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

[flyingblogspot.livejournal.com]

Feeling inarticulate today, but just wanted to say that this post is great.

This is exactly why I try not to restrict my decision-making with a fear of going out alone at night and so forth. Changing the way I live to comply with a socially constructed fear seems, to me, to be a far greater oppression than the actual statistical chance that something undesirable might happen to me.

[grahame.livejournal.com]

I'm more cautious when going out at night, especially if I'm not in a familiar area (eg. if I'm travelling.) At home I'm afraid to go out at night - that fear seems pretty strange to me.

If going to an area where I've been accosted by random unpleasant people at night before, I'll tend to be cautious. More likely, I'll just avoid that area. The same goes for pubs - if I've been accosted by randoms that are drunk and unpleasant about it, it counts heavily against the establishment and I'm unlikely to go back. IMHO that's the establishment's fault for failing to serve alcohol responsibly, although I suppose you get some people that are tools even without alcohol.

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

men ... are more likely to have brought it upon themselves by picking a fight etc (**)

(**)I have never seen stats for this, but it seems like a safe generalisation, especially when you consider that most perpetrators of violence are men, and such men are likely going to get attacked back

Wow. I'm totally blown away by this assumption of yours and the attitude it reveals.

You're talking the false guilt that women are made to suffer for being attacks, and in the same discussion, heap some false guilt the other half of the population for good measure?

In answer to your original question: I'm never scared to go out by myself, but do get the jitters when sharing an almost empty street with a stranger.

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

I'm very wary of the "Oh, stranger-rape/sexual assault is a myth" approach to talking about this problem. Stranger rape and stranger sexual assault is not slightly a myth; it happens all the time. It's just that date/partner/husband-rape and sexual assault is _even more common_.

I've been sexually harassed in public by strangers more times than I can count, and it's not my imagination. I've also been sexually assaulted (not raped) by strangers several times. The fact that people I know have done it also doesn't make the prospect of strangers doing it (or much, much worse) any less terrifying.

[alias_sqbr]

Argh, I expressed myself very badly. You may still be offended by my actual point, but I didn't mean to say that men are, in general, at fault for being attacked. But I think there are a very small set of people who do things like pick fights and thus are partly at fault if they get hurt as a result. And more of those people are men (since more violent people are men(*)) and so while almost all victims of assault or attack (regardless of gender) are innocent of any blame, statistically speaking the chance that a man brought his attack on himself (while very low) is higher than the chance that a woman did. It's a nit-picky distinction which has nothing to do with most people.

I agree that in general victim blaming is bad. I was trying to highlight the absurdity of women being blamed and men not, but what I'm arguing for is noone getting blamed(**), not for men to be blamed. That said, I think you're right that that's not the subtext that comes across, so since it's not a vital part of my argument I shall strike it out (while leaving it there so your statement makes sense)

Sorry for sounding like I think men bring this sort of thing on themselves, while that's not what I meant I imagine it wasn't a very nice thing to read :(

(*)Which is NOT the same as saying that men in general are violent
(**)except that small subset, who are small enough to be irrelevant to the point I'm making. Also noone ever deserves to be sexually assaulted, I just meant being physically attacked.

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

But I think there are a very small set of people who do things like pick fights and thus are partly at fault if they get hurt as a result. And more of those people are men

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.

But I take your point, and I hope you got mine.

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

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

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I think the difference is in the consequences. Getting bashed up is honestly not that big a deal... you don't want it to happen to you, but there is a far lower risk of permanent psychological damage. Getting raped, on the other hand, seems to be profoundly emotionally scarring. You basically can't compare them directly.

I find it quite understandable that women are warned off going out alone. That doesn't mean I agree with it; I think there are a lot of things that can be done to minimise any risk, and it's not worth letting fear rule your life.

See also Colm's comments about blaming victims. I realise that isn't quite what you intended, but I think it's revealing all the same. Again, though, I don't think it's particularly logical to compare "dressing like a slut" and "acting like a dickhead" as invitations to assault.

The posts you linked were an interesting read.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

This is a really interesting point, but it makes me wonder: What is it about strangers that is so terrifying? Statistically, it seems pretty obvious that you are more likely to be sexually assaulted by people you know, and yet most people are far more scared of strangers.

Obviously, if you were scared of your friends, they wouldn't be your friends for long... but you have so much more reason to be scared of them. I think it would be very unwise to argue that friends are more worthy of trust, given the evidence.

The only thing I can think of is that all those campaigns aimed at children regarding "stranger danger" really worked, and now we've all grown up with the idea that strangers are to be hated and feared. I think that basically sucks... most people are nice, even if you don't know them.

The "hate and fear the other" sentiment can't help with racism (or other prejudices) either.

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

What is it about strangers that is so terrifying? Statistically, it seems pretty obvious that you are more likely to be sexually assaulted by people you know, and yet most people are far more scared of strangers.

Averages do not translate well to individual situations. I know you're using the generic "you" in the above, but when I read it as the individual "you", it's just plain not true. I am not more likely to be raped by my partner than I am by a stranger, for example. I have been working very hard on paying attention to intuitions, and I'm increasingly assertive in dumping friends and acquaintances who I don't feel I can trust.

On a wider scale, I think it is very well worth working with women on paying attention to those instincts when it comes to friends/relatives/acquaintances instead of only fearing strangers, but I think it doesn't work to deny the existence of stranger rape, or to claim that it's vanishingly rare. Because it isn't.

I am lucky enough to be 100% confident that my partner won't lock me in a cellar and torture and rape me to death. I can't be 100% confident of that with a stranger on the street. Is it relatively unlikely? Sure. But the stakes are pretty damn high.


Of crucial importance, however, we, society as a whole, all of us, need to support people who are paying attention to their instincts, who are calling abusers on their abuse. As neighbours, as friends, as family, as workmates - whoever we are, we need to STOP denying, dismissing, and excusing; and to stop shaming women who try to speak out. (Again, I'm speaking from experience here.)

[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.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree more on your last point.

I have to take issue with the first, though. You say that statistics can't be applied to your situation, but you then apply them to your situation with regard to strangers. Why do you think you are more likely to be attacked by strangers? The only evidence you have is statistics. Your partner might be 100% trustworthy (good for you!), but the same cannot be applied to everyone you know (note that this group includes those people you have removed from your friends group).

However, I'm not advocating that people should be constantly in fear of attack from their friends... that would be horrible. I do feel that the general fear of strangers in society causes a lot of people to alienate themselves and others, which is a trend I think must be stopped. In balance, I feel that the opportunity to meet new people far outweighs the possibility of being raped or murdered by a stranger. I do realise, however, that this is not necessarily true for everyone.

[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.

[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.

[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]

To clarify, I meant more "smoozing free drinks under false pretences" than "dressing like a slut".

I've seen a girl move between the 5 guys I was with at a club, flirting and whispering and then flat out asking for a drink from each in turn, before her boyfriend finally found her, glared at us, and walked off.

That is the minority who unfairly generates the "had it coming" generalisation, just like the rude yobbo male. I say unfairly, because blaming victims is shit, even if they are provoking their attackers.

[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.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

I had assumed that wasn't your actual position. Forgive my hyperbole. :)

[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.

[greteldragon.livejournal.com]

Hm.

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

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

[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.

[greteldragon.livejournal.com]

Wow. That's one way to piss everybody off in a situation.