To think that if you are a man you shouldn't stop a school girl on a deserted street to ask for directions

[solosolong]

Just that really. DD is in year 7 (although she is tall so looks a bit older) and leaves for school early when there aren't many people around. She called on her way in this morning to say that she was feeling a bit nervous because a man had just stopped her to ask for directions.
I'm sure there was nothing dodgy about it but AIBU to think that as a man on your own it wouldn't take much imagination to think that a young school girl will have been told not to talk to strangers and may be scared if you stop to talk to her?
I am interested to know what others think.

"When I see an African American man, am I justifiably anxious because there is a 1 in 3 chance I am approaching a criminal?"

Well, gosh, Claraschu. I don't know. Is it dawn, and you're walking home alone through South Central? Or is this your colleague Bob asking if you know where the copier paper's gone? Is the guy exposing himself and muttering obscenities? Is he at your college giving a lecture on quantum thermodynamics? Are you engaged in some sort of narcotics-based transaction or buying stamps from him at the Post Office?

Do you want a blanket ruling on all your social interactions with men (of any race), or are you able to recognize that there's a thing called context?

The context here is being a young female teenager, approached by an unknown man in an empty street.

Feeling wary about this man is not the same as being scared of all men.

Making intelligent decisions about personal risk within any situation is not a question of mindlessly applying large-scale statistics.

But people know that. Generally they just trot out the snide 'oh, so you think all men are evil' type of argument when they want the other party to look hysterical and foolish, thereby minimizing and mocking their concerns about a specific context without ever really answering them.

Making intelligent decisions about personal risk within any situation is not a question of mindlessly applying large-scale statistics.

Excellent point and one that can be applied to nearly all posters who rely on bloody stats all the time.

But people know that. Generally they just trot out the snide 'oh, so you think all men are evil' type of argument when they want the other party to look hysterical and foolish, thereby minimizing and mocking their concerns about a specific context without ever really answering them.

YES. Some posters do this for fun i think.

www.irr.org.uk/research/statistics/criminal-justice/

Some reliable prison statistics for ethnic minority groups which also highlights the inequality of the justice system against certain ethnics groups within the UK, (not the US where black people are defined as 'African American').
Sorry to have a bee in my bonnet and be going off topic but I find it really offensive for somebody to throw around a statistic of 1 in 3 black males spending some time in prison without an examination of the justice system, institutionalised racism and disproportionate sentencing of different ethnic groups.

@Bigoldsupermoon

Nope, but an estimated 99% of sex offenders in the UK are men. How is an 11yo supposed to know who's safe and who isn't?

Just to clarify your statement from a stats point of view; males account for 99% of convictions for sexual assault not offences (Ministry of Justice 2013 Statistics Bulletin on Sexual Offending in England and Wales, page 33):

In 2011, males accounted for the vast majority of offenders found guilty for sexual offences (99.0 per cent). More specifically, males aged 18 and over accounted for 91.8 per cent of offenders found guilty for sexual offences, with similar proportions for rape (94.0 per cent) and sexual assault (90.3 per cent) proceedings.

Stats. of the number of sexual offences actually committed are notoriously difficult to collate because a large number of victims will, unfortunately, never formally report the crime. There is a possibility that this has led to an underreporting of sexual crimes committed by females (the BBC website had something on this awhile ago), although the majority of offences will likely still have been committed by males.

Missunreasonable - thanks. I also find it extremely offensive. Especially when used as an analogy here.

You can make statistics say what you want, to a degree.

The ethnic minority population of the UK is concentrated in urban areas. Stop and search is far more used/useful in these areas than rural ones.

The stats on sentencing are also misleading because they are not comparing like offences. Different races commit different crimes, again this is partly an urban vs rural thing, but also cultural.

The 2011 study cited is from here

www.theguardian.com/law/2011/nov/25/ethnic-variations-jail-sentences-study

it notes "One cultural difference, Done said, is a "greater propensity for black young people not to plead guilty than white young people". Black youths consequently received longer sentences because credit is given for early guilty pleas."

The stats also show that Chinese are LESS likely to be arrested than whites, and Asian arrests are in proportion to their overall population, and likewise stop and searches of Chinese, who are also disproportionately in urban areas are LESS than the wider population.

And then you've got things like the high Jamaican prison population, which in large part reflects drug smuggling from Jamaica, and for which prison would be inevitable - a very different profile of offences from say Polish immigrants.

Anyway, the police would say they arrest more people from certain groups because they commit more crimes. They might say they went to look for your stolen car at the local caravan site because that's where they've found a lot in the past. And if they do find it there, then job done, and if not then it's unfair profiling.

Buffy - my reply was to the original post; the question of whether a man should ask a girl alone on a street for directions. I suspect that many men would not even stop to think whether it might not be a good idea as, like me, they might consider that if a woman/girl (and you may not be able to tell the difference until close up) is walking on her own, she is able to 'deal' with a question from a person asking for directions. The OP is presuming that men would even enter into this thought process in the first place....I suspect not and therefore I think she is unreasonable to expect it. Her dd feeling uncomfortable and therefore ringing her is absolutely correct however and if I were the OP I would be considering now whether my dd walking home alone was still a good decision. If either the OP or her dd now feel unsafe with this, the OP needs to take action, but expecting all men to grow a collective 'child safety' brain is unreasonable and frankly daft.

@Missunreasonable, Claraschu opened her post with the statistic about African American male incarceration, then finished with the (inanely provocative) 'should a black man never talk to anyone?'.

I'm genuinely unsure whether a) she's from and talking about the US, b) she thinks all black males everywhere are African American, so '1 in 3' is a global statistic, or c) she believes US prison data has significant bearing on race relations throughout the whole globe.

I'm guessing d) not that much thought went into it. Let alone any caveats about the complex situation behind the statistic.

You're wary of men in a specific situation -> you're prejudiced against all men -> let me ask you some sweeping questions about racial prejudice, based on another country's prison stats, to prove my point.

I wouldn't ask a child for directions anyway...

You should see the stress I'm under when trying to pick up any of my children, they walk to school every day and have no idea what any of the roads are. It ends up being "you know the road with the shop that's sells Vimtoe on it, and the one with the garage at the end of it, well I will pick you up on the road between them"

Honestly it's like pulling teeth

Expecting men to grow a "child safety" brain might be an uphill battle, a hiding to nothing, wishful thinking or a long and thankless campaign. But I don't think it is unreasonable or daft.

I used the term African American because I was using statistics from the US about people who are called African Americans in that country.

I know I was being ridiculous, by the way.

I just object to people being told: "Something about your appearance (race, gender, disability, religion or anything else) makes me uncomfortable. Therefore, don't approach me." This is prejudiced thinking.

I don't think that men should have to be aware of the gender of the person they are approaching if they have a simple harmless question.

I don't think it's a great idea to ask kids for directions.

Did I miss something on the thread? Does it matter if he was a white or a black man who asked for directions?

Not at all, except to those who would prefer if women weren't cautious around men because it's apparently all like racism, if you mean like the fantasy of racism against white people.

I don't think men should have to be aware of the gender of the person they are approaching if they have a simple harmless question

Again, I think context and age are key here. As an adult woman, if a man approaches me in daylight, or in the evening before late night in a busy area (eg central London) to ask me a "harmless question" I don't perceive a threat (neccessarily). As a teenager, indoctrinated in "stranger danger" by my parents and school, and familiar with men in general being very threatening in public, I would have perceived a threat. Even now, if a man decided to ask me for directions by approaching me from behind, at dusk in a deserted area, tapping me on the shoulder and leaning in (as has happened) I would feel intimidated.

Your point is also disingenuous because only the man will know that his question is simple and harmless - the woman or teenage girl won't before he asks (and before they have felt threatened or uncomfortable).

I think it's also worth pointing out that adult women also modify their behaviour in public all the time so as not to threaten people or make them feel uncomfortable.

I wouldn't approach a child or small group of children by themselves unless they were in danger. Because children get warned about stranger danger and it would make them nervous and even though I wouldn't do anything to them, I wouldn't want to put them in that position.

I don't think I would approach a teenage girl to ask for directions (its certainly never occured to me to).

I generally avoid asking "harmless questions" of members of the public on public transport or in the street. I would certainly avoid it of people who appear more vulnerable than me eg children, disabled or elderly, in deserted areas.

If I need to attract a stranger's attention, I try to do so respectfully. For example, earlier today I saw a woman walking down the street with her rucksack open and her laptop about to fall out. I caught up with her, tapped her on the shoulder from the side (ie not behind her) when she didn't respond to my excuse me (she had headphones in) and stood outside her personal space when I told her that her bag was open.

If a stranger won't give me their attention, I don't force it.

I bet you all do pretty much the same. You probably don't even think about it. Because modifying behaviour in public so not to threaten others who could misinterpret it is called courtesy.

So actually, all I'm saying is why is it wrong to expect that adult males operate by the same principles of courtesy? And why is it wrong to adjust what is considered courteous or respectful of an adult male very slightly in recognition of the fact that any random woman or girl in public may well have experienced some form of gender-based abuse, harrassment or violennce, whether it is as "trivial" as the incidents I recounted, or much more serious, and that we do not want to be triggered or risk a repeat?

It's not unreasonable to ask an adult to try and make another person not uncomfortable.

But it is unreasonable to expect an adult to be happy to carry the label 'rapist' on his forehead 'just in case'.
I see asking all men to go on the other pavement when woman is coming past in the same way than if you were asking a black person to go that because it could make the white person in front if them uncomfortable (because you know some of them are murderers).
As soon as you make generalisation like this on groups of people, you will get into trouble. This has been at the root of any segregation in the past and has never ended well.

Now if you looks at stats, most rapes are done by family members, relatives and friends. Not by your randon stranger that asks you for directions.
So I propose that instead of asking men to move away from women in the street, they ensure that they are never on their own with young children. Not with their own dcs, their nieces or their friends children because that would put them at risk.
Would that work? Of course not. I can hear most people cry that their partner isn't violent, their dad isn't a rapist so why on earth would you want to do that?
And they would be right. It would be a very unreasonable idea.
Just as saying that all men should not ever come close to woman they don't know.
And that's wo even pointing out the fact it's not making women safer. Because the 'nice' ones are the ones who would do it. But the one whose intent is to tape A woman isn't going to be deterred by that anyway.
Would it make women safer? I suspect not either because it will just reinforce that we are living in a very frightening place where we are all in danger so I suspect that women will be even more frightened than before.

dancing I go agree with you that there are ways of doing things but they should be irrespective of gender.
All the thing you describe should happen, I fully agree with you. Just a courtesy thing.
But you see I am one to think that a teenage boy would be just as intimidating, because they are just as likely to be aggressed than girls.

I don't see the need of making it gender specific.

dancingwithmyselfandthecat

Yes and YES

reading this thread brings back so many memories. I really feel for these young girls. I used to laugh at the fact that I got soo hit on when I was a teenager in school uniform. Now I think its gross

the flashers, numerous
the guy that exposed himself on a train when it was really long stretch to the next station
the chef that fondled my breasts when I was a kitchen assistant
sexual harassment at school as i had big boobs - called me "slag"- I was a virgin

and thats what I can remember

CAN I JUST SAY!!!!!

I have given the same advice to my boys about not getting close to men in cars who want directions in case my boys are abducted

(Not the 15 year old so much...good luck with trying to wrestle him into the backseat! but when he was younger)

I am not asking all adult men to carry the lable rapist. I haven't said this, implied this or thought this. The very closest I have come to this is saying that a lot of women have experienced assault, abuse, harrassment or intrusion in public, from adult men, and therefore that adult men modify their behaviour very slightly to prevent people from feeling uncomfortable.

I will give you another analogy to see if this makes it any clearer.
I love packets of assorted sweets, but there are only two flavours in that packet I actually like. When I work from home, I often go out for a walk between three and four o'clock and may buy a packet of sweets on my way.
Therefore, on a fairly regular basis, I find myself with a big packet of sweets I don't want as children are walking back from the local primary and secondary schools.

Do I think "offering these sweets is harmless. I know I'm harmless, so I'm going to go up to people and offer my sweets?"

No. Because although I know I am harmless, I also don't want the children in question to feel threatened or uncomfortable. I am not forced by society to think of myself as a potential child abductor, and go around wearing it as a label. Instead, I just think about how my behaviour may appear to others and, y'know, modify it.

I don't disagree that women and children face a greater threat inside the home than outside it. But I don't see its relevance - they are very different threats, with different causes and responses.

And outside thinking of this in terms of rape and murder, women and girls experience encroachment on their space in public every day. From my examples to wolf wistling, "smile love", men trying to talk to you at a bus stop after dark, men spreading their legs on the tube so far that you barely have any seat.* What's so damn wrong with asking men not to perpetuate that encroachment?

*Maybe we wouldn't perceive all of these examples as encroachment if we lived in a touchy feely, strangers start deep and meaningful conversations with you on the street sort of societ, but we don't. We form a society which values space in public (and by "we" I mean humans in general, not just the English). This is blindingly obvious to more or less everyone who doesn't have an impairment such as autism. Including - gasp - adult men. So what is so damn wrong with asking them to think about how encroachment is perceived in a society where they still enjoy a very high degree of privilege and asking them to, y'know, show a little consideration?