“I saw this story today about the NYPD telling women what to wear to avoid sexual predators in the area. Just imagine if the women could carry concealed instead.”

 

The above comment came in an email with a link to a Wall Street Journal story A Thin Line on Skirts: “Note to women in the South Park Slope and surrounding Brooklyn: You might want to think twice before wearing shorts or skirts when you walk home alone at night. That’s the message some women say police officers are spreading as they step up patrols in the area in response to at least 10 unsolved sexual attacks that have taken place since March.”

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

36 Responses to “I saw this story today about the NYPD telling women what to wear to avoid sexual predators in the area. Just imagine if the women could carry concealed instead.”

  1. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    This is the type of response I would expect from of bunch of gun grabbing COMMIES who have zero respect for a womans right to defend herself. They are blaming the women for wearing clothes that they don’t approve, and then deny these same women any way to defend themselves against these lowlife scum.

    • avatargarynyer says:

      wonder if their wives and girlfriends are armed. NYPD is a freaking joke. look at what they did to those protesters from the occupy wall street protest. disgusting

    • avatarRalph says:

      I think you pretty well summed it up, JOE. Blame the victim. I guess that’s the way it works in Mayor Bloomberg’s paradise on Earth.

      • avatarAharon says:

        A local cop on the NYC street does not make gun rights policy and cops may or not agree with the City’s political leadership. In this case, I don’t see the local police ‘blaming’ the women as I do see them simply trying to give a helpful ‘warning’ when the police comment about dress. There is a difference. I read the story earlier today at MSNBC along with the follow-up comments. Some of those comments were PC angry saying the police were being undiplomatic in their choice of words and holding women ‘responsible’. Other comments were that the local street cops were simply providing some common sense advice and doing the best they could for women in the neighborhood.

        Assuming the worst about NYC’s government, a street cop might get into trouble just for suggesting that women carry (even if legal?) mace, a fighting stick, or knife. Then later a cop could also possibly get into legal trouble if a woman carried a suggested self-defense item and it ended up being used against her. The mindset of NYC seems to be going the way of London where it is illegal to use any weapon (kitchen knife, wood bat, etc) even in one’s own home during a break-in.

        • avatarRalph says:

          What women wear does not and never has affected what rapists do. Some of these lowlifes prey on 80 yo grandmothers. Would the cops tell a grandmother that she was dressed in provocative orthopedic shoes and house dresses?

          I’m a native New Yorker and I know the cops there all too well. They’re blaming the victims because it lets the police off the hook. That’s what New York cops do.

        • avatarAharon says:

          I never lived in NY so I can’t claim knowledge of what the cops there do. True, that some rapists prey on 80 year olds however most don’t. Informing women that the rapist is targeting women who do ABC and then suggesting that the women should do XYZ to reduce the risk factor does not seem to me to be blaming. If the cop was quoted as telling women that it will be their fault if they are raped for dressing sexy that is different. I think it is noble and ideal to live life based on one’s own true values and principles yet using common sense precautions on the street just really makes sense.

          BTW, you once wrote that you are a defense attorney. Separate from this subject here today, there is a blog site run voluntarily by an attorney called the False Rape Society where they have documented more than 2,000 cases of publicly reported rape allegations that were later proven false. The site also covers how some laws are changing to put a greater degree of the burden of proof onto the accused. Certainly much of the modern mass media seems to take the position that a rape accuser is a victim from the time of the accusation and often treats the accused as guilty until proven innocent and even then they sometimes still call the accuser a victim. You may find the site interesting.

          http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/

        • avatarPhil says:

          I can agree with all you say Aharon, right down to false memory syndrome. The problem here, or there in NY, is people should be warned and also encouraged to defend themselves. The real problem is the predators experience insufficient doubt, fear and blood loss. And the cops are too closely affiliated with their political lackey superiors.

    • avatarBT says:

      Joe, right on. Women have a right to wear whatever they please without fearing sexual assault. It goes hand in hand with the right to self-defense.

  2. avatarWill Litten says:

    They could always tell them to dress up like female IDF soldiers, along with an M16.

  3. avatarTony says:

    Do they honestly think shorts or a skirt as opposed to long trousers really make that much difference to a sexual predator? This is either system victim focus or just trying to make the female population feel better with the illusion of doing something preventative. Let them carry and reward them when the predator ends up dead or in the hospital.

  4. avatarian says:

    I’m shocked the NYPD doesn’t just cover up the rapes to keep their numbers down. That’s SOP for them.

  5. avatarSam Wright says:

    Ya´ll are a bunch of OFWGs who are using women´s safety to further your point. I ask when was the last time any of you commentators walked down a NY street at night in a short skirt? I agree that every person has a God given right to defend him/her-self.

    • avatarPhil says:

      WTF? Make a salient statement or ask a real question. I doubt I’ll be walking down a NY street in this life time, short skirt or not ;~) , but I may take on your implied young ass for a foot race up a 12k peak. If you agree with the right of self-defense, then what’s your point?

  6. avatarWilliam says:

    So, do I have to wear a skirt before I am allowed to defend a woman’s right to defend herself from rapists and her right to wear her own choice of clothes?

    That is bass-ackwards thinking right there.

    This OFWG is interested in his wife and daughters being able to defend themselves and I think everyone else’s wives and daughters ought to have that same choice. I’m not for making them carry a gun, but they should have a better option than pants. Unless someone can point me to where pants somehow thwarts rapists…

    Of course, I’m just waiting for someone to chime in saying that they are more likely to have the gun taken away, etc without any proof. Or perhaps the old sage advice that the woman should just cooperate.

    It sounds like someone is saying we are misogynistic for claiming they should have the option of guns. I think it’s misogynistic blaming their clothes or demanding they let the rapist rape them.

    • avatarAharon says:

      The old sage advice for a woman was to fight back against a rapist. About 15-30 years ago was when the suggestion about cooperating and being passive came out. I think the feminists were behind that one. You wrote: “I think it’s misogynistic blaming their clothes…” You believe that a suggestion to dress differently is both blaming the clothing and is also expressing hatred of women? Labeling someone misogynistic is the old and now boring shamming language common tactic of the male-hating feminists to shame men into silence who criticize any aspect of feminism. I’m not aware of anyone who has blamed the women’s clothing for rape. I never knew that clothing could come-alive and rape a woman. Rather, it seems that women were warned about the rapists choice of targets dressing in a certain manner and then it was suggested to the women that they might be able to reduce the risk to themselves by changing their manner of dress. Americans have really become an over-sensitive politically-correct society that is more concerned with their pride and egos than using common sense. Every woman does have the legal and moral right to walk home alone at 3AM in NYC dressed in a thong and halter top. I have the right to walk through a busy intersection in the cross-walk when the sigh says ‘Walk’ without looking for cars that might run me over. Do I watch for cars that are ignoring the traffic signals? Yes, I do because I don’t plan on being a victim of someone else breaking the law.

      • avatarPhil says:

        Your logic is lacking Aharon. Burqas and veils have done nothing to protect women in other cultures. Your feminist rape cooperation reference is absurd. And like most analogies, yours are weak. But you, and I, and Louis L’Amour agree, never skyline yourself. So you might be an OFWG, whatever that might be.

        • avatarAharon says:

          Phil, you are being ignorant of the political and social transformations that have swept American and Western Societies the past 45+ years. Women used to be told to fight a rapist. That changed. They started teaching not to resist. Fortunately, and I admire them, many do resist. You make criticisms yet you do not define why I am wrong. You used examples that women who wear Burqas and veils still get raped. What’s your point beyond thinking in absolute either/or logic? That is a bad analogy on your part. If the profile of a particular individual rapist is to go after a specific type of person and a means might be known how to reduce the possibility of becoming a victim then why is that change to protect oneself not logical?

        • avatarWilliam says:

          When I mentioned “old sage advice” I was being sarcastic. I guess I forgot to add the tag “/sarcasm”. Read the same for “misogynistic.”

          For Aharon’s reading pleasure, please stop after the first two sentences of my previous post.

        • avatarAharon says:

          William,

          If I misunderstood your intent, in part or all, please accept my apologies.

        • avatarWilliam says:

          It’s no problem. I just meant the first bit of that post was the clearest without venturing into the sarcasm. That’s the problem with print, there’s no body language or tone. I’m a preacher by trade and have a better track record with spoken versus written statements.

        • avatarPhil says:

          Ultimately, this line of deduction leads to don’t go out. Reducing risk is logical, it just implies there’s still risk. The reluctance of people to prepare to defend their own body is a politically/socially engineered deficiency. Addressing this deficiency is a logical change.

        • avatarAharon says:

          What line of deduction are you referring to? Do you imagine that I wrote somewhere that people or women should not take steps or prepare to defend themselves?

          What is a better choice of reasoning for residents of Brooklyn? What should they do ie what actions to take? How prepare under the circumstances? I’m all for people and women to learn how fight, own and carry mace, knives, fighting sticks, stun guns, etc. Many, rather most, will not buy the items. Are those items even legal in NYC?

          If people ie women want to go out and when that is there choice as it is how to dress. It is a deficiency when people don’t prepare to protect themselves and other innocent people. Everyone should prepare to defend their person. NYC’s pro-victim anti-gun laws stink.

          So what is your practical real-world solution or the best course of action to take under the present threat within the limits of how women can defend themselves in NYC? Reversing the ant-gun laws is a long term activity. Now, in the immediate time frame, there is a threat to deal with.

        • avatarRight Wing Nutter says:

          Old
          Fat
          White
          Guy

        • avatarAharon says:

          I’m not the first two yet I am the last two.

  7. avatarWill Litten says:

    I know they are, but I doubt they have to worry about rape very often.

  8. avatarSean says:

    Size 3, 5’9″ tall thin model build + tight, short mini-skirt + 50AE Desert Eagle strapped to the inside of her thigh = “I Dare You to Attempt to Rape me”

    OR

    OMG! What is that really big bulge between her legs!!?!

  9. avatarAharon says:

    Can someone please define OFWG? I’ve done searches using OFWG and the words ‘define’ and ‘dictionary’, and still don’t have any clear understanding based on what I found to relate to the comments here. Thanks.

  10. avatarSamtastic says:

    Old Fat White Guy

  11. avatarRobinGoodfellow says:

    God forbid we should give women the power to protect themselves, or, you know, lock up the miscreants …

  12. avatarJim Lee says:

    A size .40 caliber ‘skirt’ with some JHP accessories is one immediate solution. Aim for center mass.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.