His That statement is taken somewhat out of context:



He wasn't responding to a question such as "What should women do to not get raped during a traffic stop?" He's responding to a "What should I do during a traffic stop?"-type question.

That whole post is almost 'fake news'.

Skewed, at best.

Not really, being the spokesperson for the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, he was being interviewed by the TV station because of the numerous allegations and three convictions against his troopers for sexual assault and rape of women at traffic stops. Think how hard it is to convict a cop of anything.

If you weren't breaking the motor vehicle laws you wouldn't get raped, c'mon.
I don't know if coming out with that statement was an attempt to avoid the issue or he's clueless of how serious the problem is, or just extremely bad taste humor.

apologies if this has already been posted here, but...
 

In the beginning...

Algeria gets it... put them bitches to work so we poke the hookah and drink coffee.

This does not help:

This is from an article on the BBC news site looking at what today's 'suffragettes' are up to. Much of which is laudable - like anti FGM work - but making catcalling a fucking hate crime?

Jesus wept.

This:

Is insane.

It didn't need a new law. There are already laws in place to deal with a broad category of anti-social or lewd acts - if someone is shouting 'show us your tits' at schoolgirls, then the broad category of 'breach of the peace' or 'causing a disturbance' could come into effect.

It's not a criminal offence (in England anyway - not sure about Scotland) nothing goes on your record. But the police can arrest you. You get a warning and agree not to do it again. If you break that agreement in a given period you have committed an offence.

Breach of the peace/disturbance is already suitably vague and broad to be able to cover a frightening amount of stuff without adding another terrifyingly vague legal definition with much more serious consequences.

Rest of the article (some of which highlights really important work)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-42949970

Agreed. :facepalm:

With one caveat - the pre-existing laws pre-existed.

ie, they did not perform the function this law is intended to perform. That's not to say that this one will, either, as it is also vague, but saying that the police could apply existing law in a certain way to achieve the desired result doesn't help if they don't.

The problem seems to have been that the police didn't take the issue seriously. Would the 40 training sessions have been enough to fix that, if they weren't accompanied by a law that also made the offense more serious?

(not a rhetorical question)

If the training sessions don't cause them to act, it doesn't matter which law they're not enforcing, so there's no need for a new one.

Specificity also helps (though I'm not sure from the blurb in the article how good this particular law is on this front); If they aren't considering the behavior to be breaching the peace, that's not ignoring the law; it's interpreting it. But if the new law says it is, then you would have to ignore the law.

OK, I see your point, but it's still a matter of the cop... er, bobby, interpreting the actions of the man.

For the more serious cases of catcalling or sexual threat there has been a lack of enthusiasm for pursuing under the laws that are currently available - partly because it's not been taken at all seriously until fairly recently.

For most of the other stuff, what is needed is not another serious offence added to the books. If it's a particular problem in a particular town at any given time, police can go looking for that stuff and use the public order offences to discourage it, without criminalising people.

Or if someone tells them a guy on that street shouted lewd comments to them as they walked past, see if he's still there and have a word with him - point out its not acceptable behaviour in a public place. Doesn't have to be heavy. It's no different to telling someone they shouldn't be playing their music at its loudest volume late at night when they live in a small apartment block.


I think there has to be, and we are in the middle of it, a sea change in how we think about certain aspects of gendered experience and the ways in which our social structures and institutions respond to it, as well as how we navigate a world in which the gender roles have changed so quickly.

I say we're in the middle of it - perhaps I should say I think we were in the middle it when the Interwebz happened and threw everything into overdrive.

The speed everything moves now. #revolutions sweep across the twittersphere, are consumed by other movements and implode in a matter of days. A company launches a product with a questionable advertising strategy on Monday, the calls for global boycotts are in full voice by Tuesday morning, the advert is pulled on Tuesday afternoon, and a low level executive is fired on Wednesday.

That builds an expectation of rapid change and winnable battles. Which can be very alluring.

If we try to do this by criminalising more and more interaction - that is not going to help.

I think there are better ways to effect change. Slower - because it's complicated and messy and because whatever lines we draw in the sand we still have to live with each other.

Sometimes it's a good thing to march in the streets, give voice to a grievance and demand justice. Sometimes you have to find a livable solution to a complicated problem in which lots of people have a stake. And that's a much slower thing.