"Fear" of men

Because why should his freedom be limited by the fear of women, whether it is irrational or not, whether it is substantiated or not?

Better to get more people out walking the streets and beaches - young and old, men and women, families and all sorts whenever they fancy it, rather than have the streets there for the group who are less fearful (young men) and stuff everyone else.

SQ, I was about to look over the parapet (own petard in hand, ready to get hoisted) and If we all think the myth of the lone beach rapist might be true, why does a man go alone to a beach at night? Or don't they watch the same films? Not saying he would, just saying he could, and he should know we know he could.

I can't speak for anyone else obv, but my perspective is get on with it and do your stuff, but I won't blame you if you feel afraid and I'll understand if you get a cab rather than walking.

Incidentally where has dittany said that women must be afraid? I know she said that she personally was, but I don't see where she said all women had to be?

but dittany, the fact you have had awful and life changing assaults and attacks does not make it any more likely that anyone else will. it's basic stats. it's understandable that you have been affected and carry more fear.

and i was on the small sexual attacks thread. i do apologise for not having been attacked as many times as you if it makes you feel i am unqualified to comment (clearly statistically we can't answer which of us will be next/ live an attack free life) but it doesn't change the basic premise which is that yes, attacks are awful. yes, some men attack some women.

but to live in fear of something that statistically probably won't happen, isn't rational. we can't help it. but it doesn't make it rational.

i don't want women to be afraid. as i said, campaign against vaw, campaign for better prosecution and zero tolerance, provide better support for women who are attacked. and get angry about the fact that it happens at all.

but please don't use these things as a rationale to tell all women they must be afraid.

and i'm afraid, whatever your personal history, you don't have the right to tell me whether i'm a 'sister' or not. but thanks for pointing out i can fuck off. i'm aware of that, too. as far as i know it's still optional to debate on mn.

Or even if it does affect them

I suppose that men who are that way inclined might find a lot of validation in what they see.

The main result surely is that your majority of nice chaps have it drummed into them that women are vulnerable, who then in turn drum it into women even more that they are vulnerable...

Dittany I had never considered before how this constant diet of "women are prey" in the media affects men...

I'm sure there is something wonky in your logic there riven

I guess that if it's the risk of the woman being raped by a stranger vs child being sexually abused at nursery, the answer is that they are both highly unlikely.

I think the difference is that women are reasonably likely to have something else on the spectrum happen to them, that is quite common. So the perception of the risk is different. Women aren't just scared of rape, they are scared of a whole great long list of different things that might happen. Although most of those fears stem from a fear of rape in the first place.

Given most attacks are by someone the female knows, then out of the two situations mentioned by the OP....the nursery worker is more of a risk. Tis logic

I also think that most of the time the woman is reacting to the situation.

Put her in the vicinity of a man in the middle of the night in a deserted area and she might be apprehensive.

Put her in a lift at work by herself with the same bloke and she probably won't be.

The first situation has been drummed into women as "danger" - the second not. The media have a lot to answer for.

How is that remark "jocular"?

The fact that lots of women are frightened a lot of the time isn't very funny really.

Was a black person wrong to feel nervous when they realised they were about to walk past a group of men with skinheads? Even if they had no way of knowing whether the skinheads were fashion skinheads or national front supporters?

I would say not. You may have a different perspective.

I was (99%) making a jocular remark. If you'd had bad experiences with men, one is bound to be a little scared, but at the same time, in most cases it's largely unreasonable, as well it would be to think every black man is a mugger, or Muslim a bomber, and to act as if they might be.

You think that women who are frightened in those situations are guilty of hate?

What about in places like the refugee camps in Haiti? Are they guilty of hate and bigotry too? Because they are scared?

Are you serious happytourer?

You think it is totally unreasonable that a woman who has had a few incidents of sexual assault and is exposed to the messages from the media that women are prey, (ie most women in the UK), feel nervous when eg walking through a deserted area at 3am and realising that she is not alone and there is a bloke walking towards her or behind her?

I find black people and muslims scary as well, is that ok?

Surely you can see that there is a difference between being afraid, and understanding that others might be afraid.

People need to do something (what?) about this message from the media all the time that women are prey.

And society needs to change - a woman doing something like walking home alone after the pub will be told by pretty much everyone not to do it, wait for someone else, get a cab, oh dear oh dear oh dear.

And all this with a backdrop of the fact that stuff does happen all the time. Not stranger rape but all of the more "minor" stuff, stuff that never gets reported. Once you've had a couple of blokes wave their nobs at you, and a couple of blokes follow you, and a couple of blokes say creepy/scary things to you, then you learn that actually this stuff does happen and it happens quite a lot.

Telling women they must not be afraid is pointless, the source of the fear needs to be reduced and the perception of risk needs to be altered.

I was never too fearful to go around all over the place in all sorts of states when I was young... But I would never judge a woman who was. She is responding in the appropriate way to all the messages she has received. Women who say "fuck that" and get in an unlicenced cab or walk a few miles home through dark and isolated areas are considered outrageously reckless.

there used to be a few risk gurus on here. where are they? the threads used to be very good.

statistically, if 1 in 4 women will be attacked during their lifetime, and between 70 and 90% of those attacks are committed by someone known to the victim, why on earth are we living every day in fear of something that is statistically unlikely to happen? is it really worth spending 60 years of adult life in fear? to get to your death bed and go 'woo, well it wasn't me, then.'

we have all been massively conned by the ridiculously large amount of fictional sex attacks and murders on crime shows that our conception of risk is waaaaaaay out of whack? we are told every day we should be afraid. of course our instincts are kicking in. our instincts have been highly honed by everyone from our parents to the papers, to csi flipping miami. there's nothing left of instinct. not in an animal sense. it's all been co-opted.

HB, i'm sorry i didn't post on the other thread. i was just in shock that sensible women, who i greatly admire, were choosing to uphold that this fear is rational.

of course an attack, any attack is devastating. but that doesn't mean that an attack on you (or any of us) personally, at any given time, is likely enough to spend our every moment in fear.

yes, campaign against vaw. yes, campaign for better support for victims. yes, campaign for better prosecution rates. all of these things.

but don't use the fact that it does sometimes happen to convince everyone that a state of fear about the opposite sex is normal and enshrined. don't encourage it.

there is no way that any feminist fighting for equality should be afraid. how can you hope to achieve anything from protecting a position of institutionalised weakness?

but i'm going to have to step away from this thread, or i'm going to spend all day raging, and i've got things to do.

Can you all come over on the AIBU thread please? It's directly relevant to this thread.

Yep, many's the time someone's been attacked because they overrode their instincts and told themselves not to be so silly...

But people need to listen to their instincts, surely?

If you are somewhere and a man is making you feel nervous, then I would advocate proceeding with caution, rather than telling yourself not to be so silly IYSWIM.

A big problem for especially younger people is that they don't get out of situations that make them feel uncomfortable as they don't want to appear rude. So they put the feelings of the other person (not wanting to offend them) above their own (acting on their fear).

I would have been cautious about the man on the beach because as a man I am quite likely to be attacked by other men. Allhailtheaubergine was right to be cautious.

I was apalled and saddened by the male nursery worker thread as he was in a supervised environment and CRB checked. As I said on that thread, it is because of people like that OP that men including myself increasingly avoid contact with children. I have to have a CRB check so I can have contact with adult students as do women lectures do too. I would be extremely angry if the local university decided that me and other male lecturers were not allowed to interact with female students without a chaperone or if female students were allowed to choose a female lecturer.

Two entirely different threads in my view

Sardinequeen - slight twisting of my words, there!
Sometimes people have fears when no one or no thing is doing anything to make them feel that way. These are irrational and I do think being on a beach with A Man On It is irrational, yes. especially as he was doing nothing but being there.

Whether people feel anger or fear in certain situations isn't the point, is it? Surely the point is that someone is doing something to make them feel that way in the first place.

Is this an extension of the idea that women should "laugh off" minor sexual assaults, and if they display fear or anger they are told they are over-reacting?

That any woman who feels apprehensive when in certain situations, is doing it wrong? Yet at the same time we say that women should trust their instincts more. And also if they are in the "wrong place" in the first place, then they have to bear some of the blame if something happens. Women can't win really, can they.