“just another way to shift blame away from the attackers and limit women's lives and freedom to avoid tackling the real issue”
I think this is the real issue, isn’t it? The message the public get after a terrorist attack is so different. “Be defiant, go about life as normal. Don’t let them win. The authorities are doing all they can to keep you safe.” Headlines are full of it, of what must be done about it, of whose fault it is.
The thing with violence against women is that fuck all is being done by the authorities to keep up safe -despite it being more far-reaching. Our rape conviction rates are HORRENDOUS. Truly shameful. And when there is a conviction, the sentencing is laughable too. There’s no attempt to use intelligence to see who might be a risk and keep tabs on them. There are a few niche efforts by feminist journalists to draw attention to it in the media, but it’s all just preaching to the converted, or men shut it down because NAMALT. I’m not sure which came first -this seeming helplessness by the people employed to protect us when faced by male violence, or this idea that women can protect themselves by avoiding certain things (usually things that certain people feel are morally dubious, conveniently, like drinking or having a one night stand). Either way, the two notions prop each other up. Basically, "women, look after yourselves, because we can't be bothered to spend resources and thinking power on it."
And of course, as many have pointed out, the things women should apparently avoid doing are unlikely to protect against rape anyway.
At least the message of “stay in the house, avoid arenas, stadiums and the London Underground” probably would see you safe from terrorism, even if it did have a severely limiting effect on your life. Given we’re all more likely to be hurt by our male partners or friends or relatives, staying in the house with them hardly seems like good advice. and I've never heard the advice of avoiding men altogether.