In thinking that if you won't go out alone at night because you've got a vagina, you are actually a bit pathetic?

[solidgoldbrass]

Because, statistically, if you have a vagina, you are far more at risk of being murdered if you stay at home If your home has a man in it. Yet time and time again there's this 'Waa, waa, I need an armed escort or a male owner to protect me if I'm ever going to set a foot out of doors after dark. It's so unreasonable to expect me to use public transport or walk anywhere...'

No that's a misuse of statistics morebeta.

It's the exact equivalent of saying: "The experience of most women is that they walk in the streets without ever being attacked. In those circumstances, it is therefore statistically true that you are more at risk in your home than walking alone at night on a dark street."

That's the point about stats - they don't take account of your circs. (Except of course, when you start to break down statistics by individual/ group circs. Which you can do with perfect validity if you have a big enough sample.)

All these people who have pepper spray, mace etc., I thought they were illegal in this country? Are you all in America or somewhere where it's legal? Or are they legal here?

SGM - me too.

No morebeta, the only thing that can be said with any certainty is that if you haven't been subject to violence in the home then you personally may consider that you are not at risk from it but you cannot vaccinate yourself against it. I don't think that will ever happen to me - but history tells me it could. I have no indication that I will ever develop breast cancer. Nobody in my family has. I've made life style choices such as breastfeeding that mitigate against it. But I could get it. Of course I could. It happens to lots of women.

OIC? Case? What?

what case? What is an oic? Why is 'if' wrong?

Basil it's legal where I am (not in UK). Didn't know it was illegal there, but hope you have access to some reasonable alternative.

AIBU to think this thread is just very very strange?

Ah right, no I don't think there are pepper sprays etc.

I think anything like that may be illegal in the UK.

I've seen people advise that perfume does the same thing though, not sure if that's likely or not.

That's correct NL. It's an unacceptable term.

I have learned a lot from reading the feminist boards and when this is legally all over I will let you know exactly how abysmally we are being treated.

Actually, thinking about this more from a self-defence point of view, I think there's a real danger in having a message that tells women to ignore their instincts. Yes, it's a tight balance between being ruled by fear and taking silly risks, but we're programmed in so many ways to "be nice" "you're imagining it" "you're just being silly" "you've misinterpreted the situation" and letting a situation get way out of hand before getting out, that adding to that message with "you're pathetic" is extremely irresponsible.

A lot of male on female violence plays on this - we're programmed to be sociable and not rock the boat. We ignore the subtle red flags we're picking up on until too late (and this ties into domestic violence/rape by acquaintance etc). We should be listening to our spider senses and reacting to things that feel "wrong" sooner, not talking ourselves out of it. As a result, there will be some false positives in there, but I don't think this is an entirely bad thing.

Just because we're all prey to some irrational fear, doesn't mean we should throw out the rational fear along with it.

And there's also a worthwhile feminist discourse on why our clothing culturally is generally so impractical that in a dangerous situation it impedes our getaway :(

This made me laugh out loud. Honestly. What??? Listen to yourself OP!

"And that women are told to fear what is not that high-risk (being outside, alone, at night) yet pursue what is high-risk (relationships with men)?"

Surely, using a modicum of common sense would tell you that some places are dangerous to be outside alone in at night and some men (and women) are dangerous to be in a relationship with...

FWIW when I lived in inner south London I quite often felt fearful when out alone late at night. Now I live in a less crime-ridden area I feel safer. Common sense, innit?

So... Are some of you suggesting that all of us should view the men we live with as potential abusers, with the potential any minute to suddenly start treating us disrespectfully when before they have been good and kind? I just don't get some of this.

Some men abuse. When I worked with sex workers most of them were in abusive relationships. The men were usually from very messed up backgrounds, used alcohol and substances - As did the women. It was the norm for there to be abuse in those relationships (but of course terrible and wrong all the same). Now I know that there are occasions where someone just flips from being a decent human being to being abusive. But surely this is the exception? Surely most abusive men have displayed some worrying behaviour before they actually hit or rape a partner? And most come from messed up backgrounds themselves?

I think this means that often, our perception of risk at home is actually quite accurate. If women here say 'my partner is no risk' they are almost certainly right. Obviously some women know their partner is a risk, but do not have the emotional / practical support they would need to remove themselves. And I guess some bury their awareness for various reasons. But for most women, I think they are able to judge if the man they live with is risky. And they don't need to constantly be on their guard.

SGB Do you realise that you have come across as controlling and rather bullying on this thread.

I have seldom seen a more derogatory comment posted in the name of feminism and really I think you should be appalled at yourself. Your opening post has nothing to redeem it and should not be confused as being feminist. For a so called feminist post to actually be reprimanded by other feminists on here should send a very clear message that you have been out of line. Please show some dignity and appollagise for the offensive content of your post.

Abird - problem is lots of women in this thread are saying 'because my man is lovely I must be at more risk outside the home' - that simply isn't the case. As SGM pointed out a lot of domestic violence starts not at the beginning of a relationship, but during pregnancy - so yes there are women out there who suffer abuse from men who previously have been 'good and kind'. It's kind of odd to me that so many women are putting so much energy in to denying this fact.

In the wee small hours of this morning I reread the whole thread, along with a million others,

There are 2 extremely offensive comments to women on this thread, the original OP

"AIBU In thinking that if you won't go out alone at night because you've got a vagina, you are actually a bit pathetic?"

Compounded by SGB refusing to accept that the OP says, what it actually does and so is offensive.

And this,
"SGB is absolutely right on this issue. If you don't like reading that well that says more about where you're at than it does about her stance."

Because it insults the intelligence of those who are offended by the wording of the OP.

It is perfectly clear to me that many posters on this thread understand the point being made, while finding the way in which it was made offensive.

It is also clear that some people dont believe the point of the OP, this has just made them close their minds a little more, rather than helping anyone.

AIBU ........ is a direct question at the end of the day.

MJ - I'm genuinely surprised that you don't highlight the following as being extremely offensive...

"As for being more likely to be attacked in your home by someone you know, what a stupid comment. I would never be stupid or desperate enough to set up home with anybody who would display violent or aggressive tendancies toward a woman. Most men are not violent to women and are no threat to them. It is the violent ones who are a threat. I know a few men who beat up every woman they are with and everyone knows who they are, it is the women moronic enough to choose them who are constantly exposed to violence and at a risk of someday not surviving a beating."

Interested as to why this little gem goes under your radar.

Because the offense starts with the OP question being phrased in a stupid way.

If the OP wasnt designed to totally put peoples backs up, then the defensive responses such as the one you have quoted, wouldnt be here as a response in the first place.

SGB has effectively called people stupid, so they are responding in a less than thoughtful way.

I just find it incredibly topsy-turvy that SGB and Northern Lurker both state that women as a group are more likely to suffer violence in their own homes at the hands of loved ones - they've both tried to draw attention to this fact and you've taken against their posts which are trying to highlight this fact.

And then someone who's called women who live with domestic violence 'stupid' and 'desperate' - you don't appear to have any issue with.

Please - I'm not condoning SGB's wording, nor her OP. I just find it quite surprisingly back-to-front that you've taken so vehemently against those highlighting the situation you're in; that many, many women are in - and not the person actually insulting you.

You are misinterpretting me, I actually agree with the concept behind the badly thought out OP, I personally get it. Doesnt mean, that even as someone who totally understands the concept, I dont find people being called "pathetic" offensive.

But when you start out by saying something in an offensive way, then you arent going to get anywhere really.

OK - fine, let's agree to disagree.

The two most offensive posts on this thread to my mind are SGB's and, without a shadow of doubt, bobbledunk's; most certainly NOT NorthernLurker's.

Cross posts, I have been that poster, the one you are quoting, even when I was living in the middle of domestic violence, I still said women who stayed with people who were hitting them, were stupid, because you see, I was different - and also I vehementently voiced that view, so people would "see" my secret.

That poster is either scared or doesnt understand, I am more offended by NL and SGB because they are putting themselves forward as feminists who "get it" and so setting themselves up as role models.

The concept between SGBs post is hitting at womens primal fear, that they and their children arent safe anywhere of course posters are scared of that.

When you call people pathetic, you are going to put their backs up, when you understand that, then empathy will get you a lot further.