Random men speaking to you

[enimmead]

I'm sure men don't randomly speak to other men in the street. Strangers. So why the hell do they feel they have to speak to random women. I don't think it's got anything to do with chatting up.

Yesterday, I saw a 20 something bloke with his mates slip in front of me on the ice. As I got out, he said "Hi love, did you see that!!!" I'm could be his mum bit older than him. Why speak to me? I just smiled but I bet he wouldn't' have said anything if I'd been male.

Just walking down the street, other side of the road bloke smiles and says "Hi love". No idea who he was.

Do blokes do this to other random blokes?

Why does your DH take a taxi home to avoid walking FarSide?

Does he fear being raped?

Because where the reason for taking a taxi instead of walking, isn't because of bad shoes, heavy bags or a very long walk, that's the major reason why most women do it.

Pretty sure he is worried about getting beaten up/mugged/murdered which is more likely to happen to men on the streets at night.

As Rumble says, he is worried about being mugged. That's the reason I take taxis too.

I do not understand Festivia's point at all? Is she saying that a man taxing a taxi is a wimp because he isn't going to get raped, and therefore he doesn't have anything to fear? I am scratching my head at that last point.

I think the general theory put forward in this thread is that women experience unwanted attention and threat of violence from men, but this does not tend to happen the other way around.

However, it seems we can't agree on the extent to which this happens: clearly some women perceive/experience this more than others.

Festivia's point is trying to tease out the implications of people's comments on this. Are people saying that men have as much background fear as women do, of other men? Are people asserting that men arrange their lives with a background consciousness as great as that of women, of the threat of violence to them by other men?

And also to labour the point about the fear of rape: these people who always go on about how men are more likely to be attacked on the street if you take sexual assaults out of the equation: why would you do that? What is the point you are trying to make? Why are sexual assaults irrelevant when judging fear of crime and organising your life to try and avoid being the victim of an assault?

Festiva

Call me pedantic but that should be 'some' women who have a background consciousness of a thread ot violence. My wife, for instance, has little or no fear at all. Should she? Is every single encounter with a male a potential assault?

Of course it isn't. You may want to worry more or less than my wife but the choice is yours. Whether you are more justified to worry or not is up to you. My wife chooses not to worry and probably sleeps better for it.

Some men will undoubtedly have a fear of being attacked on the street by other males. I wrote about this pages ago but this does not seem to have registered at all. I don't fear unecessarily but others do.

As for the ratios, your guess is as good as mine but ultimately the only difference is how it affects you as an individual.

Absolutely not true. The difference is not just individual, it is also how it affects women as a class.

Men are not blamed for the attacks on them.

Women are.

Men are not told that they shouldn't have been there, shouldn't have worn that smart suit, shouldn't have travelled alone when they are attacked.

Women are.

I think that's quite a basic thing to acknowledge tbh.

Still not sure why people are taking out sexual assaults from overall assaults on street?

The fact is, if women don't treat every encounter with a man as a potential sexual assault, they get blamed for it if that man attacks them ("What did she expect?" "Why did she invite him in?" "She was talking and laughing with him not half an hour before" etc.)

While if they did, they would be considered demented. Men like you would cite your wife as being so much more rational and sensible than these fictional women who treat every encounter with men as a potential attack.

How do you know I am different to your wife?

"Naturally she's not going to the 24h garage on foot at 3am but neither would I for the same reasons."

Really? The same reasons? That you might be raped and then blamed for it? You'd be astonished by how many men get off from that sort of rape by saying it was consensual.

Do you not see that not going to the 24h garage on foot at 3AM is allowing the threat of crime to affect your daily life, if you really fancy a cup of tea but you've run out of milk? that's quite an extreme example, but lots of women won't go out even after dark alone on foot - I remember a thread a few years ago where quite an astounding number of women said in winter, they wouldn't go out at 6 without their husbands and said they thought other women who did so, were stupid for taking unnecessary risks and ought to make sure they had milk in the fridge.

Well unless you are my wife posting from another PC in the house then you are different

Seriously though, from what you've posted about feeling background threats of violence then I'd say you were pretty different. Unless you're saying that you don't feel it at all and that you simply putting a point over that is felt by some women.

The majority of rapes that occur are by people known to the victim not random people on the streets. So yes he could say for the same reasons he his wife is far more likely to get mugged then raped on the street.

I feel it.

I try not to allow it to affect my life as much as possible.

I certainly don't denigrate women who do, I can understand that fear of male violence is a big factor in why women spend money on taxis they don't need, don't go out in the dark by themselves, use their cars instead of public transport etc.

When they don't, they are warned of the dangers. When they do, they are called paranoid.

Actually RG I don't think people fear mugging so much as violence.

No, we'd take the car and minimise the risk of bumping into a bunch of drunks walking home from a club. I'm not saying I wouldn't go out at all. I'm just saying I wouldn't do it on foot. There's a difference between recognising a higher risk and letting things rule your life.

You're talking about every encounter, which I'm presuming to be day or night.

And please stop this 'being blamed' thing because it isn't a given that women get blamed for it, just as my example above made quite clear. Except again, you conveniently brush that sort of stuff off like it's irrelevant.

It really does seem to me that questions get posed by some women on here to see if men react, think or act in similar ways to women. However, when a man says 'yes we do' it's never good enough or is somehow totally different. I'm beginning to wonder what the point is.

"When they don't, they are warned of the dangers. When they do, they are called paranoid." Those mixed messages are all around. You can choose to ignore your anxieties, they are generally low-level after all. Women are in fact conditioned to ignore them and heed them in the same measure. Instincts are important and these mixed messages fucks with them and as a result does put women in danger.

"And please stop this 'being blamed' thing because it isn't a given that women get blamed for it, just as my example above made quite clear. Except again, you conveniently brush that sort of stuff off like it's irrelevant."

Your example is one of the fewer than 10% extreme cases for which women don't get blamed for rape. As RumbleGreen pointed out, most rapes are committed by perpetrators known to the victim. For which on the whole, we do get blamed.

You've conveniently brushed that off as if it's irrelevant.

Please stop pretending that women don't usually get blamed for the male violence to which they are subjected.

Festiva

I'm not pretending about blame but as I said before, it's extremely grey. I just did a google for 'women being blamed for rape' and it came up with these articles:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/feb/19/blame-the-rapist

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8515592.stm

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/02/blame-rape-women-survey

Interestingly it is women that blame the victim as much, if not more than men. If the evidence from research is correct then only one third of the population think the victim is to blame too. This does not support your view that 'on the whole we get blamed' as it clearly isn't the case. It may well be true of the juries that have not decided against the defendant but suggests that public opinion (which is arguably of equal importance) is not against the victim.

As I said earlier, the current state of the law is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant raped the victim. If both were blind drunk and the woman consented to a man coming back to her place (or going to his) then it is extremely difficult to prove. Just as it is for a wife/girlfriend to claim rape against a husband/boyfriend. It's an extremely emotional situation but from a logical perspective it's a nightmare to judge against.

It sounds to me like some would rather see the stats go up than to see true justice being done. Like you'd be happier if 100% of rape cases went against the defendant but couldn't give two hoots if the wrong verdict was made.

"It may well be true of the juries that have not decided against the defendant but suggests that public opinion (which is arguably of equal importance) is not against the victim."

I'd suggest that 90% of rapists walking free, means public opinion does actually blame women for rape.

Unless you are suggesting that juries are not representative of public opinion. Which may or may not be true, I don't know enough about that to comment.

I don't think 100% of rape allegations should end in a guilty verdict. I just think the majority should, because we know the majority of rape allegations are true. Most people disagree with me because they don't mind that much if women get raped and don't get justice, while they're horrified by the thought of innocent men going to prison for rape they didn't do. Funnily enough they're not that horrified by the thought of men going to prison for burglary, theft, etc., that they didn't do - it's only in the case of rape that they're so solicitous of innocent men. If burglars and fraudsters got off at the same rate in case they were innocent, hardly anyone would ever go to prison.

My comment regarding public opinion is significant because it means that fewer members of the jury will go to trial with preconceived ideas about the claimant.

However, whilst significant, this is different to jurors examining the evidence and finding the defendant guilty. My point is that a more balanced jury will come to a more balanced verdict, which is always a good thing.

But this is where we differ. I'm using 'defendant' as opposed to 'rapist' because we still operate an innocent until proven guilty system. You see people walking free as 'rapists'. As much as I dislike the guilty walking free and often feel the law is an ass it'd be a sorry day when we change to defendants being guilty until proven innocent.

Also, I have no idea if the majority of rape claims are true or false. Therefore I could not even say whether the majority of claims should be upheld. I have no interest in seeing more or less but that the right amount of people see justice. If that happened to be 100% of rapists going to prison then fine but if it also meant that 0% of men were charged then so be it.

I don't know who you've been talking to but I'd be horrified for any innocent person going to prison, irrespective of the crime. The difference with burglary/theft is that it's much easier to prove someone guilty e.g. by forensics, posession of stolen goods, CCTV etc.

Sadly there are cases like Rosie Dodd, who was jailed for falsely accusing 3 men of raping her. This does women no favours at all.

Funny how you know NOTHING about the stats on false rape, but the name of ONE woman who falsely alleged rape (one of the 4% then), trips easily off your tongue.

You may know nothing about who is a rapist and who isn't, but experts in the field who have looked at research, do know - Baroness Stearn's review was the most recent in Britain, if you're interested. They know that only between 2 and 6% of rape allegations are false, they also know that there is only a conviction rate of 6% for all reported rapes, they know that between 85% and 90% of rapes are never even reported, so they know that most men who walk out of court free, are rapists. It's a simple question of maths.

Also viz public opinion not blaming women for rape - I would hazard a guess that when they're asked that question, they're thinking about the far less common

Since when does not knowing anything about a subject stop certain people from commenting on it, Festivia? Honestly! I also find it slightly odd, that a woman who lies about rape does no favours to other women. Men who suffer rape seem to be absolved from those lies. This seems to further add to the myth that only women lie about rape. Men never do, oh no. They never lie about raping women for example. Why would they after all? However, those men that lie about rape don't seem to be doing a disservice to other men. In fact the opposite appears to be the case. It just reinforces the norm. The hard done by man who had consensual sex that "went wrong" or whatever. They are believed despite the overwhelming odds that they are guilty. So do you think a man who lies about a burglary only does a disservice to other men reporting burglaries?

And if they don't get convicted they aren't a rapist?? How does that work then? The act they did gets magically wiped from existence because a jury, subject to all the myths shown on this thread found them not guilty or the case didn't reach the courts or the woman didn't report it? The victims weren't in fact raped. They just imagined their trauma and injuries? A rapist is a rapist whether he is convicted or not.

Festiva

I only know of Rosie and the girl that was refused a ride on the bus because they were high profile cases that were on the news. Again, you're trying to apply some sort of dubious rationale behind my knowledge of the news but it really is that innocent.

TBH I've not read any of Stearn's work but again, if you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty then you cannot charge him. Is this really so difficult to understand? You're arguing the point like I'm in favour of these people going free but this is the simple truth.

And I'm not saying that people walking free are NOT rapists. You are twisting my words. I'm simply stating that it is not right to automatically label these people as 'rapists'.

Re public opinion you should read the link again and see that your assumption is incorrect.

Abigail

Let's get this straight. Men that rape women are the lowest of the low. I know it's hard for some of you to think that a man could possibly believe that but there you go. I've said it.

A man that lies does men no favours just as a woman that lies does women no favours. Why does it have to always get twisted to suit the feminist agenda?

I'm not saying men don't lie about rape. Of course they do but this is far cry from saying that most men leaving court are rapists. I'm sorry for being more balanced in my approach.

And yes, it's perfectly reasonable to comment on any subject without specialist knowledge. This is what a public forum is about. Isn't that the essence of what gets discussed on these pages. Lots of women discussing how men think and operate when you're not actually men and have absolutely no knowledge of how we think?