RIP Sarah Everard, who went missing from Brixton in March 2021

[David Clapson]

'the other rapist'?

'Yet another rapist'.

There've been a few recent stories of policemen asking victims for their phone numbers so they can chat them up/ask them out. I'm 1000% certain that this is so widespread as to be normal behaviour, and seen as a perk of the job. Many times it will lead to sexual encounters with vulnerable women who go through the motions of consenting but are in fact being skilfully and ruthlessly raped. The law wouldn't see it as rape, but to me it's at least as bad as taking advantage of a woman because she's drunk.

 

[bimble]

'Yet another rapist'.

There've been a few recent stories of policemen asking victims for their phone numbers so they can chat them up/ask them out. I'm 1000% certain that this is so widespread as to be normal behaviour, and seen as a perk of the job. Many times it will lead to sexual encounters with vulnerable women who go through the motions of consenting but are in fact being skilfully and ruthlessly raped. The law wouldn't see it as rape, but to me it's at least as bad as taking advantage of a woman because she's drunk.

This is a really weird post, sorry. Do you mean because of the power imbalance ?

 

[A380]

'Yet another rapist'.

There've been a few recent stories of policemen asking victims for their phone numbers so they can chat them up/ask them out. I'm 1000% certain that this is so widespread as to be normal behaviour, and seen as a perk of the job. Many times it will lead to sexual encounters with vulnerable women who go through the motions of consenting but are in fact being skilfully and ruthlessly raped. The law wouldn't see it as rape, but to me it's at least as bad as taking advantage of a woman because she's drunk.

It happens, the numbers bit, but it.s not wide spread as cops do, quite rightly, get sacked for it.

 

[Pickman's model]

'Yet another rapist'.

Presumably this would contract to yeti, which would be appropriate as so many policemen are abominable

 

[David Clapson]

Paige Kimberly's story is getting a lot of time on R4. It's pretty horrifying. It was in the Independent this morning:

A former Metropolitan Police detective has accused Cressida Dick and Priti Patel of ignoring warnings of ‘vulgar and sexist’ Whatsapp messages in a group chat of Met officers and contractors.

Retired Detective Superintendent Paige Kimberly said she wrote to Cressida Dick and Priti Patel following the death of Sarah Everard, requesting a review into “how inappropriate behaviour is addressed amongst contract workers.”

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is now investigating the conduct of five serving officers and a former Met Police officer over a group chat Sarah Everard murder, Wayne Couzens was in, which involved “misogynistic and racist” messages. This group is different to the one Ms Kimberly was in.

Ms Kimberly is due to be compensated after a tribunal last month ruled that a job offer was withdrawn a day after she reported sexist messages and images on the Whatsapp group to her civilian line manager.

A 2019 internal investigation took no action against the male officers, ruling that the messages were “distasteful” but did not amount to criminality or misconduct.

Ms Kimberly wrote to Ms Dick in March, according to MailOnline, highlighting the “sexist and abusive” messages in a group chat formed by one of the contractors, who was an ex-senior officer.

Ms Kimberley said: “I sent it recorded delivery. I never got a reply. I also wrote to the home secretary, Priti Patel, but did not get a response. It has cost them an awful lot of money to defend this case and they tried to discredit me.”

An employment tribunal heard that Ms Kimberly was working on a team which also consisted of retired male senior officers, a serving constable and a civilian IT specialist.

‘Vulgar and sexist’ WhatsApp texts ignored by bosses, says ex Met detective

Both Priti Patel and Cressida Dick ignored the warning, a former Met detective has said

www.independent.co.uk

It was also in the Mail yesterday, in more detail. Long c and p follows, so that people don't have to click there:

A retired Metropolitan Police detective has accused Scotland Yard chief Cressida Dick of ignoring her warnings about a 'vulgar and sexist' WhatsApp group similar to that used by Sarah Everard killer Wayne Couzens.

Ex-Detective Superintendent Paige Kimberley claimed she wrote to Dame Cressida shortly after the murder of Miss Everard urging a review of 'how inappropriate behaviour is addressed amongst contract workers'.

An internal investigation in 2019 took no action against the male officers, saying the messages were 'distasteful' but did not amount to criminality or misconduct.

Now Ms Kimberley is set to be compensated after a tribunal ruled a job offer was suddenly withdrawn from her a day after she told her civilian line manager Tatiana Southon about the images.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman told MailOnline: 'We are currently assessing the details of the tribunal's finding. We cannot comment further at this time.'

Ms Southon claimed that the 59-year-old ex-detective did not tell her about the images - but the panel ruled that was 'implausible' and said she had been told and then withdrew the job offer without explanation.

The tribunal said: 'We agree with this and we do not condone these messages in any way at all. They are sexualised, derogatory towards women, offensive and completely inappropriate for a workplace. They reflect badly on all those participating in those messages.'

It added: 'We have considered whether in telling Ms Southon that there was sexually explicit messages in the WhatsApp group which were derogatory towards women and very offensive, the claimant did a protected act? We find that it was a protected act.'

Ms Kimberley was commended seven times during her 32-year-long career with the Metropolitan Police force.

An employment tribunal in London heard she retired in 2013 but four years later she was approached to rejoin the Met as part of its Digital Policing strategy.

She was offered the role as one of its Implementation Managers and the team consisted of retired male senior officers, a serving constable and a civilian IT specialist.

Ms Kimberley said a WhatsApp group was created by the team members so 'we could keep in touch and assist each other with any problems that arose', she said - adding that the name of the group was 'Old Timers plus Dave'.

She said as time went on posts in the group evolved into light hearted conversations between colleagues.

After Ms Kimberley, of Dawlish, Devon, left the role she remained on the WhatsApp group.

'As soon as I left, I noticed that the language and images being shared within the group began to become graphic, sexual and derogatory towards women,' she told the tribunal.

She claims her male colleagues were aware she was still in the group but 'they continued to publish statements, images and videos which were negative towards or about women' - up to 20 messages a day.

In her statement to the tribunal, Ms Kimberley said: 'I was shocked and disappointed by the content of these messages.

'Yet despite their respective responsibilities, and on whose behalf they were working, and being paid reasonably high amounts by the taxpayer, they were still circulating aggressive and inappropriate messages, photographs and videos in a work WhatsApp group including a graphic image of a diseased vagina, messages calling women s**gs and disclosing very misogynistic and sexist attitudes towards women.'

She claimed the Met has shown 'no willingness to move with the society it purports to serve or feels that it can be held accountable.'

Ms Kimberley told the tribunal that when she was asked to return in September 2019 she did not feel she could until the content of the WhatsApp group had been addressed, and claimed the conduct by the contractors had created a 'hostile and offensive environment to me'.

After the case, her lawyer Terry Falcao said: 'This was an important case for Paige as she acted on good faith and with the best motivation to disclose misogynistic and unacceptable sexual conduct from contractors working with a police officer and Met Police staff. This was a protected act.

'The tribunal accepted her version of events, that she disclosed this conduct to a senior manager in the digital policing unit. This resulted in the withdrawal of an offer to earn a significant sum of money.

Met detective 'told Cressida Dick about ''sexist'' WhatsApp messages'

Scotland Yard chief Cressida Dick is accused of ignoring warnings that Met Police officers were sharing 'vulgar and sexist' messages via WhatsApp by decorated detective Paige Kimberley.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Gramsci]

The view from Sisters Uncut. Who after the local Labour Party Cllrs backed down took a big part in ensuring the Clapham Common vigil took place.

I don't think its beyond posdibilty that the leadership of the Met ( Cressida Dick) saw the growing anger around the rape and murder as leading to what she would see as extremist groups gaining ground. So a heavy handed response was required.

Sisters Uncut: It’s time we policed the police

The direct-action group Sisters Uncut are calling on people to recognise the immense power police have over us and to begin to hold them to account.

www.huckmag.com

This raises a fundamental question: who polices the police, if not the police? Violence is the norm in policing. Unlike any other public institution, they are empowered to detain, search, strip and question our bodies and our property. And like Couzens, abuse of these powers is a daily part of the role. Just ten days after Couzens used police powers to murder Sarah, senior officers gave the green light for their colleagues to use the same powers to harass, arrest and abuse women at the vigil for Sarah at Clapham Common.

 

[SpookyFrank]

It happens, the numbers bit, but it.s not wide spread as cops do, quite rightly, get sacked for it.

Many examples of this in the 'dirty rapist cops' thread.

 

[A380]

Many examples of this in the 'dirty rapist cops' thread.

Indeed

 

[StoneRoad]

JFC on a bike ...

Boris Johnson does not support making misogyny a hate crime

Boris Johnson says there is "abundant statute" to tackle violence against women.

www.bbc.co.uk

but not totally un-expected from the monstrous murdering twat, given his personal history.

 

[Sue]

So when you were a young kid, you were always told that if you got lost, you should ask a lady for help. Seems things haven't progressed any.

(And while you'd do what you could and I understand the motivation behind this, is it wrong to feel this is just another bloody thing?)

Girls told to call women if threatened in wake of Sarah Everard murder

London schoolgirls are being taught to shout for a woman to help if they are harassed or in danger, as teachers address pupils’ fears after the murder of Sarah Everard.

www.standard.co.uk

 

[LeytonCatLady]

'I can't get words of Sarah’s mum out of my head, but Johnson isn't listening'

In the aftermath of Sarah Everard's death and her mum's heartbreaking words, Boris Johnson's verdict on misogyny is unforgivable and makes Polly Hudson glad she doesn't have a daughter

www.mirror.co.uk

This is depressing.

I sympathise with the 11-year-old girl in this article because I was an early developer myself, and I was about that age when a man screamed at me from a van "NICE ARSE!" I remember shouting back "I'm underage, you bloody pervert!", to which he seemed genuinely shocked and stammered some excuse about thinking I was 16. It did shake me up, but I don't think I was scared to go out alone because of it, and I think that's because those kinds of guys weren't so blatant then (1998). They seem to have got worse, and I think this Tory government has probably emboldened that kind of behaviour. You'd think attitudes would've improved in 23 years, but it's like we're regressing. But then, what can we expect with a Prime Minister in charge who himself doesn't see women as human beings.

I think misogyny should be considered a hate crime if acted on. Racism is, religion is and some police forces in the UK even recognise being attacked for belonging to a subculture (such as goth or punk) as hate crime. So why is attacking someone for being a woman different? I'm not saying we should go round suing everyone for thinking or feeling a certain way, but if it's bleeding out into their behaviour towards someone - and it invariably does - why is that any different than the other examples?

 

[Sue]

One rotten apple indeed. Ffs

'A woman who was pictured being arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil has said "about 50" police officers have since contacted her via a dating app, leaving her "terrified".'

Sarah Everard vigil: Police officers 'contacted arrested woman on Tinder'

Patsy Stevenson says "about 50" officers contacted her after her arrest at a vigil for Sarah Everard.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[LeytonCatLady]

One rotten apple indeed. Ffs

'A woman who was pictured being arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil has said "about 50" police officers have since contacted her via a dating app, leaving her "terrified".'

Sarah Everard vigil: Police officers 'contacted arrested woman on Tinder'

Patsy Stevenson says "about 50" officers contacted her after her arrest at a vigil for Sarah Everard.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is disgusting. Patsy Stevenson comes across as a strong, firm woman who knows her rights. And the police don't like that, which is why they're deliberately trying to intimidate her via Tinder, and clearly the people sending her death threats can't handle that either. The footage from the vigil was blatantly trying to portray her as a troublemaker, with random people on Twitter speculating she'd been "violent" and "caused trouble", but funnily enough couldn't provide proof of that. I hope her legal action against the Met is successful.

 

[David Clapson]

Can we have a discussion about censorship of violence against women in TV/film? Worth starting a separate thread? Or is censorship just a non-starter?

 

[Orang Utan]

Can we have a discussion about censorship of violence against women in TV/film? Worth starting a separate thread? Or is censorship just a non-starter?

aye, but yes

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

'I can't get words of Sarah’s mum out of my head, but Johnson isn't listening'

In the aftermath of Sarah Everard's death and her mum's heartbreaking words, Boris Johnson's verdict on misogyny is unforgivable and makes Polly Hudson glad she doesn't have a daughter

www.mirror.co.uk

This is depressing.

I sympathise with the 11-year-old girl in this article because I was an early developer myself, and I was about that age when a man screamed at me from a van "NICE ARSE!" I remember shouting back "I'm underage, you bloody pervert!", to which he seemed genuinely shocked and stammered some excuse about thinking I was 16. It did shake me up, but I don't think I was scared to go out alone because of it, and I think that's because those kinds of guys weren't so blatant then (1998). They seem to have got worse, and I think this Tory government has probably emboldened that kind of behaviour. You'd think attitudes would've improved in 23 years, but it's like we're regressing. But then, what can we expect with a Prime Minister in charge who himself doesn't see women as human beings.

I think misogyny should be considered a hate crime if acted on. Racism is, religion is and some police forces in the UK even recognise being attacked for belonging to a subculture (such as goth or punk) as hate crime. So why is attacking someone for being a woman different? I'm not saying we should go round suing everyone for thinking or feeling a certain way, but if it's bleeding out into their behaviour towards someone - and it invariably does - why is that any different than the other examples?

Because criminalising misogyny would potentially criminalise too large a proportion of the population, because that's how pervasive misogyny is. From the stereotypical builders or white van man catcalling women and girls walking down the street, to drunken lairy lads getting a bit handsy in a bar or club, or predators spiking drinks, to the partner who won't accept no for an answer, to the lecherous colleague or client, to the 'stranger danger' sexual assault.

 

[LeytonCatLady]

Because criminalising misogyny would potentially criminalise too large a proportion of the population, because that's how pervasive misogyny is. From the stereotypical builders or white van man catcalling women and girls walking down the street, to drunken lairy lads getting a bit handsy in a bar or club, or predators spiking drinks, to the partner who won't accept no for an answer, to the lecherous colleague or client, to the 'stranger danger' sexual assault.

True. I think in that case we need to ask why sexism is somehow more socially acceptable than it is to be racist or homophobic. I posted earlier on this thread about working with women who openly said men were "different species", and have also met blokes who say that about women without fear of reprisals. Whereas if someone made that statement about someone of a different skin colour, ethnic background, religion or sexual orientation, it would quite rightly be viewed as bigotry. So I'd love to know what it is that, even in this day and age, still makes gender fair game for "othering".

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

True. I think in that case we need to ask why sexism is somehow more socially acceptable than it is to be racist or homophobic. I posted earlier on this thread about working with women who openly said men were "different species", and have also met blokes who say that about women without fear of reprisals. Whereas if someone made that statement about someone of a different skin colour, ethnic background, religion or sexual orientation, it would quite rightly be viewed as bigotry. So I'd love to know what it is that, even in this day and age, still makes gender fair game for "othering".

Good points. And good question. But wouldn't the answer be a bit chicken:egg, ie which came first? Do those women say that because of their negative experiences with men? And vice versa? You're right, though, misogyny/misandry do seem to be weirdly 'acceptable' forms of bigotry in a way that others aren't.

Obviously, as a woman, I'm more concerned about misogyny and misogyny taken to extremes in the context of male violence against women and girls, especially having been on the receiving end of it. To me, it's really weird how, say, two men having a punch up in a pub would likely result in assault charges, but being assaulted by my father or a partner at home gets written off as just 'domestics'.

The last time my father assaulted me, when I was an adult, neighbours called the police and several cops had to drag my father off me and I had his finger marks on my neck where he'd been throttling me. I went to the police station a day or so later and asked them to do something, ie charge/prosecute him, explaining that I was aware (because a social worker told me when I was 21) that the only reason my father wasn't prosecuted when I was taken into care when I was 13-years-old was because the social services hadn't followed their own procedures.

Fast forward to when I was an adult and I was advocating for myself and asking the police to take action, and the CID officer told me that they would only do something if it was "attempted murder" and I replied that there was a fine line between attempted murder and murder and what if they didn't get there in time the next time?

To me, it does beg the question - as you point out - why sexism is more acceptable? Why did a cop think it was acceptable for my father to assault me, up to and almost including attempted murder?

In what other sphere of life would that be acceptable? If, say, a boss assaulted an employee, or if a teacher assaulted a pupil, would the cops say 'No biggie, never mind, call us again if they try to kill you?'

And things are arguably getting worse, rather than better. The Othering seems to be getting worse, especially online and with MRAs and incels and all that kind of stuff that seems to lead to a lot of men developing some quite twisted and hateful ideas about girls and women. Is there a female equivalent?

 

[trashpony]

I’m sorry you have been so badly let down by the people who should be protecting you AnnO'Neemus.

I think a large part of the problem is that women are viewed as men’s possessions. It’s absolutely embedded into the way women are positioned within society - the way we are given away by our fathers to our husbands, dowries, arranged marriages. All of that is treating women as goods and chattels which can be bought and sold. Rape was legal in marriage until 2003. It’s still legal in main countries.
And how often do we hear that line about a woman being someone’s mother or sister or daughter? Like we don’t exist unless it’s in context to men.
I was also struck by the judge’s comments about Everard being entirely blameless. Are there some women who should be blamed if they’re raped and murdered? Actually we know there are because Sutcliffe got away with his crimes while he was killing prostitutes. Once he killed ‘blameless’ women, the police cared.

 

[Poot]

I’m sorry you have been so badly let down by the people who should be protecting you AnnO'Neemus.

I think a large part of the problem is that women are viewed as men’s possessions. It’s absolutely embedded into the way women are positioned within society - the way we are given away by our fathers to our husbands, dowries, arranged marriages. All of that is treating women as goods and chattels which can be bought and sold. Rape was legal in marriage until 2003. It’s still legal in main countries.
And how often do we hear that line about a woman being someone’s mother or sister or daughter? Like we don’t exist unless it’s in context to men.
I was also struck by the judge’s comments about Everard being entirely blameless. Are there some women who should be blamed if they’re raped and murdered? Actually we know there are because Sutcliffe got away with his crimes while he was killing prostitutes. Once he killed ‘blameless’ women, the police cared.

Even then they were ignored. Despite repeatedly saying that he had a local accent the police preferred to believe that crank who called in pretending to be the Yorkshire Ripper (who had a Geordie accent). This was apparently a more reliable source than the actual women who were actually attacked by him.

 

[trashpony]

Even then they were ignored. Despite repeatedly saying that he had a local accent the police preferred to believe that crank who called in pretending to be the Yorkshire Ripper (who had a Geordie accent). This was apparently a more reliable source than the actual women who were actually attacked by him.

You can’t trust women, particularly prostitutes.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Because criminalising misogyny would potentially criminalise too large a proportion of the population, because that's how pervasive misogyny is. From the stereotypical builders or white van man catcalling women and girls walking down the street, to drunken lairy lads getting a bit handsy in a bar or club, or predators spiking drinks, to the partner who won't accept no for an answer, to the lecherous colleague or client, to the 'stranger danger' sexual assault.

AFAUI the proposal isn't to make misogyny a crime as such, it's to count it as an aggravating factor in other crimes. It would be mostly relevant to sentencing I think. So the issue would be that it wouldn't make any difference to most of the things you mention there as the perpetrators are vanishingly unlikely to suffer any consequences let alone a criminal conviction.

ETA: Just for clarity that's not an argument that the law shouldn't be changed, just that it would still leave a lot of this stuff unaffected.

 

[LeytonCatLady]

Good points. And good question. But wouldn't the answer be a bit chicken:egg, ie which came first? Do those women say that because of their negative experiences with men? And vice versa? You're right, though, misogyny/misandry do seem to be weirdly 'acceptable' forms of bigotry in a way that others aren't.

Obviously, as a woman, I'm more concerned about misogyny and misogyny taken to extremes in the context of male violence against women and girls, especially having been on the receiving end of it. To me, it's really weird how, say, two men having a punch up in a pub would likely result in assault charges, but being assaulted by my father or a partner at home gets written off as just 'domestics'.

The last time my father assaulted me, when I was an adult, neighbours called the police and several cops had to drag my father off me and I had his finger marks on my neck where he'd been throttling me. I went to the police station a day or so later and asked them to do something, ie charge/prosecute him, explaining that I was aware (because a social worker told me when I was 21) that the only reason my father wasn't prosecuted when I was taken into care when I was 13-years-old was because the social services hadn't followed their own procedures.

Fast forward to when I was an adult and I was advocating for myself and asking the police to take action, and the CID officer told me that they would only do something if it was "attempted murder" and I replied that there was a fine line between attempted murder and murder and what if they didn't get there in time the next time?

To me, it does beg the question - as you point out - why sexism is more acceptable? Why did a cop think it was acceptable for my father to assault me, up to and almost including attempted murder?

In what other sphere of life would that be acceptable? If, say, a boss assaulted an employee, or if a teacher assaulted a pupil, would the cops say 'No biggie, never mind, call us again if they try to kill you?'

And things are arguably getting worse, rather than better. The Othering seems to be getting worse, especially online and with MRAs and incels and all that kind of stuff that seems to lead to a lot of men developing some quite twisted and hateful ideas about girls and women. Is there a female equivalent?

(1/2) First of all, sorry to hear about what you went through with that man, Ann. He doesn't deserve the title of father. I'm glad you knew your rights and asserted yourself, and angry that the police failed in their legal and moral duty to protect you.

Secondly, rant alert as I respond to the rest of your post (it's a lot, so I'm going to break it into two posts).

It's possible some of my former colleagues did have bad experiences with men, but they all seemed to have good relationships with the men in their lives - dads, brothers, partners etc. None had sons though, interestingly. I wonder if their attitude would've been different if any of them had a little boy. My ex-SIL used to be like that until she remarried and had a son with her next partner. I think these women I worked with probably found common ground moaning about people in general, and it became a habit. Like a lot of office jobs, it could be boring and some people feel the need to gossip and create drama to get through the day. It also didn't help that it was the sort of office where, if there was any issue or misunderstanding, people would go straight to the boss to complain about you, or slag you off behind your back rather than approach you directly, because apparently that's more "professional". (Can you tell I hate that word and how it's misused?) I myself had at least three different complaints made about me by one of these women (same person every time), and all three times the situation was never 100% as she'd claimed. If she'd bothered to get my side of the story first, we could've cleared it up in less than five minutes.

Regarding one bloke they disliked, he was a bit annoying at times but definitely not a predator. He was the receptionist and the only bad thing about him was his habit of commenting on your comings and goings - like "That was a short lunch!" if you popped out briefly to take the air and check your phone before coming back in to eat. However, he stopped doing that after I politely informed him that just because I got a half hour lunch break didn't mean I had to spend the whole of that time outside the building, especially on a below zero day in January, and that we were micromanaged enough by our supervisors without having to also explain ourselves to peers. And he stopped, which they acknowledged. I told them I'd asked him to stop, and if someone's decent, that's all that's required, whereas genuine arseholes don't care. And if he was really sexist, he'd have been doing it to women only, but it was everyone. Also in fairness, I think his boss was pressuring him to "be friendly" and "build rapport". They also didn't like his habit of calling everyone "mate" when they're not his friends. Now I don't personally mind that, but I know some people do, and it's a fair enough point. But they called that sexist because "men shouldn't be mates with women". Er, no. It's not sexism if he's treating you with the same friendliness he would a bloke. In fact, that's the opposite of sexist! If you find him overfamiliar, it's fine to tell him that, but these women just seemed to use "sexist" to mean "anything a bloke does that I don't like". And when I pointed out that in fact, I had a lot of male friends and men and women absolutely can be mates, they scoffed that "They're not your friends, CatLady, they've already got enough mates - called men. You're just a woman they don't find attractive enough to sleep with." I felt free to ignore that, as they didn't know any of my friends, and if anything, their belief that me being in the "friendzone" is some sort of consolation prize or insult says far more about them than it does about me or my mates. Friendship is precious and underrated, and not all women necessarily want a boyfriend. I hadn't identified as asexual at that point, but I'd definitely been single by choice for the five years before that. Anyway, after that, I didn't bother interacting with them other than work-related stuff, and they wrote that off as me thinking I was better than them.

However, I noticed their double standards about misogyny when we got a temp in who seemed nice enough at first but then commented on the fact I had big breasts. I shut him down with "That's not appropriate", and he protested "But it's a compliment! ISN'T IT?" and glared at me as if daring me to disagree. I replied "Not to me. When you've had boobs since you were 10 and it gets commented on by the world and his wife, I can assure you that shit gets fucking dull after a very short time. So don't comment on my body ever." He retorted "Well, most women would love to have your figure and the admiration that comes with it!" At that point, our boss walked in and overheard the conversation. She politely asked him if she could talk to him in private, and five minutes later he came out of the room handing her back his office fob, and came back to his desk to get his stuff. He said loudly "I feel sick!" and glared at me. I remember glaring back as defiantly as I could to show I wasn't intimidated and he eventually broke eye contact. But the women on the team blamed me for "getting him fired". Their logic was that if I'd just accepted the compliment instead of arguing with him, the boss wouldn't have overheard the conversation, and now he'd lost his job because of me. So they'll label some well-meaning receptionist a sexist because they don't like him, but make excuses for men who really do harass female colleagues, and blame the target of the harassment for not "reacting right". I think they just found it so much easier to pick on an easy target, or someone who makes a mistake, than it is to confront someone who really could get quite nasty. I noticed no one backed me up when I was having to confront Tit Perv, although to be fair, maybe they thought I was handling it OK on my own. Still hypocritical.

On the male side of the coin, my first ex used to say all women were manipulative and wanted to undermine men, and that I was going to hell because I hadn't been baptised. I don't think he'd been treated badly by a woman himself, but he was brought up in a very fundie Catholic family, so he was fed a lot of that bullshit growing up. His dad kicked him out the house at 16 for refusing to go to Mass any more. I remember thinking it interesting that he obviously disowned Catholicism because he didn't like the restrictions, but he didn't mind using it to oppress and score points against other people! His mum didn't like me at all because I wasn't her idea of a "nice little Catholic girl" - dyed my hair crazy colours, drank beer, didn't dress or act in what she considered a feminine way, and had no intention of having children or becoming a housewife if we ever got married, and according to her would probably end up cheating on her son with one of my male friends. Interestingly, he's the one who turned out to be cheating on his "ex" with me. He didn't bother telling me that and neither did his family. So he must have sworn them to secrecy, and they were covering up his lies but looking down on me for not being good enough. Fuck the lot of them. So I think he was more judging me/women by his own standards, and also parroting a lot of misogyny he'd been fed growing up without bothering to question it. It's also possible my ex-colleagues were probably brought up with parents who thought like that too, so that's often a factor. And of course, we all know the double standard of how if a bloke cheats, that's just a bloke thing - if I'd done that to him, I'd be a slag, a slut and all the words beginning with S - to quote "Are Janine" from the Fast Show!

 

[LeytonCatLady]

Good points. And good question. But wouldn't the answer be a bit chicken:egg, ie which came first? Do those women say that because of their negative experiences with men? And vice versa? You're right, though, misogyny/misandry do seem to be weirdly 'acceptable' forms of bigotry in a way that others aren't.

Obviously, as a woman, I'm more concerned about misogyny and misogyny taken to extremes in the context of male violence against women and girls, especially having been on the receiving end of it. To me, it's really weird how, say, two men having a punch up in a pub would likely result in assault charges, but being assaulted by my father or a partner at home gets written off as just 'domestics'.

The last time my father assaulted me, when I was an adult, neighbours called the police and several cops had to drag my father off me and I had his finger marks on my neck where he'd been throttling me. I went to the police station a day or so later and asked them to do something, ie charge/prosecute him, explaining that I was aware (because a social worker told me when I was 21) that the only reason my father wasn't prosecuted when I was taken into care when I was 13-years-old was because the social services hadn't followed their own procedures.

Fast forward to when I was an adult and I was advocating for myself and asking the police to take action, and the CID officer told me that they would only do something if it was "attempted murder" and I replied that there was a fine line between attempted murder and murder and what if they didn't get there in time the next time?

To me, it does beg the question - as you point out - why sexism is more acceptable? Why did a cop think it was acceptable for my father to assault me, up to and almost including attempted murder?

In what other sphere of life would that be acceptable? If, say, a boss assaulted an employee, or if a teacher assaulted a pupil, would the cops say 'No biggie, never mind, call us again if they try to kill you?'

And things are arguably getting worse, rather than better. The Othering seems to be getting worse, especially online and with MRAs and incels and all that kind of stuff that seems to lead to a lot of men developing some quite twisted and hateful ideas about girls and women. Is there a female equivalent?

(2/2)
Yeah, the "domestics" thing has always pissed me off. Assault is assault, and if anything is worse from someone who's supposed to love you, and in your own home where you should be safe. I think that's a hangover from the days when DV was considered a "private matter" and the idea that you shouldn't wash your dirty laundry in public. We quite rightly no longer think that way with, say, child abuse. OK, I know adults can technically walk away whereas kids can't, but abusers are clever and deliberately shut off all the victim's escape routes, so in reality it's not really that simple.

I can't think of a female equivalent of MRA and incels, although there are definitely women who dislike all men and call themselves radfems. I was having a dispute on Twitter recently with a trans-excluding radical feminist, or TERF. A politician had tweeted that Labour were betraying women's rights and safety by wanting trans women to have equal rights, and I replied to him that as a cis woman, I didn't have a problem sharing, say, a ladies' toilet with a trans woman and wouldn't see one as a threat, and that he shouldn't use my rights as an excuse to discriminate against the trans community. A TERF saw my tweet and accused me of being a misogynist, having no compassion and betraying women everywhere. I can understand she might have concerns about sharing a space with someone who's biological sex at birth was identified as male, but she was ranting and acting like I was personally putting her in danger, rather than explaining her concerns and how she thought Labour could address that. It became clear that she thought all men were predators, and that trans women only want to become women so they can get into women's spaces and rape us - despite stats showing that trans women are more likely to be the victim of abuse than the perpetrator, and the fact that rapists will rape without hiding behind equality laws, not to mention that the majority of rapists are cisgender men. She's also made her points on a lot of tweets about the Sarah Everard case, even though Wayne Couzens isn't a trans woman as far as we know. I eventually had to end up blocking and reporting her for using abusive, transphobic language. I personally believe trans women are women, but can also see both sides of the debate regarding female only spaces. I don't know what the answer is that will work for everyone, but we shouldn't be attacking each other.

In general, typing this out, I've come to the conclusion that maybe sexism is still blatant because it's one of the few prejudices where people hide behind science? For example, there's no scientific reason anyone can use to say that someone of a certain race or skin colour is inferior. But even now, we get studies claiming that women are more emotional and men are more logical (not true across the board), and the stat that women are smaller and weaker (smaller on average, yes, but not automatically weaker, and again, you can get short men and tall women so it also varies). Science around the suffragette era was used by politicians to justify not giving women the vote because our brains were smaller (since debunked). And I'm definitely not disputing that men and women have biological differences, whereas you can't really claim that about different races or sexual orientations.

Thank you if you're still with me, I talk too much!

 

[A380]

One rotten apple indeed. Ffs

'A woman who was pictured being arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil has said "about 50" police officers have since contacted her via a dating app, leaving her "terrified".'

Sarah Everard vigil: Police officers 'contacted arrested woman on Tinder'

Patsy Stevenson says "about 50" officers contacted her after her arrest at a vigil for Sarah Everard.

www.bbc.co.uk

How would that work? I thought the algorithm matched people based on location setting and then if both parties selected the other by swiping you could start messaging. Is it possible to buy a different type of account that lets you send messages to anyone even if the don’t swipe on you or is Tinder ( or more likely individuals there) colluding with police officers to get round that?

 

[Orang Utan]

How would that work? I thought the algorithm matched people based on location setting and then if both parties selected the other by swiping you could start messaging. Is it possible to buy a different type of account that lets you send messages to anyone even if the don’t swipe on you or is Tinder ( or more likely individuals there) colluding with police officers to get round that?

there are other dating apps

 

[Sue]

How would that work? I thought the algorithm matched people based on location setting and then if both parties selected the other by swiping you could start messaging. Is it possible to buy a different type of account that lets you send messages to anyone even if the don’t swipe on you or is Tinder ( or more likely individuals there) colluding with police officers to get round that?

I've no idea, never used it.

 

[Raheem]

there are other dating apps

It says Tinder in the story, but I think it's a general thing for dating apps that you can't just message people uninvited, for precisely the obvious reasons. Maybe there are exceptions.

 

[two sheds]

You have to wonder whether they were just isolated contacts

 

[dessiato]

I'm a bit puzzled by the story. She might, due to her experience, be very much more aware of police officers appearing.

It might be true that there's a lot of dodgy coppers contacting her now.

I really don't know.

If she's being bothered then some sort of action/investigation needs to be undertaken.

But a thing that does puzzle me is that she hasn't changed or closed her tinder account. I accept she shouldn't need to, but if that's the only immediate action she can take to stop the harassment then why hasn't she? I know I would.