The effect of Peter Sutcliffe on a generation

[lanadelgrey]

After listening to Woman's Hour and other coverage as well as remembering the BBC documentary, I could see a link to Dr Stock's article about some men being dangerous and why there is need for safe spaces.
A whole generation or more were brought up in the shadow of the idea that women shouldn't go out alone by women who no doubt saw themselves through the experiences of ordinary women who were attacked for being out after dark.
We have internalised that lesson that because there are some dangerous men, we need protections of single sex spaces. It must surely play a part in why there is a generational divide. I wonder how younger all-inclusive women would understand and whether they would listen to women who were in Leeds at the time such as Joan Smith or some of the victims who survived or be bothered to listen to women who were brought up by mothers who had seen and understood more of the news reports than their children - like me. I do remember the coverage and trial but was a child/ early teen. I took part in Reclaim the Night marches as a student but was slightly too young to understand where the movement came from. And, yes, I clutched by NUS-rape alarm in one hand and my keys in the other.
It doesn't matter whether Sutcliffe was an anomaly or not, his actions scarred and scared a generation or more.

I’m glad the bastards dead.

I think Peter Sutcliffe highlighted the dangers to the women who were sat at home that had never felt the fear of a man.

Unfortunately many many women were already aware of the dangers of men whether at home or in the dark streets.

I watched the news earlier and was surprised but pleased they did a long special on Peter Sutcliffe, respectfully and very much showing and telling us it was women who were under attack at that time. No nonsense about gender. It must of been a scary and tumultuous time back then...

A whole generation or more were brought up in the shadow of the idea that women shouldn't go out alone by women who no doubt saw themselves through the experiences of ordinary women who were attacked for being out after dark.
We have internalised that lesson that because there are some dangerous men, we need protections of single sex spaces

I was born in 1959 so Sutcliffe's crimes covered the period of mid- teens to early 20s, including my time at university.

It has never occurred to me once that his evil existence means I shouldn't go out alone or in the dark. I am not scarred or scared by him.

I don't really know where you're going with this and the need for single sex spaces.

I was a teenager in the 1980s and as a student and young person, I would try to reclaim the night, and I admit I did walk in dark places, but the fear was real. Still is. Although I can pretend to be brave, the fear is engrained in me. Stranger danger and all that.

The longish report I saw was a total Mish mash with references to him killing X people, at more than one point...

On the news today there is a report about how 5 or was it 6 women have been sexually assaulted while out running and they're looking for the man.

Yes Peter Sutcliffe was extreme and had a massive effect on the ? psychology of women who lived around there at that time.

I'm not sure I agree with the overall point though. Men do shit all the time and the majority of women know it.

I'm the same age as Dido, my time then was spent in Manchester and Leeds. It didn't stop me doing anything. Which included going to the pub on my own, almost seems like an alien concept now.

From my memory it was exactly the opposite effect to the one suggested in the OP.

Following the whole post war 50s women being pushed back into the home (see Feminine Mystique) by the later part of the 60s and into the 70s women were much freer about going out alone. (There was the great Wimpy Bar campaign who did not allow single women to sit in their shops!) This didn't mean women weren't subjected to male violence, but this was no different to the male violence they experienced in their home or some social setting.

But there was much more overtly sexist and derogatory remarks. (If anyone has read or seen the tv adaptation of Denise Mina's Field of Blood.)

What in fact the terrible actions of Sutcliffe did was bring together various strands of feminist activism around male violence. There was a huge campaign against the police saying women should stay home. It is because of this that Reclaim the Night started in the UK. And despite how gross and extreme his violence, many feminist pointed out that it was just an extension of the attitudes of many men that if women were out on their own they were asking for it or prostitutes. It also meant that the police had to have a total rethink about their attitudes and behaviour.

I heard Vera Baird and a woman who had been a young journalist at the time in Leeds on radio 4 news talking about it, and I think they gave quite a good impression of how it was.

This doesn't mean that some older women, and some more conservative communities didn't themselves have those attitudes but it was, for the very worst reasons, a huge impact on feminism as it made so many women so angry and wanting to make change.

In rememberance of the women who died.

www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/webimg/QVNIMTE3OTkzOTQ0.jpg?width=640

What I was trying to say somewhat incoherently was that the reporting and the effect of the murders were formative for attitudes for a generation of women. Other horrible and heavily reported crimes can be seen to have had a lasting impact on attitudes in wider society that resonates with people of a particular generation.

It's really interesting given the posts above about women saying sod off with telling me to hide at home, and reclaim the night

That none of the reports I have seen have so much as hinted at that. Zero mention.

So how women actually reacted is replaced with how the reporters think/ imagine they should have reacted.

Wonderful.