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...'

Explaining away what she meant with facts and figures is defending the post she made even the what looks like (Drunken nature) of her post.
She should have just been laughed off the thread.

I realize that women in dv relationships might not have to be physically attacked to submit to sex because there is always a threat of violence (even if unstated), but what I meant was that people were talking about random attacks against men vs random attacks against women. I think most women (that I know) who were randomly attacked also suffered physical violence or threats during the rape. A friend suffered horrible physical scars on her face and wrists because she was forced against a brick wall.

Anyway all that a side I think it's disgusting that sexual violence on it's own isn't considered as bad a punch in the face.

But crimes against women are minimised all the time.

There was a footballer (Stewart something, plays for Liverpool) arrested last weekend for assaulting an ex. The first article I found about it explained how his ex had "said something she shouldn't have."

Women are lesser beings in the eyes of the media, the law and society. Crimes against us are minimised, explained away, and blamed on us all the time.

foglike

^Explaining away what she meant with facts and figures is defending the post she made even the what looks like (Drunken nature) of her post.
She should have just been laughed off the thread^

I agree.

Her OP was offensive and so far removed from the articulate and reasoned responses that have been posted in her defense that it didnt IMO deserve defending.

Just want to say how very much I like the word Dodgepots. One doesn't see it nearly often enough.

Concern for one's own or other people's or one's children's safety is never pathetic.

I'm going to start a gang called the Dodgepots. We'd sound nails, wouldn't we? Some of my friends and I actually have a "gang" called Ladies in a Dither. :o We're hardcore.

Can we have matching embroidered jackets, Cheerful? If so I'm in.

Never seen the word Dodgepot in all me life.

Me neither, Jamie...

Artex, part of me wonders if it's because we're sold this image by the patriarchy that women need protecting as it is, we're such "fragile" beings, that the concept of a man going against that and harming a woman is so easily interpreted as "well, she must have done something really bad"... Sorry, that's not too eloquent, but it's as if we need to find an excuse for something as horrific as VAW, whereas violence against men is just accepted... After all, the patriarchy also spends half it's time telling us that men need to be "macho", and fighting is an extension of that.

That sounds garbled, doesn't it?

Obviously Worms. Wouldn't be a gang worth having otherwise. Something really sparkly. Now that's badass. :o

I think we've got to the point that, thanks to the media, so many of us expect rape to include gbh/abh or threats of it, that people no longer consider them separate crimes. So, we have a whole load of gbh/abh charges which haven't been applied, because whoever dealt with the case just felt that was just an extension of the rape, not an extra case that needed dealing with.

Why are you talking about something entirely different than the OP DCMFD?
Do you agree with what the OP said?
Are you defending what she said by stealth?
This statfest you and a minority of others are dishing out isn't making what the OP said less vile you know?

I've already said upthread that I don't agree with how the OP was worded... Discussions evolve, you know? And that's what happened here.

I'll help you get back on track.

Women are pathetic and weak because they don't put themselves in danger to prove a/her feminist point.

Is that agreeable to you?

I have already said that no it isn't.

So please. Do me a favour, take your axe and grind it elsewhere...

While I know what you mean foglike, it is also an interesting question about rape and abh/gbh. Hadn't thought about that.

What is VAW? Will I regret asking?

Violence Against Women, Hully. Sorry, should have clarified at some point.

not everyone accepts the premise that going out after dark = automatically putting yourself in danger

i don't.

i honestly don't think that walking from work to the train station (as i did on monday) is inherently more dangerous at 5pm in january than it is at 5pm in july

True Hully and it has been talked about before but this thread is developing into something like a bury the point.

Whereas SGB's first post may have been misinformed (eg; triggering...) I do suspect her heart was in the right place. It was just poorly worded.

This isn't an axe to grind you're purposely helping a friend out who insulted women on here by burying the answers and points against her.

oh thank god. I thought it was going to be something really vile (Not that VAW isn't, of course. I mean as an acronym.)

it may well feel more dangerous to some women but that doesn't mean it actually is

i don't think anyone is pathetic.