To think it's normal for parents to be more protective of daughters

[cadburykingdom]

I know my parents were more protective of me than my brothers. I'm more protective of DD than DS. All of my friends growing up with siblings reported similar.

I have a friend now who disagrees and says they shouldn't be and it's not normal but I would think it is.

Girls are more vulnurable and go through so much more so it makes sense.

AIBU?

I think it's actually down right insulting to suggest that women should not walk home alone

I was sexually abused by my mothers boyfriend age 8-9 and my boyfriend age 13-15 statistically stranger rape is rare. That doesn't diminish the pain it causes but if you really want to protect your daughters then don't let them be alone with a family member or friend and don't let them have any boyfriends.

I think some people are stuck in the dark age I am young and it was perfectly normal for girls to walk home alone.

I only have a 3 year old DS and a 17 month DD at the moment. But so far, I expect that DS will continue to be a tad more sensitive than his sister, and will need more support, but I think DD may need more guidance on sensible choices (bit of a crazy child!). But my sisters two are completely the opposite; she had a girl (cautious) then a boy (crazy)...

I will give my children the help and support that they need, based on their personalities rather than their genders.

I am the youngest of three girls, and I don't think I ever thought anything was different between boys and girls, all down to mum and dad's efforts...

Oh, and I've been walking home alone for years... never had a problem...

I have walked home alone for years- still do.

My parents were more 'protective' of me than my brothers. Earlier curfew, not allowed to go certain places etc. Result - I left home at 17 so I could do normal teenage stuff without their anxieties taking over my life.

So many parents seem to feel this desire to be 'protective' of daughters ie preventing them from going out, deciding what clothes are appropriate etc but the people they are protecting them from are someone's sons.

I know most parents don't imagine that their son could be sexually abusive but, if girls are at so much risk, then some of them are - or, if they aren't personally abusing girls, they may be one of the people who has mates who abuse girls or will be present at a party where a passed-out girl is assaulted and either does nothing or thinks it's funny and will share photos of it.

It's the usual victim-blaming and telling young women from an early age that they need to restrict their behaviour so they don't 'get themselves raped' while their brothers swan out the door with no restrictions, little concern about what they may be doing, no advice on how they should be treating girls or what they should be doing if a group of friends they are with start behaving abusively - from shouting sexual comments at girls, right through to gang rape at a friend's party.

It may be more "normal" to some people but I don't think it's necessarily healthier. I am really sorry for your experiences OP and I'm sure it's effecting your opinion on this.

My ex boyfriend was raped and sexually abused as a child. He never told anyone because he didn't think anyone would believe him, especially being a boy. His dad was a real tough, macho guy who thought boys should be able to look after themselves and was much more protective of his younger sister. I know it used to wind him up as he believed his sister was the "favoured" one and even when he had severe depression and mental breakdowns he was expected to just get over it as he's a man. It did all eventually come out about the abuse but not until he was in his 30s and it was too late really. It is statistically more likely for girls to be sexually assaulted but 1 in 6 boys are abused so it's not uncommon at all. Anyway, my point is is that he needed just as much TLC and protecting as his sister but his parents couldn't see that. It's not their fault they didn't know he'd been abused but his dad's "boys are never vulnerable, MAN UP" approach didn't help.

I guess if you haven't been around men who have been in vulnerable situations then you wouldn't believe they need protecting. Although I think the most important thing is to give children, whether male or female, the tools to protect themselves. I was once approached at the age of 13 by a trusted family friend and asked if I wanted drugs and if I would go to a park with him so he could take photos of me. Partly because I was sensible and partly because my parents had ensured that I wasn't taken in in scenarios like that I said no and made sure I was never alone with him again. I really think it depends on the personality of the child rather than the gender. Some children are going to be more trusting and naive and will probably need more "protecting" although I don't really like that term. I'd say they need more education about how to protect themselves.

YABU
What you describe is just double-standards to justify limiting girls' freedom whilst boys do what they want.