The original tweet being referenced was strongly implying the idea of law enforcement (aka either armed men, or exceptionally manipulative women) muscling in on a woman who is alone (and therefore more easily subject to intimidation, manipulation, interrogation tactics, and just giving up information in general).
This woman just made up some random bullshit as an "own" because she thought it was a "women weak, men strong" tweet without realizing that such a law would benefit her. It would basically be a logical extension of spousal privilege.
It also bans law enforcement from speaking to her, not the other way around, as if it wasn't clear enough already.
So....the law indicates that men are such manipulative pieces of shit (and the occasional woman the cops accidentally employ) that a wife's husband needs to protect her from other men.
Weird way to interpret it. The statement was more about cops than it was about men.
The fact that most cops are men is almost incidental, but it's still a fact that women are generally more easily intimidated than men, that most cops are armed men who are bigger and stronger than women, and that these cops are generally trained and/or experienced at getting information out of people by almost any means necessary.
It would take a damn strong woman not to fold under pressures like those. A man is less likely to be intimidated by such things.
They definitely aren't sending their best.
The original tweet being referenced was strongly implying the idea of law enforcement (aka either armed men, or exceptionally manipulative women) muscling in on a woman who is alone (and therefore more easily subject to intimidation, manipulation, interrogation tactics, and just giving up information in general).
This woman just made up some random bullshit as an "own" because she thought it was a "women weak, men strong" tweet without realizing that such a law would benefit her. It would basically be a logical extension of spousal privilege.
It also bans law enforcement from speaking to her, not the other way around, as if it wasn't clear enough already.
This tweet got everything wrong.
No, they are sending their best.
So....the law indicates that men are such manipulative pieces of shit (and the occasional woman the cops accidentally employ) that a wife's husband needs to protect her from other men.
Weird way to interpret it. The statement was more about cops than it was about men.
The fact that most cops are men is almost incidental, but it's still a fact that women are generally more easily intimidated than men, that most cops are armed men who are bigger and stronger than women, and that these cops are generally trained and/or experienced at getting information out of people by almost any means necessary.
It would take a damn strong woman not to fold under pressures like those. A man is less likely to be intimidated by such things.