Police Hubris

Imagine a 12 year old girl. She's in Galveston, Texas. It's August; she's wearing shorts. Because it is August, in Texas. In her area of Texas, there have been a rash of highly publicized child abductions; in fact, a Houston police investigator, Holly Whillock, went on record stating that in addition to warning children "never to talk with a stranger or get into a car with one", "kids should also be told, run, fight back, scream and stay outside grabbing range". Now, imagine that she's in her front yard, in her shorts, on her way to flip the switch to the house's breaker. And that in the meanwhile, a van pulls up, three men jump out, and one of them grabs her while saying, "You're a prostitute. You're coming with me." As a 12 year old, what should she do?

This 12 year old did not go docilely. Unlike other children - say, me at 12 - she did not become paralyzed in the moment. She clung to a tree and cried for her father. For her trouble, she was beaten "about the face and throat" so severely she ended up in the hospital. And while in normal circumstances, she would be heralded as one of those quick-witted children who was able to escape from her abductor, in this case she was arrested - along with her father. Because the three men who tried to grab Dymond Milburn were plain clothed police officers. They were looking for three white prostitutes in the area; but Dymond Milburn is black. And as far as I can tell, standing in your own yard in shorts in August anywhere south (and a heck of a lot of places north) of the Mason Dixon line does not lend to the immediate assumption of prostitution.

What could possibly be the justification of arresting a girl and her father? In this case, that "it's unfortunate that sometimes police officers have to use force against people who are using force against them. And the evidence will show that both these folks violated the law and forcefully resisted arrest". Now, I'm not fully up on the laws regarding resisting arrest in Texas - or in Connecticut for that matter. What I do know about things like this, I have gleaned from Law & Orders' various incarnations and clones. What I do know is this: Miranda Rights, even in this day and age of Law & Orders, is a must when attempting to arrest someone. Two, generally, police officers identify themselves as such before attempting to make an arrest. Three, there is such a thing as undue force, and hitting a child who is clinging to a tree would probably fall under that.

Even without the string of abductions and attempted abductions in the area, I can't imagine any child willingly and knowingly going with anyone who declared that they were a prostitute. I can't imagine many children who would not be justified in running off, or any parent who would not attempt to extract their child from an unidentified adult's grip. The idea that the police department feel justified in charging Dymond and her father for attacking them after someone from another police department advocated doing just that is just ludicrous to me. I can't help but suspect that the Milburn's race plays a part in the incident, along with police hubris. I don't think every police officer or even a majority of police officers believe themselves to be above the law; and again, all I have to go on here is the various shows dramatizing law enforcement, which counts for less than even anecdotal evidence. But there seems to be more than just a little truth to the idea of closing ranks, of protecting fellow officers after they've pulled some egregiously stupid moves, and that a few bad apples plus loyalty induced by the badge sometimes equals a miscarriage of justice. And that seems to be what happened here. Dymond Milburn wasn't the same race as the suspects in question. The only indication she was a prostitute was that she was outside and wearing shorts. And I won't even venture a guess as to what was going through the officers' minds at the time of the arrest, because no good or logical or rational or plausible explanation is coming to mind and I would like to assume that there may be one.

What this case called for was not arresting an honor student for assaulting a police officer; from what I can tell, the police department would have been better served by putting the officers in question on probation while investigating the incident and issuing a formal apology to Dymond and her father while also assuming the costs of Dymond's hospital visit. Officers screw up; sometimes badly. Officers are only human; but their mistakes should not be justified or unpunished by the department of justice due to the actions of those immediately affected by the injustice implemented by said officers. The department needs to and should have looked beyond a quick and easy way to blame the victim and assumed the position that a fair and balanced institution should take. Now, there could be a zero-sum argument stating that if these two went uncharged, that it would set a precedent for others who assaulted an officer or who resisted arrest to look to; but there are often exceptions to rules. And if the police screwed up as badly as they seemed to have, then they would have been better served  to have owned the screw up.

Because now Dymond Milburn and her neighbors have more reasons to not trust the police, to think that police officers in general and the justice department in particular are biased, unfair, and unbalanced. That the civilian is always lower on the totem pole than the officer. And that African-Americans are still profiled by police officers and are still not subject to the same justice as their white compatriots. Whether or not any of those things are empirically true (and I would say that in some cases and places, certain ones certainly are), that is the way it will be perceived. But perhaps even more important than how these events may be perceived is how these events have affected the accused in particular, how being grabbed and beaten by the very people who are paid to protect and serve her and her community has affected Dymond Milburn. For the trauma she suffered alone, the police department should have put aside their hubris and their privilege and acknowledged the fact that their own put an innocent 12 year old in the hospital, simply for doing what she should have been doing in the event she was grabbed off of her front lawn by anyone she didn't know.

Yes, I'm Cute; Now Shut UP

So, new job. Creepy guy. And of course, my "creep magnet" is always on, so the creepy guy is not only the person who trains me but also takes a big liking to me -even though I made sure I gave him the death glare and allowed him to catch a glance the book I was reading (that being "The Beauty Myth") as I blocked myself from his view with it. One would think that would have been enough to get him to back the hell off. But no. Like most creeps, a violation of personal space was a must -as was this: he called me "cute". After staring at me long enough to make my skin crawl. So, here's the deal. I understand we live in a culture that bases women first and foremost (and sometimes solely) on their looks. I understand that a lot of men feel free to comment on strange women's looks. But get this: don't. Seriously. There are very few times in my life when I want a strange guy walking up to me and telling me that I'm cute. Because almost from right there, I know that you're not really a guy I want to know. One, you've decided to talk to me based solely on physical appearance and then told me that straight out. I understand we decide who to talk to a lot of the time on proximity and appearance -and we choose to talk to people we are in some way (though not always sexually) attracted to. You know what works better than "you're cute" though? Almost anything else. What can a person really say to "you're cute"? "You can thank the randomness of my genetic code"? "Talk to my parents"? "Fuck off, you asswipe"? Two, a guy who feels "confident" enough to pass judgement out loud about a woman's physical appearance is almost always a guy who seems to feel like he deserves some kind of physical reciprocation for the compliment. Which, no.

So, some ground rules. Talking to someone you find vaguely (or really) attractive about something else -the clothing, the book, the weather, the traffic, dogs, cats, balloons, music, etc- will probably elicit a much more productive response -and as an added benefit, it doesn't make you look like a giant asshole. Also, quick glances are a fine thing, but long stare-downs are the opposite of good. Those looks are rude, intimidating, and have more to do with the "right" to stare at a woman than any compliment. And if the woman in question doesn't seem interested in talking to you, acknowledge her right to be left alone.

Because I don't want to be judged based primarily on my cuteness, partially because that will some day fade and I would rather be judged for something more substantial than fleeting access to attention and praise. But also because I don't care if some random guy finds me attractive. I'm not on this earth to be eye-candy to some jackass, and neither are any other women walking the street. And I should have the right to exist in a space -in a work space, on a street, in a subway, in a restaurant, in a store- without being harassed. Because that is what the "you're cute" is. It is harassment, because I didn't invite the comment, and those comments are made out of the mistaken belief that I should grant my time to any guy who comes my way and deigns to offer his opinion of my physical appearance. So for all the guys out there who think you're delivering compliments to the random girls you find cute? Most likely, you're not. And I'm tired of coming home and feeling beaten up and bloody because I have to fend off men who believe they are entitled to my time, my attention, and my gratitude. So the next time a guy I don't know "compliments" me by telling me that I'm cute, I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm good enough to take home, whatever it is that day, he is getting my knee to his groin. Because I have had it up to my eyeballs with the kind of "compliment" that makes me feel like I'm just some sort of blow up doll and not a real person. So, yes. I'm cute. I had the wonderful fortune of having good genes in terms of getting a physical appearance that is now culturally acceptable. Now, shut up and leave me alone until you have something of substance to discuss.

Why Does Maureen Dowd Still Have a Job?

The New York Times has got to fire Maureen Dowd. That bastion of liberal media has time and again pushed women and women's issues off to the side (or rather, to the Fashion and Style section), and that has to change as well. But they have really, really got to fire Maureen Dowd. This is a woman who, as Jesse Taylor of Pandagon.net writes, "honestly believes every woman in America has the God-given ability to be as stupid as she is, but are just less jaded". This is a woman who thinks it is a "nutty idea" to discuss some of what has been exposed in the primary season: the sexism of the political pundits, of the fact that the DNC didn't stand up to attacks on Hillary Clinton's voice, her "nut-cracking" ways, and the myriad of other remarks -some of which were made by Dowd herself. Dowd gave those remarks credence when she failed to elucidate how absolutely ridiculous statements like, "We are at war. Is this how she'll talk to Kim Jong-il?" after Clinton teared up on the campaign trail, and instead supported the idea that Clinton's tears were unbecoming a president and claimed there was something "Nixonian" about the whole affair. Really? Nixon? Kristen Schaal managed to say how ridiculous that whole tear-gate was in two sentences on The Daily Show: "Presidents aren't supposed to cry? Well, I suppose those are just freedom drops" as a picture of teary-eyed George W. Bush flashed on the screen.

Maureen Dowd seems impervious to the idea that she herself has managed to create some anger and some resentment in her columns, especially when she quotes from Amy Chozick's Wallstreet Journal article about how Obama is too skinny to win women Clinton supporters, and ignores the fact that Chozick apparently started a Yahoo! message thread in order to do "research" for that article. That is what I call having your fingers on the pulse of the Clinton Nation, because people who respond to questions like "Does anyone out there think Barack Obama is too thin to be president? Anyone having a hard time relating to him and his "no excess body fat?" definitely represent the majority of Clinton's constituents. And Dowd, along with many other Obama supporters and quite a few Clinton supporters, seems to be under the impression that Obama automatically deserves all of the votes with no complaints from the women voters who have felt bashed and bruised and marginalized by the treatment Hillary Clinton was subject to on the campaign trail. And I'm one of those Clinton supporters who would rather we all just fall in line and vote for Obama, because he matches up with Clinton on almost every single issue under the sun and because a McCain presidency would be a bit of a catastrophe regarding such trivial issues like environmental policy, economic policy, foreign policy, and -of course- women's rights. But not for one second do I think it is remotely appropriate to minimize what we've learned from this election cycle: that sexism and racism are and continue to be a large motivating force in American society, that sexism is allowed to reign free through the media outlets purportedly designated as "news-gathering organizations", that something ought to be done about it, and the people who feel burned by it should not be poo-pooed or told to suck it up and get in line.

Obama represents change; that is his line, his platform, and one of the reasons for his shining star. Because of that, it doesn't seem nutty to suggest Obama include the devastating affects of sexism in his rhetoric for change. It may not happen, but it doesn't seem 'nutty'. Nor does it seem nutty to expect to open up the New York Times opinion page and not find a woman comparing Obama to Mr. Darcy in an attempt, so it seems, to "explain" to all of those ungracious women voters who may still be angry, why they should -as Elizabeth Bennett does in regard to Darcy- take Obama to their hearts; to explain why Obama should be more popular with women voters, because he embodies the ever-elusive Romantic hero both in temperament and appearance, instead of focusing on -just reaching here- women as informed voters first and overly emotional fiction readers never.

But of course, that seems to be a pipe dream. And Dowd's seemingly strained understanding of Obama herself -is he really proud and haughty, or is that just an "ill-founded and mistaken premise"- is presented as a conundrum all women face. Plus, I have to say, I'm pretty sure she is presenting a version of Pride and Prejudice I myself have never read -a version where Darcy is almost universally acclaimed for his charisma, his charm, and his ability to ensorcell (™ Aaron Sorkin) crowds, and where only Elizabeth Bennett (in this case, women voters who preferred Clinton) just doesn't get it. And for all of those reasons, Dowd needs to either get a clue and fast, or write about those silly women and their silly emotional impulses elsewhere. And maybe the New York Times can get someone who actually seems to respect women; someone like Anna Quindlen.

Hating On: The New Facebook

For those of you lucky enough to have not yet gone to new.facebook.com and who use Facebook, don't. Like the brown acid at Woodstock, "it's your own trip, but please be adviced there's a warning on that one, okay?"