To be sick of women being told to exercise 'situational awareness'

[Quantumblue]

In Melbourne we have just had another sickening rape and murder of a young woman. A 22 year old comedian, walking home at 10.30 pm after finishing a gig. Through an inner city park where thousands of people walk, run, cycle and hang out each week.
The police response has been to tell women to exercise caution and situational awareness.
So upset at this loss ( she was at school with my nephew) and so upset that the solution is for women to be more aware. We are all aware of danger every time we go out our front doors.
RIP Eurydice

[user1499173618]

Obviously they were looking for someone to mug! There were several of them, with knives. But IMVHO you have to be pretty naive to think that sitting around in an empty skatepark with two friends at 11pm and your bankcards and phones in your handbag is a zero risk proposition.

[StormTreader]

"If my relative hadn’t been hanging around in a dark park last week at 11pm, she wouldn’t have been mugged at knifepoint..."

Honest question though, do you think if she hadn't then her muggers would have mugged NO-ONE that night, or just that it would have been someone else?

[user1499173618]

If my relative hadn’t been hanging around in a dark park last week at 11pm, she wouldn’t have been mugged at knifepoint...

[Dungeondragon15]

I don’t think avoiding dark parks reduces in any meaningful way your risk of being raped in general. I don’t see why an acquaintance would wait in/for a dark park to rape you when he could do so at his convenience.

It might not reduce the risk of being raped overall but it could reduce the risk of being raped AND murdered. That seems to be forgotten about here. This women wasn't just raped. She was also murdered.

[GoldenWonderwall]

I’m really confused.

I’m agreeing with you! Avoid dark park = reducing your risk of anything happening to you in a dark park. What more is there to say about it? I don’t think avoiding dark parks reduces in any meaningful way your risk of being raped in general. I don’t see why an acquaintance would wait in/for a dark park to rape you when he could do so at his convenience.

This is one of the safest time humans have lived in I believe - there’s a lot of stuff out there about it. It doesn’t necessarily feel that way because of how news is reported.

[Dungeondragon15]

No-one has said it has to be, but theres a lot of people seeming to read it into other peoples posts.

I did read that into the post and others. The poster said that
telling women to avoid dark parks and allies it "takes the focus from thinking fully about the larger risk of rape from men that are in your acquaintance".

Another posts states that the strategy of telling women to avoid dark parks, allies etc is "rubbish and stops us looking at things that might actually bloody work".

[littlerocketman]

Why does it have to be either or?

This what I wonder. Why do people assume the police are encouraging women to be aware that a predator is around instead of going and looking for him. I would have thought they are doing both, yet encouraging situational awareness seems to be interpreted as a sign that police are expecting women to just look after themselves.

if you never go in a dark park for any reason you are unlikely to be raped in one.

That's the bit that isn't rubbish birddestiny. I also agree with what the poster go on to say - that it doesn’t prevent rape in general and it doesn’t solve rape as a societal issue. So few rapes are carried out by strangers that avoiding 'dangerous' isolated areas is not going to alter the statistics (especially since the rapist will probably continue until they do find a target) but it's not rubbish to think that the individual choosing not to walk home alone etc is slightly safer than the one who doesn't.

[StormTreader]

"Why does it have to be either or?"

No-one has said it has to be, but theres a lot of people seeming to read it into other peoples posts.

[Dungeondragon15]

GoldenWonderwall You don't know what all women are thinking. Why do you think that you know that avoiding dark parks etc won't prevent being raped by an acquaintance but other women don't?

It’s much easier to tell women (who aren’t known for risk taking behaviour anyway) to curtail their lives to avoid rapists than it is to really focus on getting men to stop raping women.

Why does it have to be either or? Do you really think that the police shouldn't warn women that they are at risk of getting murdered and how to reduce that risk because it might reduce the focus on rape by acquaintances?

[user1499173618]

“Most other violent crime is reducing”

No it isn’t.

[GoldenWonderwall]

In an ideal world yes, you would be able to go anywhere you please and we should aim to make our world a safer place. It’s rare someone advocates women should do exactly as they please in the world as it is now. I would not advocate this.

Yes if you never go in a dark park for any reason you are unlikely to be raped in one. It is good advice to avoid dark parks if you do not wish to be raped in one. It is not good general advice to avoid being raped. It doesn’t prevent rape in general and it doesn’t solve rape as a societal issue.

Where this sensible advice falls down (avoid the dark park! Don’t go in dark alleys! etc etc) is when there are women that for whatever reason cannot avoid x, y or z in order to go about their business so what do they do and it also takes the focus from thinking fully about the larger risk of rape from men that are in your acquaintance. Much like I spend a lot of time worrying when I fly once or twice a year about the plane crashing but I rarely worry about being in a car crash even though I’m in the car every day.

It’s much easier to tell women (who aren’t known for risk taking behaviour anyway) to curtail their lives to avoid rapists than it is to really focus on getting men to stop raping women. I think it could be reduced, perhaps not eliminated, but most other violent crime is reducing so it is not outside the realms of possibility.

[user1499173618]

I take great issue with any suggestion that women are somehow “letting the side down” if they take reasonable precautions to assess risk and try to avoid danger. You have to be a complete snowflake to believe that (a) the world should be risk free (b) you should live out reality according to your ideals.

[birdsdestiny]

Yes its rubbish because the figures are so high. Prevention strategies that maintain this number are not an example of success. Drink driving campaign, smoking, all examples of effective campaigns. This not so much.

[user1457017537]

I think the problem is that rapists and child abusers have a very high chance of getting away with rape and abuse once it goes to Court. It’s the Court system and the victim blaming and shaming that goes on with defence barristers that needs to change. How is it relevant what someone’s previous sexual history is why not just stick to the facts of the attack.

[Dungeondragon15]

Dungeon I think its along the lines of it won't happen to me if I do xyz, it's magical thinking but I understand why people do it.

I disagree with you that people think "it won't happen to me if I do xyz". On this thread, posters are just stating that they can reduce their risk of being raped and murdered by a stranger in a dark part/alley if they take certain precautions. You are extrapolating that to insist that they think they can prevent all rape in all circumstances despite the fact that no one has said this on this thread. Most people have said the opposite but apparently, you know what they think better than they do.

[littlerocketman]

birdsdestiny

What's your point? Do you mean it's rubbish because it clearly isn't working? Or something else?

[birdsdestiny]

It's rubbish because the figures show us one in 5 women are raped. One in 3 in some sections of the population so yes rubbish.
Dungeon I think its along the lines of it won't happen to me if I do xyz, it's magical thinking but I understand why people do it.

[littlerocketman]

This strategy is rubbish and stops us looking at things that might actually bloody work.

But is it. Obviously it's rubbish for dealing with the majority of rapes because they aren't perpetrated by strangers in alleyways. And they don't stop a rapist on the lookout for a target because he will just continue until he finds an opportunity, and he will. But as a strategy to lessen the risk I'm in from random sexual assault, it could be reasonably effective. I don't really see why it has to be a distraction from the bigger issues. They can still be talked about. Different actions can be taken. I would imagine that the policeman's warning was the smallest part of his response.

[littlerocketman]

storm

I realise you think that's the implication - that someone was assaulted because they were too 'rapeable'. While I can see that is something to clarify and be careful about, it's only one deduction and doesn't necessarily means there's something wrong with the advice.

It may not be that the police think women avoiding 'dangerous' areas will deal with the problem of the rapist. They might just be addressing every individual woman out of a sense of concern because it's what public services do. If there's a hurricane around, they tell you to put away your garden furniture and buy candles. If an animal has escaped from the zoo they suggest you stay indoors. It doesn't mean you have to or they think you're incapable of reasoning - they're just used to being the people who deal with the fall-out when individuals get hurt so they do what they can to lessen the number of individuals at risk. The assumption that this is their primary response to dealing with the problem is just not justified IMO.

When it comes to these issues, I don't really get why your perceived extrapolation (not being personal, I mean 'your' as in anyone who thinks that way) trumps everything else and almost seems to outlaw fairly useful advice one would instinctively give to a friend or neighbour just because the narrative is open to misinterpretation. Surely it is natural to make different decisions if there is a string of sexual assaults in a neighbourhood and the reasons for doing so are self-evident and sound. Surely individual lives are also important.

[Dungeondragon15]

But nobody thinks they are totally safe birdsdestiny.

[birdsdestiny]

I think it's perfectly natural that women think that by taking these steps they will stay safe, it's not true but it helps women to function and live their lives to tell themselves this. 1 in 5 women are raped. This strategy is rubbish and stops us looking at things that might actually bloody work.

[StormTreader]

The logic to me is there is a subtext in all these cases of "if only she had been more careful this wouldn't have happened."

It always seems to imply that if only every woman was careful enough, wary enough, covered enough, raping would stop. There's an implication that women are causing their own rapes through being wilfully overly rapable, as in the earlier example of it being likened to stepping out in front of a train or car - if no-one ever stepped out in front of a train, train-impact-deaths would entirely stop. That isn't the case with rapes, rapists will ALWAYS rape and it isn't the fault of the woman for that being the case.

When a woman is raped, 100% of the blame for this is with the rapist, but there always seems to be some fault found with the victim as if she caused the rape - she wore the wrong clothes, she had headphones in, she was in the wrong place - it was HER failure that caused this.

[littlerocketman]

The way you make it less easy for men to get away with rape is to change the conversation from what did the women do to what are the men doing.

I don't think that is necessarily true in this context or that it justifies closing down conversations about steps women can take to increase their safety.

I have a personal alarm. It's a small sacrifice and a small reassurance. I don't think every woman should have one or that a rapist would be caught any faster if I was assaulted and the police commented 'littlerocketman did/did not have her personal alarm with her'... It's just one element that might keep me safer in a world where there are, unfortunately, predators. If I can do so without turning my life upside down, I would like to not be the person available to them. I realise that isn't decreasing the number of rapes taking place or moving society forward. Doesn't mean it's pointless.

[littlerocketman]

men are only raping because they are being tempted into it by you being an easy target.

I don't see the logic there. Evidently someone who is going to rape can only do so where there is opportunity. You cannot remove all opportunities from a rapist but you can take some steps (if you feel it's worth curtailing your freedom over) to decrease opportunity as it relates to yourself.

It would be the same if someone was going around murdering hitchhikers. He can't do it without opportunity. You can't remove every opportunity. You can decrease the opportunity as it relates to yourself. Whether you feel society should be expecting you not to hitchhike etc is a separate issue.

[Dungeondragon15]

There is some wilful misunderstanding going on here, and I’m not sure why.

I could say the same thing about your posts. You keep repeating the point that avoiding dark parks doesn't mean you can avoid ever getting raped but noone has suggested otherwise. Obviously you can never reduce the chance of rape to zero. You can only decrease the risk in some circumstances.
Nobody has said that avoiding dark parks makes rapist "think twice" about their rapey ways either. The fact is though if they have less opportunity without being caught they ^may" attack fewer women before being stopped.

With regard to psychopathic killers, there is probably little point in having conversations. They're not going to listen. The only way to stop them is probably to catch them.