Random men speaking to you

No, we'd take the car and minimise the risk of bumping into a bunch of drunks walking home from a club. I'm not saying I wouldn't go out at all. I'm just saying I wouldn't do it on foot. There's a difference between recognising a higher risk and letting things rule your life.

You're talking about every encounter, which I'm presuming to be day or night.

And please stop this 'being blamed' thing because it isn't a given that women get blamed for it, just as my example above made quite clear. Except again, you conveniently brush that sort of stuff off like it's irrelevant.

It really does seem to me that questions get posed by some women on here to see if men react, think or act in similar ways to women. However, when a man says 'yes we do' it's never good enough or is somehow totally different. I'm beginning to wonder what the point is.

Actually RG I don't think people fear mugging so much as violence.

I feel it.

I try not to allow it to affect my life as much as possible.

I certainly don't denigrate women who do, I can understand that fear of male violence is a big factor in why women spend money on taxis they don't need, don't go out in the dark by themselves, use their cars instead of public transport etc.

When they don't, they are warned of the dangers. When they do, they are called paranoid.

The majority of rapes that occur are by people known to the victim not random people on the streets. So yes he could say for the same reasons he his wife is far more likely to get mugged then raped on the street.

Well unless you are my wife posting from another PC in the house then you are different

Seriously though, from what you've posted about feeling background threats of violence then I'd say you were pretty different. Unless you're saying that you don't feel it at all and that you simply putting a point over that is felt by some women.

"Naturally she's not going to the 24h garage on foot at 3am but neither would I for the same reasons."

Really? The same reasons? That you might be raped and then blamed for it? You'd be astonished by how many men get off from that sort of rape by saying it was consensual.

Do you not see that not going to the 24h garage on foot at 3AM is allowing the threat of crime to affect your daily life, if you really fancy a cup of tea but you've run out of milk? that's quite an extreme example, but lots of women won't go out even after dark alone on foot - I remember a thread a few years ago where quite an astounding number of women said in winter, they wouldn't go out at 6 without their husbands and said they thought other women who did so, were stupid for taking unnecessary risks and ought to make sure they had milk in the fridge.

How do you know I am different to your wife?

The fact is, if women don't treat every encounter with a man as a potential sexual assault, they get blamed for it if that man attacks them ("What did she expect?" "Why did she invite him in?" "She was talking and laughing with him not half an hour before" etc.)

While if they did, they would be considered demented. Men like you would cite your wife as being so much more rational and sensible than these fictional women who treat every encounter with men as a potential attack.

Absolutely not true. The difference is not just individual, it is also how it affects women as a class.

Men are not blamed for the attacks on them.

Women are.

Men are not told that they shouldn't have been there, shouldn't have worn that smart suit, shouldn't have travelled alone when they are attacked.

Women are.

I think that's quite a basic thing to acknowledge tbh.

Still not sure why people are taking out sexual assaults from overall assaults on street?

Festiva

Call me pedantic but that should be 'some' women who have a background consciousness of a thread ot violence. My wife, for instance, has little or no fear at all. Should she? Is every single encounter with a male a potential assault?

Of course it isn't. You may want to worry more or less than my wife but the choice is yours. Whether you are more justified to worry or not is up to you. My wife chooses not to worry and probably sleeps better for it.

Some men will undoubtedly have a fear of being attacked on the street by other males. I wrote about this pages ago but this does not seem to have registered at all. I don't fear unecessarily but others do.

As for the ratios, your guess is as good as mine but ultimately the only difference is how it affects you as an individual.

Festivia's point is trying to tease out the implications of people's comments on this. Are people saying that men have as much background fear as women do, of other men? Are people asserting that men arrange their lives with a background consciousness as great as that of women, of the threat of violence to them by other men?

And also to labour the point about the fear of rape: these people who always go on about how men are more likely to be attacked on the street if you take sexual assaults out of the equation: why would you do that? What is the point you are trying to make? Why are sexual assaults irrelevant when judging fear of crime and organising your life to try and avoid being the victim of an assault?

I think the general theory put forward in this thread is that women experience unwanted attention and threat of violence from men, but this does not tend to happen the other way around.

However, it seems we can't agree on the extent to which this happens: clearly some women perceive/experience this more than others.

I do not understand Festivia's point at all? Is she saying that a man taxing a taxi is a wimp because he isn't going to get raped, and therefore he doesn't have anything to fear? I am scratching my head at that last point.

As Rumble says, he is worried about being mugged. That's the reason I take taxis too.

Pretty sure he is worried about getting beaten up/mugged/murdered which is more likely to happen to men on the streets at night.

Why does your DH take a taxi home to avoid walking FarSide?

Does he fear being raped?

Because where the reason for taking a taxi instead of walking, isn't because of bad shoes, heavy bags or a very long walk, that's the major reason why most women do it.

Well, I live in London, and I did wonder if maybe urban men are more sophisticated and less likely to appear threatening.

I am not unaware of threat BTW Festivia, I just don't perceive it around me all the time.

My DH is just as likely to take a taxi to avoid walking home alone at night.

The thing about the background threat, is that we're not aware of it.

Like Garlic says, loads of women automatically get taxis when they could walk. They don't question why they do it. If they were asked if they feel a low, background hum of threat, they wouldn't know what you are on about - they'd think you were demented and paranoid. And yet they get these taxis, not because they are lazy, not because they are wearing high heels, but because they have internalised the background hum so successfully, that they no longer hear it. Getting a taxi is just automatic, they don't question it.

... Plus, there's usually at least on thread on here by a woman who doesn't know what to do about a neighbour's husband who comes on to her at parties. Why doesn't every woman in this predicament shove the guy off, make a huge row and evict him from her home?

Why? Unless they, too, feel 'background threatened'?

I don't know anything about your life Far, but it does look as if the phenomenon mainly affects women who spend a lot of time in crowded places: commuter transport, city streets and busy buildings. Clearly a minority of people, behaving badly, could make a significant impact on the majority of women when numbers are high.

That said, I've known many women in quiet, provincial circumstances who won't walk alone at night or get in a lift with a solo man. So they feel 'background threatened', despite low probability.

I think we will have to disagree on the degree to which women feel threatened. I certainly do not feel a "continuous background hum of threats to women".

Hah! I did that too! Man had hand inside my knickers, I raised it and enquired "Whose hand is this?" Was great, carriage applauded

Garlic: I have always confronted wherever feasible. I was outrageously groped in a crowded tube train once followed by the prat rubbing himself up against my arse. The dirty bastard had an erection.

I grabbed his hand, pulled his arm in the air and shouted "Get off me you mucky pervert". Cue stares from the entire carriage. He couldn't get off the train quickly enough at the next station.

Always always confront unless it is potentially too dangerous to do so, is my motto.

What a fantastic post, Festivia, sketching out the continuous background hum of threats to women, and the irresolvable conflict between "not making a fuss / not letting it get to you" and criticism or blame for not making a fuss when something bad does happen.

-----

Another little anecdote: Some time in the '90s, I witnessed a young woman following self-protection advice. She was a twenty-ish American; we were in adjacent check-in queues at an airport. An impatiently complaining man went to physically move her for some reason - not violently, but it wasn't an accidental push. The girl immediately turned round, shoved him - hard - with both hands to the chest, while bellowing "Get away from me!"

The man was affronted. Airport security told him she'd behaved reasonably. I was among a small handful of fellow passengers who congratulated her. Everyone, though, including me, was quite shocked. We're not used to seeing a woman address a potential threat so swiftly. I wonder what posters on this thread think of her reaction?

-----

The 18 stone brickie test doesn't tell us much. I guess the idea is that a man might say "nice day" to a woman but not to an 18 stone brickie because the latter might take offence. That doesn't mean the man is exerting power over the woman, merely that he is avoiding random chat with someone who doesn't look friendly. It doesn't really prove anything, does it?

It does! It proves the very point of the 'test'. Nobody said the hypothetical brickie looks aggressive. Everyone's assumed it's sensible to avoid random comments to someone who could hurt them if they wished. Quite clearly, this means everyone assumes men feel safe to comment at women because women are less able to hurt them. Posters here, therefore, have proved the point that men's remarks to women are an expression of physical power.

Obviously there are plenty of things you would confidently say to a big bloke. That's why the 'test' is a good one: If you wouldn't say it to the brickie, you are already aware it's a potentially threatening remark and are abusing your supposed superior strength.