It's just not safe out there for a boy like you!

[sqbr]

EDIT: So this has turned out to be a controversial post (who'd have thought?) and I have way too much of a headache to deal with it right now. So I hope you don't all kill each other...

Via Hoyden about town we have: a post discussing the effect the fear of going out has on women with a lot of interesting comments.

First, it has many examples of the old White women trying to emphasise the evils of sexism by comparing it to racism trick. *sigh*(*)

But also, some of the commenters make a point I've been trying to articulate: the the problem is not that women are actually in more danger (since we're not), nor is it just that we're more scared. It's also that men's danger is minimised.

The general attitude is that women are safe at home/with friends but in EXTREME danger if we go out by ourselves, and if something does happen then it's probably partly our fault for putting ourselves in danger, and we'll suffer permanent emotional harm.
Men on the other hand can take care of themselves when they go out, are probably fairly safe, and if something does happen then it's not their fault and they'll get over it.

But in fact women are much LESS likely to be attacked than men (if more likely to be sexually assaulted/raped), and when we are assaulted (sexually or otherwise) it's generally by someone we know and at home. The emotional harm is true, but at the same time it is something women can rise above and deal with better than is often portrayed.
On the other hand, men are in more danger, in many cases can't take care of themselves (even a big guy isn't going to be able to save himself from a gang with knives or what have you), are more likely to have brought it upon themselves by picking a fight etc(**) (though certainly not always!), and can also be left with emotional issues. And men are raped much more often than you'd think.

But noone tells young men to stay home at night. Maybe they should. I know my brother got robbed a few times coming home late on the train and I think found it very distressing, while my mum spends all her time worrying about my sister and I who afaict have never been attacked by strangers (I've experienced minor sexual harassment, and I imagine she has too, but mine was in "safe" places like the library in the middle of the day)

Of course another point people made is that maybe the reason men get attacked more is because they go out more, so that women are still in more proportionate danger. Which may be true.

All in all this is why when I say I'm against "sexism" I don't mean "people picking on women". I mean our society's harmful attitudes to gender in general, whether they affect men or women (or, as here, both in different ways).

See also:
aussie violence stats
http://www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk
page about the experience of male rape

It's important to note that I'm not saying violence against women isn't a big deal which needs to be fought against. I just don't think the attitudes people have about it are very helpful (mostly the people who are not actually interested in fighting it, since that's "just the way things are").

Oh, and not that I don't appreciatte you guys input in general anyway, but I am in particular interested in what the men on my flist think about this point since you're going to have a different perspective to me. How afraid are YOU to go out out night? And in case you're wondering: I am a bit self conscious going out alone at night etc, though I try not to let it control me.

(*)All the places I go to discuss racism have a hefty female contingent, so I've not been in a position to observe this claimed tendency for black men to minimise the effect of sexism, and given that all people suck I'm sure it does happen. Doesn't make it ok for us to do the reverse.
(**)EDIT: This came across entirely the wrong way, and takes away from my argument. See here for what I was *trying* to say.

Comments

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

You're not seriously comparing wearing a certain outfit to physically attacking someone by throwing a punch?

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

No, I don't think he is. Throwing a punch makes you the assaulter, not the victim, regardless of whether you subsequently lose the fight (including in the eyes of the law).

The comparison, I believe, is between adopting sexually suggestive attire and body language and adopting a physically threatening or deliberately aggravating manner. In one sense, they're comparable: they're both a deliberate decision to send a particular provocative message to others. The difference, I would argue, is that society directly encourages women to be provocatively sexy, but discourages men from being provocatively violent.

Regardless, I think it's a silly comparison, because being physically assaulted is different to being sexually assaulted. The whole of the second post linked describes just this sort of comparison, and why it's a bad idea.

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

It's a bloody ridiculous comparison either way. Wearing sexy attire isn't threatening. Wearing sexy attire isn't aggravating. Wearing sexy attire doesn't create a hostile environment for the people around. Someone wearing sexy attire doesn't put people in fear that they're about to be attacked. Someone wearing sexy attire doesn't affect a bystander in any way at all.

I may be wearing sexy attire when I'm on my way somewhere to meet someone who I want to see the attire; that doesn't make it about every random man I happen to meet on the way. Or it may just be the clothes I put on that day. Normal Western business attire is "sexy" and "provocative" to some men. Not wearing a bra is "provocative" to some men. Possessing large breasts is "provocative" to some men. Showing your hair or face or upper chest or arms or ankles is "provocative" or "aggravating" to some men. Buying into this mindset means that _no matter what_ a women is wearing, _no matter why_, she gets the blame.

Assholes who see clothing an reasonable excuse to attack someone need to get the fuck over themselves and stop thinking that everything in their world is about them. And, preferably, lock themselves in a cellar alone for the rest of the lives so the rest of us can go about our legal, non-threatening business.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Indeed. I think that sums up quite well why the comparison is fallacious.

However, do be careful about letting your anger cloud your judgement. col_ki's argument isn't that blaming female victims is right, it's that blaming male victims is wrong.

This thread is a good example of why using analogies can be a very bad idea.

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

My judgement's just fine, but cheers for the lecture. I should totally not be at all pissed off when people compare being in public in the possession of cleavage to being openly and deliberately physically threatening.

Here's the thing: the thing you identified as being "the difference" - it isn't the only difference.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Thank you, I hadn't considered the other differences. This is why we discuss things, and I appreciate you pointing it out.

Calling people 'assholes' doesn't help anyone, however, and I won't apologise for calling you on it.

[greteldragon.livejournal.com]

Hm.

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

I don't think I called you or any of my other interlocutors an asshole. I said "Assholes who see clothing an reasonable excuse to attack someone [...]". If anyone in this thread really does think clothing is a reasonable excuse for rape, they are an asshole, and I'm never going to apologise for that characterisation.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Okay. It seemed to be directed in a very specific direction, but if that was not your intention, fair enough.

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

You jumped to the "sexy attire" part - probably because that's a fairly popular warning to girls who dress up when they go out.

What I said was "clothing and mannerisms to manipulate, extort and atangonise", not "attract or excite".

This would include, say, wearing a KKK outfit out trick-or-treating, as well as some of the nastier sexual manipulation that can happen in pubs.

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

"Well similarly, there is a small set of people who deliberately choose clothing and mannerisms to manipulate, extort and atangonise targets, who are more at fault when they get hurt as a result. And more of which are women."

More women go out wearing KKK outfits and get sexually assaulted for it? That's what you were talking about?

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

It wasn't my main thrust, no, but it fit my words better than "pretty dresses will get you raped".

[alias_sqbr]

Obviously I can't speak for col_ki, but I'm talking about people who behave in such a way as to deliberately provoke violence in others. Noone deliberately provokes sexual assault.

I'm beginning to realise just how deep a morass I threw myself into by comparing the threat women face when they go out to the one men do (since it ends up equating rape with being beaten up, which...blah), but to continue it anyway: what I am not talking about is people who do not under any circumstances wish to be engaged in violence but do something which someone else takes as justification for attacking them. I mean, there MIGHT be situations where they are somewhat at fault, but my first instinct would be to put all the blame on their attacker, not them.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

At the risk of perpetuating this analogy war, your example is still flawed. Nobody deliberately sets out to get their head kicked in, either. If you really have to make the comparison, deliberately provoking violence is more similar in intent to deliberately provoking sexual interest.

However THIS IS DUMB. Let's stop now.

[alias_sqbr]

But! But!...

ok :)

(I'm still not sure I got my actual point across, but since it was a very small point, and is HUGELY distracting from my main argument, I'm going to let it go)

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

No. Nice straw man, though.

I compared the posturing and bravado some people show just before geting assaulted to the deception and duplication some people engage in before being assaulted.

Just in case you don't get it: no, I'm not saying it's OK to make someone a victim because you find them attractive.

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

sorry, I didn't mean "duplication" I meant duplicitousness.

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "deception and duplication"?

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

Sure:

In general terms, I mean someone being misled and cheated.

Some examples would include:
- someone who pretends to enjoy your company only as long as you buy them drinks
- someone who pretends to be in distress or poverty get money
- someone who pretends to like you only so that they can later embarrass and mock you

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

I'm reading a long, looooooong thread of "The victim is never to blame, BUT...."

Just leave out the but. It's not necessary. It weakens the point to the point of making it look like you _don't_ actually agree that the rape victim isn't to blame. It smacks of rape culture apologism. It's redolent of "I'm not a racist, BUT....", or "I'm not a sexist, BUT...."

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

Ok, sure :P

This whole discussion started because I was objecting to sqbr's "but", using an easy-to-follow analogy:

"Men aren't to blame to getting bashed, just like women aren't to blame for get raped".

I certainly never equated rape with bashing. I haven't experienced either, and would be hard-put to say that one is worse than the other. We're not talking about a grope on the bum or few bruises here.