstrate.

When society stops placing the burden of men's actions on women—i.e., Infinite Prevention Advocacy—then the practical consideration of "not all men" starts to abate.

This community had this discussion, sort of, recently, and no, the advocate on that occasion could not, and still cannot, explain his position. (See, "Rape and the 'Civilized' World" #982-988, and also some posts in this thread: #461, 462, 464, and 497.)

This is a long issue at Sciforums; the term Infinite Protection Advocacy stems from a 2008 discussion in which people dispensing prevention advice as if women are complete idiots could not establish an outer boundary for their prevention expectations, in some cases refused to, and in at least one case that none of these "#NotAllMen" advocates complained about the explanation emereged that it's a woman's job because that's just how men are:

again, rape is bad. but if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up? when a man sees cleavage/legs/whatever, there's a lot of chemical reactions going on in his body. high heels arch the feet, simulating feet during orgasm. the stuff you're wearing is designed to expose and emphasise sexual features.​

It is not surprising to me when the "#NotAllMen" is aimed at women, and not the men making excuses for other men.

It's hard to disagree with your point about the enormous difference when you just so ably demonstrated it. To the one, there are your feelings, which I would not call worthless by any means. However, to the other, there is functional reality, and that kind of trumps your feelings.

Consider along this line the case of Jeanne Marie Ryan. She, by Infinite Protection Advocacy, did not take enough precautions; that is to say, she made the mistake of telling her molester that he couldn't have her. There are even training programs out there where women are told to not fight back when they are molested, because then they're only encouraging their molester to hurt them.

Those links I posted above? A few of the more important ones, for your purposes:

• "Not all men” also differs from “what about the men?” and other classic derails because it acknowledges that rape, sexism, and misogyny are real issues — just not, you know, real issues that the speaker is involved with in any way. The “not all men” man, at least in some cases, agrees with you and is perfectly willing to talk about how terrible those other guys are, just as soon as we get done establishing that he himself would never be such a cad. (#3186371/982)

• The obligations put upon women in the question of rape in society are such that functional generalizations about the dangers, complications, and other obstacles presented by men are necessary considerations. (#3186741/986)

• The problem with #NotAllMen is that it is significant of a man's priority. We stack all these prevention tips onto women, the general effect of which is that they must be suspicious of any man, and then along comes some dude who wants everyone else to put the conversation on hold until he has made some point about how this is unfair to men. (#3201976/464)

• Women are not stupid .... "Not all men" might be true, but that has nothing to do with the practical reality women face in a society that puts the burden of men's sins onto women. If "not all men" is to have any useful significance, we must first make it relevant, and the way to do that is reshape our societal attitudes in such a way that "suspect all men" is no longer a functional, practical reality because the situation has changed so dramatically. (ibid)​

Also, I would reiterate a point about the inefficacy of IPA:

What it comes down to is that this gets too close to some men. They aren't the stalk-and-jump rapists, so it's easy to dispense self-righteous advice to women. But when we get down to the fraction of rapes within that 22% that such advice would actually apply to, it would seem very much a betrayal of one's protection advice to suggest that similar "common sense" does not apply to the conditions encompassing 72% of rapes. The problem with that, of course, is that suddenly, the suspicion they would thus ask women to hold all men in (while some of our brothers complain that women are holding them in suspicion) includes the advocates themselves. A man doesn't want to think of himself as a rapist, potentially, possibly, or otherwise. And many women put up with this behavior because society has informed them that it's their own damn fault, so it goes on and on because she made the mistaken decision to get married or have an intimate partner or even a male friend.​

But that post also touches on your complaint about exploitation of a tragedy:

Perhaps we should invoke the Trooper Policy at Sciforums: Discussing how an issue relates to one's own life disqualifies either the issue or the member who posts such a discussion.

And I have to admit, it's a great rule if one wants to empower rapists. Just tell the women to shut up.

I mean think about it for a moment. Your own agenda? My own agenda? Okay, fine. If breaking the rape phenomenon and alleviating its damage in our society is somehow "my own agenda"? Hell, fine, I'll take it.

But why do I have a feeling that, if I took the Trooper Policy for a larger application at Sciforums, we would end up quashing a lot of discussion because people are pushing their own agenda?

What's that? A physicist wants to talk about the latest popular manifestation of young-earth Creationism? Nope. He needs to stop exploiting unfortunate situations in order to push his own agenda.

A chemist or biologist wants to talk about what pesticides do to life in general? Nope. Sorry. Stop pushing your own agenda.

Pretty much any discussion, then, that can be tied back to a living situation, about which controversial questions exist, will be disqualified under the Trooper standard.​

Of course, such considerations can be avoided if, returning to the beginning of this post, you can demonstrate the case underlying your complaint.

In the meantime, if it was a choice you could make in the world, how many women should be raped in order to accommodate your hurt feelings?

Seriously, we've got Trooper posting about how women like danger, and Billvon prescribing that women should be able to tell in advance when the man they fall in love with might suddenly turn into a domestic abuser and rapist.

If you want to wail "Not all men!" perhaps it would be better for you to aim that complaint at the prevention advocates who reinforce and perpetuate that part of the problem. That is to say, if rape prevention advocacy prescribing caution toward all men hurts your feelings, maybe the problem is the rape prevention advocacy.

 

And we’ve got Tiassa advising women to not to take steps to improve their safety because according to his twisted logic it motivates society to do less in regards to reforming present and future perpetrators of violence. He doesn’t want to acknowledge the fact that no matter how much effort society puts into socialization and criminal justice, there always has, and likely always will be some individuals willing to commit violent acts such as rape. So given that society cannot currently guarantee complete protection from violence, wouldn't it be prudent for potential victims to do whatever is practical and within their means to maximize their safety?

 

Was your mother competent?

We’re not born with a blank slate, Fraggle.

"Twin studies with schizoid personality disorder traits, low sociability and low warmth, suggest these traits are inherited. Because of this, there is indirect evidence linking the heritability of schizoid personality disorder."

Schizoid Personality Disorder

 

Wow! Clearly there's some community "frustration"..
Capracus is right in that there will always be people able, wanting and willing to commit horrible acts.

"Bad people don't just happen. They were raised by incompetent parents." - Fraggle
There have been bad people from all walks of life. It isn't limited to ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age, political affiliation, beliefs.
As Trooper said above, bad people don't just come from bad or incompetent parents. Bad people have had siblings who were completely normal.

Martial Arts and Unarmed Self Defense is something we should put more focus on, especially instead of just throwing a dangerous weapon in the hands of 240 million questionable people.
*I have a link but I don't have 15+ posts so..* My 240 million people is of adults in the United States, based on some kidscount organization website.

I've personally done some Krav Maga and I definitely advocate having the knowledge, something which you can take anywhere like on airplanes, of knowing how to defend yourself (or others) in the event of being unarmed. This is something we should be teaching, which is in a similar direction of just giving people (mainly women) tips on how to LESSEN their chances of being targeted, lessen their chances of being someone else's victim. Yes, it's okay to be wary of strangers. "Stranger Danger!" REMEMBER? But we should NOT be TELLING (not teaching, telling) women to be scared of men. How is that ANY different than someone asshole justifying themself for telling someone to be scared of someone else based on their ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc..!

To Tiassa above, you said
"It's hard to disagree with your point about the enormous difference when you just so ably demonstrated it. To the one, there are your feelings, which I would not call worthless by any means. However, to the other, there is functional reality, and that kind of trumps your feelings."
Exactly. The statement "Men are evil" is YOUR (not specifically yours but) feelings. The statement "Some men are evil" is functional reality, because that is reality! There are some men that are evil, just like there are some women that are evil. And as you said, functional reality kind of trumps your feelings.
But when SOME women, mainly self-proclaimed Feminists use the blanket statement of "Men are evil", it's persecuting all men, generalizing all men as if we're nothing but evil that should be feared and killed off. That is why the #notallmen started. (Personally I'm not one of them who's used it, I don't use Twitter and I hate hash tags but whatever) Is that men, and some women are just getting tired of it. IF you mean only SOME of something, bloody use SOME. That goes for everyone and yes, I'll probably make that slip up myself and if I do, PLEASE call me out for it.

Lastly..
"We're supposed to be slowly and steadily improving civilization." - Fraggle
While that might have some validity, it's driving us away from evolution at the same time.

Oh, I'd get to more of Tiassa's post but it'll have to wait. I haven't had much sleep in the last two days and had a very long night last night so.. my brain is kind of fried.

 

You don’t practice safety because you expect that every session of activity will result in compromise, you do it because the burden of its habitual practice is considered preferable to the potential for harm. Growing up in the sixties and seventies we never wore seat belts, and fortunately even with my recklessness, I never had occasion to test their utility during that period of my life. It wasn’t until the nineties when the use of seatbelts was mandatory in California that I finally benefited from their use during a collision. I’ve been robbed at gun point and physically assaulted numerous times during my lifetime, but never felt compelled to carry a firearm. I go on walks in my rural neighborhood every night, and my only defense against human, dog, or mountain lion is a cellphone and a canister of pepper spray, and while I’ve had risky encounters with all three, I‘ve never had to hit the button yet. On the pepper spray that is.

That’s the problem, the slow pace of civilization, which renders a significant body of the world’s population lacking in its practice. When our last president started rattling sabers at Saddam Hussein I thought there was no way that would fly in this civilized day and age. Surprise, surprise, surprise! When he showed up in my neck of the woods a few years later I advised him to turn himself in for his crimes.

Regardless of how they came to be, they still have to be dealt with. While complaining about their origins might affect the next generation of offenders, it will not pacify the current batch or protect their potential victims.

 

Are you able to deal in anything besides character assassination? By that, what I'm getting at is: do you feel any compunction at all to represent your opponents in an accurate or fair manner? You brought up my sex earlier as some kind of disqualifying factor in this discussion - "mansplain", wasn't it? Is this the limits of your ability?

Ah, even if that were the case, it'd be an acquired skill from my close association with the very best on the forums. Instead of buying into whatever line presents itself that moment, what is needed is a continuous and ethical narrative. I've given oblique instruction throughout the thread.

We are neither.

But that's not what's important here. What is important - as I think kitta mentioned - is that we represent "the other side", which must be attacked at every opportunity. If it includes lying, trolling, inexcusable misreprentation, libel, flagrant violations of SF rules - or just general ethics - well, I guess that's the penalty we must pay for our disagreement.

 

Correct.

Sometimes they get called a "rape advocate" or "misogynist".

 

If women are expected to be "on guard" all the time... then I guess ALL people may as well stop flying on airplanes because of the risk of crashing/terrorist hijacking/etc, stop driving in cars because of the risk it could burst into flames (looking at you Pinto!), crash, break down, etc, hell, we should probably stop eating food since it has the potential to make us fat and stop going outside because we could get hit by a car/truck/bus/train/meteorite/lightning bolt/bird shit/et al

Does everyone present in this thread understand how UTTERLY FUCKING STUPID it is to talk in absolutes? Yes, the above is taking things WAY to extremes... but that is the kind of shit some people have advocated, not just about rape, but in regards to, well, a lot of shit in the "ways of the law"... it's asinine! At SOME point, basic common sense and human DECENCY should be observed. If that cannot be done anymore... then perhaps we, as a species, just need to die off.

 

No one needs to go so far. But I don't think you will find that the "other side" here has talked in such absolutes, despite the fact that they represent the "other side". Taking up a contrary narrative does not actually imply a diametrically contrary position.

 

both sides of this argument have used absolutes - that's what makes it so infuriating. It's become... well, damn near political. Side A says one thing, so Side B says the opposite JUST to be argumentative. Side A and B go at it, meanwhile subsides C and D form and take up sides close to, but not identical to, sides A and B, and then there's a few of us just staring at this whole shitfest like "wtf mate"

The long and short of it, in my opinion, is this:

A sexually-active/interested person (be it guy or girl) has a RESPONSIBILITY and DUTY to acknowledge and understand the wishes of the person(s) he/she wishes to be sexually active with. It is their responsibility to reign in their sex drive.

AT THE SAME TIME - it is the other parties responsibility to not be an absolute flirt, then stonewall.

To explain:

If a guy and a girl are at a bar and have been watching each other for a bit, and the guy has had a bit to drink, it's HIS responsibility to know that he IS, in fact, mildly inebriated and to make a conscious effort NOT to succumb to basal desires. At the same time, the girl SHOULD be aware to the fact that, because of the alcohol, any flirtatious behavior on her part could be more easily misconstrued and thus should use due caution to make sure she doesn't come off as overly interested if she is, in fact, not.

If the guy and girl start flirting, and one or the other comes to the conclusion that this ISN'T something they would like to pursue, then they need to be clear about that and the other should accept that gracefully. Trying to forcibly push the situation... I cannot see ANY way it can possibly end in anything good.

Anyone claiming they "cannot control themselves" just because a woman is wearing short shorts or a low cut top... they need to give serious consideration to therapy.

Are there people out there that aren't quite wired right? Of course... pedophiles, serial rapists, the list goes on and on... but that ISN'T the norm, and asking women to treat EVERYONE like it is, and to be on the defensive 100% of the time... it's stupid.

It's like checking over your should for a runaway bus while watching TV in your living room. Could it happen, a bus comes plowing through your house? Of course! Is it likely to happen? No. Is being paranoid about it going to change anything? Not at all.