"Fear" of men

[ComradeJing]

I have a question that relates to two recent threads so apologies for thread about a thread.

Allhailtheaubergine (hope you don't mind - it's your thread I'm referring to) said that she was worried when she walked on the beach and when a man came between her and her exit she became nervous.

Another poster in AIBU said she was unhappy about a male nursery worker taking her daughter to the bathroom.

The OP in AIBU was completely torn to bits over this. Allhail was given support and most people (including myself though I didn't post) agreed that they would have felt scared and validated her response.

Now my question is why is one response valid and rational and the other one not? Is it because one is a person in a job and the other could be "anybody?" I would imagine you're more likely to be attacked by someone in a job (ie taxi driver, gas man, builder or someone else you would invite into your home) than just some stranger off the street but I could well be wrong.

I suppose I was thinking that if one is a feminist issue then the other one must be too as they are both about a fear of men and what men can do to women.

A fear of being attacked by a man is not the same as a 'fear of men'.

But is it really right to use the word 'fear'? Isn't it wariness or extra-alertness in certain situations? 'Fear' suggests that woman would be breaking into a sweat, her heart rate increased, etc. and that's not really the reaction is it?

Statistics might suggest that there is a disproportionate fear of being attacked. But to expect women to walk carefreely at night through city streets is wishful thinking. The statistics still show that there is a chance it could happen. If it hasn't happened to you then you most likely know someone it has happened to. Maybe not a stranger in the street, maybe the attacker was a friend, but you know the effects that can have.

And it's not all men, really is it? I was walking from work at night earlier this week and a young man was walking towards me. It was getting dark and I certainly wasn't frightened but I was very aware and I certainly tensed up a little as noone else was about. If he had been an elderly man walking his dog, I don't think I would have (this relates to my perception of who might be less of a 'threat' - not necessarily a reality, I know). Rather than just me being irrational, my reaction reflects the fact that the small area that I work in the city regularly has 'spates' of reported (to the police and then in the local media) attacks on women at night.

I don't think there are all these women frightened of men. I don't know any.

You'll like this and hate it at the same time, dittany. My family regularly call me The Witch. Entirely affectionately, it's because my spidey sense is quite attuned in terms of people, so I can often anticipate what people are going to do or say. I don't think they understand quite what I had to go through to get there, but then no-one really does until they have, do they?

I have mentioned before about a man following me home in the dark and it turned out to be my Dad. He was just walking home in his normal brisk (and entirely unaware) manner, crossing in the places it made sense to cross. Just like me, and the crossing places were the same. Do I have any sense to fear my Dad? No, he has given me no reason to do so. Do I have sense to fear someone following me in such a mirrored manner? Of course I do.

This book, The Gift of Fear discusses all that, it's very good.

I would think that quite simply, the first one knows it is her problem, wants a way of dealing with it and so people are helpful.
In the second the mother has a problem with a nursery worker doing his job and is projecting it on to her DD, who doesn't have a problem-and people, quite rightly, pointed out that male nursery workers do the whole job.

Most probably problem 1 had a mother who made her scared of men and told her it was a big, bad world where she was only safe with mother.

Oh, right, so it's her mother's fault.

Of course.

I have no idea-but she has a problem and wants help-she knows it is her problem.
In the second the mother doesn't have a problem-it is entirely of her own making. I don't suppose the DD has the remotest care. Why project it on to her DD and make her think that there is something abnormal about a nursery worker simply doing his job?

I suppose the big difference is that they both have irrational fears. However the first admits it and wants help, the second wants us all to agree that she is right.

No I was picking up on your comment about fears being caused by mothers.

As opposed to life experiences....

But why do you think her mother caused it? Maybe her father did? Maybe she had reason for her fear.

Just like you think the world dislikes boys based on your experiences, perhaps she dislikes men having intimate access to her daughter based on her experiences. And me being wary of certain people and situations, based on mine.

Or maybe all are just beliefs that can't be extrapolated. Or maybe they can. It's all real.

Tongue in cheek-annoyed with mothers who descriminate against perfectly nice young men doing their job!
(Although someone on the toilet thread said her mother had screwed her up as an adult with her suspicious attitude.)

Sorry-spelling gone wonky! Time for bed!

it's such an ignorant attitude, in the same way that I used be fearful of 'gangs' of young people wandering around all together, now I have teens of my own I am not in the slightest bit off put. I know them and am no longer fearful generically. ' Like i hate immigrants but the one that work with me is alright'

"Just like you think the world dislikes boys based on your experiences, perhaps she dislikes men having intimate access to her daughter based on her experiences."

Her experiences make it no more or less likely that her daughter will be abused by a nursery worker so they are irrelevant. Her daughter at nursey and her past history are independent events and have no effect on each other.

overthemill
I don't know (or know of) anyone who's been attacked by 'gangs' of young people. I do know women who have been raped by men. I know men (including my P) who have been attacked by men (mugged at knifepoint twice). My P is very wary when out at night in the city - irrationally(?), as statistically he is unlikely to be mugged again (and was of course statistically unlikely to be mugged in the first place).

As I said before, I don't know anyone who is frightened of men. I do know an (elderly) woman who was frightened by by a 'gang' of young people who hung around outside her house drinking and vandalising her garden. Not all 'gangs' are as nice as others. Some areas have higher levels of crime than others. That effects how people perceive the risk.

The immigrant argument just doesn't make any sense at all.

Basically, the viewpoint that women are irrational is the dominate cultural view of women. Good to have it confirmed by you that men, who are luckily for them statistically even less less likely to be the victims of sexual assualt/rape than women, are the unfortunate victims of female irrationality. It must keep them all in at night. Poor men. What are womwn doing to them. It's like womens' lib gone mad.

likale, I know that and you know that. But could you discount her own feelings so readily? I am creating a hypothetical here, but perhaps, in time, she will come around to the viewpoint of the statistical likelihood. But if she were the n of 1 and the outcome was 1, then why would she not be worried?

ayerobot- Yes I could because the fact of the matter is her predujice regardless of its historical foundation is affecting the present and is having a detrimental impact on the present ie her discrimination against male nursery workers which has no rational basis.

In the hypothetical scenario, it would have a rational basis, though. At least more than those who haven't had a traumatic experience at that hands of a man. Oh, I forget. We should all just "snap out of it". No time allowed to work through stuff that has happened.

If a dog bit you, it's not rational to be scared of dogs.
If you were in a plane crash, it's not rational to be scared of flying.
If you were in a house fire, not rational to be scared of fires.

Maybe not, but entirely undertandable.

Even if you have had a traumatic experience in the past, it makes it no more likely for it to occur in the future though so to believe that your past experience will affect the future is to abandon rationality and to live in a world of paranoia though.

Of course! I am not arguing against that. I am just saying that it is understandable. I am not saying that it is necessarily healthy. Is that where we are coming unstuck?

Although, in the case of violence against women by men, the stats are flawed because so many incidents go unreported, so how can any woman rationally weigh the risk? They can only go by personal experience.

I don't really agree Ditanny to be honest, whilst it is indisputable that some men do attack women, it it is still a minority of men who do this so to be fearful of a particular individual man attacking you is irrational as the probabilities would suggest that he is less likely to attack you then he is to attack you so it is an irrational position as the empirical analysis is against your position.

OMFG!!!!!

I will just add that I am astounded at the amount of animated posts that have been devoted to one person, with a couple of supporters, expressing hypothetical fear of a man in a childcare setting when the posting of a real life killing of a woman by her ex partner and a link to the Victims of Violence (real, actual killings) thread has elicited a call for a new MN campaign with far fewer supporters.