"A woman's opinion is the miniskirt of the internet"

[HedleyLamarr]

I posted this in Feminism [brave emoticon], and someone has suggested putting it in AIBU.

So, I was sent a link to this article in the Independent. Your thoughts/ideas are much appreciated .

The least risky option is the one I normally take. I get a cab home with my friend who lives a few doors down. We wave each other goodnight from our doorsteps.

Squeaky As SGM said above most rape victims are sober and wearing jeans. Will you stop wearing jeans?

And I am genuinely not taking the piss out of hypothermia. I am confused as to how protecting yourself against the elements (which cannot form specific intent to target you to harm you) and protecting yourself against a rapist/attacker - who can and has formed a specific intent to harm you.

If you run into your house out of the cold in order to protect yourself against hypothermia, it can't run after you and kick your door down can it?

SGM, you say that you don't think men get as many threats of violence as women. Based on what? A gut feeling?

Jonathon Ross and that comedian got a lot of hate mail full of insults after that "joke" they pulled on air. I don't recall them getting death threats or threats of gang-rape.

But Jonathon Ross did receive a death threat after that incident.www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/3397870/Wossy-threats.html

Russell Brand also says he got death threats for some jokes he made at the MTV awards.

So, that's two people you claim haven't received any death threats who claim they have.

Party, as you well know, I was listing a number of reasons as to why I would advise someone against walking home alone at night. That was just one of those reasons.

Every year there will be lives lost because a drunk teen falls asleep on the way home, or gets lost, or trips up and is too pissed to get themselves up and home safely, and a family will be mourning the loss of their child.

Safety in numbers applies to many dangers.

And whilst most rape victims may be sober and wearing jeans, it is still undisputable that a woman wearing high heels and a skirt that restricts leg movement is at a disadvantage if she is attacked. I am not saying that women should not wear high heels or skirts either. But it is sensible to advise women how to protect themselves if they are attacked, which is a reverse kick to the shins with with the point of your heel.

StewieGriffinsMom

sort of here

in here

the first one got trashed by posters with an agenda, the second concerns the different ways to mod and protected spaces.
I'm sure that there was a 3rd but I can't find it.

I don't understand where a lot of angry posts have come from? But I'm quite new to mumsnet so perhaps there are ancient factions I'm unaware of.

Op posted an article about women receiving rape threats after posting blogs. What's to disagree with there? So there are lots of posts saying that men get death threats too.

It then changed into talking about rape and the dangers of rape. I think a lot of the views on this one are contentious. Cue lots of posts about how young men are more likely to be violently attacked than women.

I think it's really important that the issues are raised, but I don't see why if someone mentions women we automatically have to include men in order for it to be equitable. Maybe I've spectacularly missed the point...

StewieGriffinsMomSun

"Those threads are about safe spaces. Not about 'locked-in'.

It's disingenuous in the extreme to pretend otherwise.."

You read all the posts that quickly

but as you wish.

TTFN

squeaky Well I am glad for you that you have instituted so many ways and workarounds in your life that you feel that you have chosen the least riskiest options in every situation and therefore feel safer in yourself. But by god would I find it restrictive and I would resent having to think ooh I can't wear heels because I can't run away, or but if I do wear heels I will be able to kick a potential attacker in the shins any time I got ready to go out. Constantly having to assess risks and choosing the least risky option on the basis of what? Something or rather someone's intentions that I can't possibly predict. It just seems a really awful way to live but if it makes you feel safer then yes of course you have to do it. I understand that.

Squeaky, i find it rather liberating to not analyse an outfit or scenario when I'm out. i don't avoid my high heels cos i can't run in them. i wear short skirts or dresses because i feel like it. i don't constantly worry about keeping enough aside for a cab home. i don't avoid walking down alleyways because that'd make getting home impossible. i don't insist on going out with my neighbour who lives two doors down... most of my friends live in the next town... you may think it's all risky. I'd just rather not spend my life terrified of what might happen if i don't do these. it's not arrogance on my part. I've been in the worst case scenario, despite using all those precautions. you could take every woman off the street. there would still be rapes. what consolation is the fact they took that advice?

This article has been posted on my original thread. The article itself is beautifully written, the comments less so.

Handbagcrab, I've only been here a couple of months, but I don't think you've missed the point. I think you are absolutely spot on.

Wanted to give a shout out to sunshineandbooks post (Sun 06-Nov-11 21:21:17) about the context of threats. That seems to be being missed by those who keep piping up with "it's worse for men" or "it's as bad for men." It's no different than saying, that white people get more racist abuse than Black people do or Lesbians and gay men are as likely to abuse straight people as other way round. It's like folks are desperate to create some kind of quid pro quo, which means we can belittle complaints from women about misogynistic abuse, from Black people about racial abuse and from Lesbians and gay men about homophobic abuse.

Maybe there's something in there, too, about being afraid to acknowledge that women can be vulnerable to attack quite simply because they are women. Convince yourself you do all the right things so won't be attacked (and have a pop at other women who don't do as you do - helps remind you that you are smarter/stronger/more sensible than they are.) Minimise the incidence and impact of sexual assaults with the "but it happens to men/worse things happen to men," to reassure yourself it won't happen to you.

But it might.

And yes, young men are statistically more likely to be violently attacked while out than women are. But, whether it's football violence, drunken violence, muggings, random attacks or rapes, everyone seems to be forgetting that the perpetrators in almost all cases are men. I don't get why so many seem averse to acknowledging that fact or doing anything about it. Weird.

Exactly Kritiq - I'm yet to see the campaign advising men to not drink at football matches/or banning alcohol at football matches (maybe there are campaigns at football pitches - I wouldn't see them there / banning alcohol would certainly cut down on fights?) or advising men to walk away if someone offers them out for a fight (Don't retaliate/Don't escalate) or pointing out statistics about the various risks that exist for them just for being men. It's really quite weird isn't it?

I wouldn't have a social life or a job if I felt forced to live like Squeaky or onehandflapping - I can't get my friend(s) to pick me up from my office and drop me off to work if I work very late at night, I don't even have a friend who lives nearer than 5 miles away because we're dotted all over London, our office entrance is down one of those tiny city alleyways, and I live in inner city zone 1 London, densely packed with all manner of miscreants no doubt but what do you do? Give up my job, wrench DS out of nursery and move to a village so you can live opposite your friend and never be alone in public, all to be able to feel smug that I have somehow avoided or minimised the risk of some sicko deciding to attack me? I do get cabs when I can afford it but after Worbouys you just kind of despair. So many women reporting sexual assaults by a black cab driver disbelieved because there was such an inability to see that yes, someone who is sick enough to rape can be sick enough to be reckless as to their cab licence and earning a living.

God Squeaky, I don't know how you live your life...

A meeting runs a bit later than normal... you misjudge the time it gets dark because daylight savings has snuck up on you... you forgot your mobile phone... a childminder has let you down... you've got the wrong shoes on... your friend needs to unexpectedly be somewhere and can't accompany you... your forgot your A-Z and so need to take a detour to where you're going... the person you're meeting keeps you waiting... you suddenly fancy a change in your own plans... you run into a friend/acquaintance/colleague/cousin leaving the restaurant and are out later than expected... etc... etc... yet another of the infinite examples in this genre....

We cannot predict every day of every week of every year of your life. We have to take unexpected and calculated risks every time we open our eyes and start the day.

I'm pleased and relieved that you have reached this point in your life and have not been raped by either a stranger or an acquaintance.

Yes, there are all sorts of different things we can do to minimise our risk, but surely these few examples above prove that we can never eliminate it, ever. To take your advice, and risk assess every single thing that happens to me, well, I might as well pack up my bags and go and live under a rock.

I struggle to believe that you really, genuinely do live like this and assess the situation every single time you step out the door and then every single time life throws up one of the unexpected set of events listed above. Surely, even just one a month or once a year even(?!), you do something like spend the last 3 minutes of your walk home from the tube station or wherever in the dark and put yourself at risk?

I'm afraid to say that I'd struggle to believe you if you say you don't.

And so - how is it ever possible to keep yourself genuinely safe? I know you're going to respond to say it's about minimising risk - but that's all you can do: minimise it.

So - to use your own analogy - what reassurance is gained from minimising the risk; what good is being in a statistically small group, if you're still attacked?

And yes, all this 'don't wear high heels because you can't run them', 'wear heels because you can back-kick the dude in the shin', 'don't wear skirts because they restrict movement', 'never go out alone', 'do this', 'do that', don't do this', don't do that' - how can you say you're not living a restricted life if you adhere to all these precautions?

I will teach both my son and my daughter to look after themselves when out and to look out for their friends, but in the meantime I have full respect for people who are challenging the status quo.

And by the status quo, I mean the situation we have now which focuses on women trying to prevent the unpreventable.

It is like putting a sticking plaster on a tumour. Worse, it is like putting a sticking plaster on your leg when the tumour is in your breast. You're not addressing the heart of the problem (i.e. the rapist) and even if you do manage to stop the rape of one woman - by having her avoid situation X - you're not stopping the rape of the next woman.

It's really, really important that we start to focus on where and how rape does actually happen (80% of the time by a known person as has been reiterated may times on this thread) and putting resources into that, and to challenge the system that has people inwardly rolling their eyes and 'well, what did she expect?'-ing if/when alcohol, say, is involved - in other words at least partially blaming the victim, in mindset if not in actuality.

We have a long way to go before we get to that place, as this, a thread populated pretty much exclusively by women, goes to show. I genuinely don't understand why anyone wouldn't support this mind-shift.

handbagCrab... you said: I think it's really important that the issues are raised, but I don't see why if someone mentions women we automatically have to include men in order for it to be equitable. Maybe I've spectacularly missed the point...

But it's not balanced, is it? We can certainly talk about violence towards women but who decides that the other gender is to be disregarded in that? Violence is a huge problem, full stop. All of the policy-makers would agree that steps need to be taken to stop it, not all of those policy-makers are women either. By segregating women in feminism it makes it 'them and us'. I think it makes people turn away from the actual problem (the violence) because they're turned off to the one-sided, supremely biased, argument.

I wouldn't say that anybody has missed the point; just that they have different opinions around the same point. Everybody is agreed that violence is wrong and must be stopped.

... and reading the later posts. Perhaps it is our job as parents that we educate the next generation of potential 'rapists' that they will not rape. Where is that on the 'plan'?

I think it's really important that the issues are raised, but I don't see why if someone mentions women we automatically have to include men in order for it to be equitable. Maybe I've spectacularly missed the point...

The point is whether the event is truly a shock horror exception or just par for the course, so by setting it into a wider context you get a view of whether it's out of the ordinary or not.

In the case of this thread, Laurie Penny asserted that she had it worse than any other schlock journo and tried to get all women behind her to march on this issue.

A bunch of more sceptical MNetters pointed out that this was unlikely to be far worse than the treatment meted out to any schlock journo, it just differs by perceived weakness.

Prior to joining Mumsnet, if anyone had asked me if I was a feminist I would have said "yes". That's because I was under the impression that feminism was the belief that women should have equal rights socially, politcally, financially etc.

Since joining Mumsnet it appears I have this all wrong and what I have seen being claimed as "feminism" has horrified me. I know this is not true of all posters but I have seen some behaviour or views that I find really incompatible with what I thought feminism was.

It would appear (to this small minority) that what feminism actually consists of is:

1. Disempowering women and invalidating their choices:

If another woman makes a choice that does not fit with your view, informing her she has not made that choice of her own free will, but rather because she has been influenced / brainwashed by men / porn culture etc. Thus telling other women their own choices are invalid because they are too weak and stupid to make them of their own accord unless they are the choices they agree with.

1. Breath-taking hypocrisry:

Defending a womans right to do whatever she wants with her body - for example defending a woman's right to smoke whilst pregnant becuase NO ONE can tell another woman what to do with her body, but then insulting and hectoring the same woman for, say, shaving her own pubic hair.

1. Dismissing other women's views by shrieking stock phrases at them like some sort of twisted bingo game:

For example, if a women says she does not think x is a feminist issue because she believes x affects people of all genders equally, it is mandatory to dismiss this view and instead gleefully shriek "oh, oh you said what about the mens".

1. Being desparate to shoe-horn certain beliefs onto other women, regardless of whether they hold them or not.

For example, if a woman says "I think people of all genders are more vulnerable if they are alone at night, drunk and in a rough area than if they are sober in the day with a group of friends in a public building" it is mandatory to accuse that woman of "victim blaming" and "deserving rape", despite the fact that women, victims, blame and rape had not been mentioned.

1. Focusing on negatives rather than positives and turning all women into victims

The whole focus from this group seems to be on how hard it is to be a woman, how badly women are treated, how women are an oppressed group. On one thread I had someone insisting I had been raped because my DH had sex with me whilst he was asleep . A lot of the time all sexual interaction is described as aggression and all the posts are just so negative "its worse for women, its harder for women* A recent thread had posters banging on how if someone is abused on grounds of race its a hate crime, but if they abused becuase they are women it's not because everyone hates women. Erm no - hate crime covers gender.

I NEVER see anyone of these posters celebrating how great it is to be a woman or talking about women's achievements.

1. Giving off an impression of feeling superior to other women because they have read a book

I am pleased for you that you read and enjoyed the works of Angela Dworkin. Personally I think she was a rather damaged individual writing from an anecdotal and biased perspective rather than a carefully researched and balanced stand point, but don't let that stop you quoting her to me as fact.

1. Being incredibly spiteful and nasty to other women who do not agree with thier views

Honestly - I have never seen so much dislike of other women than I have from this section of the internet. Scathing attacks on personal appearance, life style choices and view points seem to be fine if its a woman doing the attacking.

Had I got feminism all wrong then?

I understand that, StewieGriffinsMom and I agree. Is there a difference though whether rape or sexual violence happens to a man or a woman? That's my point. Rape/sexual violence victims should be treated equally, regardless of gender.

I agree that rape/sexual violence should be considered outside the broad spectrum of 'violence', certainly if it's going to get lost in the mire of street fights, etc. It is different.

Had I got feminism all wrong then?

No you hadn't.

I find the culture of ridicule, intolerance and spite deeply unpleasant.
I hope it is just a MN thing though - I am reluctant to believe that the future of the women's movement is in the hands of people who are so quick to abuse other women.
I have been ridiculed for my age and I have called a "monster" on this thread. Ageism and personal abuse - not very fucking sisterly is it?

If this is what 21st feminism is all about then we really are stuffed aren't we - because who the hell is ever going to bother to take these people seriously about anything?
Frankly I think this sort of haranguing irrational shit sets the movement back decades.