Troubling Allegations Against Former Sheriff in Pinal County, AZ (Church mbr)

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

She analogizes the response to the unknown risk of getting a parasite to the response to the unknown risk of men until one knows them better, imo; not men to the parasite.  

 

Yes thank you for clarifying for me. It never entered my mind that someone would think I was comparing men to parasites. 😂

But I probably should have, given Smac’s  previous posts about the kind of a person he believes I am. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What ideas do you have in mind here that we already do not have?

And why is it that men can do this, but women cannot?

Also, what does "self-police" mean in this context?

Men generally don’t hold other men accountable for harassing and making women feel unsafe. Many defend and downplay. Women learn quickly most men won’t listen or help so they turn to a kind of collective self-defense.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I really would like to understand these concepts of imputing "collective" guilt and/or responsibility onto an entire category based on nothing more than shared biological sex.

It is not the guilt that is usually imputed. Most women know some men are safe or at least safer. However the caution women live with is there and has nothing to do with guilt. They can’t operate on ‘innocent until proven guilty’ because the stakes are way too high for that presumption to matter.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think men can do the following:

1. Abstain from engaging in misconduct toward women and children.

Low bar but that is where we are at.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

2. Support the passage and enforcement of laws against mistreatment of women and children.

We are terrible at the latter.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

3. Condemn any ideology or rhetoric that justifies or excuses mistreatment of women and children.

Woah, I don’t think we should jump straight to Bible burning.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

4. Act to report - or, where possible, stop - known instances of mistreatment of women and children and protect them from harm .

Reporting often doesn’t help. I really wish it did. I know a few people whose lives were ruined by reporting misconduct. It is not enough to say people should report. We have to defend those who do report.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

5. Encourage others to not only abstain from mistreating women and children, but to affirmatively treat them with kindness and respect.

6. Subscribe to schools of thought and moral frameworks which facilitate the foregoing measures.

We are terrible at these.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

7. Encourage "situational awareness."

Create environments where situational awareness is less necessary.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

8. Model good behavior (i.e., I seek to treat my wife with kindness and respect, and abstain from any mistreatment or demeaning conduct, and hope that my daughters view that as the healthy and appropriate way for men to treat women).

Note this treatment has to extend to all women or the message is muddled. If it only applies to close family and friends it can be a toxic message. Also the main goal would be for sons to not treat women badly. Teaching women how they ought to be treated is good but the threat comes from the boys and men.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

These are the measures that immediately come to mind.  However, none of these are predicated on me being male (except, I suppose, for the last one).  Women can also do these things.

Except due to many factors men tend to listen to and go along with what men say and do over what women say and do.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

By "collective responsibility" you seem to be referencing some sort of prospective and proactive effort to mitigate misconduct toward women and children in the future.  Alternatively, Senator's reference to "collective guilt" seems to refer to some sort of reactive inculpation for past harms.  Do you see any material difference between those two?

You’re splitting hairs and trying to make it about you again.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am in my 50s now.  I have a wife and adult daughters.  I have my mother, mother-in-law, sisters, sisters-in-law and nieces.  I know many women, young women and girls in my ward and neighborhood.  I care about all of these folks particularly, and about women and girls generally.

And again it is about you.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

One of the primary, and perhaps the primary, reason I generally dislike rap music is because of how frequently it glorifies things I find morally repellant, particularly descriptions of treatment of and violence against women.

I dislike that the lived experience of so many people is such that these kinds of lyrics are an accurate and relatable experience. I don’t think paving over the problem by complaining about people signing and writing about horrible experiences is helpful. Refusing to speak about problems means they are here to stay.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

As a Latter-day Saint, the counsel of the Brethren regarding the treatment of women and children is clear and unequivocal (see, e.g., here, here and here).

The counsel of scripture is, of course, much more mixed. Also the culture of the Church is not conducive to defending victims. Sometimes it manages it. Sometimes it does not.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is helpful to me.  What is it that you think men can do that women cannot do in this regard?

What sort of "dump it on the women"-style of behaviors are you referencing here?

Too often rape culture is seen as a women’s issue that has to be solved when men are overwhelmingly the people causing the problem. Also if women would just be situationally aware, wear the right clothing, stay out of certain areas, and live in a kind of maximum safety then bad things won’t happen….to them. Just to the bad women who bring it on themselves by being a little less aware, dressing slutty, or going to the wrong places. There is an expectation that women have to police themselves perfectly or they (to some level) deserve what happens.

Sometimes this is just blatant victim blaming. Sometimes it is people wanting to believe in a just universe rationalizing what the victim did wrong that led to the event so that they can assure themselves it won’t happen to them or to people they care about. That if you do the right thing you will be safe. You see this in any story where a man rapes or assaults a woman. It also fixates on the less common forms of assault where strangers are the aggressor. More often it is acquaintances or friends or family or a spouse.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Dot this difference apply to other categories?  Women?  Muslims?  Japanese?  Americans?

The desperate need to parse out guilt is unhealthy. The best metaphor I know of is that we all live in a broken down apartment building. Because of the flaws in construction and ongoing damage to the premises by people in it the place is unsafe. It is more unsafe for some than for others. Minorities and women find the premises more unsafe. Now a lot of the problems were there before any of us got here. Some are neglecting maintenance they should be doing and others are actively making the situation worse. The goal is to fix the building we all live in. Parsing out exactly how much of the responsibility lies on the original builders, those who lived here before, and those who are living here now aren’t productive and are mostly used as a dodge by people who think they see advantages for themselves in the broken down nature of the place because their living situation in it is marginally better.

So do we fix the house or do the people in the better apartments just whine about how everyone else is trying to make them feel guilty when the call is to figure out how to fix the whole thing. We’ll probably collectively choose inaction and suffering over improvement because this is what humanity tends to do. We could choose differently but we probably won’t.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And why is it that men can do this, but women cannot?

It is very hard to change minds when one is not respected or the aggressor thinks of one as less than they are or is not in the habit of listening to one.

One might get the law to coerce behaviour, but how long does that take to change hearts rather than build up resentment? (Not saying we shouldn’t have laws as if fear is the only way to prevent violence, then use fear imo).

But as Nehor pointed out, the laws we have managed to get so far aren’t that great.  

Took us to 1975 to get laws against spousal rape on the books and there are still states with legal loopholes making it harder to prosecute marital rape or even just a previous relationship.

https://abcnews.com/US/minnesotas-repeal-marital-rape-exemptions-highlights-existing-legal/story

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/making-sense-of-chaos/202005/the-bizarre-legal-loopholes-surrounding-spousal-rape/amp

https://www.womenslaw.org/about-abuse/forms-abuse/sexual-abuse-and-exploitation/marital-partner-rape/basic-info-about-0

Edited 2 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The desperate need to parse out guilt is unhealthy. The best metaphor I know of is that we all live in a broken down apartment building. Because of the flaws in construction and ongoing damage to the premises by people in it the place is unsafe. It is more unsafe for some than for others. Minorities and women find the premises more unsafe. Now a lot of the problems were there before any of us got here. Some are neglecting maintenance they should be doing and others are actively making the situation worse. The goal is to fix the building we all live in. Parsing out exactly how much of the responsibility lies on the original builders, those who lived here before, and those who are living here now aren’t productive and are mostly used as a dodge by people who think they see advantages for themselves in the broken down nature of the place because their living situation in it is marginally better.

So do we fix the house or do the people in the better apartments just whine about how everyone else is trying to make them feel guilty when the call is to figure out how to fix the whole thing. We’ll probably collectively choose inaction and suffering over improvement because this is what humanity tends to do. We could choose differently but we probably won’t.

Good analogy.  It applies to so many things, imo. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

What sort of "responsibility" do you feel I, a man living in 2026 (born long after the above atrocity), should carry for this?

No responsibility. I am talking about responsibility for change. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

What sort of "dump it on the women"-style of behaviors are you referencing here?

For example, places that put curfews on women when attacks on women are happening rather than the men, among who the perpetrators hide.

Anything that restricts women, tells them to change their behaviour and ignores any behaviours of men that might be increasing likelihood of atracks.

Tell women they need to learn self defense…guess what, it’s not enough.  Even when it might help one woman avoid assault, what about the woman the rapist then turns to as his next victim?

https://broadview.org/self-defense-violence-against-women/

Quote

The self-defence approach works for a portion of the time, for a portion of women and girls. Some who are trained in self-­defence, martial arts or boxing are able to respond to a perpetrator and stop an assault. But being a trained fighter doesn’t always provide immunity. In 2016, the famous Indian boxer Mary Kom wrote an open letterto her sons where she shared about being molested, writing “even a woman who has earned her spurs, boxing her way through life, was made to feel violated.”…

Every woman and girl should have the right to learn how to fight if she wants to, especially if it builds her confidence. But self-defence should not be sold as a panacea for women’s and girls’ safety. It veers dangerously close to victim-blaming those who froze, dissociated or were unable to fight in a situation of violence. It puts the onus on women and girls to stop or reduce the impact of men’s violence, rather than focusing on getting men to stop doing it.

I will always enjoy watching Sarah Connor plow through rows of male guards. I will always celebrate the physical strength of women and girls. But ending gendered violence will not be solved with a superheroine fantasy. Real change will come from challenging the roots of the problem: misogyny, hetero- and cisnormativity, rape culture and gender inequality.

Self-defence is not the solution to violence against all women and girls. A major shift in our society’s power structure is.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/12/stop-rapists-not-change-who-gets-raped
 

Better to make society responsible for prevention, including messaging the men it’s as much as their job as the women.

https://www.lindsey.edu/campus-life/Greendot-LWC.cfm

Quote

Traditional prevention programs may only approach men as potential perpetrators and women as potential victims. Green Dot approaches all students, staff, administrators, and faculty as allies. The original Green Dot program was conceived in the college setting to prevent dating violence, sexual violence, and stalking. It relies on the premise that if everyone does their small part and commits to individual responsibility, the combined effect is a safe campus culture that is intolerant of violence. The college-based curriculum draws heavily on the experiences of college students and the reality of this issue in their lives. This curriculum uses interactive activities to reinforce core concepts and encourages students to envision their future and the world in which they want to live, then aligns their bystander behavior with that vision.

I don’t know how effective this can truly be, but it is a step in the right direction.

Edited 1 hour ago by Calm

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Teaching women how they ought to be treated is good but the threat comes from the boys and men.

Amen 

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

What sort of "dump it on the women"-style of behaviors are you referencing here?

For example, places that put curfews on women when attacks on women are happening rather than the men, among who the perpetrators hide.

Could you provide some examples where women have been subject to such sex-based curfews?

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Anything that restricts women,

I would like to better understand this.

A recommendation that a woman not walk alone through a seedy neighborhood at 2:00 a.m. is a de facto restriction.  But then, that same advice would apply to and "restrict" men or teenagers or children as well.  Would you object to such advice about situational awareness, reasonable precautions and mitigation efforts?

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

tells them to change their behaviour and ignores any behaviours of men that might be increasing likelihood of atracks.

I appreciate you elaborating — I really do want to understand where you're coming from. We both want a world with far less violence against women, children, and men. That’s not in dispute.

We should never ignore predatory or improper behavior by men. At the same time, we shouldn’t act as if bad actors don’t exist. We have plenty of laws against such behavior, and we should enforce them vigorously. But since criminals don’t always obey the law, an ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure. As Mr. Miyagi said, “Best defense: no be there.” I’m fully supportive of laws that enable women to carry effective self-defense tools.

When I asked for examples of “dumping it on women,” I was trying to understand the specific pattern you’re seeing. The curfew example is a fair one. No one should pretend that restricting women’s freedom is ideal. At the same time, I think we need to be careful about labeling any discussion of practical precautions as victim-blaming or “restricting women.”

Personal safety isn’t a zero-sum sort of thing. Advising women (or anyone) to be extra aware at night, avoid walking alone in high-risk areas, or have a plan isn’t saying “it’s your fault if something happens.” It’s the same common-sense risk mitigation we apply in other contexts — lock your car, don’t leave your drink unattended, wear a seatbelt, be cautious with strangers online. These aren’t moral judgments on victims; they’re acknowledgments that the world isn’t perfectly safe and that individuals have some agency in reducing their exposure.

Perpetrators bear full moral responsibility for their crimes. Full stop. But culture change and personal safety aren’t mutually exclusive. We can — and should — do both: hold men accountable when they commit violence, teach boys respect and self-control from a young age, and encourage everyone to exercise reasonable situational awareness. Most women I know already do some version of this, not because society dumped it on them, but because it’s prudent.

The idea that we shouldn’t discuss women’s precautions at all until men perfectly fix the culture feels unrealistic to me. Bad actors have existed in every generation. I’d rather we encourage a multi-vector approach: society pass and enforce laws, individual men men take responsibility for their own behavior and treating women with dignity, and everyone using wisdom and caution in a fallen world.

Does that make sense, or do you see it differently?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The idea that we shouldn’t discuss women’s precautions at all until men perfectly fix the culture feels unrealistic to me. Bad actors have existed in every generation. I’d rather we encourage a multi-vector approach: society pass and enforce laws, individual men men take responsibility for their own behavior and treating women with dignity, and everyone using wisdom and caution in a fallen world.

Generally men jumping in to tell women how to be safe (usually after a crime has occurred are not helpful.

And I disagree about individual men taking responsibility. Other men should take responsibility to socially shame and discourage predation by other men. Many men who wouldn’t assault a women validate the culture where men do assault women.

Edited 1 hour ago by The Nehor

[Senator]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

  Could you help me understand how that is not a reference to "collective guilt"?

 

I am uninterested in continuing this unending questioning to help you understand.  It’s not that difficult.  Instead of wanting to understand, I  feel you more want to just continue this cross examination down to the finest minutiae until you can catch me on some contradiction or illogic.  
 

No not interested 

[smac97]

Just now, Senator said:

I am uninterested in continuing this unending questioning to help you understand.  It’s not that difficult.  Instead of wanting to understand, I  feel you more want to just continue this cross examination down to the finest minutiae until you can catch me on some contradiction or illogic.  
 

No not interested 

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

would like to better understand this.

A recommendation that a woman not walk alone through a seedy neighborhood at 2:00 a.m. is a de facto restriction.  But then, that same advice would apply to and "restrict" men or teenagers or children as well.  Would you object to such advice about situational awareness, reasonable precautions and mitigation efforts?

Would you please take everything I say into account and not just treat each sentence as if it exists in a void.

I have already talked about how women are required to do exactly that because the world is not safe for them, so I am not arguing that we should never make those recommendations.  What I am tired of is when societies act as if the onus is all on women as if women taking wise precautions is enough.  If that will continue to be the dominant approach we will never get to a point where we can stop advising women to not trust anyone until they know better.  At best, this is a stop gap measure and plenty of women still get assaulted no matter how prepared they are.  More needs to be done.  The Green Dot program I added to my previous post seems like a step in the right direction as it mobilizes the community to participate through education and encouraging and possibly rewarding active involvement in spotting and stopping red flag behaviors and assaults themselves

I am condemning any recommendation list that begins and ends at or whose primary approach is restricting women’s freedom.   That is what I mean by dumping it on the women, if it wasn’t clear before by my use of “dump”.

Think of it like people complaining they don’t feel safe in their own neighborhoods and the response they get from others over and over again is to put bars on their windows and locks on their doors and ask for ID when people come to the door…be situationally aware and prepare to avoid harm…as if that means they will feel safer in their neighborhood when the advice is in essence to avoid the neighborhood by isolating oneself.

It’s bare minimum help…acknowledgment they don’t feel safe, but making it the victim or potential victim’s responsibility to be safe.

How many times does situational awareness need to be validated before we can move on to something that moves the needle further than it already is.  We have been taught situational awareness at least since I was born back in the 50s, likely way before that.  Moms have probably been telling their daughters since they first left the cave to keep an eye out for the wolves in sheep clothing.  There’s a reason for certain fairy tales.

Edited just now by Calm