I’ve Had a Cyberstalker Since I Was 12(backchannel.com)
backchannel.com
I’ve Had a Cyberstalker Since I Was 12
https://backchannel.com/i-ve-had-a-cyberstalker-since-i-was-12-384ea9853b79
255 comments
I've found they also have an amazing ability to make excuses for the behaviors of others.
I had an ex who got into a lot of sketchy situations because she refused to believe people were exactly who they were telling her they were. Guys would do inappropriate things that clearly bothered her, but she would claim they were "joking" or believe she misunderstood, etc. etc. So she wouldn't set any boundaries, and of course they would see that as a signal to escalate until she couldn't handle it anymore and would have to call in the cavalry. (That got old fast.)
I had an ex who got into a lot of sketchy situations because she refused to believe people were exactly who they were telling her they were. Guys would do inappropriate things that clearly bothered her, but she would claim they were "joking" or believe she misunderstood, etc. etc. So she wouldn't set any boundaries, and of course they would see that as a signal to escalate until she couldn't handle it anymore and would have to call in the cavalry. (That got old fast.)
Of course, in moderation making excuses for others (or rather, putting a positive spin on their actions) can lead for an easier and more stress free life. I have been amazed at times when behaviour from others I have considered unremarkable has been interpreted in any entirely different way by someone else.
For example, a boss I considered to be trying his best is considered by others as an upper management ass-kisser who would back stab any of his team members in a heart beat to get ahead. This is working off the same information as I had. The person holding this view seemed to spend their days in a state of seething resentment, compared to my (blissful) ignorance. They would of course consider me stupidly naive!
For example, a boss I considered to be trying his best is considered by others as an upper management ass-kisser who would back stab any of his team members in a heart beat to get ahead. This is working off the same information as I had. The person holding this view seemed to spend their days in a state of seething resentment, compared to my (blissful) ignorance. They would of course consider me stupidly naive!
> .. easier and more stress free life
This. So much this. Where a lot of posters here see "downtrodden victim of societal pressures", I see people who like to take the easier route. Speaking up for yourself is hard. For everyone. It's pretty much always easier to let it slide, not rock the boat, appease, downplay etc.
This. So much this. Where a lot of posters here see "downtrodden victim of societal pressures", I see people who like to take the easier route. Speaking up for yourself is hard. For everyone. It's pretty much always easier to let it slide, not rock the boat, appease, downplay etc.
Making excuses can be a way to try and protect yourself. If you're afraid someone will escalate if you say no then you will try to tolerate or say yes as much as you can and hope that is a slower route to the escalation.
That ability to rationalize bad excuses you just described is an interstate highway with four lanes in each direction.
While many people are like this, it seems a bit unfair to stereotype all women as gullible.
Was he talking about all women, or just the median woman?
This line of thinking could be used to justify all sorts of stereotypes. Not saying that's good or bad,but one could talk about the median woman, black, white, asian...etc.
Generalization is important. It helps us manage complexity.
When making generalizations, or stereotyping, it is definitely a good thing to talk about the median person.
For instance, Bernie Sanders gets a lot of his appeal by appealing to the generalized, stereotyped american public. Its an incredibly important skill to be able to make those generalizations in order to get appeal. When talking about "Wall Street" his message is not "this is a multifaceted topic". Instead Wall Street is stereotyped to simplify his arguments.
When making generalizations, or stereotyping, it is definitely a good thing to talk about the median person.
For instance, Bernie Sanders gets a lot of his appeal by appealing to the generalized, stereotyped american public. Its an incredibly important skill to be able to make those generalizations in order to get appeal. When talking about "Wall Street" his message is not "this is a multifaceted topic". Instead Wall Street is stereotyped to simplify his arguments.
The behavior being described is not what I'd call gullible, but I agree with you that it is unfair to stereotype women with the characteristic.
I had one of those gems too. I now have a deviated septum.
It was in my thirties, and she was hot.
When I realized she went into situations looking for drama; I finally told her to get lost.
I was drinking pretty heavily when I was dating her. I thought she was this misunderstood goth chick. Well, when I stopped drinking, I saw the sutle cues she was giving out. The little coy looks, while I was getting drinks. Actively stretching her neck in order to hear some idiot say anything remotely sexist.
I think she enjoyed the fights I got in over her. She just needed to know she was pretty enough to fight over?
Well--no one is fighting over her anymore. The labial facial lines are deep. The gray is comming through the black die. The magic is gone. Her fiery personality is now just angry, and bitter. Age is a leveler of that beauty asset.
I thought I was the least superficial man in the world. I used to laugh at guys who doted over pretty women. I used to tell girlfriends upfront, "I'm not one of those guys who momma will like. I wish I was more like your other boyfriends?" I thought I was in charge. Thought?
Boy, I was wrong. And I have a nasal cavity to prove it. She was an anomaly though. I never had this problem(defending thy maidens honor) with anyone else. She definetly had me fooled, or my drinking blinded me from seeing the person she really was?
It was in my thirties, and she was hot.
When I realized she went into situations looking for drama; I finally told her to get lost.
I was drinking pretty heavily when I was dating her. I thought she was this misunderstood goth chick. Well, when I stopped drinking, I saw the sutle cues she was giving out. The little coy looks, while I was getting drinks. Actively stretching her neck in order to hear some idiot say anything remotely sexist.
I think she enjoyed the fights I got in over her. She just needed to know she was pretty enough to fight over?
Well--no one is fighting over her anymore. The labial facial lines are deep. The gray is comming through the black die. The magic is gone. Her fiery personality is now just angry, and bitter. Age is a leveler of that beauty asset.
I thought I was the least superficial man in the world. I used to laugh at guys who doted over pretty women. I used to tell girlfriends upfront, "I'm not one of those guys who momma will like. I wish I was more like your other boyfriends?" I thought I was in charge. Thought?
Boy, I was wrong. And I have a nasal cavity to prove it. She was an anomaly though. I never had this problem(defending thy maidens honor) with anyone else. She definetly had me fooled, or my drinking blinded me from seeing the person she really was?
While this has definitely gotten off topic, I appreciate your story. I hope writing about it was therapeutic.
While I take mild offense at your characterization (#notallwomen!), I will point out that many women are trained from a very young age to make those excuses and not set boundaries. They have to hug the family member who creeps on them because else they are rude; they can't hit back the kid who hit them first and they're told to think, "Maybe he's having a bad day -- you should give him a hug instead!"
For fun, check out the time out chairs at this Etsy shop: https://www.etsy.com/listing/247648122/boys-and-girls-time-o... Girls are supposed to be nice and listen. Boys are supposed to not kick or shout. Be nice -- that's where the excuses start getting made. It's a hard message to get out of your psyche.
For fun, check out the time out chairs at this Etsy shop: https://www.etsy.com/listing/247648122/boys-and-girls-time-o... Girls are supposed to be nice and listen. Boys are supposed to not kick or shout. Be nice -- that's where the excuses start getting made. It's a hard message to get out of your psyche.
Be a guy and have a women ask you why their car isn't starting or can you help change a tire. Saying no in many parts of the world / US is unacceptable and considered rude. So, I guess male agency can be constrained in the same manner. Its amazing what guys will do not to look like an a__hole.
BS because:
Man get conditioned from a very young age to get their sheet together and not let their life be steered by fear. And if they do. They are a fail. THIS is societal pressure.
Not being able to saying no just means she is weak. She gives absolutely no reason for her being unable to say no. Except that she would like to NOT confront that bad feeling she might have. And YOU coming here and talking about her being socially pushed is exactly the opposite. YOU/WE (Society) (except me) are helping her with making her story become viral to not be socially pushed, but socially comforted.
She has been socially comforted so much, that she has become unaccountable, unable to stand for herself.
Thats my I'm taking the counterpart. I'm actually helping them get what they want. All they have to do is work for it.
Not being able to saying no just means she is weak. She gives absolutely no reason for her being unable to say no. Except that she would like to NOT confront that bad feeling she might have. And YOU coming here and talking about her being socially pushed is exactly the opposite. YOU/WE (Society) (except me) are helping her with making her story become viral to not be socially pushed, but socially comforted.
She has been socially comforted so much, that she has become unaccountable, unable to stand for herself.
Thats my I'm taking the counterpart. I'm actually helping them get what they want. All they have to do is work for it.
>Not being able to saying no just means she is weak.
Or you know, since the guy started stalking her from the age of twelve, she may have been conditioned to accept that type of behavior, or otherwise failed to realize how serious it actually was until later.
It's also very possible she didn't want to confront her stalker out of fear. Have you ever tried telling a crazy person they're crazy? Hint: it's usually impossible and almost always turns ugly.
Good job personifying your username, though.
Or you know, since the guy started stalking her from the age of twelve, she may have been conditioned to accept that type of behavior, or otherwise failed to realize how serious it actually was until later.
It's also very possible she didn't want to confront her stalker out of fear. Have you ever tried telling a crazy person they're crazy? Hint: it's usually impossible and almost always turns ugly.
Good job personifying your username, though.
I get what your saying.
But, to expand this, you explain that men are generally conditioned to be fearless, if they are not, they are labelled girly, or something similar right?
So conversely women are conditioned to be compliant/delicate right? Women are not allowed to fight, confront or be violent. After all women fighting is a fetish right?
Now, lets get to the point, if a man writes a blog post about his crippling fear of something that might seem easy overcome, like water, or rain. Does that make him weak? Admitting to society that he is not what he is supposed to be? No.
I'd also postulate that actually if she stood up to him, would he have stopped? Its unlikely, its a special type of person that stalks for 15 years.
Its also a shame that you didn't feel confident to air your views under your real account.
But, to expand this, you explain that men are generally conditioned to be fearless, if they are not, they are labelled girly, or something similar right?
So conversely women are conditioned to be compliant/delicate right? Women are not allowed to fight, confront or be violent. After all women fighting is a fetish right?
Now, lets get to the point, if a man writes a blog post about his crippling fear of something that might seem easy overcome, like water, or rain. Does that make him weak? Admitting to society that he is not what he is supposed to be? No.
I'd also postulate that actually if she stood up to him, would he have stopped? Its unlikely, its a special type of person that stalks for 15 years.
Its also a shame that you didn't feel confident to air your views under your real account.
> the societal pressure placed on women to be accommodating and not be rude and how this can be manipulated to constrain female agency in the world
Without commenting on whether this is a fair assessment, I will observe that in order to make this case for this to be true, more evidence than a single (fictional) anecdote would be necessary, and one would also want to accurately assess whether non-women are also expected not to be rude.
Without commenting on whether this is a fair assessment, I will observe that in order to make this case for this to be true, more evidence than a single (fictional) anecdote would be necessary, and one would also want to accurately assess whether non-women are also expected not to be rude.
Strong username for this reply. If you don't think women are socialized to be accommodating you have your head in the sand. Look at profession choices, look at the plethora of anecdotal stories, and look at how parents interact with their daughters.
I don't understand how people are always so shocked that some people are unaware of these issues. For a related example, I didn't know catcalling was that prevalent (outside of the assumedly anachronistic stereotype of construction workers I'd seen in movies) until shortly after college. I'd never witnessed it happen, and none of my female friends had ever mentioned it happening to them, so why would I assume that it happened super often?
It was only after we all graduated and moved to denser cities that female friends started experiencing it and mentioning it (and since then I've read plenty of articles about it). Since none of my friends are assholes, my initial "wow it's really that universal an experience?" was met with affirmation instead of "you really are a pervy creeper with your head in the sand".
Your specific example about socializing women to be accommodating is also not something I knew existed until a couple years out of college. I didn't see how my friends' parents raised them firsthand and my sister was/is a holy terror, by far the least polite and accommodating of our otherwise fairly reserved family (myself included). The girls in our friend group tended to be less demure and more confident. Again, I wouldn't know about it if I hadn't read so much about it, and there are plenty of people who haven't been exposed to articles about it.
It was only after we all graduated and moved to denser cities that female friends started experiencing it and mentioning it (and since then I've read plenty of articles about it). Since none of my friends are assholes, my initial "wow it's really that universal an experience?" was met with affirmation instead of "you really are a pervy creeper with your head in the sand".
Your specific example about socializing women to be accommodating is also not something I knew existed until a couple years out of college. I didn't see how my friends' parents raised them firsthand and my sister was/is a holy terror, by far the least polite and accommodating of our otherwise fairly reserved family (myself included). The girls in our friend group tended to be less demure and more confident. Again, I wouldn't know about it if I hadn't read so much about it, and there are plenty of people who haven't been exposed to articles about it.
And, you know, the multitude of peer-reviewed studies on the effects of this conditioning (causation is harder to measure, of course).
Links?
Less likely to interrupt others: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1018802521676#p...
Less likely to negotiate for higher pay (HBR summary of several studies, rather than studies themselves): https://hbr.org/2003/10/nice-girls-dont-ask/
And an old, but seminal, look at the ways this is reflected in the way women express themselves: http://web.stanford.edu/class/linguist156/Lakoff_1973.pdf
Less likely to negotiate for higher pay (HBR summary of several studies, rather than studies themselves): https://hbr.org/2003/10/nice-girls-dont-ask/
And an old, but seminal, look at the ways this is reflected in the way women express themselves: http://web.stanford.edu/class/linguist156/Lakoff_1973.pdf
The claim in question was "societal pressure placed on women to be accommodating and not be rude and how this can be manipulated to constrain female agency". It seems to me the links you provide are only marginally related. The first is also paywalled, and the last does seem to be an opinion piece. Or does it include some actual data later on (I only looked at the first quarter or so, as it is rather long)? It proposes some experiments, but then goes on with "it is safe to expect result x" - so why even bother proposing experiments?
One example they provide is
(a) "Oh dear, you've put the peanut butter in the refrigerator again." vs (b) "Shit, you've put the peanut butter in the refrigerator again."
And we are meant to decide which one was said by a woman. Then it goes on "It is safe to predict that people would classify the first sentence as part of 'women's language', the second as 'men's language'"
Really??? Because women don't say shit (even in 1973)? And men don't say "oh dear"? If that is seminal and what the modern opinion is based on, excuse me for not being impressed.
Edit: just read more of the second link about negotiations. What I see is them just making another unsubstantiated claim ("it's because of socialisation"). But they asked people over the internet when they last negotiated. Have they taken into account that many women perhaps don't even have a job where they get a salary (ie they are house wives)? Or maybe they are more likely to take on jobs that are unionized (teachers, for example), so that the salary is fixed anyway? And so on. Surely there are reasons - maybe it even is socialization, but there is nothing in the articles to substantiate that claim. It is just the author's bias.
One example they provide is
(a) "Oh dear, you've put the peanut butter in the refrigerator again." vs (b) "Shit, you've put the peanut butter in the refrigerator again."
And we are meant to decide which one was said by a woman. Then it goes on "It is safe to predict that people would classify the first sentence as part of 'women's language', the second as 'men's language'"
Really??? Because women don't say shit (even in 1973)? And men don't say "oh dear"? If that is seminal and what the modern opinion is based on, excuse me for not being impressed.
Edit: just read more of the second link about negotiations. What I see is them just making another unsubstantiated claim ("it's because of socialisation"). But they asked people over the internet when they last negotiated. Have they taken into account that many women perhaps don't even have a job where they get a salary (ie they are house wives)? Or maybe they are more likely to take on jobs that are unionized (teachers, for example), so that the salary is fixed anyway? And so on. Surely there are reasons - maybe it even is socialization, but there is nothing in the articles to substantiate that claim. It is just the author's bias.
> look at the plethora of anecdotal stories
Early frontrunner, Least Persuasive Rhetoric of the Year
Early frontrunner, Least Persuasive Rhetoric of the Year
When you ignore that nearly the entirety of the experiences that people share you're probably filtering out signal. But knowing HN some people won't be satisfied until we do a double blind study over the entirety of someone's life until they're an adult. Ooh and don't forget n must be ge 1000
All well and good. No one will read "look at the plethora of anecdotal stories" and think, "Oh, now I see."
It's a bit like saying, "There are convincing things out there. I don't have time to get into it, but the point is, you're wrong. Please accept this."
It's a bit like saying, "There are convincing things out there. I don't have time to get into it, but the point is, you're wrong. Please accept this."
[deleted]
[deleted]
Donald Trump.
Sarah Palin - I think that is the standard reply to trotting out the example of Donald Trump to prove X about men?
Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison.
Professor Fate! (Wait, we're just naming random people who come to mind, right? That's what this thread is about, I gather?)
Try to keep up. The OP stated "and one would also want to accurately assess whether non-women are also expected not to be rude".
So I provided two very good examples. Donald Trump is another. Unless you believe that Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison were/are expected to be polite constantly.
So I provided two very good examples. Donald Trump is another. Unless you believe that Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison were/are expected to be polite constantly.
Roseanne Barr. There, women aren't expected to polite constantly either, since you seem to believe visible exceptions prove some sort of point.
Agree with this, but men are victims of stalking as well (considering the theme of the article). Perhaps the article insisted too much that it is a women's problem. In any case, if the laws related to staking don't exclude male victims, good enough.
They don't exclude men. The ability to get LEO to give a crap varied by jurisdiction but plenty of guys have managed to get consequences enforced on their male or female harassers.
Mostly I think it's a result of the average LEO/judge being older and having no clue what the consequences are of the ongoing harassment. It's definitely true that lots of judges/prosecutors have told people to "just get off the internet".
Mostly I think it's a result of the average LEO/judge being older and having no clue what the consequences are of the ongoing harassment. It's definitely true that lots of judges/prosecutors have told people to "just get off the internet".
>They don't exclude men.
Laws don't exclude, but their application and interpretation sometimes does.
Not long ago in my country, there was a proposal to add funding to research domestic violence committed by women.
The women's organisations of all major political parties (except one) signed a common statement which opposed the funding of this research. They said it was diverting attention away from the main problem which is violence by men. This they were saying without looking at the actual numbers. They were in fact opposing research to find out and evaluate the actual numbers.
The actual numbers in this country from crime statistics: in 2008, the victims of domestic violence in homicide and grievous bodily harm cases were 116 men and 111 women. This was irrelevant, according to these political women's organisations.
The issue was raised to public consciousness when a man, assaulted by his wife, brought to publicity the response he had got from calling 112 (emergency number), where the police dispatcher said to him: "What, are you letting a woman beat you up?"
Yes, laws are in principle gender neutral, but their application is in many cases favouring one gender. Often the favoured gender is women.
Laws don't exclude, but their application and interpretation sometimes does.
Not long ago in my country, there was a proposal to add funding to research domestic violence committed by women.
The women's organisations of all major political parties (except one) signed a common statement which opposed the funding of this research. They said it was diverting attention away from the main problem which is violence by men. This they were saying without looking at the actual numbers. They were in fact opposing research to find out and evaluate the actual numbers.
The actual numbers in this country from crime statistics: in 2008, the victims of domestic violence in homicide and grievous bodily harm cases were 116 men and 111 women. This was irrelevant, according to these political women's organisations.
The issue was raised to public consciousness when a man, assaulted by his wife, brought to publicity the response he had got from calling 112 (emergency number), where the police dispatcher said to him: "What, are you letting a woman beat you up?"
Yes, laws are in principle gender neutral, but their application is in many cases favouring one gender. Often the favoured gender is women.
There is a huge gender bias in play. In the US(and probably most other western countries), domestic violence is viewed as only something that men do to women.
It's treated as a joke when a woman is violent against a man and it's completely ignored that lesbian couples have the same rate of domestic violence as heterosexual couples.
It's treated as a joke when a woman is violent against a man and it's completely ignored that lesbian couples have the same rate of domestic violence as heterosexual couples.
> It's often hard for men to understand the societal pressure placed on women to be accommodating and not be rude and how this can be manipulated to constrain female agency in the world.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to call out this statement as sexist. There are also several other strange "facts" being passed around in other comments which are similarly biased. To be clear, I'm not calling you sexist. In fact, I think your comment makes a great point about submission to societal pressures leading to these sorts of problems.
Getting back to the quoted statement, I strongly suspect both genders are equally susceptible to being manipulated by societal pressures. I also don't think men find it hard to understand this. If there's data to show otherwise, I welcome it. In its absence, I believe it more wise to hold this neutral view rather than perpetuating a gender bias.
Let's use Curb Your Enthusiasm as a means to elucidate my argument. The lead character in that show gets into all manner of uncomfortable and disastrous situations as a result of bending to societal pressures; not wanting to be "rude". The lead character is male and I'll bet more guys than not can relate. Perhaps not to the same scale as what is portrayed in the show, because the show is meant to be entertaining, but perhaps more on the level of The Office (US) awkwardness.
So I doubt that societal malleability differs between the genders. You're still right in bringing it up, though, because indeed this habit of not wanting to be rude is clearly a contributing factor to cyberstalking cases. I just don't think it's what leads to a greater number of females being victims versus males.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to call out this statement as sexist. There are also several other strange "facts" being passed around in other comments which are similarly biased. To be clear, I'm not calling you sexist. In fact, I think your comment makes a great point about submission to societal pressures leading to these sorts of problems.
Getting back to the quoted statement, I strongly suspect both genders are equally susceptible to being manipulated by societal pressures. I also don't think men find it hard to understand this. If there's data to show otherwise, I welcome it. In its absence, I believe it more wise to hold this neutral view rather than perpetuating a gender bias.
Let's use Curb Your Enthusiasm as a means to elucidate my argument. The lead character in that show gets into all manner of uncomfortable and disastrous situations as a result of bending to societal pressures; not wanting to be "rude". The lead character is male and I'll bet more guys than not can relate. Perhaps not to the same scale as what is portrayed in the show, because the show is meant to be entertaining, but perhaps more on the level of The Office (US) awkwardness.
So I doubt that societal malleability differs between the genders. You're still right in bringing it up, though, because indeed this habit of not wanting to be rude is clearly a contributing factor to cyberstalking cases. I just don't think it's what leads to a greater number of females being victims versus males.
It is not sexist to observe that, in many or most societies on Earth, men and women are systematically treated differently in many social and professional contexts. Nor is it "perpetuating a gender bias" to posit that some of this difference in experiences between the genders may cause one group to be more affected by some societal pressures than the other.
I'm not saying it is one way or the other. Regardless, playing the sexism/bias card here is overreacting: you have one hypothesis, OP has another, neither of you has presented any evidence or argument. Larry David doesn't count.
I'm not saying it is one way or the other. Regardless, playing the sexism/bias card here is overreacting: you have one hypothesis, OP has another, neither of you has presented any evidence or argument. Larry David doesn't count.
That's not what is being called sexist. What is sexist is claiming men can't understand societal pressures.
And no one is claiming that. What is being claimed is that it is hard for men to understand this particular societal pressure that women experience.
That is, if a man understands the concepts of societal pressures, they still may not be immediately aware of this societal pressure; it may not be obvious to them, as they do not experience it.
That is, if a man understands the concepts of societal pressures, they still may not be immediately aware of this societal pressure; it may not be obvious to them, as they do not experience it.
Both genders are subjected to the pressure to conform to social expectations, and those pressures by themselves are often harmful and holding us back. But the pressures exerted on men and women are often very different, and it is important to be aware of those differences. Only by being aware of these pressures and understanding the differences, can we really address them and do something about them.
That women are expected to be polite and accommodating is absolutely sexist, and resisting that pressure can sometimes be just as dangerous as giving in to it.
But that men are expected to not cry and be strong and dominant and all that crap, that is just as harmful. To men, and to society.
That women are expected to be polite and accommodating is absolutely sexist, and resisting that pressure can sometimes be just as dangerous as giving in to it.
But that men are expected to not cry and be strong and dominant and all that crap, that is just as harmful. To men, and to society.
I agree that men also feel pressure to accommodate requests they might rather not.
I think it can arise due to an imbalance of whatever sort. I've been in that position with males with whom I didn't want to escalate a situation and with males while on their home turf (say, in a strange country). But I tend not to fear being assaulted by a woman or tricked/trapped by a woman in a foreign country. People routinely get scammed because they are too polite or fearful to say no or walk away.
Females might feel that imbalance a little more?
I think it can arise due to an imbalance of whatever sort. I've been in that position with males with whom I didn't want to escalate a situation and with males while on their home turf (say, in a strange country). But I tend not to fear being assaulted by a woman or tricked/trapped by a woman in a foreign country. People routinely get scammed because they are too polite or fearful to say no or walk away.
Females might feel that imbalance a little more?
> Sorry, but I'm going to have to call out this statement as sexist.
Here we go again. Somebody pointing out gender bias is blamed for being sexist.
Here we go again. Somebody pointing out gender bias is blamed for being sexist.
The comment is blamed for being sexist because
"It's often hard for men to understand the societal pressure placed on women"
as this is making wide sweeping assumptions about men behaviour based on the world view of the poster not because of pointing out gender bias.
"It's often hard for men to understand the societal pressure placed on women"
as this is making wide sweeping assumptions about men behaviour based on the world view of the poster not because of pointing out gender bias.
Making sweeping generalizations about a gender is sexist. You might as well be saying women are more suited for child rearing and sandwich making.
> To be clear, I'm not calling you sexist.
Same paragraph ...
Same paragraph ...
It's not because you are pointing out gender bias that you doesn't say sexist things.
you're railing against the observation, making discussion of the causes difficult and therefore possible solution discovery possible.
If we are to tackle social problems, we can't argue about language of the problem for fear of being branded as *ist
we don't do this about high blood pressure, or diabetes. The way you are arguing is actually a logical extension of the original observation in the parent. The original statement was actually present rather well.
You make the correct observation that women and men have the same mental faculties (if taken as a whole, individuals will vary.) However you make a grand gesture of pointing out that women and men are the same. We know this, the original post implied this.
If we are to tackle social problems, we can't argue about language of the problem for fear of being branded as *ist
we don't do this about high blood pressure, or diabetes. The way you are arguing is actually a logical extension of the original observation in the parent. The original statement was actually present rather well.
You make the correct observation that women and men have the same mental faculties (if taken as a whole, individuals will vary.) However you make a grand gesture of pointing out that women and men are the same. We know this, the original post implied this.
No, you missed the point. It's not that men and women are the same. It's that men do understand societal pressures and it's sexist to imply otherwise.
The societal pressures tend to be different, and it is not sexist to say that members of each gender may not immediately understand the particulars of the pressure they receive.
take the diabetes example, by saying it is hard to understand what its like to have diabetes, does that make me a diabet-ist?
no. its just pointing out that empathy is a difficult skill.
no. its just pointing out that empathy is a difficult skill.
Both genders receive societal pressure. But they receive different societal pressure. It is not sexist to suggest that members of a gender many not understand the particulars of the pressure experienced by the other gender.
Get married. See the true societal pressure.
> I strongly suspect both genders are equally susceptible to being manipulated by societal pressures.
Sure but which gender does society place more pressures on?
Sure but which gender does society place more pressures on?
I won't pretend that I know what the answer to this is, but the idea that the answer is evident is fucking absurd. Gender roles cut quite sharply both ways, and the only way to think otherwise is willful ignorance: for one extremely obvious example to anyone with even a second of thought, how often do you see men crying?
Perhaps the one that is absent from any group of older people in the mall because it dies 5 years earlier? The one that is most often sent to war? The one that has substantial more suicides?
The one with 3x more suicides?
Which gender gets killed most often at work because of a social pressure that your value is determined by having a job, so if the only job options are dangerous, you best take one anyways?
Unless we can get a well defined and agreed upon definition of 'more social pressed' and a way to measure such, we could spend all day running in circles on this issue.
Unless we can get a well defined and agreed upon definition of 'more social pressed' and a way to measure such, we could spend all day running in circles on this issue.
> Sure but which gender does society place more pressures on?
I'm not sure that there is a good, unambiguous, and meaningful way of doing a unidimensional quantification of that to make that comparison. Its probably better to recognize that each gender has different socially-imposed expectations, that create problems in different situations and present different opportunities for conflicts with between internal preferences and drives and external expectations.
You can then meaningfully discuss differences (including "which gender is more affected") between pressures in particular contexts, such as pressures to accommodate social advances in situations that compromise personal safety, without getting into a competition on the vague issue of "which gender is exposed to more social pressures" in some murky overall sense.
I'm not sure that there is a good, unambiguous, and meaningful way of doing a unidimensional quantification of that to make that comparison. Its probably better to recognize that each gender has different socially-imposed expectations, that create problems in different situations and present different opportunities for conflicts with between internal preferences and drives and external expectations.
You can then meaningfully discuss differences (including "which gender is more affected") between pressures in particular contexts, such as pressures to accommodate social advances in situations that compromise personal safety, without getting into a competition on the vague issue of "which gender is exposed to more social pressures" in some murky overall sense.
Speaking as a dude who pays attention and listen to people of all genders, it's absolutely women.
How many men end up kept in bunkers against their will by women?
well to take your question a bit literally, men have quite a long history of being pressured into soldiering. First thing that hit my mind when i read your question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather
You of course realize that this was the same kind of social conditioning and gender role pressure that the grandparent post is downplaying?
No, the grandparent post was saying that men were similarly influenced by societal pressures. It wasn't downplaying the societal pressure.
No one said they weren't. And then he called the statement sexist.
It's being used to downplay the original statement -- not add to it.
It's being used to downplay the original statement -- not add to it.
I was responding to varjag's post, which was saying that the grandparent post was downplaying the societal pressure, which it wasn't. It was a correction to that false statement.
The situation for the genders is asymmetric and so the effects of non-conformance have different outcomes. If I had to post an "all lives matter" argument in a thread about racism on blacks it would absolutely be downplaying racism, even if the statement is technically correct.
I am not familiar with this 'all lives matter' thing, so I will ignore that for the moment, it also seems to be off-topic.
Did you know that the effects of non-conformance have different outcomes with different people. You might say that is a useless thing to say, and you'd be right. Just as the non-explanation you put about genders and non-conformance is as well. And my post had nothing to say that it wasn't asymmetric, so your response was changing the subject.
The grandparent post you mentioned in your post before was asking for evidence before assuming that females were more susceptible to societal pressures, as that is playing to a stereotype. He suggested that it is wiser to take a neutral view. My post corrected you when you said that that post was trying to downplay the societal pressure, it wasn't.
Your response with the "all lives matter" sideshow is changing the argument again and is quite dishonest. Just like you misrepresented the "grandparent post".
Did you know that the effects of non-conformance have different outcomes with different people. You might say that is a useless thing to say, and you'd be right. Just as the non-explanation you put about genders and non-conformance is as well. And my post had nothing to say that it wasn't asymmetric, so your response was changing the subject.
The grandparent post you mentioned in your post before was asking for evidence before assuming that females were more susceptible to societal pressures, as that is playing to a stereotype. He suggested that it is wiser to take a neutral view. My post corrected you when you said that that post was trying to downplay the societal pressure, it wasn't.
Your response with the "all lives matter" sideshow is changing the argument again and is quite dishonest. Just like you misrepresented the "grandparent post".
I would like to mention my sympathies are with that lady, saying that it was here fault for not being rude is obnoxious. There is way too little being done about stalking and other repeated behaviours that aggregate to the detriment of someones life.
Just so you don't get me wrong.
Just so you don't get me wrong.
How many women can physically dominate an average man?
[deleted]
like, with weapons or are those metaphysical, or surreal or why do you ask?
Humans aren't averages. A randomly chosen woman will almost always have some fraction of men out there she can physically dominate. And some women are just plain tough and could physically impose on nearly all men. And yet men don't worry and walk faster when the woman they're alone with in the parking lot looks like she could bench a truck.
I'm not certain what your point was intended to be, but human men are far stronger than human women with very rare exception. A randomly chosen women is unlikely to be able to physically dominate any man at all, absent deformity. The difference is quite stark.
Certainly a highly trained female body builder is an exception, but they are also vanishingly rare in the population and very unlikely to be randomly chosen.
Sorry. This is one area that feminism doesn't cover with its hypothesis of equality.
Certainly a highly trained female body builder is an exception, but they are also vanishingly rare in the population and very unlikely to be randomly chosen.
Sorry. This is one area that feminism doesn't cover with its hypothesis of equality.
I'm not sure what this whole chain of reasoning has to do with the argument at hand.
Most of the violence and rape committed to male victims has male perpetrators. Does it follow that most men can overpower an average man? Are feminists still to blame here?
Most of the violence and rape committed to male victims has male perpetrators. Does it follow that most men can overpower an average man? Are feminists still to blame here?
Do we count the men she can get help using social leverage? One only needs to watch the videos of domestic violence experiments where they swap genders. The reactions show that while men might be able to win if they were isolated on an island, the total power within society is not in the man's favor. Unless you are in a culture which tolerates DV regardless of gender, in which case men do have it better.
This discussion reminds me of a Margaret Atwood quotation:
“Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”
Perhaps this can shed a new perspective on why women and men may or may not bend to societal pressures differently.
“Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”
Perhaps this can shed a new perspective on why women and men may or may not bend to societal pressures differently.
The poster is not saying that social malleability differs between genders, but that social pressures differ.
When's the last time you were hollered at to smile more, for instance?
When's the last time you were hollered at to smile more, for instance?
But if you don't conform to social pressures you are either an "asshole" or a "bitch" depending on your gender. Being an asshole is socially acceptable if you are successful. Being a bitch is not under any circumstances.
Wut? (Some) Successful/attractive women carry their bitchiness as a badge of honour. As in "I am so attractive/successful, I can be as bitchy as I please". Which is why some people are attracted to bitches/assholes.
And people talk derogatorily about her behind her back. But successful assholes? Heaps of praise. (Think: Steve Jobs).
This is simply not true. The 'societal pressure' on women to be accommodating is the cost levied on women for being allowed to be judge and jury about how someone is treating them. To quote, 'with great power comes great responsibility'.
By missing the power part of the equation, you are creating a victim of responsibility.
In a world where women actually don't have to face any repercussion for being irresponsible, I think you are making a grave mistake.
By missing the power part of the equation, you are creating a victim of responsibility.
In a world where women actually don't have to face any repercussion for being irresponsible, I think you are making a grave mistake.
The way I am getting down modded only proves that HN is mostly frequented by men. Only men enjoy looking at women as powerless entity with no agency.
Or it could be that what you're saying has no bearing in reality at all, and is just you trying to blame the victim.
Mistakes are pointed out so they can be avoided, not to blame.
Can you find where I have blamed the author of the article? You can't 'cuz I didn't.
Or you really really think that women shouldn't learn to protect privacy?
Can you find where I have blamed the author of the article? You can't 'cuz I didn't.
Or you really really think that women shouldn't learn to protect privacy?
Um how is the "societal pressure" not to be rude different for women and men? In general people try not to be rude. Not only because of societal pressure, but also to avoid escalation of conflicts. What is different is that women get asked out a lot more than men, so maybe they are more often confronted with the task of rejecting somebody.
There is no indication here that being rude would have prevented the stalking.
There is no indication here that being rude would have prevented the stalking.
> Um how is the "societal pressure" not to be rude different for women and men?
Where to begin? A rude man might be described as "tough", "assertive", or "confident". What would a rude woman be described as? Moreover, what constituted rudeness for a man? How about for a woman? See the double standard?
Where to begin? A rude man might be described as "tough", "assertive", or "confident". What would a rude woman be described as? Moreover, what constituted rudeness for a man? How about for a woman? See the double standard?
>See the double standard
No, not in real life. Wherever you live/work is fucked up if you do (academia, perchance ?). Rude men are just described as rude, often in less polite ways. I've worked bars, factories, manual labour, all the way up to board rooms and I have never once seen this particular double standard applied. I say this as someone with both a keen eye for and a near zero tolerance of prejudice and discrimination of any kind.
No, not in real life. Wherever you live/work is fucked up if you do (academia, perchance ?). Rude men are just described as rude, often in less polite ways. I've worked bars, factories, manual labour, all the way up to board rooms and I have never once seen this particular double standard applied. I say this as someone with both a keen eye for and a near zero tolerance of prejudice and discrimination of any kind.
Imagine a business meeting. A person is talking, and a man interrupts and talks over that person.
The person asserts themselves, and tells the interrupting man not to interrupt.
That person is more likely to be seen as confident or assertive if they're a man, and more likely to be seen as shrill or bitchy if they're a woman.
> I have never once seen this particular double standard applied. I say this as someone with both a keen eye for and a near zero tolerance of prejudice and discrimination of any kind.
I'm surprised by this, because it's very very common, and has been written about in national newspapers in different countries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/speaking-wh...
http://time.com/3666135/sheryl-sandberg-talking-while-female...
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/03/19/google...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/womensmedia/2012/12/03/womens-id...
http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/stop-interrup...
etc etc.
The person asserts themselves, and tells the interrupting man not to interrupt.
That person is more likely to be seen as confident or assertive if they're a man, and more likely to be seen as shrill or bitchy if they're a woman.
> I have never once seen this particular double standard applied. I say this as someone with both a keen eye for and a near zero tolerance of prejudice and discrimination of any kind.
I'm surprised by this, because it's very very common, and has been written about in national newspapers in different countries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/speaking-wh...
http://time.com/3666135/sheryl-sandberg-talking-while-female...
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/03/19/google...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/womensmedia/2012/12/03/womens-id...
http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/stop-interrup...
etc etc.
I think you have changed the subject, though. Interrupting somebody in a group discussion may or may not be rude at times, but it is hardly the same kind of rude as brushing off somebody who invites you to a date. Taking a woman's ideas and pretending they are your own is completely unrelated.
Edit: more specifically, your links are about non-rude actions by women being considered rude, whereas the discussion is about rude actions by men not being considered rude. For example, from one of your links, I don't think anybody thought Kanye West was not rude for grabbing the microphone from Taylor Swift.
Edit: more specifically, your links are about non-rude actions by women being considered rude, whereas the discussion is about rude actions by men not being considered rude. For example, from one of your links, I don't think anybody thought Kanye West was not rude for grabbing the microphone from Taylor Swift.
Huh. I would have thought that the woman in question is assertive and putting an asshole in his place, but now that you've told me society at large thinks of her as a bitch, I'll make sure to fall in line.
Do not try that mock outrage here. You know exactly what was said. It is not a new thing that most people will think that an assertive woman is acting like a bitch, even if they're doing the same thing a man is doing.
No, a rude man is typically described as rude or as being an asshole. And women can be tough, assertive and confident, too.
While true, it ignores the very pertinent fact that the behaviors that are called rude in women are often called something entirely different when they're done by men. Women behaving assertively tends to get them called bitches, and ball-busters, and other, far less printable things.
That's just a claim you make. And I doubt people like assertive men so much. In what context, anyway? So if you have an assertive male boss, you go "thank god I don't have to make decisions myself, he is so great", if you have an assertive female boss you go "what a bitch"? Seems very unlikely to me - more likely, your opinion is based on lots of one-sided anecdotes by women who only noticed themselves. (Meaning they noticed a backlash against their assertiveness and assumed it must be a woman problem, never noticing any backlash against men because of confirmation bias).
Hopefully this is changing, and people will come to view rudeness as equally negative (or positive) regardless of gender. I for one would not describe a rude man in any way that wouldn't also apply equally to a rude woman.
They are more often confronted with the task of rejecting somebody...
...who might attack them.
When your experience of "rejecting" someone includes having been subject to verbal, or even physical abuse, you learn very quickly to dissemble, dodge the question, and otherwise avoid confrontation.
Don't think it happens? Ask your girlfriend, or your sister, or any other woman in your life. After you've heard their stories, ask yourself if you'd start to behave differently around rejecting people, if you had to risk that kind of treatment.
...who might attack them.
When your experience of "rejecting" someone includes having been subject to verbal, or even physical abuse, you learn very quickly to dissemble, dodge the question, and otherwise avoid confrontation.
Don't think it happens? Ask your girlfriend, or your sister, or any other woman in your life. After you've heard their stories, ask yourself if you'd start to behave differently around rejecting people, if you had to risk that kind of treatment.
I have been screamed at by women, too (for example once I asked one who was struggling with a vending machine if I could help her). As I said - in general we try to be polite to prevent escalation of things.
And it doesn't sound from the story as if the girl agreed to meet for dinner because she feared an abusive response otherwise.
And it doesn't sound from the story as if the girl agreed to meet for dinner because she feared an abusive response otherwise.
Yeah? And were you physically intimidated by that woman? Could she obviously have overpowered you and visited violence upon you, if she'd wanted to? That is a very real threat that almost every woman (okay, maybe not Rhonda Rousey) faces in almost every interaction with almost every man.
Is it likely? No. Absolutely not. In many — if not most — cases, it's vanishingly unlikely. But is it possible? What do you think? Frankly, it's delusional not to believe that it does — and should — legitimately play into a woman's thought process pretty much every time she has to turn a man down for a drink, or a date, or when she says no, or tells him to stop.
It seriously blows my mind how many people apparently can't even attempt to look at the world from someone else's perspective, and instead just assume — and not even consciously assume, but the more insidious, unconscious kind of assumption — "Welp, this is how things are for me, so they must be the same for everyone else, too." That is some of the most myopic, unexamined "thinking" I can imagine, and it literally causes me pain every time I have to confront it, or try to engage with it, in whatever form.
And you just offered a perfect example of it: "I didn't feel threatened when that woman at the vending machine yelled at me, so women must not feel that way in a confrontation with men!" I know you don't actually believe that — at least not completely — but that's precisely the perspective that offering your anecdote as a counter to my comment conveys.
And then, on top of all of that, there's your victim-blaming. "She agreed to meet this taint smear for dinner, so clearly she invited his attentions!"
I mean, really?
Is it likely? No. Absolutely not. In many — if not most — cases, it's vanishingly unlikely. But is it possible? What do you think? Frankly, it's delusional not to believe that it does — and should — legitimately play into a woman's thought process pretty much every time she has to turn a man down for a drink, or a date, or when she says no, or tells him to stop.
It seriously blows my mind how many people apparently can't even attempt to look at the world from someone else's perspective, and instead just assume — and not even consciously assume, but the more insidious, unconscious kind of assumption — "Welp, this is how things are for me, so they must be the same for everyone else, too." That is some of the most myopic, unexamined "thinking" I can imagine, and it literally causes me pain every time I have to confront it, or try to engage with it, in whatever form.
And you just offered a perfect example of it: "I didn't feel threatened when that woman at the vending machine yelled at me, so women must not feel that way in a confrontation with men!" I know you don't actually believe that — at least not completely — but that's precisely the perspective that offering your anecdote as a counter to my comment conveys.
And then, on top of all of that, there's your victim-blaming. "She agreed to meet this taint smear for dinner, so clearly she invited his attentions!"
I mean, really?
You really exaggerate. Most such interactions happen in public spaces. A man can not just beat up a woman in a public space on a whim. Most woman don't walk around in constant fear of men, either. Perhaps the opposite is true: we are all so used to people being polite that we don't know how to react when somebody isn't, like a stalker who doesn't get the hint. (And can I just say Trump...). If that girl had had more encounters with messed up men she would perhaps have reacted differently.
I actually tend to be afraid of women going mental. These days, they might be armed. When I walk home from the tube at night I always worry the woman in front of me might get it into her head that I could be following her and suddenly draw a weapon on me. So, in your own words, it is unlikely, but also possible that a woman could go violent on me. There are also the false rape accusations - women have many options to ruin a man's life.
Also, I never said she invited the attention, just that her agreeing to go for dinner was not because she was afraid he would become violent otherwise. There is nothing in that statement that validates his actions. Don't just shout "victim blaming" as a knee jerk reaction in any discussion about women, it's ridiculous.
I boggles my mind that you assume so many things, and seem to be so cocksure in your opinions.
I actually tend to be afraid of women going mental. These days, they might be armed. When I walk home from the tube at night I always worry the woman in front of me might get it into her head that I could be following her and suddenly draw a weapon on me. So, in your own words, it is unlikely, but also possible that a woman could go violent on me. There are also the false rape accusations - women have many options to ruin a man's life.
Also, I never said she invited the attention, just that her agreeing to go for dinner was not because she was afraid he would become violent otherwise. There is nothing in that statement that validates his actions. Don't just shout "victim blaming" as a knee jerk reaction in any discussion about women, it's ridiculous.
I boggles my mind that you assume so many things, and seem to be so cocksure in your opinions.
Women may be more afraid of escalating conflicts than a man would. Surely it's not controversial that an average woman is physically weaker than an average man.
Maybe, but in general it is a bad idea to provoke a conflict without good reason. Even if you are very strong, there is always a probability > 0 that you receive some damage in a fight.
Yeah, it sucks, but no surprise. Stalking is an old, old problem. And the police won't do anything until it turns violent. You can stalk normal people, movie stars, business people - pretty much anyone other than a psychiatrist. (It turns out that psychiatrists have a really easy time getting their stalkers committed to insane asylums.)
I know a woman who owns nothing in her own name, changes her phone number frequently, and whose own family often does not know how to reach her. All to make it harder for her stalker to keep tracking her down. When she acquired the stalker she was high profile so the FBI actually did send someone to give her advice. The advice was basically that she was screwed, how to best hide, and to get trained guard dogs.
I wish I was joking.
I know a woman who owns nothing in her own name, changes her phone number frequently, and whose own family often does not know how to reach her. All to make it harder for her stalker to keep tracking her down. When she acquired the stalker she was high profile so the FBI actually did send someone to give her advice. The advice was basically that she was screwed, how to best hide, and to get trained guard dogs.
I wish I was joking.
> And the police won't do anything until it turns violent.
Try violating a restraining order taken out against you and see if you maintain that opinion.
The behavior you describe as well as that of the article qualifies for seeking a restraining order, which this entire discussion seems to have forgotten is in existence. Once you have a EPO/TRO/PRO, then the police care when it is violated. A lot. It's easy for them to enforce and requires no investigation, which is the thorn that hits a lot of people when they try to get cases like this going with the police. As an example, my father went to jail more than once for violating my mother's PRO. It's also on the person's record, which is why it is good to involve a lawyer if someone files one against you.
I'm one more contact from my own stalker away from filing for one, but he seems to have forgotten about me for now. I'm mystified that the FBI advised your friend and the topic of a restraining order did not come up at all. I spoke with the FBI about my stalker after he threatened to kill me across state lines and it was the first thing they told me to do. Undoubtedly, there is more to your anecdote.
In California, as long as you choose the right kind (i.e., not domestic for civil), restraining orders are fairly trivial to get. In some cases you can get a legally-binding TRO from a judge, in a day, for free. They also show up on computers in a police officer's cruiser in California (thanks to the digitization of all of it in CLETS), so if you are literally standing in front of a person on whom you have a EPO/TRO/PRO and get a cop's attention, the crime is open and shut and they will arrest, speaking from experience. Bonus in California and maybe elsewhere: if you successfully take out a restraining order on someone, they have to surrender all their firearms or sell them (yes, really).
Seriously. Restraining orders, people. The courts are at your disposal, and they're not just for domestic violence.
Edit: Except in New York, apparently, where the author of the article lives. Go New York. New York readers: vote to fix that incredibly moronic situation at once, then travel to a sane state on this like California and go back home with one of ours, which should be enforceable there. Seriously, in the Internet age, the complete absence of a non-dating civil protective order mechanism is an absolute and disgusting shame, and means your only recourse from the courts exists if you make out with your stalker. What a grandly perverse incentive you have there from your judicial system. I'm actually worked up about this from learning it in this thread, and sympathize far more with the article author now than I did before I knew that.
California resources:
- http://www.courts.ca.gov/1260.htm
- http://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-domesticviolence.htm (dating/relationship/etc)
- http://www.courts.ca.gov/1044.htm (not dating, impossible in New York, apparently)
Try violating a restraining order taken out against you and see if you maintain that opinion.
The behavior you describe as well as that of the article qualifies for seeking a restraining order, which this entire discussion seems to have forgotten is in existence. Once you have a EPO/TRO/PRO, then the police care when it is violated. A lot. It's easy for them to enforce and requires no investigation, which is the thorn that hits a lot of people when they try to get cases like this going with the police. As an example, my father went to jail more than once for violating my mother's PRO. It's also on the person's record, which is why it is good to involve a lawyer if someone files one against you.
I'm one more contact from my own stalker away from filing for one, but he seems to have forgotten about me for now. I'm mystified that the FBI advised your friend and the topic of a restraining order did not come up at all. I spoke with the FBI about my stalker after he threatened to kill me across state lines and it was the first thing they told me to do. Undoubtedly, there is more to your anecdote.
In California, as long as you choose the right kind (i.e., not domestic for civil), restraining orders are fairly trivial to get. In some cases you can get a legally-binding TRO from a judge, in a day, for free. They also show up on computers in a police officer's cruiser in California (thanks to the digitization of all of it in CLETS), so if you are literally standing in front of a person on whom you have a EPO/TRO/PRO and get a cop's attention, the crime is open and shut and they will arrest, speaking from experience. Bonus in California and maybe elsewhere: if you successfully take out a restraining order on someone, they have to surrender all their firearms or sell them (yes, really).
Seriously. Restraining orders, people. The courts are at your disposal, and they're not just for domestic violence.
Edit: Except in New York, apparently, where the author of the article lives. Go New York. New York readers: vote to fix that incredibly moronic situation at once, then travel to a sane state on this like California and go back home with one of ours, which should be enforceable there. Seriously, in the Internet age, the complete absence of a non-dating civil protective order mechanism is an absolute and disgusting shame, and means your only recourse from the courts exists if you make out with your stalker. What a grandly perverse incentive you have there from your judicial system. I'm actually worked up about this from learning it in this thread, and sympathize far more with the article author now than I did before I knew that.
California resources:
- http://www.courts.ca.gov/1260.htm
- http://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-domesticviolence.htm (dating/relationship/etc)
- http://www.courts.ca.gov/1044.htm (not dating, impossible in New York, apparently)
Oh, she got specific advice about restraining orders.
The specific advice was, "The point at which a stalker is likely to flip out is the point where it becomes obvious to the stalker that the attention is unwanted and the relationship can never work. There is a real possibility that the act of taking out a restraining order will trigger a murder-suicide."
When you're dealing with insane people, you can't expect a sane response to legal threats.
(And yes, there is a lot more to my anecdote. But not stuff I'll talk about in public.)
The specific advice was, "The point at which a stalker is likely to flip out is the point where it becomes obvious to the stalker that the attention is unwanted and the relationship can never work. There is a real possibility that the act of taking out a restraining order will trigger a murder-suicide."
When you're dealing with insane people, you can't expect a sane response to legal threats.
(And yes, there is a lot more to my anecdote. But not stuff I'll talk about in public.)
Wow, what horrible advice. It might escalate if you get a restraining order? Yea, no shit, but then they can also go to jail. If someone is harassing you, silence is not the solution.
A bully might beat you up if you tell someone what they are doing, but it will more likely get you the help you need.
Maybe not for your specific situation but that is really bad advice for victims. Speak up, take action.
A bully might beat you up if you tell someone what they are doing, but it will more likely get you the help you need.
Maybe not for your specific situation but that is really bad advice for victims. Speak up, take action.
I'm suspicious of the whole thing based on that advice. It's basically victim blaming, and I have a really hard time imagining an FBI agent saying "avoid restraining orders because your stalker will probably kill you and get dogs because lol you are just fucked." That's a very shitty tone to take and is practically masturbating atop a victim's fear. Regardless of opinion on LE, I can't imagine someone who made it to the FBI even holding an opinion like that. Someone in Arpaio's MCSO maybe.
Something smells with that entire story. If I had to guess, it has something to do with us hearing it thirdhand because we are very clearly relying on the interpretation of at least two people, and it's also conveniently tied in to the overall narrative of LE being completely useless. Also weird that those parts are okay to discuss publicly but the rest isn't. It's not worth me continuing to call it out, though, so I'm just letting it go.
Something smells with that entire story. If I had to guess, it has something to do with us hearing it thirdhand because we are very clearly relying on the interpretation of at least two people, and it's also conveniently tied in to the overall narrative of LE being completely useless. Also weird that those parts are okay to discuss publicly but the rest isn't. It's not worth me continuing to call it out, though, so I'm just letting it go.
My email is in my profile. Email me if you want, and I'll give you enough additional details that the story should make more sense.
At that point, why not just buy a gun and start going to a shooting range? Most US jurisdictions have a legal framework that enables you to kill others in self-defense.
I don't personally believe that anyone should have to do this, but I also believe that if you feel sufficiently threatened it'd be silly to ignore your legal right to self-defense.
I don't personally believe that anyone should have to do this, but I also believe that if you feel sufficiently threatened it'd be silly to ignore your legal right to self-defense.
Most US jurisdictions have a legal framework that enables you to kill others in self-defense.
ALL US jurisdictions have such a framework, although a 7 plus D.C. make it impractical to use by mostly not allowing concealed carry, and a subset of them have a duty to retreat which will likely get you crucified later in court (e.g. Maryland and at times, even in your home, Massachusetts). The author is said to live in New York, which is all but no possession let alone no issue in NYC, and may issue, sometimes liberally upstate, so she probably can't take your advice.
ADDED: And it still won't stop the cyberstalking, just give her a backstop if it goes "real world".
ALL US jurisdictions have such a framework, although a 7 plus D.C. make it impractical to use by mostly not allowing concealed carry, and a subset of them have a duty to retreat which will likely get you crucified later in court (e.g. Maryland and at times, even in your home, Massachusetts). The author is said to live in New York, which is all but no possession let alone no issue in NYC, and may issue, sometimes liberally upstate, so she probably can't take your advice.
ADDED: And it still won't stop the cyberstalking, just give her a backstop if it goes "real world".
I wasn't talking about the article, but responding to btillys comment and btilly never clarified the jurisdiction where the events he was describing took place.
I do think that the ability to defend yourself would be of great help if you're faced with a serious threat of physical violence, as seemed to be the case in the situation btilly described.
> a subset of them have a duty to retreat which will likely get you crucified later in court
This is what I was referring to with "most".
I do think that the ability to defend yourself would be of great help if you're faced with a serious threat of physical violence, as seemed to be the case in the situation btilly described.
> a subset of them have a duty to retreat which will likely get you crucified later in court
This is what I was referring to with "most".
Any decent self-defense instructor will tell you that the best way to win a fight is to not get into a fight at all. So why do something to encourage violence? Let's say you do get a gun, you go to a shooting range, you get good at shooting it. Who's to say that, when the stalker shows up at your door, you're going to be able to pull the trigger? Taking a life is not an easy thing to do, and in the "heat of the moment" some people can be unwilling to do it, even when doing so would save themselves from harm.
>Any decent self-defense instructor will tell you that the best way to win a fight is to not get into a fight at all. So why do something to encourage violence?
Read the comment I was responding to, supposedly the FBI suggested that getting a restraining order would significantly increase the risk of a murder-suicide. Is the right approach there to avoid the restraining order to not encourage violence? I think not.
>Taking a life is not an easy thing to do, and in the "heat of the moment" some people can be unwilling to do it, even when doing so would save themselves from harm.
I absolutely agree, but what's the alternative here? Not getting a restraining order? Hoping that the cops will get there in time if something happens?
It seems to me that at that point you really wouldn't be left with much of a choice, besides just accepting the harassment and living with it.
Read the comment I was responding to, supposedly the FBI suggested that getting a restraining order would significantly increase the risk of a murder-suicide. Is the right approach there to avoid the restraining order to not encourage violence? I think not.
>Taking a life is not an easy thing to do, and in the "heat of the moment" some people can be unwilling to do it, even when doing so would save themselves from harm.
I absolutely agree, but what's the alternative here? Not getting a restraining order? Hoping that the cops will get there in time if something happens?
It seems to me that at that point you really wouldn't be left with much of a choice, besides just accepting the harassment and living with it.
Or, they could throw the asshole in jail, and be done with the whole thing.
Can't people be put into a psychiatric ward at some point?
You can only be committed against your will if a mental health professional determines you to be an active risk to yourself or others. The key point there is that you have to be evaluated by a mental health professional: and it's not like there are psychologists roaming the streets evaluating strangers. There are only a couple of scenarios that can result in being evaluated: voluntarily (i.e. seeing a therapist) or by some sort of court mandate (if a person accused of a crime displays signs of mental illness, often a forensic psychologist will be asked to evaluate them). Basically getting a stalker committed requires getting them charged with a crime or in some way in front of a judge.
Also keep in mind the bar for committing someone against their will is pretty high. For instance, a person with schizophrenia who is homeless and spends their days talking to voices in their head has a very poor quality of life and is likely to die due to disease, starvation or exposure, but is not suicidal and thus cannot be committed, at least not long term. Sometimes that person can be committed for a few days for evaluation and observation, but no longer.
Also keep in mind the bar for committing someone against their will is pretty high. For instance, a person with schizophrenia who is homeless and spends their days talking to voices in their head has a very poor quality of life and is likely to die due to disease, starvation or exposure, but is not suicidal and thus cannot be committed, at least not long term. Sometimes that person can be committed for a few days for evaluation and observation, but no longer.
>voluntarily (i.e. seeing a therapist) or by some sort of court mandate (if a person accused of a crime displays signs of mental illness
So what you are saying is that if I voluntarily seek a therapist, I could end up committed, but if I don't, then I have to have done something bad enough for me to be in front of the judge first. And people wonder why we have such issues with our mental health care system.
(Not that I've done anything that would get me committed, but say I was feeling depressed or something... why would I risk it?)
So what you are saying is that if I voluntarily seek a therapist, I could end up committed, but if I don't, then I have to have done something bad enough for me to be in front of the judge first. And people wonder why we have such issues with our mental health care system.
(Not that I've done anything that would get me committed, but say I was feeling depressed or something... why would I risk it?)
Getting committed by a therapist you are seeing is very rare, generally only happens if you are actively suicidal, and will tend to only last a few days. The barrier for involuntary committing is very high: I've known several people who engaged in self harm and cutting, told their therapists, and were not committed. The benefits far outweigh the risks.
>And people wonder why we have such issues with our mental health care system.
Genuine question: what would you want to see instead? Would you want it to be impossible to commit patients without consent, and risk more people committing suicide? I understand being frustrated with the system, but I don't see any easy answers.
>And people wonder why we have such issues with our mental health care system.
Genuine question: what would you want to see instead? Would you want it to be impossible to commit patients without consent, and risk more people committing suicide? I understand being frustrated with the system, but I don't see any easy answers.
>Getting committed by a therapist you are seeing is very rare
There are many very rare things people take extreme precaution to avoid.
>Would you want it to be impossible to commit patients without consent, and risk more people committing suicide?
But more people would see therapists and thus less people would commit suicide overall. The choice is between a lower total suicide rate or a lower suicide rate in a subset which therapist are exposed to. And I'm not really surprised therapist opted for the one that is directly more visible.
There are many very rare things people take extreme precaution to avoid.
>Would you want it to be impossible to commit patients without consent, and risk more people committing suicide?
But more people would see therapists and thus less people would commit suicide overall. The choice is between a lower total suicide rate or a lower suicide rate in a subset which therapist are exposed to. And I'm not really surprised therapist opted for the one that is directly more visible.
But, knowing that your therapist can only commit you temporarily if you actively suicidal, do you still think you shouldn't see a therapist if you are depressed? I, for one, am glad my psychiatrist can commit me if I become suicidal; she would literally be saving my life.
I'm not a counselor myself, but I have several in my family. It has been my impression that therapists would not be interested in committing you unless there was an immediate threat to you or someone else.
They would much rather use a treatment method you agreed with. So if you were very depressed they would definitely be concerned. But I don't know if you would get involuntarily committed unless the difference between involuntary commitment and outpatient treatment was a life or death choice. I don't expect you could say much to a therapist that would not stay private unless there was an extremely good reason.
They would much rather use a treatment method you agreed with. So if you were very depressed they would definitely be concerned. But I don't know if you would get involuntarily committed unless the difference between involuntary commitment and outpatient treatment was a life or death choice. I don't expect you could say much to a therapist that would not stay private unless there was an extremely good reason.
>I'm not a counselor myself, but I have several in my family. It has been my impression that therapists would not be interested in committing you unless there was an immediate threat to you or someone else.
The threat of me using a gun, no matter how unlikely it actually is, leads to me being banned from having a gun in quite a lot of places. Also, people will often not accurate take into account the chance of something happening when deciding how they should act.
The threat of me using a gun, no matter how unlikely it actually is, leads to me being banned from having a gun in quite a lot of places. Also, people will often not accurate take into account the chance of something happening when deciding how they should act.
> So what you are saying is that if I voluntarily seek a therapist, I could end up committed, but if I don't, then I have to have done something bad enough for me to be in front of the judge first.
It depends where you are. That's not true for the UK, for example, where a variety of people have powers to detain under the mental health act. There's a bunch of checks and balances built in to the system so while it's not perfect it's very far away from the misinformation some people are spreading in this thread.
It depends where you are. That's not true for the UK, for example, where a variety of people have powers to detain under the mental health act. There's a bunch of checks and balances built in to the system so while it's not perfect it's very far away from the misinformation some people are spreading in this thread.
I feel for this person. I recently had a stalker over the summer, a family friend whom I met at my sister's wedding. He had some sort of break down, declared me to be his lover, received my email via unwitting family members. Luckily someone had raised the alarm. Said stalked flew out of state fully expecting to find me and be with me. It did not happen, but I certainly was preparing for an altercation and was traumatized by every unexpected knock or ring at the door.
One thing I learned in this article is that it's someone's job to call the victims of stalkers, apologize on their behalf, and ask to be notified if the behavior continues. It makes me wonder what process is initiated if they inform the lawyer that "Danny" has resumed harassing them. Will the lawyer call "Danny" and tell his client to shut up? Will he be billed for that time? Is the idea that, given a sufficiently expensive lawyer, he won't be able to afford his stalking habit?
It is interesting that they appear to have published this under their real name. No doubt "Danny" has read it with interest.
It is interesting that they appear to have published this under their real name. No doubt "Danny" has read it with interest.
What I've read from the article, beside the obvious, is how unaware people are about how technology works.
"With Apple and Google unable to help ...".
She thinks Apple and Google should help with spoofed mails b/c an Apple mail client is used and the spoofed email was from a Gmail address.
Also not understanding identity theft:
"including Danny’s latest identity theft."
Also not understanding the difference between civil legal action and crimes.
In most western countries education about technology and how it works is insufficient. Same goes for law basics that help with life.
Edit: I don't blame this in any way on her.
"With Apple and Google unable to help ...".
She thinks Apple and Google should help with spoofed mails b/c an Apple mail client is used and the spoofed email was from a Gmail address.
Also not understanding identity theft:
"including Danny’s latest identity theft."
Also not understanding the difference between civil legal action and crimes.
In most western countries education about technology and how it works is insufficient. Same goes for law basics that help with life.
Edit: I don't blame this in any way on her.
While this must have no doubt been a horrid experience, I can see why the cops would not have considered it worthy of launching a criminal investigation.
This is a perfect case for civil law: causing emotional distress, harassment, defamation, etc. You should attempt to sue him and get a no-contact order if you can.
This is a perfect case for civil law: causing emotional distress, harassment, defamation, etc. You should attempt to sue him and get a no-contact order if you can.
My problem with that perspective is that the law is clear on the subject: It is a criminal matter, according to the cyberstalking statutes across the country. If police don't like the law, they probably shouldn't have chosen a career of enforcing the law. (Certainly there are unjust laws, and I would hope officers would choose to exhibit some sort of leniency or looking the other way in minor cases of those sorts...but, in this case the response seems to be one of simply not believing the victim is worthy of their time and attention, despite the fact that the legislature of their state instructed them to consider protecting those victims a part of their job.)
Pursuing a civil case requires money and time that many people don't have to spare. There are very few pro-bono cyberstalking attorneys out there, and unless and until it becomes common for their to be large payouts for victims (and their attorneys) there's unlikely to be an industry built up around it (as in the case of workman's comp, personal injury, medical malpractice, and class actions over corporate malfeasance). And, I don't know that we want to look to those industries for the preferred practices for preventing harm to young women and girls who are overwhelmingly the victims in these cases.
I'm not saying the criminal justice system, or police, are the right way to handle it, either, though probably not for the same reason as some folks here have expressed. I think police have a history of further inflicting harm on rape victims, for example, and I don't now if I want that kind of harm to also be inflicted on girls and women who are victims of cyberstalking. It sounds like the experience of the author in interacting with police was similarly demeaning and dismissive to what some rape victims report about their experience going to the police, so I guess that's just where we're at in these kinds of crimes.
In short, I don't know what the right answer is, and I don't like police or the criminal justice system, but I'd rather they err on the side of protecting victims, when they are deciding what cases to pursue and how to allocate resources. They had a victim in their office, and they opted to snicker at her, and tell her to get lost.
Pursuing a civil case requires money and time that many people don't have to spare. There are very few pro-bono cyberstalking attorneys out there, and unless and until it becomes common for their to be large payouts for victims (and their attorneys) there's unlikely to be an industry built up around it (as in the case of workman's comp, personal injury, medical malpractice, and class actions over corporate malfeasance). And, I don't know that we want to look to those industries for the preferred practices for preventing harm to young women and girls who are overwhelmingly the victims in these cases.
I'm not saying the criminal justice system, or police, are the right way to handle it, either, though probably not for the same reason as some folks here have expressed. I think police have a history of further inflicting harm on rape victims, for example, and I don't now if I want that kind of harm to also be inflicted on girls and women who are victims of cyberstalking. It sounds like the experience of the author in interacting with police was similarly demeaning and dismissive to what some rape victims report about their experience going to the police, so I guess that's just where we're at in these kinds of crimes.
In short, I don't know what the right answer is, and I don't like police or the criminal justice system, but I'd rather they err on the side of protecting victims, when they are deciding what cases to pursue and how to allocate resources. They had a victim in their office, and they opted to snicker at her, and tell her to get lost.
They didn't snicker at her. They just didn't know how best to help her.
I feel your characterization portrays officers as hateful when they're really often just misinformed.
Again, just like you say, it's hard to find the right answer. And when you say you "rather they err on the side of protecting victims", there are too many people who could possibly be victims to protect. And how do you mean "protect" exactly?
[Downvoting is an acceptable response, but I was honestly hoping for an answer to the question. If I'm missing something, please let me know, I would really appreciate that!]
I feel your characterization portrays officers as hateful when they're really often just misinformed.
Again, just like you say, it's hard to find the right answer. And when you say you "rather they err on the side of protecting victims", there are too many people who could possibly be victims to protect. And how do you mean "protect" exactly?
[Downvoting is an acceptable response, but I was honestly hoping for an answer to the question. If I'm missing something, please let me know, I would really appreciate that!]
The police in this case knew the name of the victim, the name of the perpetrator, and had the ability to look over the evidence to figure out whether a crime had been committed (according to the statute, it probably had). You don't get much more open and shut than that. Yes, it takes resources with only modest results (modest in the sense that it's not usually gonna be a murder case or a drug smuggling case, and won't be a gold star on the officer's record, but they will probably be able to help someone), but so does so-called "broken windows" policing and stop-and-frisk, which have similarly modest results (and have the unpleasant side effect of creating new victims in many cases, and breeding mistrust for police among young brown folks in nearly all cases).
I'm not sure what's so hard about this. Police in the first instance should at the least take a report from the victim. That's the first step toward a restraining order and other legal remedies, and how things begin in other kinds of harassment cases.
I'm not sure what's so hard about this. Police in the first instance should at the least take a report from the victim. That's the first step toward a restraining order and other legal remedies, and how things begin in other kinds of harassment cases.
I agree with that statement. It's much easier to agree with your points when they're specific.
I find it unfortunate that some members of police force think that they know the law well enough to decide whether or not a report should be made.
I find it unfortunate that some members of police force think that they know the law well enough to decide whether or not a report should be made.
"Loud snickering from my left. Is it him? asked the cop in front of me, flicking his thumb at his colleague giggling in the corner."
Got it. I missed that.
Even though having a visit from the cops would probably cause this guy to be scared into no longer doing this?
Anecdotal evidence suggests that this tactic only works on some people. Some stalkers don't care when they get a visit from the police (the police very clearly can't do anything and will state that explicitly).
Some may take a short break and then feel the urge come back; others may just go right ahead. (Some people don't realize they're stalking, and will stop. It's worth a try to ask them to stop.)
After having asked nicely, suing is unfortunately your only recourse. And it really sucks that suing takes so much time, effort, and money, especially in a situation like this.
Some may take a short break and then feel the urge come back; others may just go right ahead. (Some people don't realize they're stalking, and will stop. It's worth a try to ask them to stop.)
After having asked nicely, suing is unfortunately your only recourse. And it really sucks that suing takes so much time, effort, and money, especially in a situation like this.
It obviously doesn't seem like he had the ability to make rational decisions like that. I doubt that a single visit from the cops would get him to change his ways after 14 years.
I'm sure it would've, but they would've needed to commit resources to investigate and confirm the claims were likely true before doing that.
Not a woman, but Garry of Garrysmod fame has a very interesting set of blog posts about dealing with and eventually befriending his internet stalker in an attempt to curb the guy's worst behavior.
http://garry.tv/2015/11/10/stalkers-and-abuse-part-1/
http://garry.tv/2015/11/10/stalkers-and-abuse-part-1/
>I was never physically afraid of Danny and never will be.
I would be. Danny clearly has more than a few screws loose.
I would be. Danny clearly has more than a few screws loose.
It seems like they've had a lot of time to learn which ones, though.
True, although anyone that's both that obsessive and that malicious deserves to be considered a potential physical threat—barring some sort of major physical disability.
Even then, it's remotely possible they could still cause physical harm by proxy.
Even then, it's remotely possible they could still cause physical harm by proxy.
Okay, so this creep's behavior pretty clearly rises to the level of harassment at a minimum.
But legally the FIRST thing to do with a stalker or harasser is to TELL them unequivocally that you want NO further contact. Preferably document in writing; in New York, you can record conversations that you are party to. At this point further unwanted contact becomes more clearly a criminal matter.
Too often, those on the receiving end ignore or laugh off bad behavior. This is natural enough, but unless someone is clearly threatening, if they haven't been told unequivocally to stop all further contact, then they can always argue, sincerely or not, that they didn't know their contact was unwelcome. Or that in any event they were free to continue their advances.
The closest the author explicitly posts is "I caved and sent him a message asking him to please stop messaging me so much or I’d block him." That is unlikely enough to suffice as "clearly informed to cease that conduct." All it would take is a message saying "never contact me again." Period, full stop. Better yet, add "or I will report you to police." At that point, further contact is actionable, criminal harassment.
That being said, much of this cyberstalker's behavior is independently harassing, e.g. forged emails to friends etc. But putting someone on notice is a first step to protecting yourself. It is premature to go to police to say, "X is bothering me, I'm not afraid of him and I haven't told him firmly to go away, but I really want him to go away." If someone isn't in any way actually putting you in fear, and all that is involved is unwanted communications/nonphysical contact, then it's on you to first tell him to go away before involving police. Then if he won't, you have an unambiguous complaint.
Edit: The author does also describe some poor policing. Good community-oriented policing centers around mediation. Ideally the police in this situation would not simply say "it's not a crime" and make the complainant feel helpless and ignored, but would try to solve help solve the problem. Specifically by taking a report and offering to communicate to the person that all further contact is unwelcome and may lead to a criminal complaint, and documenting this. This type of approach is likely to help bring an end to the behavior, or in the alternative lay a foundation for a future, actionable criminal complaint. In the best case, behavior improves, complainant can move on with her life, police don't have to deal with future complaints, everybody wins. Sadly many departments just don't want to get involved or have the resources to deal with community mediation, even if it pays for itself over time.
But legally the FIRST thing to do with a stalker or harasser is to TELL them unequivocally that you want NO further contact. Preferably document in writing; in New York, you can record conversations that you are party to. At this point further unwanted contact becomes more clearly a criminal matter.
Too often, those on the receiving end ignore or laugh off bad behavior. This is natural enough, but unless someone is clearly threatening, if they haven't been told unequivocally to stop all further contact, then they can always argue, sincerely or not, that they didn't know their contact was unwelcome. Or that in any event they were free to continue their advances.
The closest the author explicitly posts is "I caved and sent him a message asking him to please stop messaging me so much or I’d block him." That is unlikely enough to suffice as "clearly informed to cease that conduct." All it would take is a message saying "never contact me again." Period, full stop. Better yet, add "or I will report you to police." At that point, further contact is actionable, criminal harassment.
That being said, much of this cyberstalker's behavior is independently harassing, e.g. forged emails to friends etc. But putting someone on notice is a first step to protecting yourself. It is premature to go to police to say, "X is bothering me, I'm not afraid of him and I haven't told him firmly to go away, but I really want him to go away." If someone isn't in any way actually putting you in fear, and all that is involved is unwanted communications/nonphysical contact, then it's on you to first tell him to go away before involving police. Then if he won't, you have an unambiguous complaint.
Edit: The author does also describe some poor policing. Good community-oriented policing centers around mediation. Ideally the police in this situation would not simply say "it's not a crime" and make the complainant feel helpless and ignored, but would try to solve help solve the problem. Specifically by taking a report and offering to communicate to the person that all further contact is unwelcome and may lead to a criminal complaint, and documenting this. This type of approach is likely to help bring an end to the behavior, or in the alternative lay a foundation for a future, actionable criminal complaint. In the best case, behavior improves, complainant can move on with her life, police don't have to deal with future complaints, everybody wins. Sadly many departments just don't want to get involved or have the resources to deal with community mediation, even if it pays for itself over time.
> in New York, you can record conversations that you are party to.
In case people get ideas from this and are unaware, California and several other states are the "other" ones that forbid this without consent from both parties in certain circumstances. Yes, even recording your stalker could get you prosecuted. Yes, it has happened. Yes, it is stupid. Yes, it even affects reporters to an extent.
IANAL, consult yours. You may also find the reference material I consulted on this while working in journalism useful: http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide
In case people get ideas from this and are unaware, California and several other states are the "other" ones that forbid this without consent from both parties in certain circumstances. Yes, even recording your stalker could get you prosecuted. Yes, it has happened. Yes, it is stupid. Yes, it even affects reporters to an extent.
IANAL, consult yours. You may also find the reference material I consulted on this while working in journalism useful: http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide
>Two years passed before I finally decided to take legal action, in late 2014. Maybe it seems weird that I waited so long
What seems weird is it does not sound like she ever tried to actually confront him. Block after block, but not really confronting him. It seems she didn't want to hurt his feelings. But waited until police action? That seems like a terrible approach.
The most confrontational she got was "I caved and sent him a message asking him to please stop messaging me so much or I’d block him." How surprising that didn't work.
You need to be more confrontational in a situation like this - either a heart to heart approach where you lay it on them, or something more aggressive. Blocking for the umpteenth time is not going to work.
You could call this critique victim blaming, but the my intent to encourage people to handle the situation better, without someone repeating her mistakes.
What seems weird is it does not sound like she ever tried to actually confront him. Block after block, but not really confronting him. It seems she didn't want to hurt his feelings. But waited until police action? That seems like a terrible approach.
The most confrontational she got was "I caved and sent him a message asking him to please stop messaging me so much or I’d block him." How surprising that didn't work.
You need to be more confrontational in a situation like this - either a heart to heart approach where you lay it on them, or something more aggressive. Blocking for the umpteenth time is not going to work.
You could call this critique victim blaming, but the my intent to encourage people to handle the situation better, without someone repeating her mistakes.
...so how many women are actually commenting on this post? Raise your hands please?
Hahaha, this is a classssic hackernews discussion. "There is absolutely no discrimination. Women are held to the same standards as men. They just complain. Saying that women have it unfair is ITSELF sexist" type arguments are the best (for entertainment value).
@dang and other hackernews people: Regardless of if you agree with them or not, you do realize that this will reflect on Ycombinator's perception/PR right? No amount of office hours for women is going to counter this RIDICULOUS volume of INSANELY UNAWARE sexism going around in these forums. I mean, for YCombinator's sake I hope you guys agree with most of the comments here, otherwise this is just deadweight on whatever your 'diversity' aims may be. Calling them lazy, complaining fools is how you put the bullseye on your backs for the time when the pitchforks come out.
Just saying. This is ridiculous. It doesn't have to be this way. Really.
Hahaha, this is a classssic hackernews discussion. "There is absolutely no discrimination. Women are held to the same standards as men. They just complain. Saying that women have it unfair is ITSELF sexist" type arguments are the best (for entertainment value).
@dang and other hackernews people: Regardless of if you agree with them or not, you do realize that this will reflect on Ycombinator's perception/PR right? No amount of office hours for women is going to counter this RIDICULOUS volume of INSANELY UNAWARE sexism going around in these forums. I mean, for YCombinator's sake I hope you guys agree with most of the comments here, otherwise this is just deadweight on whatever your 'diversity' aims may be. Calling them lazy, complaining fools is how you put the bullseye on your backs for the time when the pitchforks come out.
Just saying. This is ridiculous. It doesn't have to be this way. Really.
thanks for saying this. it's shocking to see the cesspool that the comments become whenever gender and race issues are raised on this site. are people really this clueless?
I think this person misses a key point here. She does not have a "Cyber Stalker" - She has a Stalker ... No matter the medium of the majority of these incidents if materially affects her life in several ways and more and more as our world blurs from the real world to a digital reality these things are really one in the same and should be treated as such.
I say this not to say that she is wrong but to help raise all of our personal awarenesses and biases to this type of situation.
The term "Cyber Stalker" tends to make it seem less threatening or serious when in reality it can be just as dangerous and possibly even more so to the person on the wrong end of this.
I hope she gets this remedied in the near future, but I also hope she and maybe others reading this will realize how closely that line is walked and how we should start considering it the same crime as our data and our digital footprint becomes more an integral part of our lives.
I say this not to say that she is wrong but to help raise all of our personal awarenesses and biases to this type of situation.
The term "Cyber Stalker" tends to make it seem less threatening or serious when in reality it can be just as dangerous and possibly even more so to the person on the wrong end of this.
I hope she gets this remedied in the near future, but I also hope she and maybe others reading this will realize how closely that line is walked and how we should start considering it the same crime as our data and our digital footprint becomes more an integral part of our lives.
I know this is entirely inadequate, but what about suing for defamation?
The police, I fear, want to start getting a bit more proactive. When someone is able to get away with sabotaging someone else's life with complete impunity from authorities, a lot of people take actions in their own hands.
The police, I fear, want to start getting a bit more proactive. When someone is able to get away with sabotaging someone else's life with complete impunity from authorities, a lot of people take actions in their own hands.
[deleted]
> Men can be victims of cyberstalking, too, but the majority of victims are women, who tend to experience “particularly severe” harassment online, according to the survey. Just about everyone has been name-called or subject to some other sort of verbal abuse online, but women are the predominant targets of sexual harassment and the sustained abuse that constitutes cyberstalking, typically considered the most serious form of internet harassment.
Love how she so quickly brushes men under the rug. "This is a woman problem! Not a mans porblem!" Why do we generalize issues? Why not focus on all cyber stalking, not just cyber stalking by men? Its serious issue that I sympathize with.
Love how she so quickly brushes men under the rug. "This is a woman problem! Not a mans porblem!" Why do we generalize issues? Why not focus on all cyber stalking, not just cyber stalking by men? Its serious issue that I sympathize with.
I knew two women who were being stalked online. Both took physical violence to end their stalking.
The first woman I told a friend about. We worked together as landscapers for a local company. He was a low level drug dealer and had some sketchy friends. The more I talked about her and the ongoing saga, he finally told me for a few hundred bucks, he could get it to stop. A few weeks went by and I didn't think much about it, until she said her stalkers messages started going up a notch just like in the story.
I never told her, but I found out the guy's name and after a quick DOXing, I found out where he lived and some other useful information like the bars he frequented. I paid my buddy $200 and turned the information I had on my friends stalker over to him. A week later, my friend said she stopped getting messages from the guy. I found out much later he sent two of his "associates" over to talk to the guy at work. They got him out in the parking lot and assaulted him pretty good. Broken nose, busted lip and several broken ribs. They warned him they would come back and pay him another visit if he didn't stop stalking my friend. It did work and less than a year later, she graduated and moved out of the city.
The other situation was very similar. Another friend of mine was being stalked by a college ex-boyfriend. He was unrelenting, showing up at her work, following her to the bar, and other strange stuff. She finally told her father about after almost two years of him stalking her. Her dad was an ex-marine and had done several tours in Vietnam. He was a quiet guy, but you could tell you didn't want to cross him.
She lived in the city where we were going to college, so most of the time, she lived at home. Her stalker made the mistake of following her home one day. She went in and her Dad asked why there was a car parked down the street. She went to look out the window and knew it was her crazy ex and told her Dad to call the police. Instead, he told her to call the police and hurry because something bad was about to happen. He took his handgun and went through the backyards in order to sneak up on his car. He yanked him out of the car (he later said, "You should have seen the terror in his eyes!") and slammed him on the ground and put the gun in his face and told him he knew who he was and if he ever came near his daughter he would make sure he would walk with a limp the rest of his life or worse. He make it clear not to mess with him or his family ever again. The cops showed up a few minutes later and arrested him for an outstanding warrant and thanked her Dad for calling them. Thankfully, that was the end of her ordeal.
I would never advocate violence in these situations, but when you feel helpless, sometimes there are no other alternatives.
The first woman I told a friend about. We worked together as landscapers for a local company. He was a low level drug dealer and had some sketchy friends. The more I talked about her and the ongoing saga, he finally told me for a few hundred bucks, he could get it to stop. A few weeks went by and I didn't think much about it, until she said her stalkers messages started going up a notch just like in the story.
I never told her, but I found out the guy's name and after a quick DOXing, I found out where he lived and some other useful information like the bars he frequented. I paid my buddy $200 and turned the information I had on my friends stalker over to him. A week later, my friend said she stopped getting messages from the guy. I found out much later he sent two of his "associates" over to talk to the guy at work. They got him out in the parking lot and assaulted him pretty good. Broken nose, busted lip and several broken ribs. They warned him they would come back and pay him another visit if he didn't stop stalking my friend. It did work and less than a year later, she graduated and moved out of the city.
The other situation was very similar. Another friend of mine was being stalked by a college ex-boyfriend. He was unrelenting, showing up at her work, following her to the bar, and other strange stuff. She finally told her father about after almost two years of him stalking her. Her dad was an ex-marine and had done several tours in Vietnam. He was a quiet guy, but you could tell you didn't want to cross him.
She lived in the city where we were going to college, so most of the time, she lived at home. Her stalker made the mistake of following her home one day. She went in and her Dad asked why there was a car parked down the street. She went to look out the window and knew it was her crazy ex and told her Dad to call the police. Instead, he told her to call the police and hurry because something bad was about to happen. He took his handgun and went through the backyards in order to sneak up on his car. He yanked him out of the car (he later said, "You should have seen the terror in his eyes!") and slammed him on the ground and put the gun in his face and told him he knew who he was and if he ever came near his daughter he would make sure he would walk with a limp the rest of his life or worse. He make it clear not to mess with him or his family ever again. The cops showed up a few minutes later and arrested him for an outstanding warrant and thanked her Dad for calling them. Thankfully, that was the end of her ordeal.
I would never advocate violence in these situations, but when you feel helpless, sometimes there are no other alternatives.
OK, first of all: I don't question that this guy turned out to be an asshole and a stalker and that author is a victim.
But I can't help but raise a question of definitions here. He was a stalker for 4 years, not for 12. His behaviour during first years of their relationships wasn't something that I would even remotely call "stalker behaviour". Up until this point:
> I caved and sent him a message asking him to please stop messaging me so much or I’d block him. “Ok. good luck on your quest,” he wrote back three minutes later. “Huh,” I thought. “That was easy.” Then he sent three more angry messages in quick succession and I blocked him on Facebook.
there's literally nothing in the description of his behavior that calls for the term "stalker". (Later — of course).
But I can't help but raise a question of definitions here. He was a stalker for 4 years, not for 12. His behaviour during first years of their relationships wasn't something that I would even remotely call "stalker behaviour". Up until this point:
> I caved and sent him a message asking him to please stop messaging me so much or I’d block him. “Ok. good luck on your quest,” he wrote back three minutes later. “Huh,” I thought. “That was easy.” Then he sent three more angry messages in quick succession and I blocked him on Facebook.
there's literally nothing in the description of his behavior that calls for the term "stalker". (Later — of course).
Amazing.
"I caved and sent him a message asking him to please stop messaging me so much or I’d block him."
... "so much or I'd block him." <--- the stalker?
"I caved and sent him a message asking him to please stop messaging me so much or I’d block him."
... "so much or I'd block him." <--- the stalker?
Yep, it's reinforcement all over. Everything she does that does not shut him off completely, without notice, without any reaction, that is rewarding to him. I don't blame this girl for this, because she did the best she could, but from the outside it is rather clear how this works. The problem is probably mostly emotionally, on her side. For some reason she could not end it completely and hand it over to the police.
Sorry, but it does sounds to me like you are blaming the victim when you write "The problem is probably mostly emotionally, on her side." It's her stalker who has the emotional problem. Calling her emotions the problem appears to me rather sexist, given that women are stereotyped as overly emotional. Furthermore, she DID stop responding, and she DID go to the police, but they didn't do shit. Please read the article more carefully, and please don't place the burden of justice on the victim.
[deleted]
What's with the image overlay. Can't read the text. Is that some sort of art? It looks cool but makes the site unusable. Entire layout seems broken (latest FF, OSX)
Edit: seems to be broken on the entire site not just for this article
Is it weird that when I saw the article title, I thought it was going to be about the NSA?
So...
Why didn't she just give him a firm, but polite "I'm not interested"?
I'm not saying that stalking and/or harassment are acceptable. I'm just saying that she probably could have avoided 14 years of misery if she had just politely told the guy that there was no potential for anything more.
Women need to learn to reject people in whom they're not interested. They think they're being "nice" or at the very least, being "not mean" but they are being incredibly cruel by letting the other person think there's hope when there isn't.
Don't expect him to take the hint. Tell him directly.
Why didn't she just give him a firm, but polite "I'm not interested"?
I'm not saying that stalking and/or harassment are acceptable. I'm just saying that she probably could have avoided 14 years of misery if she had just politely told the guy that there was no potential for anything more.
Women need to learn to reject people in whom they're not interested. They think they're being "nice" or at the very least, being "not mean" but they are being incredibly cruel by letting the other person think there's hope when there isn't.
Don't expect him to take the hint. Tell him directly.
You're blaming the victim. Do you really believe she didn't tell him no clearly?
> Women need to learn to reject people in whom they're not interested
No, that's not the problem, women get plenty of experience with that. People should not stalk or harass, period.
> Women need to learn to reject people in whom they're not interested
No, that's not the problem, women get plenty of experience with that. People should not stalk or harass, period.
People should not stalk or harass. Authorities and all other members of society should take stalking and harassing seriously. BUT potential victims should take reasonable measures to protect themselves too(not saying that a "firm rejection" is enough or even safe though). I hope Internet safety instruction becomes more of a thing in our education system.
Exactly.
What she did would be interpreted by someone with limited social skills as sending mixed signals. She went out for a meal with him when he showed up unannounced and gave her a gift.
She'd block or ignore him sometimes and engage him other times.
No, he shouldn't have harassed her but she should have been clear from the beginning that the attention was unwanted.
What she did would be interpreted by someone with limited social skills as sending mixed signals. She went out for a meal with him when he showed up unannounced and gave her a gift.
She'd block or ignore him sometimes and engage him other times.
No, he shouldn't have harassed her but she should have been clear from the beginning that the attention was unwanted.
I know and the post did mention such a firm rejection. I'm just stating that the problem is rather that there are people who don't take no for an answer.
>People should not stalk or harass, period.
And if they are, you're saying that women are completely incapable of handling the situation themselves and need to run to the police?
Suggesting that a woman solves her own problems is not the same as victim blaming.
And if they are, you're saying that women are completely incapable of handling the situation themselves and need to run to the police?
Suggesting that a woman solves her own problems is not the same as victim blaming.
She did. He escalated.
Seriously, you have never dealt with this before. Do not pretend that you know what to do.
And quite frankly, even if she didn't, that does NOT excuse this asshole for ruining her life.
Seriously, you have never dealt with this before. Do not pretend that you know what to do.
And quite frankly, even if she didn't, that does NOT excuse this asshole for ruining her life.
According to her version of the events, she didn't do anything close to that for 11 years. By her own account, she ghosted, blocked and ignored in the hopes that he would "take the hint" except for when she was bored or lonely. Don't hint. Don't play games. Tell him directly that you're not interested.
You don't know what I have dealt with in my life.
Don't be melodramatic, he didn't ruin her life. He has harassed and stalked her, both of which are completely inexcusable but it's not like he's killing her pets, threatening her physical safety or sending boxes of excrement to her workplace.
Again, by her own account he didn't escalate to harassment or stalking until 11 years after they met. Perhaps she shouldn't have had to but she could have ended this before it began with a firm but polite "No thank you".
You don't know what I have dealt with in my life.
Don't be melodramatic, he didn't ruin her life. He has harassed and stalked her, both of which are completely inexcusable but it's not like he's killing her pets, threatening her physical safety or sending boxes of excrement to her workplace.
Again, by her own account he didn't escalate to harassment or stalking until 11 years after they met. Perhaps she shouldn't have had to but she could have ended this before it began with a firm but polite "No thank you".
So this woman is unlucky enough to both be the target of a persistent stalker and persistent stalker who manages to stay withing the letter of the law while being incredibly annoying. Big deal, people get struck with lightening and bitten by sharks from time to time too. She just happens to be able to write about her bad luck in a particular corner of the internet that gets more than nil for traffic.
Sure it probably freaks her out a lot (and rightfully so) but did she really expect any authority to be able to take action on that basis. Think of the kinds of shit that would hit the fan if "distasteful behavior that freaks others out" was enough to get someone arrested (and all the life ruining things that go with it).
Sure it probably freaks her out a lot (and rightfully so) but did she really expect any authority to be able to take action on that basis. Think of the kinds of shit that would hit the fan if "distasteful behavior that freaks others out" was enough to get someone arrested (and all the life ruining things that go with it).
Seems like a great opportunity for a company that "bounty hunts" cyberstalkers - tracks them down then physically intimidates them for you.
Maybe they won't even charge for it, just maybe call on you someday - and that day may never come - but maybe, they'll call upon you to do a service for them. But until that day, you can just accept their justice as a gift.
Both Reddit and 4chan have demonstrated exceptionally well why this is a terrible idea.
I shouldn't do this, but I will.
In the specific case mentioned here, where state and Federal law enforcement won't take charge, why shouldn't she find a professional investigator to confirm who the perpetrator is, then use the same tactics he has used against her against him?
After all, law enforcement refuse to take action right? So it appears that law enforcement wouldn't care if she ensured that he is kept out of the picture.
(for the record, I'm playing devil's advocate)
In the specific case mentioned here, where state and Federal law enforcement won't take charge, why shouldn't she find a professional investigator to confirm who the perpetrator is, then use the same tactics he has used against her against him?
After all, law enforcement refuse to take action right? So it appears that law enforcement wouldn't care if she ensured that he is kept out of the picture.
(for the record, I'm playing devil's advocate)
I'm not sure an investigator is the most productive course. If it was me, I'd start with a Cease and Desist letter from a lawyer. Cost: about 2 billable hours. If that fails, since there is, in fact, a law being broken, and now the creeper has ignored a C&D, get a court order. No need to involve police, they can continue writing speeding tickets and tending to other urgent matters. If the creeper ignores the court order, then see if you can get a bench warrant issued. Although, in this case, it sounds like the person is mentally ill -- what you can do about that varies greatly from state to state.
Now that's actually a very clever solution! Never considered this. Thank you.
I would expect that this happens more often than not, but via friends and family. If someone was stalking or harassing one of my sisters we'd find a way of handling it, legal or no.
It's not preferable but if it's the only way to get results... Nobody deserves this kind of treatment.
It's not preferable but if it's the only way to get results... Nobody deserves this kind of treatment.
Yes, in specific cases this might be the right answer. However we have to say "No, rule of law, blah blah" because we don't want everyone doing it or we're back to a tribal society with vendettas and blood-feuds.
A society that will not take intimidation and threats to someone's livelihood seriously has already regressed to the level of tribal societies with vendettas and blood-feuds.
It's hyperbole to compare the median person's experience in the US to that of the median person in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
I know you are probably getting down-voted into oblivion, but I'm with you.
There are already services like this, they just don't have an LLC or an App :-)
There are already services like this, they just don't have an LLC or an App :-)
Interesting idea, but there's no way to do this legally, and it would be prone to horrible abuses.
Also, if someone is dangerous enough to intimidate ... well, you don't want to intimidate them and risk having them escalate back. Following that logic, you only end up in one place.
Also, if someone is dangerous enough to intimidate ... well, you don't want to intimidate them and risk having them escalate back. Following that logic, you only end up in one place.
It is a bad idea, but without legal recourse someone will eventually provide the service.
Someone already provides the service, and they happen to import high quality olive oil as well.
"When I got a Facebook account in 2006 he found me again and, not wanting to be rude, I accepted his friend request."
It's hard to understand why, having previously already blocked this person elsewhere, they would accept a friend request from them. I suppose now, 10 years later, one can hope that people exact greater control over their online social networks.
It's hard to understand why, having previously already blocked this person elsewhere, they would accept a friend request from them. I suppose now, 10 years later, one can hope that people exact greater control over their online social networks.
We all make mistakes, especially when a situation does not seem particularly bad/urgent yet.
Makes sense to me. Time heals all wounds, and people tend to want to forgive and get along. In addition, because the author was exposed to this kind of behavior at a young age, I suspect they thought of it as normal. It's hard to know what kind of behavior is right and what kind is wrong when you're young, so you just absorb it from your environment. If you don't see behavior being punished, you'll assume that behavior is normal/acceptable.
I really hate it when people act this way, now I feel the obligation to try and read their mind and figure out if what I'm doing is upsetting them or not.
The responsibility to be socially aware is your own. The responsibility to not put people in awkward situations is your own. One of the many reasons not to flirt with people in service jobs.
I find this concept questionable. There is a difference between someone who is legitimately stalking someone who very clearly does not want to be followed around (and they are aware of this!), and someone who is being really, really awkward (but totally unaware of the pain they are causing).
What would you suggest the socially awkward person who doesn't understand that they're stalking do? You can't simply wish people were more socially self-aware, and to do so ignores a very large population of people who have trouble with social situations for reasons beyond their control.
What would you suggest the socially awkward person who doesn't understand that they're stalking do? You can't simply wish people were more socially self-aware, and to do so ignores a very large population of people who have trouble with social situations for reasons beyond their control.
A difference to whom? Because I'm pretty sure the stalkee probably thinks they've been clear, and the stalker probably thinks that they aren't being a nuisance. The impact is roughly the same, you scare, creep out, and reduce someone's quality of life.
A large population of people are not held accountable for their social ineptitude, which yields no incentive to be better. Reasons beyond their control is also something I'm skeptical of. I've known plenty of autistic people, and the thing that has separated the genuinely kind from the rest had been a large amount of effort poured in to becoming more socially aware. The attitude we have that some people are above reproach doesn't really help anyone.
A large population of people are not held accountable for their social ineptitude, which yields no incentive to be better. Reasons beyond their control is also something I'm skeptical of. I've known plenty of autistic people, and the thing that has separated the genuinely kind from the rest had been a large amount of effort poured in to becoming more socially aware. The attitude we have that some people are above reproach doesn't really help anyone.
I'm not advocating for putting people above reproach. And I'm alright with people being held accountable for social ineptitude.
But I draw the line at awareness: are they aware that the person doesn't want to be communicated to? I'm not interested in whether they think they're a nuisance or not (no one will ever admit to being one anyway), but having enough social awareness to understand that you are making a mistake and then doing it anyway is where I think "stalking" exists.
Simply being "inept," I don't know if people can be held accountable for that. I personally couldn't blame someone who was too inept to understand that they were talking to someone who didn't want to be talked to. But once someone has specifically said they don't want to be talked to, it's pretty obvious.
But I draw the line at awareness: are they aware that the person doesn't want to be communicated to? I'm not interested in whether they think they're a nuisance or not (no one will ever admit to being one anyway), but having enough social awareness to understand that you are making a mistake and then doing it anyway is where I think "stalking" exists.
Simply being "inept," I don't know if people can be held accountable for that. I personally couldn't blame someone who was too inept to understand that they were talking to someone who didn't want to be talked to. But once someone has specifically said they don't want to be talked to, it's pretty obvious.
Firstly I'd like to state that there's no justification for what this guy is doing. Making somebody's life intentionally and persistently miserable can have no justification.
The story basically starts with a boy falling in love with a girl that won't love him back. She's still using interaction with him for her purposes though. Then the boy grows into a man and his addiction to a person gets deformed into addiction to harming this person in non-violent ways. That's what happens to some people. Happens in marriages too. If teenagers are weird adults are way weirder.
I went similar route. I had it easier than this guy. I fell in love at the age of 16 (so later than him). I already had one episode of unrequited love earlier (probably around age of 12) which was extremely wisely ended by my love interest and friend by cutting all (and I mean all) contact with me when she learned about it.
This second girl I spent about 7 years addicted to. I was her friend. Even after she learned that I'm in love with her she still kept me around. Used me for comfort. Used me even as a rebound when she needed to ditch her second boyfriend whom she loved but who apparently got bored with her (in my state of mind I was more than happy to help).
Who knew how it all would end if I haven't made conscious decision to cut all contact. It was really hard. It took a year of manually steering away my thoughts from her. I had to vilify in my mind the person I loved. I had to ignore all pings from her (fortunately it was before Facebook, so just emails and texts) which fortunately wasn't that many of. When you are an addict every dose is something you need to be very careful about. She had new boyfriend at the time so she eventually forgot me and my brain formed mental scar tissue around pathways carved over the previous 7 years. I got comfortable, even happy. I met a girl who loved me and moved in with her (fortunately didn't get addicted again).
10 years later I meet object of my addiction on the street 100 meters from my new home where I live now. She's with another man, she's pregnant. She just accidentally lives in my neighborhood. I'm scared shitless. Fortunately I haven't met her again. I have no idea if she moved or still lives around. I don't get out much. She made one more attempt to contact me (through Facebook because I accepted her friend request, because everyone has capacity to be stupid occasionally). I answered with "?" She responded with something with something about staying at home with child broadening horizons. I responded with image that basically implies that she finds her child boring. Which she somewhat acknowledged and fortunately haven't contacted me ever since.
I can imagine many points in my history when I might have turned into a stalker. If I was more lonely, had less support from my family, was less intelligent, was less introspective, had less knowledge or interest in psychology, had less awareness about how my feelings are not necessarily my identity... It could have turned ugly for everybody.
Brother of my mother was an alcoholic. I might be prone to addiction. I binge watch series. I binge game. I'm addicted to news. But I'm also addicted to learning new things and to figuring why stuff doesn't work when it should. The only addiction that severely harmed me was to a person. But I see I lucked out when I read stories like these.
Issue of stalking is real and I hope in the future there'll be a lot more research about this and that efficient ways to mitigate this will be developed. I think whatever the solution is it involves stalker getting psychological or psychiatric help.
The story basically starts with a boy falling in love with a girl that won't love him back. She's still using interaction with him for her purposes though. Then the boy grows into a man and his addiction to a person gets deformed into addiction to harming this person in non-violent ways. That's what happens to some people. Happens in marriages too. If teenagers are weird adults are way weirder.
I went similar route. I had it easier than this guy. I fell in love at the age of 16 (so later than him). I already had one episode of unrequited love earlier (probably around age of 12) which was extremely wisely ended by my love interest and friend by cutting all (and I mean all) contact with me when she learned about it.
This second girl I spent about 7 years addicted to. I was her friend. Even after she learned that I'm in love with her she still kept me around. Used me for comfort. Used me even as a rebound when she needed to ditch her second boyfriend whom she loved but who apparently got bored with her (in my state of mind I was more than happy to help).
Who knew how it all would end if I haven't made conscious decision to cut all contact. It was really hard. It took a year of manually steering away my thoughts from her. I had to vilify in my mind the person I loved. I had to ignore all pings from her (fortunately it was before Facebook, so just emails and texts) which fortunately wasn't that many of. When you are an addict every dose is something you need to be very careful about. She had new boyfriend at the time so she eventually forgot me and my brain formed mental scar tissue around pathways carved over the previous 7 years. I got comfortable, even happy. I met a girl who loved me and moved in with her (fortunately didn't get addicted again).
10 years later I meet object of my addiction on the street 100 meters from my new home where I live now. She's with another man, she's pregnant. She just accidentally lives in my neighborhood. I'm scared shitless. Fortunately I haven't met her again. I have no idea if she moved or still lives around. I don't get out much. She made one more attempt to contact me (through Facebook because I accepted her friend request, because everyone has capacity to be stupid occasionally). I answered with "?" She responded with something with something about staying at home with child broadening horizons. I responded with image that basically implies that she finds her child boring. Which she somewhat acknowledged and fortunately haven't contacted me ever since.
I can imagine many points in my history when I might have turned into a stalker. If I was more lonely, had less support from my family, was less intelligent, was less introspective, had less knowledge or interest in psychology, had less awareness about how my feelings are not necessarily my identity... It could have turned ugly for everybody.
Brother of my mother was an alcoholic. I might be prone to addiction. I binge watch series. I binge game. I'm addicted to news. But I'm also addicted to learning new things and to figuring why stuff doesn't work when it should. The only addiction that severely harmed me was to a person. But I see I lucked out when I read stories like these.
Issue of stalking is real and I hope in the future there'll be a lot more research about this and that efficient ways to mitigate this will be developed. I think whatever the solution is it involves stalker getting psychological or psychiatric help.
About eight years ago I met a girl who I fell in love with almost instantly. Except she didn't fall in love with me. We had a fantastic first date, a terrible second, and an OK third, after which it ended. She had a real impact on me, with that first date. And she knew it. She could transform herself, her looks and her character, into this beautiful, lovely, hip, warm person. She was not a model, not fake hair or makeup, just a really attractive woman.
The second date I didn't recognize her. She came in pale clothes, hair without effort, barely makeup, and even today I'm confused if I think about it. It could have been someone else, and the date was a disaster. Not because of her clothes, but because of the stress test I was subject to. I didn't realize then what it was, just was taken by surprise and didn't know how to handle it. We had a third date, after which she let me know she didn't want to see me anymore.
In the email she sent, she let me know that she would never contact me again, really never, and I didn't have to try to contact her. She made it absolutely, without any doubt, clear that it would be totally pointless for me to keep on dreaming about her. Whatever I did could not change her mind. It was a long mail with a thorough explanation, and sound conclusion that this was the end.
Looking back, I realize that she must have had several stalkers. Maybe not the type that follows her 15 years, but guys that are flabbergasted by her appearance, fall in love, but cannot handle her, after which she dumps them, and they can't accept that. They may accept that mentally, but not emotionally. This is like an addiction, that's what it is, to me at least.
Thinking about this, I believe that she had her quirks as well. The way she devoted herself to things in her life, it was all or nothing. And so was my date with her.
I don't blame her. I don't think she meant wrong, or tried to trick me. I believe she was honest. But it is her way of acting that makes this happen as much as my way of reacting. I'm over her by the way, mentally and emotionally, and I haven't spoken to her since.
The second date I didn't recognize her. She came in pale clothes, hair without effort, barely makeup, and even today I'm confused if I think about it. It could have been someone else, and the date was a disaster. Not because of her clothes, but because of the stress test I was subject to. I didn't realize then what it was, just was taken by surprise and didn't know how to handle it. We had a third date, after which she let me know she didn't want to see me anymore.
In the email she sent, she let me know that she would never contact me again, really never, and I didn't have to try to contact her. She made it absolutely, without any doubt, clear that it would be totally pointless for me to keep on dreaming about her. Whatever I did could not change her mind. It was a long mail with a thorough explanation, and sound conclusion that this was the end.
Looking back, I realize that she must have had several stalkers. Maybe not the type that follows her 15 years, but guys that are flabbergasted by her appearance, fall in love, but cannot handle her, after which she dumps them, and they can't accept that. They may accept that mentally, but not emotionally. This is like an addiction, that's what it is, to me at least.
Thinking about this, I believe that she had her quirks as well. The way she devoted herself to things in her life, it was all or nothing. And so was my date with her.
I don't blame her. I don't think she meant wrong, or tried to trick me. I believe she was honest. But it is her way of acting that makes this happen as much as my way of reacting. I'm over her by the way, mentally and emotionally, and I haven't spoken to her since.
You behaved admirably, after you realised it could end badly you did something about it (perhaps a little extreme, maybe). It sounds that things could've been better with your life, sad to hear.
The guy in the article however, actively tried to ruin her life and showed that her well being meant jack all to him, just what he could get from her.
The guy in the article however, actively tried to ruin her life and showed that her well being meant jack all to him, just what he could get from her.
Most of these amount to libel, at worst. File suit.
There are excellent reasons for police to be uninvolved in what amounts to people saying mean things, even if those mean things are directed at your employer or friends.
There are excellent reasons for police to be uninvolved in what amounts to people saying mean things, even if those mean things are directed at your employer or friends.
If it were a one-off incident I would agree with you. But a consistent pattern like this over years is stalking, and either is or should be a crime. In my opinion this clearly summarizes why:
> For Franks, a big theme is that the “fundamental feeling of security that most people take for granted is taken away.” She has spoken to hundreds, maybe thousands, of victims in her research, who describe constant feelings “having to look over one’s shoulder” that keep them from engaging fully in their lives, online or off.
I feel that's true even if you don't believe that the stalker will try to physically harm you. There is a huge emotional toll to dealing with that kind of thing, and it's not something that should just be tolerated.
(That said, I recognize that police have limited resources, so putting more toward this would mean less for something else, or an increase in funding.)
> For Franks, a big theme is that the “fundamental feeling of security that most people take for granted is taken away.” She has spoken to hundreds, maybe thousands, of victims in her research, who describe constant feelings “having to look over one’s shoulder” that keep them from engaging fully in their lives, online or off.
I feel that's true even if you don't believe that the stalker will try to physically harm you. There is a huge emotional toll to dealing with that kind of thing, and it's not something that should just be tolerated.
(That said, I recognize that police have limited resources, so putting more toward this would mean less for something else, or an increase in funding.)
So sue! That and restraining orders are designed for exactly this.
So why have crimes at all? If someone steals from you, or assaults you, you can always sue. The thing is, that shouldn't be the victim's responsibility.
You're acting like libel just became a problem in the last 5 years. There are good reasons why we don't really have criminal defamation prosecutions anymore. They always involve tons of disputed facts, and they require tons of resources to investigate. Choice of cases is always political.
Let me tell you who is a good candidate for a "cyberstalking" charge. You maintain a database of police involved in questionable shootings. When one of them gets canned from their present department, you track the new PD they're foisted onto, and make sure to let the local BLM chapter know about the bad apple they're about to get, and a lurid description of what you think their crimes are. Why, that sounds worthy of some prosecutorial resources (election year, after all). Aren't you glad you made being mean on the internet a crime?
Get a fucking restraining order. It's ridiculously easy; too easy, in fact, to the point where they're routinely used as leverage in other civil disputes. Violation of restraining orders is a crime. This is a solved problem.
Let me tell you who is a good candidate for a "cyberstalking" charge. You maintain a database of police involved in questionable shootings. When one of them gets canned from their present department, you track the new PD they're foisted onto, and make sure to let the local BLM chapter know about the bad apple they're about to get, and a lurid description of what you think their crimes are. Why, that sounds worthy of some prosecutorial resources (election year, after all). Aren't you glad you made being mean on the internet a crime?
Get a fucking restraining order. It's ridiculously easy; too easy, in fact, to the point where they're routinely used as leverage in other civil disputes. Violation of restraining orders is a crime. This is a solved problem.
Would you be so calm if someone hired a PI to spy on you, then mailed photoshopped pictures and faked evidence to every potential employer claiming you were a child molester?
There is definitely the potential to chill free speech and we need to be careful; however there is also such thing as harassment.
We need to figure out where the line is, then task a department in the FBI with enforcing it. If even 1% of the people trolling, harassing, and doxxing people were put in prison it would immediately evicerate most of those movements as the scaredy cats abandoned ship. It's one thing to harass someone across the country for free with no consequences. It's quite another to face jail time (even if it's 2 weeks served on weekends).
There is definitely the potential to chill free speech and we need to be careful; however there is also such thing as harassment.
We need to figure out where the line is, then task a department in the FBI with enforcing it. If even 1% of the people trolling, harassing, and doxxing people were put in prison it would immediately evicerate most of those movements as the scaredy cats abandoned ship. It's one thing to harass someone across the country for free with no consequences. It's quite another to face jail time (even if it's 2 weeks served on weekends).
I would probably sue them. I wouldn't expect the police to try to figure out where the truth of a private spat lies, even if it's rally nasty and one of the parties actually is actually acting like an asshole. Cops aren't actually that good at resolving complicated factual claims & counterclaims. They especially don't like it.
Open the door to police investigation of such disputes and you will have cause to regret it. You think the "trolls" you are so concerned about are above faking such a harassment case and filing the same charges against you? Are you really confident the cops are going to use their inestimable judgment and come to the right conclusion?
Open the door to police investigation of such disputes and you will have cause to regret it. You think the "trolls" you are so concerned about are above faking such a harassment case and filing the same charges against you? Are you really confident the cops are going to use their inestimable judgment and come to the right conclusion?
The problem is that this kind of behaviour is a sign of an underlying mental illness.
The victim's feeling that the situation was unlikely to escalate into violence may have no basis in reality.
Kind of like people who get all surprised when (not-quite-tamed) animals attack people.
I'd feel very uncomfortable with a loose end like this.
The victim's feeling that the situation was unlikely to escalate into violence may have no basis in reality.
Kind of like people who get all surprised when (not-quite-tamed) animals attack people.
I'd feel very uncomfortable with a loose end like this.
Agree. I run a forum which inevitably attracts a few mentally unstable types. It is just not worth the risk of antagonising those people; best to carefully ignore and avoid having yourself becoming a significant identity in their lives. Never know when someone goes off the rails and you're someone they think of.
14 years of it though, trying to gain access to people's email accounts, spoofing her own email, following her to college, this isn't sending a few mean tweets out there.
I was also thinking "isn't libel a crime/illegal"? So I guess I (and maybe the author) just don't really know how the legal system works, meaning that in the case of libel you don't go through the police, you go directly to your lawyer?
Exactly. Lawyer up. Police can't ignore a lawyers request for a restraining order. That would be forwarded to a judge who would no doubt see the pattern of abuse which would also take into account if the perp has done this before.
End result: The thing resolved itself, likely because someone else sued her stalker.
I have to wonder though: If her local police was ignorant of actual laws applying to her case, as she indicated, couldn't she just tell the officers under which exact laws she is making a complaint?
Further, if the local police is generally ignorant and incompetent, what would her chances for success be in using a lawyer to try and identify appropiate channels and contacting them?
I have to wonder though: If her local police was ignorant of actual laws applying to her case, as she indicated, couldn't she just tell the officers under which exact laws she is making a complaint?
Further, if the local police is generally ignorant and incompetent, what would her chances for success be in using a lawyer to try and identify appropiate channels and contacting them?
>>> if the local police is generally ignorant and incompetent, what would her chances for success be in using a lawyer to try and identify appropiate channels and contacting them?
Not great, but certainly better than the nothing offered by police. This situation seems to have ended when another victim took the steps to launch a lawsuit. Lawyers can do many things. This defendant was identified. She knew who he was. Legal threats are not fun. They aren't like being arrested, but are still not pleasant. The stalker gets the threat, seeks his own lawyer, and quickly realizes how deep he is into this thing.
Not great, but certainly better than the nothing offered by police. This situation seems to have ended when another victim took the steps to launch a lawsuit. Lawyers can do many things. This defendant was identified. She knew who he was. Legal threats are not fun. They aren't like being arrested, but are still not pleasant. The stalker gets the threat, seeks his own lawyer, and quickly realizes how deep he is into this thing.
Ok, so she wasn't out of options. Just hadn't reached for the more expensive sticks yet.
They are not that expensive. She know the guy. No investigation is needed. A lawyer won't charge much to put a scary demand letter together, maybe a couple hundred at most but probably much less in such a situation.
Going to a lawyer first, before the police, could also have softened much of that horrific experience. Going to the police WITH your lawyer also makes a real difference. It will at least get you past the reporting window and talking to an actual investigator. I did this sort of thing while a law student. Cops take lawyers much more seriously than victims. it's Wrong, it's harsh, but that is reality.
Going to a lawyer first, before the police, could also have softened much of that horrific experience. Going to the police WITH your lawyer also makes a real difference. It will at least get you past the reporting window and talking to an actual investigator. I did this sort of thing while a law student. Cops take lawyers much more seriously than victims. it's Wrong, it's harsh, but that is reality.
Or just telling him directly to stop himself. Maybe she did, but she didn't say she did. "Don't message me SO MUCH or I will BLOCK YOU" isn't quite the same thing as DON'T CONTACT ME AGAIN. A gentleman would get the hint, but a gentleman wouldn't be such a creepy asshole to begin with.
You don't legally have the right to dictate to someone how they talk to you. You do legally have the right to cut off all contact with someone (unless they have a reasonable need to do so and their contact is in line with such purpose). It's not a crime to be a creep. If you tell a creep, "Call me whenever you want, just don't be creepy," that doesn't criminalize their creepy personality when they continue to make creepy calls. If you tell them, "Never call me again, you creep," and they continue to call, that becomes aggravated harassment in the state of New York.
You don't legally have the right to dictate to someone how they talk to you. You do legally have the right to cut off all contact with someone (unless they have a reasonable need to do so and their contact is in line with such purpose). It's not a crime to be a creep. If you tell a creep, "Call me whenever you want, just don't be creepy," that doesn't criminalize their creepy personality when they continue to make creepy calls. If you tell them, "Never call me again, you creep," and they continue to call, that becomes aggravated harassment in the state of New York.
His response to ""Don't message me SO MUCH or I will BLOCK YOU", followed by a block when the messaging remained unchanged was to file a series of nuisance complaints about her and start messaging her friends and employers.
I don't think any reasonable law enforcement agency could conclude that this behaviour wasn't a problem because she hadn't asked him to stop.
I don't think any reasonable law enforcement agency could conclude that this behaviour wasn't a problem because she hadn't asked him to stop.
There's no question that his behavior was "problematic." What is not at all clear in that scenario is whether or not it was unlawful for him to continue to communicate with her. "So much" literally means there is an acceptable amount of communications. Blocking on Facebook is a completely passive action which does not directly communicate anything. Sure you can deduce that she didn't want to hear from him again, but she should have sent an unhedged message to cease and desist further contact, THEN block him.
[deleted]
"Don't message me SO MUCH or I will BLOCK YOU" sounds exactly like "I told my cyber stalker that if he didn't ease up on how much he was messaging me - my phone was beeping multiple times per day, bothering me at all hours - he could forget about breakfast in the morning from here on out - the next time he showed up at my apartment, I'd send him home with the night bus as soon as we were done having sex." (not a quote, I'm making fun here.)
Like, seriously. They're still facebook friends through all this?
The woman in the article says "When I got a Facebook account in 2006 he found me again and, not wanting to be rude, I accepted his friend request. He often sent me rambling accounts of his day-to-day life. I usually didn’t respond, but sometimes I messaged back if I was bored or lonely."
Oh really? Sometimes you messaged back if you were bored or lonely?
This is how you end up in a happy marriage with the guy twenty years later after you've finished your studies and want to start settling down.
The guy's behavior is COMPLETELY BATSHIT INSANE and there is ZERO excuse for ANY of what is described.
At the same time, he's not a stalker until she unequivocally tells him that she would not like any further contact and asking him to move on. I cannot believe that she is a writer, yet this bad at communication.
What is so hard about saying, "I don't want this. Leave me alone." Jesus H. Christ. I hope I never, ever have anything to do with a woman like this one, because who knows if she really consented when I make out with her in my or her bedroom?
Does she have an inability to open her mouth and communicate what is going on? Jesus.
All that said, (I only glanced through the article) the guy's behavior completely surpasses anything even remotely justifiable. He's in the wrong. She's in the wrong for not telling him.
Like, seriously. They're still facebook friends through all this?
The woman in the article says "When I got a Facebook account in 2006 he found me again and, not wanting to be rude, I accepted his friend request. He often sent me rambling accounts of his day-to-day life. I usually didn’t respond, but sometimes I messaged back if I was bored or lonely."
Oh really? Sometimes you messaged back if you were bored or lonely?
This is how you end up in a happy marriage with the guy twenty years later after you've finished your studies and want to start settling down.
The guy's behavior is COMPLETELY BATSHIT INSANE and there is ZERO excuse for ANY of what is described.
At the same time, he's not a stalker until she unequivocally tells him that she would not like any further contact and asking him to move on. I cannot believe that she is a writer, yet this bad at communication.
What is so hard about saying, "I don't want this. Leave me alone." Jesus H. Christ. I hope I never, ever have anything to do with a woman like this one, because who knows if she really consented when I make out with her in my or her bedroom?
Does she have an inability to open her mouth and communicate what is going on? Jesus.
All that said, (I only glanced through the article) the guy's behavior completely surpasses anything even remotely justifiable. He's in the wrong. She's in the wrong for not telling him.
Blame the victim, right? The article doesn't say she has not told him never to contact her again, so I don't know why you assume that. And regardless, she's not bad at communcation. If someone blocks you and stops responding for years, it can't reasonably be interpreted as an invitation for more contact.
You also insinuate that they had a sexual relationship, which I think it's pretty clear they didn't.
You also insinuate that they had a sexual relationship, which I think it's pretty clear they didn't.
[deleted]
> Like, seriously. They're still facebook friends through all this?
Nope. She definitely blocked him on Facebook, but only once she felt his behavior constituted harassment. And that's reasonable, in my mind - especially given that this portion of the story occurred 10 years ago when people had much less experience with online social networks. Problems like these can start small and escalate gradually.
Yes, the article is lengthy, but it might be more responsible to read the whole thing before passing judgment.
Nope. She definitely blocked him on Facebook, but only once she felt his behavior constituted harassment. And that's reasonable, in my mind - especially given that this portion of the story occurred 10 years ago when people had much less experience with online social networks. Problems like these can start small and escalate gradually.
Yes, the article is lengthy, but it might be more responsible to read the whole thing before passing judgment.
It's not about whether she "feels" his behavior constitutes harassment. She has a choice about whether to be contacted by him and she has to tell him in no uncertain terms exactly what she wants. She has to say, "Please don't contact me again. I am not interested in having you in my life in any way. Move on." (not a quote, my suggestion).
This is like her quote,
>"He handed me the latest Red Hot Chili Peppers CD (Stadium Arcadium, not great) and asked if we could eat dinner together. I panicked; I hadn’t seen Danny since middle school and didn’t want to see him now. But I also didn’t want to hurt his feelings and felt touched by his gift. I took him to the cafeteria and made awkward conversation until I faked an excuse and left."
Really? Why would she mention that his gift "Stadium Arcadium" was "not great"??
What does it matter? But at that part of the story, she literally went with him to the cafeteria and ate with him.
Like, where at any point does she clearly simply say, "Do not contact me again in any way. I am not interested in having you in my life. Please move on." or "I told you not to contact me. Please don't do this" etc.
Women are completely in the wrong if they refuse to unambiguously state what they want from communications but expect that they can just "feel" a certain way. They have a duty to tell the person unambiguously.
By the way this goes the other way too. A woman can be totally, completely into you and you can be oblivious. In that case too, if she does want something she needs to just say it.
There are literally entire articles written for how a woman can go about planting the seed in a man's brain that maybe he should ask her out. It's ridiculous. women can communicate and they have an obligation to do so, not to "be touched and take him to the cafeteria and make conversation" while thinking that they are doing so with a harasser. come on.
This is like her quote,
>"He handed me the latest Red Hot Chili Peppers CD (Stadium Arcadium, not great) and asked if we could eat dinner together. I panicked; I hadn’t seen Danny since middle school and didn’t want to see him now. But I also didn’t want to hurt his feelings and felt touched by his gift. I took him to the cafeteria and made awkward conversation until I faked an excuse and left."
Really? Why would she mention that his gift "Stadium Arcadium" was "not great"??
What does it matter? But at that part of the story, she literally went with him to the cafeteria and ate with him.
Like, where at any point does she clearly simply say, "Do not contact me again in any way. I am not interested in having you in my life. Please move on." or "I told you not to contact me. Please don't do this" etc.
Women are completely in the wrong if they refuse to unambiguously state what they want from communications but expect that they can just "feel" a certain way. They have a duty to tell the person unambiguously.
By the way this goes the other way too. A woman can be totally, completely into you and you can be oblivious. In that case too, if she does want something she needs to just say it.
There are literally entire articles written for how a woman can go about planting the seed in a man's brain that maybe he should ask her out. It's ridiculous. women can communicate and they have an obligation to do so, not to "be touched and take him to the cafeteria and make conversation" while thinking that they are doing so with a harasser. come on.
Nice to create a throwaway so no one connects your misogynistic ranting to your real identity.
No. She is not in the wrong at all. No one deserves to have this happen to them.
I think she hates and sympathises with this guy at the same time. One could block someone on every single internet (or other) channels these days easily.
Victim blaming much?
How would you so them from emailing your employer?
How would you so them from emailing your employer?
> How would you so them from emailing your employer?
My employer would show me the email, asked WTF and swiftly proceeded with legal action if applicable. My employer is there to make my life easier, and the fact that they do it in their best interest - the less time I spend on being stressed out, the more time and value I can contribute - makes me comfortable when asking for help.
But there may be a somewhat unusual level of trust between my employer and myself, maybe I'm just lucky to work at such a company.
My employer would show me the email, asked WTF and swiftly proceeded with legal action if applicable. My employer is there to make my life easier, and the fact that they do it in their best interest - the less time I spend on being stressed out, the more time and value I can contribute - makes me comfortable when asking for help.
But there may be a somewhat unusual level of trust between my employer and myself, maybe I'm just lucky to work at such a company.
>If her local police was ignorant of actual laws applying to her case, as she indicated, couldn't she just tell the officers under which exact laws she is making a complaint?
To me at least it's been conclusively demonstrated that 60-90% of police are completely incompetent.
I would not trust them to do the right thing even if you mentioned the law.
To me at least it's been conclusively demonstrated that 60-90% of police are completely incompetent.
I would not trust them to do the right thing even if you mentioned the law.
I don't know how it works in the U.S. but in Australia I had a situation where someone bumped into my mother on the road and intimidated her as she went down the highway.
My mother noted the time, the license plate number and ensured she called the Police Assistance Line we have, after he passed her by. They referred her to her local police station. She went to see them the next morning, but the Officer on Duty refused point blank to file a statement. She later went back, and the same Office on Duty again refused to file a statement. So did his supervisor.
I knew this was a crime, so I did the following:
1. I called back the Police Assistance Line and explained that my mother had been intimidated on the road. I explained the situation and asked if the police were meant to look into the matter. The Police Assistance line operator, whose details I took, advised me it is against the law and should be followed up.
2. I called the local police station and explained to the person on the line that my mother had had someone bump into her on the highway, and she was intimidated. I asked if this was something that was allowed, and the police officer explained to me that actually, this was something that should be looked into.
3. I then explained to the police officer that my mother had already tried to have a statement taken twice already, but it was declined each time and the supervisor would not go ahead with it either. I asked to speak to the duty sergeant.
4. The duty sergeant, after I explained the situation to him again, sounded very sheepish and promised to look into the matter.
The Police finally took a statement.
Now if that had been me, I would have taken matters further and lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman. I very much think that police need to learn that a. they aren't lawyers, and they don't know the law even though many of them think they do, and b. they also need to know that if they literally stop others from reporting crimes (not even the point of acting on crimes, reporting of a crimes) then they will be buried in paperwork because of their jerkish behaviour.
My mother noted the time, the license plate number and ensured she called the Police Assistance Line we have, after he passed her by. They referred her to her local police station. She went to see them the next morning, but the Officer on Duty refused point blank to file a statement. She later went back, and the same Office on Duty again refused to file a statement. So did his supervisor.
I knew this was a crime, so I did the following:
1. I called back the Police Assistance Line and explained that my mother had been intimidated on the road. I explained the situation and asked if the police were meant to look into the matter. The Police Assistance line operator, whose details I took, advised me it is against the law and should be followed up.
2. I called the local police station and explained to the person on the line that my mother had had someone bump into her on the highway, and she was intimidated. I asked if this was something that was allowed, and the police officer explained to me that actually, this was something that should be looked into.
3. I then explained to the police officer that my mother had already tried to have a statement taken twice already, but it was declined each time and the supervisor would not go ahead with it either. I asked to speak to the duty sergeant.
4. The duty sergeant, after I explained the situation to him again, sounded very sheepish and promised to look into the matter.
The Police finally took a statement.
Now if that had been me, I would have taken matters further and lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman. I very much think that police need to learn that a. they aren't lawyers, and they don't know the law even though many of them think they do, and b. they also need to know that if they literally stop others from reporting crimes (not even the point of acting on crimes, reporting of a crimes) then they will be buried in paperwork because of their jerkish behaviour.
60-90% Completely incompetent? Any data to back that rather specific percentage claim or do you just hate cops and thus feel free to make unsupported assertions? I am not disputing or even proposing a number of my own, but then again, I'm not looking at the objective data you apparently have.
Based on that excerpt, that NY statute looks pretty clearly unconstitutional. It also appears to criminalize, eg, vanilla customer complaints, as long as someone asked them not to. I'm not surprised the police weren't interested.
Edit: she leaves out the condition "for no legitimate purpose", which makes it plausibly constitutional, but nearly unprosecutable.
https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/120/120-45%28...
Edit: she leaves out the condition "for no legitimate purpose", which makes it plausibly constitutional, but nearly unprosecutable.
https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/120/120-45%28...
There should be laws against this. A judge should be able to tell when a behavior is harassment, and forbid the harasser from contacting the person again with more severe charges if he does again.
There are – that's a restraining order.
I think that's the point he was making. I think his post was saying she should have pursued that sometime during those years of stalking.
If that was the point then it would have been better made explicit.
If someone is not a relative or intimate partner, there's no easy way to get a civil restraining order against someone in New York the way you can in domestic cases. There either has to be a criminal prosecution to get a criminal restraining order, or you have to retain a lawyer and file a full-blown lawsuit in a court of general jurisdiction.
It should definitely be enough for police to act if you establish that you demanded that contact cease and and that it continued unabated. In this case it seems that the author may not have clearly established it, perhaps did not understand the best way to frame this, and police were unhelpful and didn't want to be involved unless there were threats or a domestic incident involved (where mandatory arrests come into play).
It should definitely be enough for police to act if you establish that you demanded that contact cease and and that it continued unabated. In this case it seems that the author may not have clearly established it, perhaps did not understand the best way to frame this, and police were unhelpful and didn't want to be involved unless there were threats or a domestic incident involved (where mandatory arrests come into play).
Am I the only one who thinks this sounds a little too perfect? A totally sympathetic female victim, the evil older male, the dismissive male police force ... it reads like a movie. I'm probably too jaded by such stories on the internet, but if she was in my office I would probably have a few questions. Of course if she was in my office then it would be far more than a story I read on the internet.
Honestly, this guy needs to be thrown away in a cell and forgotten about. He clearly is not willing to stop on his own, and, quite frankly, I can't see him stopping for anything other than being locked away.
That's a pretty disturbing concept of justice
Why? This guy has, time and again, harassed this person after being asked to stop. He has shown that he does not care to follow the rules of civilized society.
So there's no hope for his rehabilitation? I hardly think so. You also seem to believe that prisons exist merely to punish rather than deter and/or rehabilitate - which, incidentally, reveals the most cursory of understandings of the penal system.
No, I am very much in favor of rehabilitation over punishment. However, there are people who don't respond to that. I believe this guy is one of them. 12 years, and he didn't stop? That's not someone who's interested in rehabilitation.
[deleted]
ishdieisbd(3)
"I had waited on Reverend Richard at a York Steak House I worked at, and one night he invited me out to his car to see some baby rabbits, and I didn’t want to be rude, so… here we are."
And Matt Lauer responds: "I’m always amazed by what women will do because they’re afraid of being rude…"
It's often hard for men to understand the societal pressure placed on women to be accommodating and not be rude and how this can be manipulated to constrain female agency in the world.