You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Huh. Wow.
Now on appeal in the European Court of Human Rights, seemingly.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I find myself more and more wondering what the police (as a “thing”) are actually for, and could some other organisation(s) with fewer biases and ingrained issues do what they do better.
My view is, and has been for some time, that the Police are there solely to protect the state.
Any "protection" it gives to the state's citizens is incidental, and provided to stop society descending into anarchy, which would threaten the state.
That's why there is heavy handed policing of protests, yet women's safety is not prioritised. Women don't generally lead or partake in revolutions.
I think his wife is going to face some extremely uncomfortable questions, both from the police and from her fiends, family and general public. This guy didn’t just turn into a psychopath overnight.
Jesus, are we blaming his wife now? Wow, I knew there would be a way it was a woman's fault.
It's such a massive blow to the relationship between people and the police.
My boss used to be very high up in ops/governance in Police Scotland.
His take was that the Met is too big an organisation to deal manage itself effectively and thinks this could lead to it being split into smaller forces.
on second thoughts - deleted
So much to find profoundly depressing in this thread.
Starting with the one concerning the wife. Why would she know? How the **** can she be expected to answer "difficult" questions? Obviously she was covering for him. FFS!
Secondly is all the comments about that should be done to the perpetrator. Yeah, let's kill him. Now shall we look at who else we should kill? Maybe some degree of corporal punishment? How about doing it in public as a deterrent? The Taliban can probably provide some consultancy here.
Lastly, and not from here, I am finding the response from the police absolutely pathetic. If you feel threatened by a lone police officer, call and verify his (and it will be a him) identity. Really? Jump on a bus, run away! As others have said, resist arrest and see what happens to you.
The problem here is toxic masculinity, end of. No ifs, no buts. Until there is a profound shift in male attitude to females then this will not change. Check out social media, women are still being held responsible.
My view is, and has been for some time, that the Police are there solely to protect the state.
Any “protection” it gives to the state’s citizens is incidental, and provided to stop society descending into anarchy, which would threaten the state.
That’s why there is heavy handed policing of protests, yet women’s safety is not prioritised.
This.
So much to find profoundly depressing in this thread.
Starting with the one concerning the wife. Why would she know? How the **** can she be expected to answer “difficult” questions? Obviously she was covering for him. FFS!
Secondly is all the comments about that should be done to the perpetrator. Yeah, let’s kill him. Now shall we look at who else we should kill? Maybe some degree of corporal punishment? How about doing it in public as a deterrent? The Taliban can probably provide some consultancy here.
Lastly, and not from here, I am finding the response from the police absolutely pathetic. If you feel threatened by a lone police officer, call and verify his (and it will be a him) identity. Really? Jump on a bus, run away! As others have said, resist arrest and see what happens to you.
The problem here is toxic masculinity, end of. No ifs, no buts. Until there is a profound shift in male attitude to females then this will not change. Check out social media, women are still being held responsible.
And this.
Add to this, the blind eye turned to undercover sexual predators in the police spies scandal, which not only undermines trust in the police but also validates misogyny, as well as undermining Democracy itself. Massive win for all women, thanks to the tireless efforts of Kate Wilson.
https://twitter.com/fruitbatmania/status/1443715119758946306
Macpherson report finds met police institutionally rascist.
Report into murder of Daniel Morgan finds met police institutionally corrupt.
The london night stalker Delroy Grant carried out attacks for 17 years because the met police ran a woefully under resourced investigation yet the met spent millions on undercover spies on enviromental groups since 1968 and thats before you get to the suspicious deaths..........
I think they need to clean out the senior officers/management and replace with people who haven't worked in the met silo
No, not blaming his wife at all - calm your farm.
In the context of my post: that this bloke didn’t just suddenly turn into a psychopath overnight. I think anyone that new him - but in particular those people that knew him the best/longest (and even lived with him) would be being asked some difficult questions - particularly if a longer period of offending is uncovered.
on what grounds could they be questioned??
Oh I dunno - maybe we should have a chat with his colleagues (who were presumably also in the police) about why his nickname was “the rapist”?
Might not be important I don’t suppose
For the record, what I said was:
I think his wife is going to face some extremely uncomfortable questions, both from the police and from her fiends, family and general public. This guy didn’t just turn into a psychopath overnight.
I have friends, feel sorry for the wife if she only has fiends.......
No problem in questionning the colleagues but asking the family...... why? think they were involved??
No problem in questionning the colleagues but asking the family…… why? think they were involved??
Are you so desperate for an argument?
Read what I said, it’s clear
no ta, just wondering what grounds you think this
"I think his wife is going to face some extremely uncomfortable questions, both from the police and from her fiends, family and general public. This guy didn’t just turn into a psychopath overnight"
have a nice day, off out for a pedal now 🙂
People hide things from their spouse. Simple. Not everyone knows everything about members of their family or social group. Of course family and friends will be questioned and will probably ask questions of themselves, why didn't they see this coming? But do you not think that his wife's world has been has been totally destroyed too?
Add to this, the blind eye turned to undercover sexual predators in the police spies scandal, which not only undermines trust in the police but also validates misogyny, as well as undermining Democracy itself. Massive win for all women, thanks to the tireless efforts of Kate Wilson.
The undercover police officers didn't rape anyone though. The women willingly slept with them albeit under false pretences...a bit like many relationships in other words.
On the face of it, it looks like the police did a piss poor job of investigating one of their own here. I prefer that explanation to some nebulous 'culture of misogyny' or 'toxic masculinity' which somehow turns normal men into monsters.
The undercover police officers didn’t rape anyone though
No one but you mentioned rape, they were sexual predators. They can be one without being the other.
The women willingly slept with them albeit under false pretences…a bit like many relationships in other words.
Really? You can write that, and the complain about labelling men with "nebulous" theories...have a word with yourself chap
I prefer that explanation to some nebulous ‘culture of misogyny’ or ‘toxic masculinity’ which somehow turns normal men into monsters.
...and trivialises the horrific act of the monster.
I've read exactly what you said. Perhaps you think it says something different from what you wrote but several people have read what you wrote and all seem to conclude that you think its right that the police, her friends and her family all question what she knew (and presumably why she didn't tell anyone) and in particular "extremely uncomfortable questions"?
Probably the only question any of them should be asking is "Are you OK?" or "Can we do anything the support you?".
Any questions from the police relating to the murder will already have been asked, whereabouts, behaviour etc, where she will likely have been questioned as a witness. Given its post conviction there's absolutely no reason for the police to be asking her questions.
No, not blaming his wife at all – calm your farm.
In the context of my post: that this bloke didn’t just suddenly turn into a psychopath overnight. I think anyone that new him – but in particular those people that knew him the best/longest (and even lived with him) would be being asked some difficult questions – particularly if a longer period of offending is uncovered.
What are these questions?
The only people who have those sort of questions to answer are his police colleagues (a number of whom are now under investigation for misconduct and/or communication act offences) and the entire chain of command that seemed to employ someone that those in the service recognised was a bit dodgy. Now rather than emphasising how they will improve vetting or what they will do to make sure that officers with dodgy associations are thoroughly investigated, supervised and if necessary removed from the service* and that its easy for any other officer to highlight concerns about colleagues without being perceived as a grass or a troublemaker they are telling women to check the ID of people who stop them (despite the fact that all officers including this one would have valid id), nor are they talking about how they remove a toxic masculinity from the Met (and likely other police services), despite the fact its headed by a woman.
Could she have known he was likely to attack people? Possibly. But many a psychopath has duped or manipulated people close to them into believing they would never do anything like that, many insist they are innocent even after hearing the evidence and many a victim has been convinced by their partner that anything they think is odd is them making it up or overreacting, or done out of love, or their fault. I'm sure that women has been through hell and back - lets not suggest that she should have to go through more.
*whilst I'm generally a big advocate for innocent until proven guilty and employment rights I think if you are part of the judicial process (from police to prosecutors and judges) if there's enough murmuring about something that it creates an impression of a problem it would be prudent to remove those people to safeguard the reputation and perception of the rest.
On the face of it, it looks like the police did a piss poor job of investigating one of their own here. I prefer that explanation to some nebulous ‘culture of misogyny’ or ‘toxic masculinity’ which somehow turns normal men into monsters.
But is that not exactly why they did a piss poor job? Because "it ok, its just banter, its what men do" or "he's one of us, best not look too hard or we'll find loads like him".
No one but you mentioned rape, they were sexual predators. They can be one without being the other.
In what way were they predators?
But is that not exactly why they did a piss poor job? Because “it ok, its just banter, its what men do” or “he’s one of us, best not look too hard or we’ll find loads like him”.
Same reason officers may be reluctant to report or investigate one of their own for corruption or assault or whatever. It's doesn't all have to flow from some alleged 'culture' orientated around an ism.
Anyone put the title in to what three words?
Really? You can write that, and the complain about labelling men with “nebulous” theories…have a word with yourself chap
Most of the country would be in jail if lying in a relationship became a crime.
The undercover police officers didn’t rape anyone though. The women willingly slept with them albeit under false pretences…a bit like many relationships in other words.
Interestingly in some other jurisdictions that would be rape. I'm not actually convinced it's not here either - I don't think there's any case law on whether consent with someone who pretends to be another is still consent. The point is that the independent tribunal concluded that although it was policy not to do it, the behaviour was so widespread that the management chain must have been aware or were intentionally trying not to be aware. Yet no senior heads have rolled and no announcement of root and branch change to ensure it never happens again.
@i_scott_cake
Most of the country would be in jail if lying in a relationship became a crime.
How many women have you tricked into sleeping with you by saying you were someone completely different? Were you being paid by the state to investigate any of those women or their associates at the time?
I prefer that explanation to some nebulous ‘culture of misogyny’ or ‘toxic masculinity’ which somehow turns normal men into monsters.
I may be misunderstanding here, but are you suggesting that toxic masculinity is a nebulous concept rather than a brutal reality?
Could she have known he was likely to attack people? Possibly.
**** right off.
There is no way she knew. There's no suggestion whatsoever she assisted him so to suggest she may have known is basically saying although she isn't a monster she was happy to stay with him while he did it.
If she knew what he was like she'd have been out of there like a shot, for self preservation as much as anything else. (Hindley and Brady's Cousin for instance, as soon as he found out he went straight to the police.)
There is zero possibility she knew.
I may be misunderstanding here, but are you suggesting that toxic masculinity is a nebulous concept rather than a brutal reality?
Absolutely. It doesn't even have an agreed-upon definition. But this is going off on a tangent now, however, I would add that like many concepts originating from the humanities, it's hopelessly underdefined at the same time as being granted almost infinite powers of causation.
Interestingly in some other jurisdictions that would be rape. I’m not actually convinced it’s not here either – I don’t think there’s any case law on whether consent with someone who pretends to be another is still consent.
In certain circumstances, I believe so. Bigamy possibly and pretending to be someone of a different gender.
A general deception about one's biography? Definitely not. We'd be criminalising most adulterers.
I think you may be part of the problem buddy...
Most of the country would be in jail if lying in a relationship became a crime.
most "relationships" aren't undercover cops acting illegally either with the tacit agreement by or by the negligence/ incompetence of their senior controlling officers. Those officers entered into these "relationships" knowing full well what they were doing was illegal and yet went ahead anyway, either knowing or at least on the understanding that they would get away with it, or be actively encouraged in their behavior by their superiors That can fairly be described as a toxic environment. there is nothing nebulous about it.
There was no clear leadership, no boundaries, no investigations, no disciplinary outcomes for offending.
The problem here is toxic masculinity, end of. No ifs, no buts. Until there is a profound shift in male attitude to females then this will not change. Check out social media, women are still being held responsible.
This ^. It's literally close to home for me - Sarah Everard's remains were found less than five miles from my home and very close to my workplace.
I am absolutely staggered that a serving police officer who had no less than three complaints made about sexual misconduct and an addiction to violent pornography wasn't flagged as a risk.
I am also troubled as to why a forumite might suggest that Couzens' wife "is going to face some extremely uncomfortable questions" - that's a really shitty thing to say.
Same reason officers may be reluctant to report or investigate one of their own for corruption or assault or whatever. It’s doesn’t all have to flow from some alleged ‘culture’ orientated around an ism.
And what reason is that? You may object to labelling something as culture or putting an ism on it - but that's just nonsense semantics by people who are ignoring the ****ing problem - there's an attitude within the organisation that either says its OK or says its not OK to challenge it. When that attitude/behaviour becomes normality - people will start to refer to it as "a culture". When that culture treats one group less favourably than an other it will get badged with an "ism". Get over the labels and look at the problems - otherwise you are part of the culture that's focussing on not being too PC rather than focussing on rotten PC's!
Re this:
If you don’t trust the small boy on the tricycle, wave down an MP and demand Cressida Dick is sacked and call for a complete overhaul of police vetting procedures.
About 15 years ago, my wife (and toddler daughter) was pulled over by an unmarked police car. The policeman checked all around the car before warning her about the state of one of the tyres and letting her go. She asked to see ID, and came out of the situation very shaken up. I was pretty angry about it, but ultimately no harm came out of it, and there didn't seem enough substance to complain, but to this day I don't understand why she would have been pulled over for any genuine reason.
I am absolutely staggered that a serving police officer who had no less than three complaints made about sexual misconduct and an addiction to violent pornography wasn’t flagged as a risk.
I am also troubled as to why a forumite might suggest that Couzens’ wife “is going to face some extremely uncomfortable questions” – that’s a really shitty thing to say.
I'm guessing that people might think that if you're a sexual predator in your spare time and to be known as a sexual predator in your work place, you may not be a saint at home. Maybe he was - we'll probably never know.
I’m guessing that people might think that if you’re a sexual predator in your spare time and to be known as a sexual predator in your work place, you may not be a saint at home.
Couzens' wife is a victim too. Either she was unaware of the depths of his depravity or she was cowed into silence. Either way, it's the responsibility of the Met Police to ensure that sadistic and violent misogynists are kept out of their ranks.
Of course family and friends will be questioned and will probably ask questions of themselves, why didn’t they see this coming? But do you not think that his wife’s world has been has been totally destroyed too?
The two are not mutually exclusive, sadly for the family. I don't think batfinks post was intended to read the way some of you have taken it.
I think his wife is going to face some extremely uncomfortable questions, both from the police and from her fiends, family and general public. This guy didn’t just turn into a psychopath overnight.
This reads 100% as you're blaming his wife...
I don’t think batfinks post was intended to read the way some of you have taken it.
Very hard not to read it the way it was written...
I think his wife is going to face some extremely uncomfortable questions, both from the police and from her fiends, family and general public. This guy didn’t just turn into a psychopath overnight.
This reads 100% as you’re blaming his wife…
That's not how I read it. More that his wife is just going to get a load of shit from all and sundry.
And what reason is that? You may object to labelling something as culture or putting an ism on it – but that’s just nonsense semantics by people who are ignoring the **** problem – there’s an attitude within the organisation that either says its OK or says its not OK to challenge it. When that attitude/behaviour becomes normality – people will start to refer to it as “a culture”. When that culture treats one group less favourably than an other it will get badged with an “ism”. Get over the labels and look at the problems – otherwise you are part of the culture that’s focussing on not being too PC rather than focussing on rotten PC’s!
Firstly, a reluctance to investigate or report this officer doesn't have to flow from some kind of culture of misogyny (in this instance), it can simply flow from a general culture of not breaking rank etc. It can be the same reason that corruption isn't properly reported or investigated. This is fairly common in most organisations when it comes to whistleblowers.
Secondly, is rain culturally misogynistic if it tends to fall more on one gender than the other? A disparate outcome proves nothing whatsoever in itself.
My view is, and has been for some time, that the Police are there solely to protect the state.
Any “protection” it gives to the state’s citizens is incidental, and provided to stop society descending into anarchy, which would threaten the state.
This needs to be more widely-understood IMO.
Through this lens, it makes complete sense that the police will try and stop organised crime, immigration and protests and yet are completely useless at protecting individuals from violence or investigating thefts against people. It's all about maintaining a status quo so the interests of the ruling classes can be furthered. They don't work for you, or me, or any of us. It was ever thus since the watchmen of the Middle Ages.
So when people talk about 'defunding the police' (an unhelpful and partly misleading name IMHO), THIS is what they mean. Dismantle our society's ingrained structures that exist only to allow the ruling class to maintain their wealth.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Dismantle our society’s ingrained structures that exist only to allow the ruling class to maintain their wealth.
All has been tried before and has led to disaster each time.
Communism doesn't work.
Read what I said, it’s clear
It really isn't.
You seem to think (or expect that others may think) that he popped out for a spot of rape and murder then came home going "hey love, you'll never guess what I did today!"
It's entirely possible that some amoral shitbags might give her a hard time, yes. But she's a victim, she's not Rose West. She was either oblivious, in which case she's just seen the man she loved and (presumably) father of her children convicted out of the blue of such a heinous crime which she'll have to live with for the rest of her life, or she knew and therefore can only be a domestic abuse survivor.
Uncomfortable questions, good god, I'm surprised she's not on suicide watch.
Either way, it’s the responsibility of the Met Police to ensure that sadistic and violent misogynists are kept out of their ranks.
I'd expand that and say that it's society's responsibility to ensure that sadistic and violent misogynists are called out for what they are.
Secondly, is rain culturally misogynistic if it tends to fall more on one gender than the other?
I think a long hard look in the mirror is long overdue. What are your thoughts on the Incel movement? Are you going to deny that the Incel movement is a real thing or just a nebulous concept. I stand by my earlier assertion that you are part of the problem.
Uncomfortable questions, good god, I’m surprised she’s not on suicide watch.
What Cougar said.
That’s not how I read it. More that his wife is just going to get a load of shit from all and sundry.
That was my reading. And pretty much the first thing my wife said when all this broke.
I'm not sure the 'shite', will be intended badly, they'll just be curious. It will still be a nightmare.
The fact she's done an interview and stated clearly that there were no signs whatsoever was probably an effort to stop people asking all the time.
Apparently women need to be more streetwise. FFS.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-58762029
Firstly, a reluctance to investigate or report this officer doesn’t have to flow from some kind of culture of misogyny (in this instance), it can simply flow from a general culture of not breaking rank etc.
A culture of not "breaking rank" to report, investigate and act to stop misogny is institutional misogny.
Sorry if I'm pointing out the absolute basics here, it looks like it might be needed.
I mmay be wrong, but I thought the people who nicknamed him 'the Rapist' were his female colleagues.
...and ?
A culture of not “breaking rank” to report, investigate and act to stop misogny is institutional misogny.
Yes, using the most narrow legal definition.
...and it means absolutely nothing more in that legal sense.
I don’t think there’s any case law on whether consent with someone who pretends to be another is still consent
I think the Court of appeal have judged on a decision not to prosecute such a case Madeline and Jim Boyling which is the closest I’ve read to it(Ianal!)
With regard to sexual predators.
The undercover officers could be considered sexual predators as it is alleged they / some of them picked vulnerable women to “groom” and that they also used information from reporting by other undercover officers on women’s likes, dislikes emotions etc to weedle their way into women’s affection
…and it means absolutely nothing more in that legal sense.
What has the "legal sense" got anything to do with anything? No one has said laws have been broken, they are pointing out that there looks to be a problem that needs addressing. It needs addressing because otherwise it erodes trust in the police.
I'm not sure what your problem is, to be honest. I think you are perhaps just one of the "look away, obviously nothing to see here" types who are part of the bigger problem.
The undercover officers could be considered sexual predators as it is alleged they / some of them picked vulnerable women to “groom” and that they also used information from reporting by other undercover officers on women’s likes, dislikes emotions etc to weedle their way into women’s affection
We can argue about words all day but once these kinds of men were known as womanisers, bounders or shits, etc.
As things are today we seem determined to inflate away the value of certain categories.
We can argue about words all day but once these kinds of men were known as womanisers, bounders or shits, etc.
Come into this century and have a look around.
i_scoff_cake
Firstly, a reluctance to investigate or report this officer doesn’t have to flow from some kind of culture of misogyny (in this instance), it can simply flow from a general culture of not breaking rank etc. It can be the same reason that corruption isn’t properly reported or investigated. This is fairly common in most organisations when it comes to whistleblowers.
where women end up suffering you get the same effect whatever the perceived cultural basis is - its unhealthy, unhelpful and damaging to the organisation. you don't need to set out to be a misogynist to result in misogyny.
Secondly, is rain culturally misogynistic if it tends to fall more on one gender than the other? A disparate outcome proves nothing whatsoever in itself.
Quite impressively the stupidest analogy I've seen on STW for years.
I’m not sure what your problem is, to be honest. I think you are perhaps just one of the “look away, obviously nothing to see here” types who are part of the bigger problem.
I have a horrible feeling that i_scoff_cake may actually be a cop. With a bit more denial of there being a problem, they have the potential to make it to chief constable.
Apparently women need to be more streetwise. FFS.
Some of the responses have been astonishing. I mean, astonishingly bad. What next, she was probably asking for it?
I do wonder / hope that, when the dust settles, some good might come out of this. A proper ground-up reform of the Met. Something like the Sophie Lancaster Foundation to raise awareness that victim-blaming is the action of a douche-canoe.
From the BBC link:
The comments provoked an angry reaction on social media prompting Mr Allott to reconsider.
He tweeted an apology, withdrawing his remarks.
"I would like to wholeheartedly apologise for my comments on BBC Radio York earlier today, which I realise have been insensitive and wish to retract them in full," he said.
He realised they were insensitive, he doesn't admit they were wrong, and now he wants the attention to go away.
I'm seeing a lot of late contenders for Shitbag of the Day today. I thought Kirstie Allsopp had it in the bag.
where women end up suffering you get the same effect whatever the perceived cultural basis is – its unhealthy, unhelpful and damaging to the organisation. you don’t need to set out to be a misogynist to result in misogyny.
Which was my point. In the same way, the fire service isn't sexist or misogynist (in the common-sense understanding) because its fitness test disfavored women.
I'm basically resistant to these explanations which seek to taint institutions in a total sense with nebulous cultural failings. As I said before, the tendency for an organisation to protect its own is quite adequate to explain why Wayne Couzens wasn't properly investigated, although there could be more particular failings in terms of the reported indecent exposures. As for some broader assertion that Wayne Couzens was 'created' by 'misogyny' or 'toxic masculanity', this is nonsense.
As I said before, the tendency for an organisation to protect its own is quite adequate to explain why Wayne Couzens wasn’t properly investigated
Protect him in what way? That is the point. If there is a culture of accepting or excusing misogyny, then that is institutionalised misogyny. In that environment people can be kept in a post when they should not be, including people who are dangerous to the public because of the power their place in the organisation gives them. If that is the situation here with the police, then it needs addressing to rebuild trust in the police. Do you agree?
That is the point. If there is a culture of accepting or excusing misogyny, then that is institutionalised misogyny.
As I said, misogyny defined as a set of beliefs need have nothing to do with it. We are at risk of conflating the reluctance to either report or investigate a serving officer (if that was the case) with a conscious approval of whatever it was they may have done.
Stating that that nature of the problematic behaviour is irrelevant is the dumbest thing you could possibly say at this point.
The problem here is toxic masculinity, end of. No ifs, no buts. Until there is a profound shift in some males attitudes to females then this will not change.
That needed adding. What happened here is ****ing horrendous but blaming all men is ridiculous and entirely unhelpful in the wider debate.
I feel so sorry for Sarah’s family and for the offenders wife and kids. Can’t even imagine what they are all going through.
There are some clear failures on behalf of the Met and hopefully some wide reaching reforms will be made as a result of this. The problem here is a sick psychopath who managed to gain a position of power and then thoroughly abuse it. Did the ineptitude or misogynist attitudes of some fellow officers help enable him to commit the crime? Possibly, even highly likely from reading some news articles. Let’s wait and see what happens. Anybody that did ignore signs or overlook his behaviour should have the book thrown at them.
“Not all men”, doesn’t need saying, and can also come across as “not my problem”. We can all do more. We all know a lot of other men, and make decisions all the time about how to respond to the attitude of friends, contacts, coworkers and strangers towards women.
Was expecting that answer and it makes a lot of assumptions and is quite frankly patronising. On a par with that ridiculous Gillette advert from a couple of years back. That’s for a different thread though. It’s not just a problem for men, it’s everyone’s problem, societies problem. Like I said, different thread though. This isn’t the place for it.
I was probably wrong to post it on this thread but too late to edit now.
Your edit added a lot. My reply was made when all you had said was basically “not all men”. All your added comments I agree with.
Edit: but not your new comment about that totally harmless, but obviously cringy, advert. If that bothered you enough at the time that you still reference it now, in this thread, I do find that a bit odd.
We can all do more.
You're free to do what you want but don't make me responsible for rapists and murderers just because I have a penis.
We can all do more.
You’re free to do what you want but don’t make me responsible for rapists and murderers just because I have a penis.
Non-sequitur.
Fair enough - I just found it utterly patronising. Not really surprising considering toxic masculinity is being discussed and some media basically worshipped an advert. You know, something explicitly designed to sell a product. Find it as odd as you wish. Just like I find the post I commented on rather odd too.
Non-sequitur.
Not at all, unless you're talking about a narrow criminal responsibility.
The suggestion is that I'm responsible - in some way - for some nebulous culture of or 'structural' misogyny, or even worse, for some Gramscian meets Critical Theory notion of misogenistic hegemony.
Who said your were responsible? If you can find ways to help change things, do so. If you really think there’s nothing you can do, carry on. Personally, I’ve lost count of the ways and times I’ve turned a blind eye to behaviour and language in past jobs (not in my current role at all) and when “out with the lads”. Actively trying to do better, but I am a bit of a coward, and a lover of the easy life and the path of least resistance, so often fail still.
Not at all, unless you’re talking about a narrow criminal responsibility.
It really is, unless you there's nothing you want do to reduce the problem, and you'll reach for some Big Words to justify inaction to yourself.
The suggestion is that I’m responsible – in some way – for some nebulous culture of or ‘structural’ misogyny, or even worse, for some Gramscian meets Critical Theory notion of misogenistic hegemony.
Oh.
Personally, I’ve lost count of the ways I’ve turned a blind eye to behaviour and language in past jobs (not in my current role at all) and when “our with the lads”. Actively trying to do better, but I am a bit of a coward and lover of the easy life and path of lease resistance, so often fail.
This, mostly. I can certainly think of times I've let stuff slide in the past.
You’re free to do what you want but don’t make me responsible for rapists and murderers just because I have a penis.
The point you're missing quite spectacularly here is,
If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. It's not good enough to sit back and go "well, I didn't rape her." It's that sort of bullshit attitude which allows and empowers people with nicknames like The Rapist to act in the way they do. It legitimises it.
I used to think #notallmen too. Then I spoke with people - mostly women - and I learned some things. I'd recommend it.
If you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem.
Would you have said that to Irish people during the IRA's mainland bombing campaign?