In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Short skirts will get you raped. Also shorts. Also just leaving your house, so stop doing that. I’m just trying to help.

Three photos of men in shorts
Look at these sluts, just asking for it.

Your skirt shorts are going to get you raped. That’s the message NYPD officers are sending to women in Park Slope, Brooklyn:

Earlier this evening, at around 7:30 p.m., I was on my way home from the gym, keys in hand, not talking on my cell phone, very aware of my surroundings. I passed a cop and he asked if I would stop and talk to him. He then asked two women who were wearing dresses to stop and talk to him. Here is our conversation:

Cop: “Do you know what’s been going on in this neighborhood?”

Me: “Yes, a man has attacked several women.”

Cop: “Do you know what he’s looking for?”

Lady: “…Young women walking alone?”

Cop: “And how do you know that? Someone told you that?”

Lady: “No, I’ve been reading about this in the news.”

Cop: (points to my gym clothes) “Your shorts are pretty short.” (points at women’s dresses) “Kind of showing some skin. Do you think that might make this guy angry, think he can get easy access?”

Me: “I really appreciate that cops are out in the neighborhood, but I’m coming home from the gym, and it’s hot outside. Women should be able to wear shorts and dresses without it being seen as an excuse to be attacked.”

Cop: “I’m just making sure you’re aware of what’s going on. Girls like you are targets.”

Me: “Thank you for being out here, but I would really prefer if you caught the criminal.”

But maybe it’s just one officer, right? Nope!

Asked whether officers were warning women against wearing shorts or skirts, the New York City Police Department responded in no time.

“Officers are not telling women what not to wear—there’s a TV series that does that,” quipped Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne in an email. “They are simply pointing out that as part of the pattern involving one or more men that the assailant(s) have targeted women wearing skirts.”

The rapist is targeting women who are wearing skirts, so NYPD officers are warning women who are wearing… shorts. Sure. Also the rapist is targeting people who appear to have vaginas, so maybe people who appear to have vaginas should just leave their bodies at home. What’s wrong with that advice? I’m just looking out for you.

I don’t live in Park Slope, but I’m in an adjacent neighborhood, and for a while there were a string of muggings nearby. The mugger targeted men — most of whom were wearing pants with pockets, in which they kept their wallets and cell phones for easy access. And yet I didn’t hear of one police officer stopping a bepantsed man and “simply pointing out that as part of the pattern.” Weird. I’m sure that was just a departmental oversight.


115 thoughts on Short skirts will get you raped. Also shorts. Also just leaving your house, so stop doing that. I’m just trying to help.

  1. There’s a narrow (and I mean really, really narrow) point to such a warning, though, in my opinion.

    If a rapist (or mugger, or any other criminal) was targeting redheads, or short people, or people wearing purple, I think there’s a legitimate point to an officer warning someone who fits that specific profile that they might be at heightened danger from that specific criminal. If (and only if) this specific rapist is specifically targeting women in skirts, then that could be a legitimate warning, I think.

    But, yea, the whole shorts thing, and the typical BS “don’t walk at night, or be alone, or drink, or be female” crap is just that, crap.

  2. Well, what do you expect of cops? Really? They’re all stuck in the ’50s. It’s kind of a sad thing that our armed forces, at least on paper, are far more progressive than any police department.
    And if the cops *really* wanted to help- why not run self-defense courses out of the local precinct? Why not take rape reports seriously? Why do they just resort to slut-shaming?

  3. I just had this argument with a guy who said that Slutwalks were stupid and that obviously women who wear revealing clothing are more at risk. He asked, “If there is a serial rapist who is targeting blonde women, and blonde women refuse to change their hair color, don’t they bear some responsibility if they are then raped?”

    My first response was simply, “No.” But then I had to ask him — “So now every woman in the city has made the ‘responsible’ choice to dye her hair brown. There are no more blondes. Does this serial rapist stop raping?”

    I just got an eyeroll, but no answer.

    1. He asked, “If there is a serial rapist who is targeting blonde women, and blonde women refuse to change their hair color, don’t they bear some responsibility if they are then raped?”

      Hahahaha. OMG. WAT. I think he bears 100% responsibility if you punch him in the face.

  4. “Look, I know I robbed that bank, but don’t you think the bank should take the responsibility? I mean, having all that money in one place is asking for it!”

  5. Cut them some slack, you guys. This is way harder than busting people for displaying marijuana in public after you tell them to empty their pockets. I’m sure they have top men on this.

    Top. Men.

  6. They still think men are supposed to protect women at all cost. There is still a belief that women are dainty, fragile things whose biological weakness will get them raped or worse. Tough to challenge that ancient assumption.

  7. Are you fucking kidding me.

    I can’t believe we’re STILL having these conversations. How many Slutwalks do we need before people stop telling us how to fucking dress.

  8. Appalling, but not surprising. I’m doing yet another criminal defense internship at the public defender’s office (I’m a third year law student) and I cannot go to the jail to visit clients without catching crap for some part of my wardrobe.

    And if they can’t find something disagreeable with my wardrobe they question whether or not I’m allowed to bring in my pen. Last night they alleged that they couldn’t really be sure if I was, in fact, working for the public defender’s office since I didn’t have a card with my bar number on it. Because, you know, I’m not yet an actual lawyer.

    As far as I can tell no one with a penis has to put up with a similar pile of crap just to speak with their clients. But apparently if one of the inmates assaults me while I’m at the jail, that will be totally my fault and not the fault of the deputies at the jail. Which, honestly, makes me nervous when I’m around the deputies not my clients.

  9. Gomi,

    I don’t think skirts are really uncommon enough to draw any sort of MO from. Also, repeated rhetorical questions like that cop used? Those are really no more than pointed attacks. If he was actually concerned that someone was unknowingly doing something that put them into the specific MO of a criminal, an actual helpful, respectful, ideal police officer-worthy response would be to offer to ensure said person gets home safely and to let them know the specific, not so-common-so-as-to-be-meaningless MO of the human garbage.

  10. P.T.Smith:
    Gomi,

    I don’t think skirts are really uncommon enough to draw any sort of MO from. Also, repeated rhetorical questions like that cop used? Those are really no more than pointed attacks. If he was actually concerned that someone was unknowingly doing something that put them into the specific MO of a criminal, an actual helpful, respectful, ideal police officer-worthy response would be to offer to ensure said person gets home safely and to let them know the specific, not so-common-so-as-to-be-meaningless MO of the human garbage.

    I agree. Like I said, the whole thing with the cop was BS.

  11. They still think men are supposed to protect women at all cost.

    No, this doesn’t have any more to do with protecting women than “chivalry” has to do with respecting women. If they wanted to protect women, then their actions would do something other than fashion policing, victim blaming, and slut shaming.

  12. Gomi:

    If a rapist (or mugger, or any other criminal) was targeting redheads, or short people, or people wearing purple, I think there’s a legitimate point to an officer warning someone who fits that specific profile that they might be at heightened danger from that specific criminal.If (and only if) this specific rapist is specifically targeting women in skirts, then that could be a legitimate warning, I think.

    There’s also a difference between saying “Oh hey, this guy is targeting redheads, so you may want to take extra precautions when you go out” and saying “This guy is targeting redheads so don’t you think you should dye your hair?”

  13. Andie: There’s also a difference between saying “Oh hey, this guy is targeting redheads, so you may want to take extra precautions when you go out” and saying “This guy is targeting redheads so don’t you think you should dye your hair?”

    Exactly.

  14. jose:
    I’m sure most cops are willing to defend the ten commandments more than the application of the law.

    This is a weird comment. Don’t get me wrong, I love hating on cops even more than the next guy, but I don’t really see the evidence that they’re aggressive defenders of Judeo-Christian values. They’re really just petty authoritarians who revel in the exerting of force. Doing door-to-doors to warm women about a rapist doesn’t get their juices flowing unless they can somehow bring a coercive element into it.

    But then maybe I just missed the news where they’ve been busting heads to keep the Sabbath holy and taking their truncheons to graven idols.

  15. rain: No, this doesn’t have any more to do with protecting women than “chivalry” has to do with respecting women.If they wanted to protect women, then their actions would do something other than fashion policing, victim blaming, and slut shaming.

    This. So Much.

  16. rain: No, this doesn’t have any more to do with protecting women than “chivalry” has to do with respecting women.If they wanted to protect women, then their actions would do something other than fashion policing, victim blaming, and slut shaming.

    Seriously. If they actually cared about protecting women, they’d focus their attention on the people hurting us. SILLY ME EXPECTING THEM TO MAKE SENSE THOUGH. And also to not be victim-blaming patriarchal fuckwads.

  17. “Cop: (points to my gym clothes) “Your shorts are pretty short.” (points at women’s dresses) “Kind of showing some skin. Do you think that might make this guy angry, think he can get easy access?””

    Clearly lots of people think this is out of line and objectionable, but am i the only one who thinks that these particular comments are actually harassing / actionable? I mean, “easy access?”

  18. Charity:
    “Cop: (points to my gym clothes) “Your shorts are pretty short.” (points at women’s dresses) “Kind of showing some skin. Do you think that might make this guy angry, think he can get easy access?””

    Clearly lots of people think this is out of line and objectionable, but am i the only one who thinks that these particular comments are actually harassing / actionable?I mean, “easy access?”

    Yeah, that line squicked me out.. I think if I had been on the receiving end of that comment, I’d be eyeing the cop sideways. I can almost visualize an exaggerated ‘up-down’ with that statement. *shudders*

  19. Just for the lols… WHAT can I wear, so I wouldn’t be targeted/harassed?

    Because let’s check what I can’t.
    Skirts.
    Shorts.
    Revealing clothes.
    Baggy clothes.
    Burqas. (I am referring to the several rapes of women in Saudi Arabia)
    Pants.
    No pants.
    Dresses.
    Costumes.

    So…
    What exactly can I wear?
    And where can I go since:

    On the street is dangerous.
    As well as public places where people go to have fun.
    As well as restaurants, bars, cinemas.
    In your home, because home intrusion.

    Just be honest police people… say that we just have to stop being women, having ladyparts and existing and it will figure out things nicely…
    RIGHT?

  20. What really puts me in a fightin’ mood is how these nimrods are the first to say that we shouldn’t give in to terror tactics, as long as those terror tactics aren’t gendered. Because giving in is for PUSSIES! As soon as it involves the magic combination of women and rape, though, they’re all primed and ready to blame you for refusing to curtail every enjoyable thing about your life because some psychopath is holding the threat of violence over your head.

    Brb, off to punch a wall

  21. cops are all about this shit. i was out at 2 am and i was walking down the middle of the street cause no cars, and a cop pulls me over and tells me to go home, and he is like also its 2am, don’t walk around ucity because its dangerous. and i was like yeah, it was so dangerous that you had time to drag me over, check my pockets, make me sit on your car, and you got another cop to come watch you do it. but its just so dangerous, which is why it was only 2 cops. the other 6 cop cars and tha paddy wagon had to go to the park and break up 10 teenagers smoking weed and cuddling.
    sorta off topic, but vaguely related to, “if its so dangerous, shouldn’t you be out protecting people or something officer?”

  22. Matt: It’s to the point that I wonder if most school bullies become cops. Seriously, they are all about the bullying and could care less about the crimes- the NYPD is particularly good at covering up for officers who commit crimes.
    Alison: I’m beginning to think that women need to write off the justice system. We need to start getting violent and stop relying on worthless thug cops, lawyers and judges. Rape is the only crime that can be pinned on the victim, and that needs to be changed.

  23. Give it a rest, people. Reading this pile-on is annoying, even by the low standards of internet self-righteousness. I read this board often and typically like the content, but as a NYC resident (UES) I find this thread completely self-defeating for any person who wants a proactive and diligent law enforcement authority out there to protect people against heinous crimes like sexual assault/rape.

    I blame the commenters less than the author, who came up with this gem of overreaching stupidity:

    And yet I didn’t hear of one police officer stopping a bepantsed man and “simply pointing out that as part of the pattern.” Weird. I’m sure that was just a departmental oversight.

    Because, dummy, the rapist is going after WOMEN who wear shorts. If the cop did nothing and there was danger he would be accused of apathy by the same hens on this board, and I would find that rage completely justified.

    The cop was just passing along a warning. An “I don’t give a shit” cop would ignore it and let the woman who was dressing per the patterned profile of a typical vic in that neighborhood. My read is that conversation happened with the cop’s heart and sense of duty in the right place.

    Granted, this cop maybe could have said what he said with a little more sensitivity. However, NYC is not a small liberal arts college campus in the late 90’s, it’s a place where bad things happen to innocent people all the time. You live in Brooklyn, human cops who speak frankly are part of it’s charm. If you don’t particularly like that, move a little earlier to the gated community or suburb where you will eventually wind up.

    IMO, get over it. Save this clucking for when the NYPD really does something wrong like pepper spray someone unjustly, or shoot someone like 40 times for reaching for their wallet, or look the other way at a passerby heading towards avoidable damage.

    -M

  24. I don’t see what the big deal is. Where I live the police have been recommending people to refrain from wearing expensive jewellery in order to avoid muggings. It’s pretty obvious that people showing off their bling-bling/bodies will be at an increased risk of getting mugged/raped, so the advice makes sense to me.

  25. Assuming the rapist is targeting women in shorts, then the Cop was being sensible by warning someone about it. He should have been a heck of a lot more diplomatic about it. Part of the job of a Cop is interfacing with the community, and much of what he said doesn’t help. Of course, if the profile is really short SKIRTS, then the guy was just being stupid on a few levels and not helpful.

    I think dress is a little different than hair color here, as it is easier to change what you wear. Either way, it is worth warning about it and advising people to take precautions.

    I think it is certainly possible if you have a number of incidents to have a profile that includes what sort of things victims were wearing. Patterns can be recognized here and the police do have people highly trained at this sort of thing — and these are different people than the majority of the ones in uniform on the streets, so don’t judge them by the potentially idiotic behavior of one guy.

    Of course, rapists who tend to target a specific profile will vary a lot on what that profile is, such as women dressed in long sleeves and a long skirt, or in pants or whatever. I don’t think it would be out of line for the police to issue an advisory about those and recommend that people wear something else if such a person was on the lose. That combined with secretly placing female cops undercover matching the profile could help catch the perp.

    There’s a big difference between this sort of thing about a specific rapist that is attacking women and a general recommendation against wearing certain clothes at all times. The former makes sense as a temporary measure until the attacks stop or the rapist is caught. The latter is just idiotic. Let’s not confuse the two distinct situations.

  26. Okay, let me lay this out. I live in the neighborhood where the majority of attacks have occurred. One of the June attacks was caught on video (major trigger warning for that) and showed a woman wearing pants manage to fight of the attacker. And yet I have attended community meetings during which the representatives from the 72nd NYPD precinct claimed that every woman who was attacked was wearing a skirt. So there’s the MAJOR issue that there have been misstatements by the police.

    There’s also the fact that even if every single woman who was attacked was wearing a skirt or shorts, these attacks happened during summer, when it is often hot in NYC, so most people will wear things that expose a bit more of their bodies. So you have the issue of causality vs. coincidence. If 90% of women (that’s a guesstimate and not at all scientific) are wearing skirts/shorts, then it is not surprising that such a high number of women being attacked also happen to be wearing skirts/shorts.

    And besides the obvious issue that women are attacked everywhere on the face of the earth regardless of what they are wearing, there is the issue of what good does this do? Do the people who were attacked while wearing skirts need to be shamed for doing so? Should they have to constantly second guess their decision for wearing a certain outfit that day? These are real people. These are my neighbors.

    I’m a born-and-(mostly)-raised New Yorker. I know how New Yorkers are, because I am one. I know how cops here talk, because I’ve talked to them. And if I thought they were being helpful, then I wouldn’t complain. But this is not helpful. What are we supposed to do? Stop wearing skirts or shorts? Is that some sort of solution? Doesn’t sound very New York to me. And what about the fact that I heard the Deputy Inspector from the 72nd precinct state that all those attacks were “petite”? Should petite women stop being petite? Or just never go outdoors?

    And this is just part of a larger conversation about the NYPD. If you’ve been a habitual reader of this blog, then you are probably know that by now. If you aren’t, then I suggest you read older posts and maybe it will make you realize why this is an issue.

  27. I typically agree with most of the points and observations on this blog about the NYPD. However, this thread is notable for its lack of self-awareness of its own stupidity on its larger conversation about the NYPD. I’ll say again that some of the points made during that provocative “larger conversation” were well-stated and valid; persisting with this one is misguided and unworthy of past explorations.

    Specifically, there are four problems I see re the offended shorts- wearing victim, the author, and most of the peanut gallery here:

    1. NYPD is far from perfect, but it is not entirely composed of straight male sexists who clock in for a testosterone frat-party with guns and clubs. That blanket assumption started from the author and the victim, and bleeds into most comments.

    2. The author and most comments threw the foul flag based on anecdotal information. The normally intelligent tone of this blog should aim to avoid the mistakes jumping to conclusions without any evidence…see Sen Joe McCarthy, Tawana Brawley, DSK, etc. It’s just dumb and infantile. You all are better than that, reserve judgements for when enough facts have been presented.

    3. Hate to break it to you, but not everything that involves gender issue is a malicious attempt to undermine sometime. The NYPD just said what a person with common sense would want to know. If some lunatic woman fugitive was shooting fat guys with Yankees hats after Yankees games I bet the fat lobby wouldn’t be critical of the Deputy Commissioner for warning overweight guys to avoid the Bronx tonight.

    4. Most importantly, reasonable people have an obligation to save criticism for matters that are actual problems….we need to save the bullets in the criticism gun for matters like the 500 arrests tonight where I am sure there will be legitimate cases where the NYPD did not act admirably. Normally intelligent people bitching about dumb unverified crap erodes the power of the voices of true reformers.

  28. Does anybody have a bar of soap in the house?

    Nahida:
    Are you fucking kidding me.

    I can’t believe we’re STILL having these conversations. How many Slutwalks do we need before people stop telling us how to fucking dress.

  29. The three guys in the photos would be in serious trouble if they walked around the area that I live in dressed like that. In fact, even if they had long pants they would be in trouble.

  30. Where I live, police sometimes remind people not to have their wallets, phones or other valuables in easy-to-reach places or pockets when they are in large crowds (e.g. public transport) to avoid pickpockets. Now I obviously have a right to keep my wallet in my bag, and obviously the best solution would be that the police catch all pickpockets, and of course I wouldn’t be responsible for having my wallet stolen even if I keep it in reach for anybody, but I can prevent it from happening by keeping it somewhere safe. And so, I don’t take the police’s warning as an intrusion to my personal life and habits, I’m glad they are doing their work by warning people of a possible danger (while I’m sure doing everything to catch thieves as well).

  31. “4. Most importantly, reasonable people have an obligation to save criticism for matters that are actual problems….we need to save the bullets in the criticism gun…”

    Ha,ha,ha. For someone who purports to read this blog regularly, this is a fucking rookie mistake. Criticism isn’t a finite resource nor is it a zero-sum game. If you can’t see how the issue of even ONE NYPD officer engaging in victim-blaming or intimidating a group of women into staying inside / implying they are dressed like rape bait (when that concept is INHERENTLY PROBLEMATIC) is a perfectly legitimate issue for the authors and readers of this blog to discuss, move the fuck along.

  32. Where I live, police sometimes remind people not to have their wallets, phones or other valuables in easy-to-reach places or pockets when they are in large crowds (e.g. public transport) to avoid pickpockets. Now I obviously have a right to keep my wallet in my bag, and obviously the best solution would be that the police catch all pickpockets, and of course I wouldn’t be responsible for having my wallet stolen even if I keep it in reach for anybody, but I can prevent it from happening by keeping it somewhere safe. And so, I don’t take the police’s warning as an intrusion to my personal life and habits, I’m glad they are doing their work by warning people of a possible danger (while I’m sure doing everything to catch thieves as well).

    1) There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that wearing shorts or skirts increases a woman’s likelihood of being raped. The same cannot be said of keeping one’s wallet in a secure, zippered pocket. Your analogy fails.

    2) My body has nothing in common with my wallet. Rape is nothing like being pickpocketed. Your analogy fails.

    3) Where, precisely, am I supposed to keep my vagina so that it will be safe?

    4) Women are aware of the danger of being raped. We don’t need street harassment from cops to be made aware of it.

  33. It’s pretty obvious that people showing off their bling-bling/bodies will be at an increased risk of getting mugged/raped, so the advice makes sense to me.

    By “people,” I assume you mean “women”? Because this kind of advice is never given to men who take their shirts off in public or wear bicycle shorts. Why is this? Well, because it’s mostly women who get raped. Being a woman is a much larger risk factor than wearing a short skirt. Should we all get gender reassignment surgery?

    By the way, any evidence for the “obvious” notion that women “showing off” their bodies (because, of course, a woman wearing shorts or a skirt is doing so to “show off”) are at increased risk for rape? At all?

    A man is the criminal here, not a woman. Why isn’t the cop stopping random men and interrogating them as to their whereabouts? Oh, right. Because that would be a waste of time and an intrusion on their rights. Good thing women don’t have those things.

  34. Marco: However, this thread is notable for its lack of self-awareness of its own stupidity on its larger conversation about the NYPD.

    It’s funny that you say that, because I thought the exact same thing about your comment in particular. Utter lack of self-awareness of your own stupidity.

  35. And before someone gets on me for not engaging in a thoughtful manner, let me begin by saying a) I don’t give enough of a fuck to validate that kind of idiocy by engaging and b) all of EG. Also, all of everything women have been saying about this forever.

  36. Charity:
    “4. Most importantly, reasonable people have an obligation to save criticism for matters that are actual problems….we need to save the bullets in the criticism gun…”

    Ha,ha,ha.For someone who purports to read this blog regularly, this is a fucking rookie mistake.Criticism isn’t a finite resource nor is it a zero-sum game.If you can’t see how the issue of even ONE NYPD officer engaging in victim-blaming or intimidating a group of women into staying inside / implying they are dressed like rape bait (when that concept is INHERENTLY PROBLEMATIC) is a perfectly legitimate issue for the authors and readers of this blog to discuss, move the fuck along.

    Ah, thank you for summarizing my point.

    The reality of the world is if one wants to move criticism beyond the “this one/group is always bitching about something, so this can’t be a real issue”, one must be more selective about the issues they chose to champion. Who can tell a baby is really sick or hungry if it is always crying?

    A general bitching blog is not an uncommon on the internet. I tend to think from my reading of this blog that the people here are of a different breed, they take their mostly legitimate complaints to action and organize. Celebrating threads like this one- a anecdotal event that can be interpreted in a variety of ways hurt the overall ability of a good blog to matter. The endgame question is do you want this blog to matter or just be a part of disposable noise?

    So…..yes, Virginia, good criticism is a finite resource and should be used more selectively, or the criticizer erodes their own credibility. Even Fox News recognizes that:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/roger-ailes-fox-news-course-correction_n_980850.html

  37. ok, help me understand this: the cop is the jerk because he noticed that you might be provocatively dressed, possibly appealing to the rapist? i am not trying to be oppressive in any way but you do know that the rapists don’t wear shirts that say “rapist”, right? of course girls should be able to wear whatever they want. no question. but now you are mad at this particular officer for what he said? is it just for noticing that she was revealing legs or is there no way that a girl could imagine that it would turn on an already sick individual? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

  38. Marco: Dude, let me break it down for you, since you are apparently unable to get the gist without it being spoonfed to you. This is about cops, in one of the U.S.’s largest cities, tsking and pre-emptively victim-blaming women instead of doing their damn job, which ought to be keeping everyone safe. If this entry isn’t legitimate criticism, what is?
    And as other commenters have said, you might wanna do a bit of reading about the NYPD’s misbehavior before you shoot off your cop-loving mouth again. So do a bit of digging, and then do a bit of thinking, mmmkay?

  39. Yikes, wonder who linked to this post.

    Marco: The reality of the world is if one wants to move criticism beyond the “this one/group is always bitching about something, so this can’t be a real issue”, one must be more selective about the issues they chose to champion. Who can tell a baby is really sick or hungry if it is always crying?

    Gee whiz, I don’t know… maybe women keep on about the same issue because it hasn’t gone away.

  40. Marco: The reality of the world is if one wants to move criticism beyond the “this one/group is always bitching about something, so this can’t be a real issue”, one must be more selective about the issues they chose to champion. Who can tell a baby is really sick or hungry if it is always crying?

    *yawn* If you’re going to toll, you really need some better style. Read some stuff by “Well…” far more hilarious. Comparing women to crying babies is so 1800s.

  41. Kristen J.: *yawn*If you’re going to toll, you really need some better style.Read some stuff by “Well…” far more hilarious.Comparing women to crying babies is so 1800s.

    Also: Whores. (I forget who that was, but he was pretty hilarious as well… or the reaction to him was.)

  42. Listen. I live in Germany. I’m an American. If there’s someone running around killing Americans in Germany, do I expect the consulate to tell me that I might want to speak in German outside my house? Sure I do! Do they do it? Of course. It’s their friggin’ job.

    What’s missing now is for someone to get attacked and blame the police because “They knew and they didn’t tell us.”

    What y’all are doing is creating an atmosphere in which the police stop liking the people they’re protecting. And that’ll go over well for us, won’t it.

  43. 1. NYPD is far from perfect, but it is not entirely composed of straight male sexists who clock in for a testosterone frat-party with guns and clubs. That blanket assumption started from the author and the victim, and bleeds into most comments.

    I’m sure that a lot of men joined the Klan because it was a major social institution, offered camaraderie, and created an opportunity for advancement by being connected to major members of their community. Still, even if you don’t especially hate Jews/Catholics/Immigrants/Blacks/Communists/Whatever, once you’ve pulled on the hood and gassed up the ol’ cross you’re responsible.

  44. Wrong – good criticism is not a finite resource. It takes skill and intellect, which is why you are failing at it. Bye-bye Marco.

  45. Oh for fuck’s sake, not another of these morons. People are not more likely to be raped if they are scantily clad. This idea is a myth that has been repeatedly debunked. Women cannot escape rape by wearing dumpy sweatsuits all the time, or by never leaving the house. The implication of this argument is that rapists are somehow triggered into some kind of rape mode upon seeing harlots walking down the streets. And even if one could personally avoid rape by wearing a burlap sack everywhere, the kind of rapist that targets strangers on the street will simply move along to the next victim. This police harassment would do nothing to lower the rate of rapes – the buck would simply be passed to those less fortunate to have received the advice.

    Besides which – even if this shit were true, do you not even care about the burden you are placing on (potential) victims of crime, to basically command them to curtail everything free and joyful about their lives so they can avoid being attacked? Why not send the cops out to catch actual criminals, or nag men to keep a close eye on their buddies so they don’t rape anyone?

  46. “Thank you for being out here, but I would really prefer if you caught the criminal.”
    “Thank you for warning me about the dangers of UV radiation, but I would really prefer if you cured skin cancer.”

  47. Lots of cognitive disonance around.. Yes, you shouldn’t be targeted by a rapist if you wear something provocative and yes you should be free of wearing the clothing you desire BUT if you do and walk a dangerous area then you are exposing yourself and that’s call being stupid. Should you be accounted for your stupidity? that is a YES, the same way I shouldn’t walk in a dark dangerous nighborhood and expect that thieves wont target me. Is just being logical (but we know that a logical feminist is an oxymoron)

  48. Wow, reading comprehension has really slid in the age of everyone being their own publisher. People would rather yell their own opinion then read the complete information to get that opinion clearly. I blame the “I must be heard” modern diet of Facebook and the Kardashians.

    The Accused was made 20 years ago…..why are you all inserting the word “deserves” in what that cop said to shorts lady, as in, “women who wear outfits with skin visible deserve to be raped”. That’s the missing link here to all the venom, and if that cop or NYPD said that or even implied that, I would zealously agree with you all. But I see nothing in what the cop said fitting that editorial. That’s the issue here, isn’t it? The cop didn’t imply any issue by his, “you’re showing skin, [based on the pattern of this] don’t you think it would make him [angry/excited]”. He was referring to a specific profile of a series of sexually based assaults, not his or the NYPD’s general view on the horror and the assignment of guilt of that.

    I’m neither troll nor rocket surgeon, but the grand generalizations above are more indicative of ignorance than anything I’ve written. I bet if you asked 100 women in the area of those rapes if they appreciated the heads up by the NYPD in this matter most would say yes, especially since the policing when this first started happening was abysmal. Of course, the most of the enlightened womanhood on this board would roll their eyes and call those women antiquated and grossly misinformed that they’ve just been insulted. You’re criticizing a cop giving a (perhaps unartful) public service announcement, pretty much the opposite of “harassment”…. they were apparently too busy harassing the Wall Street Occupiers. On an unrelated note, how many enjoyed cantalope this weekend with brunch?

    I’m sure you can use all your powers to find an actual fact-based recent incident where the media, law enforcement, or judicial powers that be outright say or imply that a woman “deserved” to be raped because of the clothes she wore, or the amount of booze she drank, or she stood too close to a pinball machine, or because she went to her ex-boyfriends house at 2am. As ever, my point is, save this righteous rage for that.

    -M

  49. You’re the one who needs to brush up on his reading comprehension. The nice women- and gentleman- have already explained it to you.The cop’s remark ‘you’re showing a lot of skin” is, in fact preemptive victim blaming? It’s the same thing as saying ‘she deserved to get raped if she was wearing THAT.’
    I forgot to add, the cop’s not ‘unartful,’ he’s just straight up creepy. And I’m sure that your ‘100s’ of women would all agree on that.
    Jill, can we get the banhammer out here? I first read Marco as ‘average clueless dude’ but he’s just trolling.

  50. Hey, Marco, I used the handy search function in my browser and it seems that the word “deserve” and its derivations appear only in your comment! Weird huh?

    Marco: The Accused was made 20 years ago…..why are you all inserting the word “deserves” in what that cop said to shorts lady, as in, “women who wear outfits with skin visible deserve to be raped”.

    I mean, it’s almost as if you lack reading comprehension or something…

  51. Obviously you should be keeping your vagina in your FRONT pocket rather than your back. Duh. Otherwise it’s totes your fault when you get raped. Also, skirts.

    Also, mugging!!!! Just like rape!!!!

  52. Shitty Verse for a Shitty Argument

    Wow, reading comprehension has really slid in the age of everyone being their own publisher. People would rather yell their own opinion then read the complete information to get that opinion clearly. I blame the “I must be heard” modern diet of Facebook and the Kardashians.

    Opening salvo with comments that mock
    The fears of the Luddite and those without cock
    Do you, my dear Marco, mean to suggest
    That truth flows from age or hair on your chest?

    The Accused was made 20 years ago…..why are you all inserting the word “deserves” in what that cop said to shorts lady, as in, “women who wear outfits with skin visible deserve to be raped”. That’s the missing link here to all the venom, and if that cop or NYPD said that or even implied that, I would zealously agree with you all.

    “If only they argued about what I see
    For with myself I would gladly agree”
    Or does this thrashing strike any but me
    As defense of the poor NYPD?

    That’s the issue here, isn’t it? The cop didn’t imply any issue by his, “you’re showing skin, [based on the pattern of this] don’t you think it would make him [angry/excited]“. He was referring to a specific profile of a series of sexually based assaults, not his or the NYPD’s general view on the horror and the assignment of guilt of that.

    The flaw in your construction of events
    Is that our porcine friend misrepresents
    Not only that skirts, not shorts, have incensed
    But the gen’ral shit that it represents

    I’m neither troll nor rocket surgeon, but the grand generalizations above are more indicative of ignorance than anything I’ve written. I bet if you asked 100 women in the area of those rapes if they appreciated the heads up by the NYPD in this matter most would say yes, especially since the policing when this first started happening was abysmal.

    “At least they’re doing something” you protest
    As if any action should have impressed
    Upon us the moral righteousness
    Of paternalist thugs paid to oppress

    Of course, the most of the enlightened womanhood on this board would roll their eyes and call those women antiquated and grossly misinformed that they’ve just been insulted.

    Your true voice rings clear through crude perfidy
    A friendly stance masks old misogyny
    I just wish your seeming cryptorchidy
    Didn’t interfere with your clarity

    You’re criticizing a cop giving a (perhaps unartful) public service announcement, pretty much the opposite of “harassment”…. they were apparently too busy harassing the Wall Street Occupiers. On an unrelated note, how many enjoyed cantalope this weekend with brunch?

    Who cares when we have bigger fish to fry?
    Why can’t you whores attend to what this guy
    Thinks is of greater import and deny
    The artless comments of chivalry’s cry?

    I’m sure you can use all your powers to find an actual fact-based recent incident where the media, law enforcement, or judicial powers that be outright say or imply that a woman “deserved” to be raped because of the clothes she wore, or the amount of booze she drank, or she stood too close to a pinball machine, or because she went to her ex-boyfriends house at 2am

    Your mouth is open but your ears are shut
    And frankly you’re almost not worth rebut
    This 101 shit seems always a glut
    I wonder why here you needed to tut

    As ever, my point is, save this righteous rage for that.

    Who the fuck are you to tell anyone
    Where, when, why, or how hot their rage should come?
    Or that any critique is overdone
    Of cops who tell women to dress like nuns?

    -M

    We worked out who you were from the name at the top of your post, jackwagon.

  53. annnnnnnd…I just spat my coffee at the screen. Bravo.

    (not so sure about the “those without cock,” bit, even if it is a funny rhyme.)

  54. William: Your takedowns are always things of beauty. I wish this blog had a ‘like’ button.

  55. Carlos E: BUT if you do and walk a dangerous area then you are exposing yourself and that’s call being stupid.

    Statistically speaking, the majority of rapes occur in a home and are committed by someone the victim knows.

    By your logic, it’s WAY more stupid to be in a home, or to be around people you know.

  56. ok, help me understand this: the cop is the jerk because he noticed that you might be provocatively dressed, possibly appealing to the rapist?…is it just for noticing that she was revealing legs or is there no way that a girl could imagine that it would turn on an already sick individual? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

    I really do not know how I can explain this any more clearly than I already have to Emerson, Marco, and Carlos, so I’m going to try all caps. For those of you who already know, I apologize.

    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE INDICATING THAT WOMEN WHO DRESS REVEALINGLY ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE RAPED. NONE. It is, therefore, not like speaking German in public so as to avoid being killed by a German killer targeting Americans. It is not like putting on sunscreen. Why is it not like these things? BECAUSE COVERING YOURSELF IN A HEAD-TO-TOE SACK DOES NOT PREVENT RAPISTS FROM RAPING YOU. Rapists do not rape because they are super-turned-on by the sight of a strange woman’s knees. EVEN THIS PARTICULAR RAPIST HAS ATTACKED TWO WOMEN WEARING PANTS.

    Further, the cop’s statements are offensive also because they imply that WOMEN ARE NOT ALREADY AWARE OF THE RISK OF RAPE AND TAKING ALL REASONABLE STEPS TO PROTECT OURSELVES. Trust me. We know about rape. We think about the chances of being raped. We take steps–ALL THE TIME–we take steps to maximize our safety. If we are doing something that you think is risky, it’s either because expecting us not to do it is unreasonable (alcohol is a very common social bonding tool, and drinking it is fun, and expecting women to forego it all the time is absurd) or because it is not actually risky (WEARING SHORT SKIRTS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT A MAN CHOOSES TO RAPE YOU.)

  57. Everyone remember that case a little while back where the judge decided that it couldn’t have been rape because the woman was wearing skinny jeans and there was no way she could have gotten them off herself (despite the fact that she obviously does every time she wears them or uses the bathroom) so therefor she must have willingly assisted in the removal of the pants?

    In that case the judge decided that there was absolutely no “easy access” so it just must not have been rape! So tight pants? Couldn’t have been rape! Skirt or shorts? Easy access, rape target! What, exactly, are we supposed to wear?

  58. Chava: I’ll admit its iffy but the rhyme worked so damned well and, really, what are the chances Marco would be able to handle the blunter points of a trans* comment?

  59. William:
    Chava: I’ll admit its iffy but the rhyme worked so damned well and, really, what are the chances Marco would be able to handle the blunter points of a trans* comment?

    To be fair, Marco probably doesn’t have warmer fuzzies for any of the cockless, however that category is defined.

  60. To be fair, Marco probably doesn’t have warmer fuzzies for any of the cockless, however that category is defined.

    Nor, I’d wager, the unexpectedly becocked…but that could just be a result of them falling into the generally unrespectable “Not Marco” category.

  61. William:
    Chava: I’ll admit its iffy but the rhyme worked so damned well and, really, what are the chances Marco would be able to handle the blunter points of a trans* comment?

    I’m glad you are proud of your verse. I thought the rhyme was clever if a tad clumsy at parts, but hey, there’s only one Noel Coward….and countless bad imitators. Aside from the verse I don’t really understand what you write, specifically the whole “cock” or “cockless” word obsession you have. I assume it is meant to be an insult toward me, but I am either stupid or not enough of a regular to get the probable inside joke attempted here.

    I am still perplexed how posters keep on harping the false mini-skirt = rape hypothesis. This is a silly thing to keep commenting on, when even Indonesia, a country not known for its progressive views on gender, conceded that point:

    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/216263/20110919/indonesia-jakarta-skirts-clothing-rape-protest-governor-islam.htm

    No, I don’t think women should be wrapped in burlap sacks and never drink and stay at home alone to avoid being raped. This thread is about unfair criticism; I still believe that the NYPD’s intent here was not to further bad criminology re rape victims but to legitimately warn women in that area of behavior the perpetrator seemed to be attracted to. People are free to complain about whatever they want, my opinion is that this is a dumb thing to complain about and places intent and a mindset that was probably not there.

    Typically this blog has a sardonic tone, not a satirical one. Difference is that things with sardonic tones have a mocking bite but with greater basis in fact, whereas satire is essentially fiction with thinner ties to reality. Both can be effective tools to making a point, but satire can quickly sink into non-credibility. Too much satire will degrade this blog to the point of ridiculousness….look how close are some of the above comments are to this piece of obvious satire, which basically mocks the notion put forth by the author of this post:

    http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/39001/nypd-orders-women-not-to-wear-skirts/

    Who do you think this piece is making fun of? Yes, the clumsy NYPD…but also blogs like this, and modern feminism in general- eroding credibility and making this serious danger an acceptable target for mocking. Do you like that? Is this where you want to go on this blog? Let’s not forget that this is an open case and the suspect here is still at-large, and hyperbole and conjuncture can actually be harmful at this stage.

  62. Marco: Aside from the verse I don’t really understand what you write, specifically the whole “cock” or “cockless” word obsession you have. I assume it is meant to be an insult toward me, but I am either stupid or not enough of a regular to get the probable inside joke attempted here.

    He’s saying that you don’t respect women. It’s not so much an inside joke as, you know, a joke about the hilarious levels of sexism seeping from your commentary. I can see how it would be confusing to you though.

    Marco: This thread is about unfair criticism

    Actually, it’s about cops and rape culture. Your comments are about “unfair criticism”. And also, you know, how women be “harping”. Fortunately, there are other people in this corner of the internet than you.

    Marco: Too much satire will degrade this blog to the point of ridiculousness

    This is what is generally referred to as “concern trolling”. You may want to google that. While you’re at it, also look up “mansplaining”. Take as long as you need. Or longer. I promise we’ll be ok without you.

  63. Who do you think this piece is making fun of? Yes, the clumsy NYPD…but also blogs like this, and modern feminism in general- eroding credibility and making this serious danger an acceptable target for mocking. Do you like that? Is this where you want to go on this blog?

    Mainstream media sources have mocked and denigrated feminist thought and activism for as long as there has been feminist thought and activism. They made fun of us when we wanted to vote, when we wanted to get equal pay for equal work, when we wanted birth control. Saying that we should and can tailor our thought and activism in order make sure that doesn’t happen is like saying that we should and can tailor our appearance and behavior in order make sure men stop raping us. It. Does. Not. Work.

    I still believe that the NYPD’s intent here was not to further bad criminology re rape victims but to legitimately warn women in that area of behavior the perpetrator seemed to be attracted to.

    You, like many people who have no clue what they’re talking about when they talk about racism, sexism, rape culture, etc., seem to think that it is intention that matters. It’s not. It’s what people do and the effect it has on the people to whom they do it.

    I am still perplexed how posters keep on harping the false mini-skirt = rape hypothesis. This is a silly thing to keep commenting on

    Yes, why do these silly women keep harping on that? Oh, right, BECAUSE THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT A COP TELLING WOMEN TO AVOID WEARING SHORTS AND SHORT SKIRTS IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING RAPED. And that is an issue because cops and officials internationally have apparently not gotten the memo about it being a conceded point until women make a big-ass fuss about it. That is, in fact, the topic of the thread. I know that’s a disappointment to you, that you’d like it to be the “let’s all discuss Marco’s priorities for feminism” thread, but in fact, it is not.

    Let’s not forget that this is an open case and the suspect here is still at-large, and hyperbole and conjuncture can actually be harmful at this stage.

    Ooooh, ladies, a rapist is still at large! We, with our little lady-brains, are constantly forgetting about the danger of rape and that a rapist is still at large! It’s amazing how women, being the vast majority of targets of sexual assault on adults, can so often get our priorities mixed up concerning rape. Why, I bet I often go minutes, sometimes even hours, at a time without thinking about rape and what I can do to protect myself. Thank goodness a man is here to remind us.

    Dude, we know. Also? This rapist? HAS ATTACKED TWO WOMEN WEARING PANTS. So the person spreading dangerous conjecture is this cop.

  64. Marco:

    Reread the thread. Then go back and read it again. Then give it a third read just to be really sure you’re not missing anything. Pay special attention to posts 34, 35, 68, and 79. If you’re still having some trouble (I totes get it, its tough to pay attention to what women are saying because their vaginas cause all sorts of weird interference and echo effects, even on the internet) then I’ll try to explain things to you…you know…man to man…or something. We’ll do the secret handshake and I’ll bring my penis possession forms (cause god knows we wouldn’t want to have to verify penis possession visually, that’d be all gay and stuff) and then I can try to clarify what these hysterical women are trying to say thats getting lost under the din of their wandering uteruses. Uteri?

  65. For everyone else:

    I get that some women have penises and some do not have vaginas or uteruses. Think of the essentialist and biological language in the above post as rolling with Marco’s level of intellectual sophistication.

  66. Marco,

    This man has attacked women wearing pants. And yet cops are not telling women to stop wearing pants. This man has not, as far as I know, attacked women wearing shorts. And yet cops are telling women to stop wearing shorts. The advice that cops are giving women is not based on evidence of a specific attacker’s habits. It’s based on the stereotypes that those cops hold about attackers and victims. Those are the same stereotypes that cause people to think that you’re only at risk if you’re dressing provocatively — a demonstrably untrue assumption that affirmatively reduces how safe women are.

    Even if there was evidence that this man was exclusively attacking women in, say, miniskirts, that would not make it okay for cops to approach random women on the street to tell them that they should cover up. It’s one thing to publish information saying “here is what we know about these crimes.” It is another thing to go up to random people who are minding their own business in public and suggest they put on more clothing. No cop walks around a neighborhood where a number of cars have been stolen telling random people on the street that they should really put a club on their steering wheel. No cop walks around a neighborhood where there has been a series of muggings telling random people not to carry iPods because the mugger has stolen a couple of them. And yet every time there is a series of sexual assaults somewhere, there are a bunch of helpful cops telling women who didn’t ask their advice that they should really think about how they dress.

    Why do you think that only happens with sexual assault? Seriously, I’m asking. Because I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it’s always said to women. And I have a feeling that the people who defend this kind of helpful advice — people like you — would be pretty pissed off if there were a series of violent muggings of men in your neighborhood and suddenly a number of cops were standing around the neighborhood telling any man who walked by in a t-shirt “that’s a little revealing, isn’t it?” and “you better cover up, muggers like to attack guys in t-shirts because they can see whether you look like you could fight back.”

    And if you don’t think that would piss you off, if you think that just sounds like a well-meaning attempt to make people safer, then maybe you should consider the fact that cops (and society as a whole) have a pretty fucked up history with sexual assault — telling women it’s their fault, refusing to believe it can happen to certain kinds of people, prosecuting it at much lower levels than other crimes — and that shit like that continues today. This anger is not happening in a vacuum. If every day someone came up to you on the street, told you that you were showing too much skin, slapped you across the face, and said “that’s for showing too much skin,” you’re going to not believe them the day they come up to you and say “don’t you think you’re showing too much skin? I’m just trying to help!”*

    * Note: this is a metaphor. I am not suggesting that cops literally go around slapping people because of their outfits on a daily basis. Just wanted to be clear, since you’re all about precision with language.

  67. Esti:
    Marco,

    Even if there was evidence that this man was exclusively attacking women in, say, miniskirts, that would not make it okay for cops to approach random women on the street to tell them that they should cover up.It’s one thing to publish information saying “here is what we know about these crimes.”It is another thing to go up to random people who are minding their own business in public and suggest they put on more clothing. No cop walks around a neighborhood where a number of cars have been stolen telling random people on the street that they should really put a club on their steering wheel.No cop walks around a neighborhood where there has been a series of muggings telling random people not to carry iPods because the mugger has stolen a couple of them.

    Here is are examples of cops doing exactly that:
    http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-08-31/news/30114118_1_subways-grand-larcenies-cell-phones

    http://www.dnainfo.com/20110728/washington-heights-inwood/dont-text-walk-police-warn-new-campaign

    I don’t think that petty theft and rape should be treated with the same standards, and I agree that the cop was wrong in the way he told this random shorts wearing woman that she was a target, a proper press release is the best, p.c., arms-length way to get the word out…but isn’t half-assed policing a larger problem when it comes to sexual assault/rape? Standard policing is bringing a criminal to justice after a crime has been committed. Good policing is warning the potential victim before it may happen.

    I’m going to leave it at that, lest I be accused again of being a concern troll.

  68. You…haven’t been reading, have you, Marco? It would be inappropriate for the cops to issue a press release saying that women should avoid wearing short skirts because the rapist has attacked women wearing pants.

    Half-assed policing is part of rape culture, and based on the notion that women themselves are responsible for and can control men’s sexual assaults on them. This idea is incorrect. Correcting a cop who perpetuates it is part of stopping half-assed policing.

  69. Here is are examples of cops doing exactly that:

    I’ll tell you the same thing I told the cop who had the cheek to tell me I shouldn’t use my cellphone in public because people target iphones: call your local FOP and ask them to back off on concealed carry bans if you care so much about me being the victim of a crime. You don’t prevent crimes by making victims avoidant because all that does is force a criminal to either find another victim or adjust their MO. This rapist has already shown that he’ll rape someone in pants, that tells us that skirts aren’t really a central part of the crime here. Even if skirts were, shorts are not skirts. What happened was that a cop used a series of rapes in the neighborhood as a means of policing the clothing choices of local women. This wasn’t a poor means of protecting women from rape, it was a pretense for paternalism. You can dance around it all you want, it just shows that you’re a fan of the same song.

  70. Paternalism? C’mon…we live in a state, the state tells people what to do, men and women alike. The cop didn’t tell the woman what to wear. This is a part of our social contract. If you don’t subscribe to it, get rid of all the comforts of society and then no one can tell you what to do.

    William, I’ve followed your logic through most of your posts but to me you landed square in Ridiculoustan with the NRA crap. Stats show that crime in NYC is on the downswing with strict gun laws in place. Back off a concealed weapons ban in NYC to prevent petty thievery? Are you crazy?…..No thanks. That gives police power to a wide scope of people, and all of a sudden a purse snatcher will get the death penalty. More guns in highly populated areas would do more harm than good. You may be passable at silly verse but you suck at reality.

  71. 1) I’m not a New York resident.
    2) The numbers don’t back you up.
    3) A purse snatcher is not the same as a rapist.
    4) A cop telling a woman wearing shorts that she should be aware that a man who has raped women wearing pants is targeting women wearing skirts is not protecting anyone.
    5) Bark about the social contract all you want, the sad reality is that we’re on our own when it comes to rape.

  72. Marco: No, good policing would be CATCHING THE DAMN RAPIST. But the NYPD has absolutely no interest in doing that when they can simply resort to slut shaming. Then again, a fair amount of them probably sympathize with the rapist.
    By the way, are you an NYPD officer? Or are you sleeping with one?

  73. This is a part of our social contract.

    Being harassed by a cop who tells me lies that reinforce rape culture is part of our social contract?

    That contract sucks, then. I’m willing to scrap it and take it back to the lawyers for a rewrite.

  74. William:
    1) I’m not a New York resident.

    I am not surprised. I sort of figured that out by the wacko carry/conceal gun thing in your post, which I hope was temporary insanity manifesting itself as complete tea party ignorance. BTW I notice the effort of making your writing clearer, I do appreciate it.

    2) The numbers don’t back you up.

    Yes they do. The states that have the most permissive gun laws (including conceal/carry) have the highest percentages of gun-related violent assault. Note the leaders- Texas, Arizona, South Carolina and Tennessee, which are basically Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem and Rome for the Gun Lobby.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

    3) A purse snatcher is not the same as a rapist.

    I agree, Rambo, but to a victim with a gun both crimes risk a de facto death penalty, and a risk for a purse snatching or a rape to turn into a murder.

    4) A cop telling a woman wearing shorts that she should be aware that a man who has raped women wearing pants is targeting women wearing skirts is not protecting anyone.

    I still disagree. Now its skirts vs shorts? I’m really tired of splitting hairs. I don’t think the NYPD was entirely wrong in their approach here, as heavy-handed and patriarchal as some may find it. I’m obviously not going to change anyone’s mind, so I’m moving on.

    5) Bark about the social contract all you want, the sad reality is that we’re on our own when it comes to rape.

    Women “harp”, but men “bark”…..eh Willie? You’re so totes enlightened. No doubt some victims of rape are mistreated by society and the law. The legal system for rape victims has come a long way but has much further to go.

  75. Politicalguineapig:
    By the way, are you an NYPD officer? Or are you sleeping with one?

    Neither. But for fair, full disclosure I am a NYC resident and have really nothing but positive experiences with the police. However, I am white, and male, and not poor.

    I also work in the South Bronx; I adore the area, but it has very high crime. Knowing that, sometimes there is nothing better than seeing a cop on the corner or in the subway if you have to work late. There have been many nights when a cop walked passed me on my stoop on the UES while I was smoking a joint and said/did nothing. I do understand this is not the experience of everyone.

    I am admittedly predisposed to give the NYPD the benefit of the doubt in some cases, like this one, where there is anecdotal evidence of a incident that, to me, seemed to stem- admittedly unartfully- from the public service area of their mission.

    So, in conclusion, if you have the number of a hot female member of the NYPD who’s not real big on this whole feminist trip but can dig annoying opinionated casual drug users please let me know.
    Thanks sweetie :^)

  76. Marco:
    Wow, reading comprehension has really slid in the age of everyone being their own publisher. People would rather yell their own opinion then read the complete information to get that opinion clearly. I blame the “I must be heard” modern diet of Facebook and the Kardashians.

    The irony, she be staggering, no?

  77. Marco: Neither. But for fair, full disclosure I am a NYC resident and have really nothing but positive experiences with the police. However, I am white, and male, and not poor.

    Hahaha! Believe me, we are all SHOCKED. Thanks to your happy circumstances, you probably have the best perspective on the police’s “intentions,” don’t you?

    I visit feminist blogs now and then; not regularly. Yet those occasional visits are enough to make me astounded by how often a man will interrupt a discussion like this, among women who are crying out over some injustice, and try to dismiss the whole thing.

    I’m not saying there cant be disagreement. But to aggressively jump into such a conversation and repeatedly insist that it is silly, that it, god forbid, misrepresents others’ intent, that it is foolish and overreactive….. I know that “mansplaining” is a difficult term to pin down, but this right here, your comments, Marco, are its definition.

    You – and many of the men who dive into discussions like this, derailing the conversation – sound threatened. What about this conversation threatens you so much?

  78. I am not surprised. I sort of figured that out by the wacko carry/conceal gun thing in your post, which I hope was temporary insanity manifesting itself as complete tea party ignorance. BTW I notice the effort of making your writing clearer, I do appreciate it.

    I’m a lifelong Chicago resident. The word “wacko” is ableist, as is comparing political views with which you disagree to insanity. Also, that neg isn’t likely to work too well, but I thought I should let you know that I Saw What You Did There.

    Yes they do. The states that have the most permissive gun laws (including conceal/carry) have the highest percentages of gun-related violent assault. Note the leaders- Texas, Arizona, South Carolina and Tennessee, which are basically Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem and Rome for the Gun Lobby.

    I’m not going to get pulled into a derail, I will point out DC and Chicago. I’ll also point out that crime, as a whole, is on the downswing nationwide even though just shy of 80% of states have shall issue. Finally, I could give two shits about your opinion because constitutional rights are constitutional rights and the court is pretty clearly going in our direction anyway. I don’t need to convince you.

    I agree, Rambo, but to a victim with a gun both crimes risk a de facto death penalty, and a risk for a purse snatching or a rape to turn into a murder.

    Ad hominem aside, I’m a sexual assault survivor. I have a right to protect myself. Your privilege does not factor in.

    Now its skirts vs shorts? I’m really tired of splitting hairs. I don’t think the NYPD was entirely wrong in their approach here, as heavy-handed and patriarchal as some may find it.

    If I told you, based on current risks, not to eat watermelons because of a salmonella risk I wouldn’t be protecting you if the threat was listeria and the risky fruit was cantaloupe. Pointing that out wouldn’t be splitting hairs. If you were black the mistake wouldn’t be likely to be an honest one, but one rooted in racism.

    Women “harp”, but men “bark”…..eh Willie? You’re so totes enlightened.

    You’re trying to be glib but failing. Barking isn’t long associated with men while I’ve never heard anyone but a woman described to harp. Dogs bark, its an aggressive display. I think you’ve got your hackles up because something in this discussion has subtly threatened your privilege. So you’re barking, to let us know that you’re the dangerous and that we should back off. As that fails you’re going from being conciliatory, to dismissive, to authoritative, and then finally to trying to copy the rhetoric and style of the people who aren’t taking your shit.

    Also, are you really trying to call misandry? Lemme get you a step stool to help you up on your cross.

    But for fair, full disclosure I am a NYC resident and have really nothing but positive experiences with the police. However, I am white, and male, and not poor.

    Theres a shocker…

  79. Here’s what I find fascinating: Marco is willing to go back and forth with William all day and night, but hasn’t actually deigned to respond to any of the ways I’ve argued against his points.

    I wonder why that might be.

    Let me think.

    Hmm.

  80. Marco: I am not your sweetie and I don’t even live in New York. Thank god. Of course you’ve had ‘nothing but positive experiences with police,’ you’re just like them. Even down to the rape-apologism.

  81. Most cops, as we know, are straight white males. Which explains why they have little to no sympathy for anyone who has a different chromosome set, and isn’t straight or white, just to make my comment above a little clearer.

  82. Marco:

    So, in conclusion, if you have the number of a hot female member of the NYPD who’s not real big on this whole feminist trip but can dig annoying opinionated casual drug users please let me know.
    Thanks sweetie :^)

    Please be ironic… please be ironic… please be ironic…

  83. EG:

    I don’t know what you’re insinuating, I’m sure theres just something so much more engaging about being mocked than engaged.

  84. Wait, William–I’m sorry, I can’t tell if you’re serious. I didn’t mean to bag on you, you know that, right?

  85. EG: Heh, I absolutely know that, I was just running with your mock confusion. Sometimes I really wish there was an html tag for smirking.

  86. I feel like the short skirts and shorts are an easy justification for cops and other people to use as a way to say that is why someone raped you. I’m sure the cop was just trying to protect the women but I don’t think he did it professionally. Pointing at people and telling them that what you are wearing is not safe and will increase the chance of you getting raped is rude especially since the women were wearing normal clothes. In some cases men rape women because they are turned on by what they are wearing but in most I believe that there is some physiological reason of why men rape. There has to be more to it than it was “easy access.” This post reminded me of the Ben Roethlisberger rape scandal. My mom’s coworker is a diehard Steelers fan and felt that Roethlisberger should not be blamed for the rape. She felt that is was solely the girls fault for wearing slutty clothes and drinking. Ridiculous.

  87. I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that this officer and most other people are blaming the action of being raped on the female who is the victim. Because a girl is in gym shorts and a sweaty nasty tshirt… she is to blame for her rape because she looks “scandalous”? That idea is absurd. Just because a woman is wearing a dress does not mean that any man should look at her and think that he should rape her because she looks revealing. Hell, if a woman is walking around naked for some odd reason that should still be no means give any man the idea that is it OK and acceptable to perform such a disgusting act.

  88. I for one have loved reading all of the posts on this wall, even Marcos which have obviously incited a great deal of discussion and ridicule which I have appreciated, regardless of whether all of the points made here were fair or justified, on each side of the arguments. The subject has made posters into everything including poets. Let’s not crucify Marco or accuse him (or anyone else for that matter) of being a concern troll. This is an open forum to share and discuss, and thanks to him some very valid, genuine points were made. It is important to hear those differing opinions and be challenged to counter them in a tactful, articulate manner. So thanks to Marco, regardless if my saying so gets me blacklisted from posting on this blog ever again!

  89. This was a great post. We recently had a discussion in one of my classes about this same exact issue. It’s truly awful that women are primarily the victims of rape and sexual assault/abuse, but women should not have to be criticized for how they present themselves or forced to change their appearance because of this. It makes me sick that just because women dress a certain way means they are more prone to sexual assault or rape. It makes me even sicker when people blame the woman for the situations. If men walk around a city in the middle of the night alone, they get mugged. If women walk around a city in the middle of the night alone, they get raped. From my own experiences I would much rather be mugged than raped.
    I strongly disagree with people who make the argument that a woman who gets too drunk at a frat party or wears a short skirt and walks home alone at night is simply just asking to be raped. That is just repulsive. No woman in her right mind would ask to be raped. Sure, she put herself in a risky situation but for some people to go as far as to say she deserved to be assaulted raped because of her actions is absurd.
    The officer in this post is in the wrong in my opinion. It’s one thing to be concerned for women regarding the issue, but to tell one woman that she is showing a bit too much skin by simply wearing a dress and another women her shorts are too short after coming from a gym is out of line. I completely understand that it is good to be safe, but does that mean every woman must leave the house once the sun goes down with no skin exposed and pepper spray in hand? Absolutely not. I only wish women had the right to express themselves freely without the perpetual fear of potentially getting criticized for it or even raped.

  90. Politicalguineapig:
    Oh, great, another cheerleader for rape. Del Toro, are you siding with Marco, too?

    You’re ignorant. Sorry if that’s ad hominem, but in no way did I cheerlead, or read anything in Del Toro’s post that did the same.

    Take a break, you don’t have to be so adversarial all the time.

  91. You may find it stupid, but its the truth. If you wear something that does not leave guessing to the imagination you are giving sexual predators even more reason to attack. You have to remember and understand a sexual predator doesn’t control his lustful desires, he is looking for an excuse to act upon them. So if you are wearing skirts, short shorts (since they seem to be in), and anything that can make you women look “sensual” then yes, you are contributing to the chances of a sexual predator to attack you. Its not just rapist you should worry about, regular men at clubs, bars, etc will give more consideration to attempt to get you in bed, especially once drugs and alcohol have been involved. Its just common sense. If you women want men to control themselves don’t give them an excuse to do what you don’t want them to do. Again this goes both ways, the only difference is a man will welcome it and a woman will most likely call it rape.

  92. Politicalguineapig:
    Oh, great, another cheerleader for rape. Del Toro, are you siding with Marco, too?

    Can you explain how exactly my celebrating the validity of this blog as an open forum makes me a cheerleader for rape?

    Where did I agree with what Marco said? Where did I agree with what anyone said? Where did I say, “Hooray for rape”? Please explain.

Comments are currently closed.