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...'

It's a shame the OP has expressed herself so aggressively, as she does have a point, and it's one that I think a lot of people have missed.

The point is this: the more of us who walk home, the safer we are. It's not entirely about choice. So if there are a group of us going on a night out, but only one person decides to walk home, the person walking home alone is more vulnerable than she would be if all the women walked home together (assuming they're going in roughly the same direction, but you get my drift).

And this isn't to discount in any way the experiences of those women posting here who have been attacked. I can see why they wouldn't go out alone. But for the rest of us, it's not just an individual decision, it's a collective one.

Yes I wonder if the OP has a daughter, and would she tell her she's pathetic to want to get a cab home at 3am, instead of walking through an empty town center or dark streets?

I can imagine it now, "A taxi? Because you have a vagina? Don't be so pathetic. Walk home alone!"

It is also a shame that the OP hasnt had the decency to come back, as she usually has enough to say.

What a lot of unfounded statistic bollocks SolidGold.

I am in absolutely NO danger in my home. I will however not go jogging or for leisurely strolls in Richmond Park or on Wimbledon Common at night, and neither along the river Thames.

I have a genitals, yes, but I am not pathetic.

And to continue the stereotyping, people should be aware of where they are most in danger and minimize this danger, whether that is living with a monster or not go for nightly strolls. And just because some women dont, it does not mean I am pathetic for not going jogging at night.

it's not just an individual decision, it's a collective one

Really? I find this type of argument quite naive. So you would be happy for your daughter or mother or sister to walk home at night in the dark on the basis that it's for the collective good? Or "only if everyone else did it"?

yabu

Nothing to do with my vagina but is more likely cause of my breasts. Bf means I am at home in the dark generally . Anyway normally more worried about my wallet, my phone more than my vagina.

See, I've always wondered about that statistic about men being more at risk of being attacked than women walking alone at night. What does it include?

I've been doing a lot of reading about the psychology of violence (there's a great book by Rory Miller called Meditations on Violence, which I can really recommend if you're interested in this kind of stuff) and you can break down incidents into two types: social violence (the male testosterone driven monkey-dance, educational smack downs, etc) and anti-social violence (predator/prey relationship - mugging, rape, random violence with no warning or 'dancing'/'posturing' beforehand).

Predator/Prey is particularly hard to defend yourself in even if you're well-trained, stronger, have a taser/pepper spray/etc because you're already behind the loop. The predator made the decision about the attack long before you knew anything about it, you are already several seconds behind and probably frozen in shock.

The point to this is that most of the violence men will experience is the social violence type. Women are, sadly, more likely to experience the predator/prey situation. Which makes me wonder where that statistic comes from and how it's compiled. Added to that and many more women than men decide not to report their attack.

I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing (in the words of Ben Goldacre) "it's a bit more complicated than that".

Anyway, my martial arts instructor always says that the best defence is not to be there - he gives the same advice to men or women in his class. I tend to follow that. I will walk alone at night, but if there's another option, then I'll take it.

I think the OP just wanted to stir up a discussion. Trolls can be any shape, size or gender. Being a regular doesn't mean you're not a troll.

Have a OP, for your ridiculous and pathetic judging of other women. How dare you.

(Correction: the book I read was "Facing Violence" by Rory Miller - he has also written "Meditations on Violence" but I haven't got around to getting that one yet - it's "Facing Violence" that I can thoroughly recommend though I hear the other book is very good too!)

I've always wondered about that statistic about men being more at risk of being attacked than women walking alone at night. What does it include?

It really is quite simple. Because statistically there are more lone men out at night than women, so the figures for men being attacked are higher. If there were more women out, then the figures for women being attacked would be higher.

Statistics can be manipulated to suit the researcher but the absolute basics here are there are more men on the streets at night, on their own, than women.

Also women ARE more vulnerable generally when it comes to being mugged, because they carry their possessions in their handbag, often on display and easy to grab. If they are wearing heels it is much easier to shove them off balance, and less likely that they will be able to give chase or fight back. We also now live in an age where we have expensive mobile phones, wear more jewellery, wear designer clothes, all magnets that attract thieves. In addition to that, on the rare chance that a mugger gets caught, they generally get a slap on the hand and little else. So no deterrant there really.

"It really is quite simple. Because statistically there are more lone men out at night than women, so the figures for men being attacked are higher. If there were more women out, then the figures for women being attacked would be higher."

Ah good point, squeakytoy - hadn't thought of that in all my rambling :)

Thread about a Thread

4 women have been raped in my hometown over Christmas. An additional 2 have been attacked when out skiing in the lit up skiing tracks. I bet they did not feel safer out at night than in their homes. I bet they thought it was pathetic to be scared of walking out after dark, just like the op. That is, until they got attacked.

Statistically, women stay indoors after dark because the know they are at risk.

Well I don't agree with SGB on that thread either!

YABVVU for berating women for being fearful of male violence

YANBU for pointing out that the perpetrators of male-on-female violence are mostly known to the victim, and most likely an intimate partner. Therefore one of the best - but not often taken, it seems - precautions we can take against the threat of violence is not to live with men.

Latsia: "Really? I find this type of argument quite naive. So you would be happy for your daughter or mother or sister to walk home at night in the dark on the basis that it's for the collective good? Or "only if everyone else did it"?"

I think you've missed my point. It's just a version of the problem usually known as the prisoner's dilemma or tragedy of the commons. If everybody walks home, then the danger is decreased for everyone. However, if most people get a taxi home, then the danger is increased for the small number of people who decide to walk home.

My mother is dead and I don't have a sister (if you're going to be literal about my post, then I reserve the right to be literal about yours!), but no, I wouldn't advise my 12-year old to walk home alone at night. However, if all her friends were also walking home, then I'd feel a lot happier about it. Obviously I wouldn't tell her to walk home on her own because it was "for the collective good" if nobody else was doing it - you need everyone to be in on the decision.

I make travel choices for myself based on my needs and circumstances at the time. Time of day? Distance to destination? Companions? Time frame? Comfort level? Financial aspect? Weather?

I make my choices for me and not because society has conditioned me to think I am a weak pathetic female who needs 'steering'. I am a woman who does not have to justify her position on this planet to anyone and who CHOOSES which political/social spin to laugh at on any given day.

The world is a nasty place. People get hurt, maimed and killed in a million different ways and it is irresponsible to ignore that fact when moving around on a daily basis. I am not interested in statistics, I am more interested in my instinct and instilling that confidence into my own children so that they can perceive danger/high risk of harm on their own merits too.

I get so fed up reading this feminist crap about how some of us are failing the cause. I am not failing the cause - I am a regular woman having and making every single choice in my life about every single issue related to me. The issue is yours SGB in how you perceive women who make different choices to yourself. Strange when you think about that in relation to your feminist stance really....but maybe I have missed something.

I know that if I walk onto a road with traffic racing towards me I am likely to get hit by something. I also know that some nasty crime happens in our area under the cover of dark so I do my best to avoid it. Common Sense.

Oh and the last time I went out I didn't actually drop my drawers and bend down to have a conversation with my vagina about whether she fancied wandering out with me - I don't exist because of her, she exists because of me and she is bloody lucky to be part of me! We have had our fun and pain together in life but I'm the boss, not her.

hackmum I get your point and don't disagree as an academic argument / a theory / happy vision of social evolution. My point is that this is not my real and actual context on a day-to-day basis and that is the context in which I and everyone else makes the decision. Hence us not wanting our daughters or other female relatives to put themselves at risk.

Prolesworth, statistically speaking women may be more likely to be killed by a partner than a stranger but as I said before on an individual scale statistics are often meaningless.

I have a friend who is nervous about walking the streets alone at night when I have been out with her I walk her to the bottom of her cul-de-sac before continuing on my journey home. Should I bother? She is going home to her husband who statistically speaking is more likely to be a danger.

I don't see the point of this thread. Some women are nervous, I can't see any constructive reason for calling them pathetic for being worried that they are risk of being attacked.

I bet they thought it was pathetic to be scared of walking out after dark, just like the op. That is, until they got attacked.

Well, that's a pretty nasty post too.

And perhaps they did think it was pathetic to not go out at night because you might be raped. Just like you might think it was pathetic to not drive driving because you might be in a car crash.

Or you might simply not want to not do anything because you're scared of what might happen every time you do something.

I'm surprised at you, SGB.

Every woman has the absolute right to decide for herself whether an activity carries an acceptable level of risk without being berated for the outcome. How is it any different for society to pass judgement on a woman who walks alone at night and is attacked, than for you to pass judgement on a woman who doesn't walk alone and isn't attacked? Both stances blame women for the way they deal with things that are wrong in our society.

I tend to have pretty robust views on this issue - I am a competent enough martial artist to be in a better position to resist an attack than many other people. But this doesn't mean that I go walking about with a "fuck you, I'll do what I like" attitude. I still assess risk. When we lived in London I had to walk home down a long, tree-lined, usually deserted road if I was late as the bus stopped at 8pm. One of the victims of a serial rapist was attacked on that road and another woman was robbed at knife-point there. I avoided walking down it alone if there was an alternative because I am not a fool.

I finished up representing a member of a teenage robbery gang - they committed over a hundred violent robberies in a 3 month period. They specifically targetted lone women or well-dressed couples who did not look likely to fight back, in quiet areas and they were very violent - several women were injured and traumatised. It came out during the trial that several of the gang had been on that same road, looking for victims on a night that I had walked down it alone - I was probably a scant half hour ahead of them. 30 minutes earlier and I would probably have been one of their victims - not much I could have done about it and it wouldn't have been my fault. That was a night when I didn't have much alternative but to walk home - my personal risk assessment was wrong. It was a bit frightening to be honest, and I don't frighten all that easily.

The only appropriate target for anger about this issue is the people who cause women to feel this way, not the women who have these entirely understandable feelings.

Its here everlong

YANBU for pointing out that the perpetrators of male-on-female violence are mostly known to the victim, and most likely an intimate partner. Therefore one of the best - but not often taken, it seems - precautions we can take against the threat of violence is not to live with men.

That is just wilfully misreading the statistics of probability, as it doesn't take into account the massive differences in the no of people and amount of times either occurs.