Anna ([info]troubleinchina) wrote,
@ 2007-09-07 19:37:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: rejuvenated
Entry tags:faith hope trick - ponderings, friday thoughts, no - i really *do* care that much

Friday Discussion: Walking While Female and Foolishly Asking For Violence To Be Done Upon You
I have a confession to make: I'm not afraid to walk after dark.

I've read and participated in quite a few discussions about women and the sorts of things they do to protect themselves when they go out alone - clutching of the keys like claws, checking the backseat of a car before going in, never talking to anyone after dark - and I don't do these things. It's not that I think they're being foolish, and it's not that I'm unaware of what can happen if you're caught unawares, but I just don't fear things enough to do that. (I suspect this is because I grew up in smaller communities, and well, it's not that violence doesn't happen there, but there's a different attitude about it overall that affects how I view it - I just don't see myself as at that much risk.)

I really want to emphasize that I don't think there's anything wrong with the women who do do these things. Just different ways of dealing with the world.

Because, see, I'm not afraid of walking after dark. What I am afraid of is, if something happens to me, I'm going to be taken to task by everyone I ever knew, including my mother, for not being "prepared" for some random act of violence to happen. Of being told I "shouldn't have been there". Of the questions about what I did to be attacked. Because heaven knows that I should know better than to go out after dark, by myself. Look at what could happen!

Amy and I were talking about this a few days ago, and she brought up a statistic that I can't quite remember about the number of women in Perth who feel unsafe if they go out after dark. (I can't find it; my google-fu skills are obviously unl33t, but I remember the number seeming unreasonably high to me.)

Because, you know, if a woman goes out after a certain time of night, or if she's dressed a certain way, or if she just walks in the wrong way, she did the wrong thing. She shouldn't have been there.

Walking While Female, as I said before.

So, where do we draw the line? At what point is the woman responsible for the violence that she suffers from when she goes out of her house? At what point does how she act or react make it her fault? Where do you think these attitudes come from?

[Do you notice that, despite the fact that most violence is done by men, I've managed to write this entire post so far without mentioning them? Passive Sentence Construction is actually a big part of the dialog around this stuff - "the violence she suffers from". "A victim of male violence" sounds so accusatory to me, which is also very relevant to the discussion.]

Personally, I think walking after dark shouldn't be something that automatically puts the onus on women to carry their keys like a weapon or to dress in a certain way or to risk being told that being attacked, robbed, raped or killed was her fault. And, as I alluded to, I think the way we talk about this stuff is what contributes to the culture of fear around it - women are raped, but apparently men do not rape? "A man raped a woman" sounds accusatory to me, and I wonder if it does to other people as well. "A man robbed a bank" does not - probably because I'll hear that sentence construction quite often, and not the other.

The other thing I think contributes to this is that the Big Three Religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have expectations of "modesty" that do affect the greater Western Culture, even those who aren't religious. This recent Modesty Survey (where teen boys rated how much of a "stumbling block" to their salvation the clothing teen girls wore was for the boys) reflects the idea that it is Woman's Job to keep Man's thoughts pure. In Orthodox Judaism, like Orthodox Islam, women pray in a separate room from the men. I was told that this is to help keep men's mind on God, and not on the bodies of the women in the room. Women are gatekeepers.

This again gets back into that idea that Men Are Children Or Monsters, and without womenfolk to care for them or keep them away from the "uncovered meat", men will go crazy and be forced, forced against their will, to attack the women.

We have a responsibility, after all, to not go out after dark in a t-shirt and jeans but no bra where we could distract some man and drive him into a frenzy of lust and violence.

Thoughts?




(36 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]padredon
2007-09-07 01:14 pm UTC (link)
I think as it stands a lot of men are children/monsters. I don't think they have to be but its what they've learned. I don't know if education which takes generations is enough or if there's something more that should be done and in the mean time what happens?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]troubleinchina
2007-09-07 01:17 pm UTC (link)
Well, you and I do have a fairly intense disagreement about people in general and men in particular. But then, you knew that.

Learned behaviour is an important part of the discussion, as is how we change this stuff. What do you think we should do?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]padredon
2007-09-07 01:43 pm UTC (link)
My experiences interacting with other men and boys has shown me how close to the line many if not most of them live. That a portion would cross the line comes as no surprise. I don't think the urges or drives, are uncontrollible. I think that most men don't feel the need to. I think we were in a discussion many months ago about how many men would commit rape if they didn't fear being caught. A lot of men in our world are monsters. They don't know that its not acceptable.

I think that education in all its forms is important and not just targeting an age range or even just men. Beyond that I don't really feel I know enough to make a lot of suggestions. It strikes me that two groups that need to be targeted for both the education aspect and simply getting their cooperation are politicians and judges. Judges, especially come to mind, given some of the recent rulings. They need to know that manner of dress, time and place are not mitigating factors.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]rasilon_x
2007-09-07 03:19 pm UTC (link)
My observations, from the places that I've lived, lead me to be cynical about humanity in general. The probability that an individual will choose to use violence to get their way appears proportional to their assessment of the probability of success. ie. the observed gender bias in the use of violence appears to correspond to the gender bias in physical strength.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]troubleinchina
2007-09-09 11:47 am UTC (link)
Hmm... Would you be willing to expand on that? I'm not sure I agree, but then, I'm an optimist and think the best of people, which invariably breaks my heart on a regular basis.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]rasilon_x
2007-09-09 05:48 pm UTC (link)
Which part would you like me to expand on? I try to be a realist, which usually makes optimists think I'm a pessimist, and pessimists think I'm an optimist.

I've seen both sexes be extremely nasty, and there doesn't seem to be a lot to choose between them. So I tend to expect the worst from people, but leave them the room to be the best.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]threeoranges
2007-09-07 01:17 pm UTC (link)
Where do you think these attitudes come from?

"Just World" Syndrome.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]troubleinchina
2007-09-07 01:22 pm UTC (link)
Interesting. Thank you for the link. I will ponder this some more.

I know there's a definite attitude of "But it couldn't happen to me" out there, which may be part of it as well.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]furikku
2007-09-07 01:59 pm UTC (link)
I do a lot of the "precaution" stuff, though it's less because I feel in danger as a female, and more because I'm generally paranoid (and play too much Silent Hill), so I feel more in danger as a human. >_>

I do feel that a lot of the "Guys just can't help it!" thing comes from cultural attitudes. I recall when I was in high school attending a Catholic Mass in a fairly decent dress, only it had bare shoulders and spaghetti straps. A woman came up to me afterwards and started telling me how I should "cover up" because it would apparently incite men to... somethingorother, because I'm a cute girl.

My mom was incensed at the woman for trying to make me feel uncomfortable, and ranted about how it's the guys' responsibility. I was just puzzled at the thought that my (fairly pimply) back and shoulders could incite someone to lustful actions.

The whole idea makes little logical sense- how is it that cultures where nudity (as we see it, at least) is not taboo haven't got a corresponding increase of attacks? Why is it that two women can perform the same action in the same circumstances and yet one will be attacked and the other one isn't? Seems to me that it's clearly possible for guys to rein it in. It's just a question of training them to as they grow up. (And, of course, dealing with the ones with a legitimate mental issue, because sometimes it's a lot less possible due to mental disorder.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]troubleinchina
2007-09-09 11:45 am UTC (link)
Do you find that you get the most warnings about "bad" behaviour from men or women?

I've found I get it from my male friends whereas my female friends tend to think I'm Big Strong Woman Type and can take care of myself.

Thoughts?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]parsimonia
2007-09-07 02:30 pm UTC (link)
I'm also generally not afraid of walking by myself after dark. I live in a big city, but I feel comfortable in my area, taking public transit, and actually like walking alone after dark. But when my friends learn I intend to walk home from somewhere, from their point of view it's almost certain that I will get mugged or attacked or something.

I really feel like I'm having deja vu here and that I've typed this whole comment before, but...There should be e-mail forwards that say something like:

"This is very important, please send this to all the men in your life, as it will help keep them out of trouble and keep other people safe...Don't rape or harass women. They are NOT asking for it, they are NOT objects, and they do not exist for your own personal entertainment/validation/pleasure."

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]troubleinchina
2007-09-09 11:44 am UTC (link)
There should be email forwards like that, totally.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]zingerella
2007-09-07 02:45 pm UTC (link)
I've written most of my take on this one. Do read the comment thread, as far as you can bear to. It's very instructive.

I do not believe that men are constitutionally unable to understand that women do not exist for their amusement or predation. For one thing, I know plenty of men who, upon seeing a woman they find attractive, do not feel compelled to molest her—they are content to do exactly what I do upon seeing someone I find attractive which is to think "Ooooh! Pretty!" and go about their business. I think, however, that certain institutions have a vested interest in keeping womenfolk afraid, and in excusing reprehensible behaviour on the part of menfolk everywhere.

If we focus on how a woman failed to keep herself safe, then we don't have to look at what her attacker did. We don't have to ask why he did it. We don't have to ask why he was there, stalking women, waiting to hurt them. We don't have to insist that his crime be treated appropriately. Finally, we don't have to address the deeper, age-old cultural problems that tell all of us that women exist only in relation to men, and are there to be vehicles for male power and prestige, and that rape is an acceptable way to assert power over another person.

"She was asking for it dressing that way/being out alone/walking that way/flirting with men/whatever" reinforces the deep-rooted notion that women exist only in relation to men.

For the record, I grew up in a big city, and I don't walk with my keys between my fingers, peer fearfully into dark corners, ask people to walk me home (unless I want to ask them in afterwards), or otherwise circumscribe my activities. I'm in far more danger from the date I invite in with me (and I still invite people in) than from the random stranger at the bus stop. I've lived this free and easy, mostly fearless life for 32 years, and guess what? I've never been attacked. Any damage I've suffered (which has, thankfully, been very slight) has been at the hands of people I knew, and they damn' well should have known better.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]troubleinchina
2007-09-07 02:55 pm UTC (link)
"It's only common sense to cover up," is a breath away from "she was asking for it, dressing like that."

"Men are aroused by a scantily clad woman and will objectify her, and women need to be aware of that," is one grope away from "men are animals who can't control themselves."


oh... oh... I really liked your article. I'm just plowing through the comments right now, albeit slowly.

Yeah, I don't know why some women are very afraid and some are not - I've just assumed it's because of what we're told and what we believe about people, but I'm not entirely sure.

I have been attacked by strangers twice, in the sense of "I was robbed at work", but other than that, I've never been hurt by strangers. It's the people I trust that end up stealing from me, not the ones in the street I'm warned about.

I touched a bit on that in my Blog Against Sexual Violence post, and the pervasive media image of what A Rapist looks like - and how untrue it is.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2007-09-07 03:52 pm UTC (link)
Culture is slow and hard to change. When I am at my most cynical, I will note that the word has as it's root "cult".

I don't know of any effective way to generate big sweeping changes in culture. All I know to do is argue against and dismiss the notions that men are animals and women bring it on themselves as and when I encounter them.

It's harder than it sounds.

James

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-09-07 03:54 pm UTC (link)
Argh! And now I have been preserved for all eternity as making the its/it's grammatical gaff!

Bugger it all for a lark.

James

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]troubleinchina
2007-09-09 11:43 am UTC (link)
A lot of the reason I find it difficult is because sometimes people are expressing it very subtly - including myself. Comments like "If she doesn't want attention, she shouldn't be wearing that" come to mind, or the LRPS saying of "psychotic, neurotic or taken" that also feed into that idea that the women in LRPS are all victims or belong to someone else.

I just try to talk about it, and get other people to talk about it, and to think about it.

But I read a book recently (and left it in Halifax because I read through it very quickly) that talked about ways of influencing the media. Pretending that the media isn't affecting how we view things is naive, and I think activism in that general direction can be helpful. As I've said before, I think how the media portrays men who rape women has affected the discourse about such things a great deal.

[I talk funny when I respond to these posts, don't I?]

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]tiferet
2007-09-07 05:33 pm UTC (link)
Women are never, ever responsible for a man's decision to rape, and anyone who says that they are needs to think about what they are saying about men.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]troubleinchina
2007-09-09 11:35 am UTC (link)
I agree with you completely.

Strangely, the people most likely to warm me about men are often other men. Which scares me a bit.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]tatterpunk
2007-09-07 06:38 pm UTC (link)
I used to buy into the shouldn't have been there/known better/done something so dangerous lines. Not, I hope, because of instilled misogyny, though that's always a possibility. But I think (and probably many women and men feel the same) I was hoping they'd done something to bring it on -- because I knew I'd never do something like that myself, you see, and if violence occurred according to those rules, I would never be raped. (Just World Syndrome, is it called? I saw the linkage.)

It's not just crimes against women that follow this trend -- there's the same attitude towards the very poor, the homeless, the drug addicts or alcoholics. But it's worse when it concerns women, because the sheer weight of damage done to them for their gender alone is so stomach-turning most people just can't face it -- can't face undeniable proof of a blatantly unjust world.

That's probably where the idea of privilege comes from. I know a lot of people argue against the concept of white/Western/male/etc existing because they argue the benefits that come with it should be basic human rights. I agree with that. But being able to avoid, or deny, or simply live i ignorance of the suffering of others because of the shield your race/sex/class provides -- that is most definitely a privilege.

Then I heard the saying "If a woman wearing revealing clothing is asking to be raped, a man openly carrying a wallet is asking to be robbed." And it was the beginning of a shift in perception for me. A very painful one. American culture is very big on across-the-board equality -- or at least the image of it. Discovering the lie is... well, it's still something I'm coming to terms with. I never realized until recently how much propaganda I was fed in school.

So, yes, the idea of Men As Children Or Monsters... no, I don't buy it, but I think in general people will take any inch you give them. And people are much, much more conformist than we give them credit for. (Hello, deceptions of the USA image-machine.) They want roles, and they want rules -- it goes beyond the wanting a Just World and into the frightening potential of freedom. So if you tell them: men are supposed to act this way, women are supposed to act that way, they'll swallow it with relief, for the most part.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]troubleinchina
2007-09-09 11:34 am UTC (link)
Just World syndrome, yeah. I tend to call it magical thinking, because as long as we tell ourselves that *that person* deserves whatever happens to them, we can tell ourselves it won't happen to us. And then, if it does happen to us, we're obviously bad and deserve it, or it wouldn't have happened.

[It also gets into the violence at home angle and the whole "why doesn't she leave" thought.]

I find your last paragraph very interesting - do you have the time to expand on it?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]tatterpunk
2007-09-23 02:14 am UTC (link)
And then, if it does happen to us, we're obviously bad and deserve it, or it wouldn't have happened.

It's a very Puritan ideology -- considering who founded my country, not so surprising. But I guess everyone wants to structure the chaos that life can be.

It also gets into the violence at home angle and the whole "why doesn't she leave" thought.

That question actually strikes me as basic common sense -- but it discounts the fact that abuse at home is not common abuse.


I find your last paragraph very interesting - do you have the time to expand on it?

... I'm... not sure how? I just find that there are codes of behavior to every subculture, and violating them randomly (as opposed to assuming another, familiar code) makes people very, very nervous. It's a signal that the violator doesn't hold much value to those things which are, traditionally, very valuable: society's acceptance and recognition, for instance. There're deep-seated alarms in the group conscience, and when an individual makes it plain they value their own happiness -- their own opinion -- over the group's, it sets every one of those off.

There are several blogs I've found which address how this can manifest around the "loner" -- how people can become not just confused, but aggressive when the exception to the rule of human beings as social animals, and consequently there's a lot of stigma and suspiscian associated to people who like to sit at home and read books/watch movies/netsurf.

Which is really silly when you think about it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]the-willow.insanejournal.com
2007-09-07 06:41 pm UTC (link)
Every time I stumble across some bit of discussion wherein men are relegated to being childish monsters with overgrown impulses they can't control - I wonder why women aren't allowed to rule the world.

If men need women in order to be civilized human beings, then women should rule the world, and men should live in isolated communes.

I guess the argument makes me think that there are men (and women) who unknowingly are buying into Sheri Tepper's 'The Gate To Woman's Country'.

To me the book is a fascinating piece of fiction. But I have a difficult time believing that the only good man would be one that had self-control genetically bred into him.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]troubleinchina
2007-09-09 11:28 am UTC (link)
It's an underlying hatred or distrust of men that really disturbs me. (And, you know, the virgin/whore dichotomy for women - we're either perfect saints who keep men from their baser instincts, or VERY VERY BAD.)

Did you see the article on Moderate Left about this? I never quite know how to react to the hatred of men that says that men are animals and are only good in order to get sex. I mean, besides being offended by it (because, you know, as a Feminist I think I should have the monopoly on hating men, don'tcha know.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sanityimpaired
2007-09-07 08:10 pm UTC (link)
I do many of the things you describe when walking around at night. Violence, like many crimes, is all about convenience, and I plan on being as inconvenient as possible.

That aside, the real issue with the topic of the victim's responsibility (be it violence, rape, theft, or anything else) is one of blame versus prevention. For whatever reason, people seem to be unable to separate the two.

We KNOW that risk increases or decreases according to a lot of factors. The details may be contested, but there are things we can all do to prevent being victimized. It could be stated that we should do these things within reason because it's obviously in our best interests to not be victimized, and we should always be acting in our best interests.

The stumbling block is that people somehow assume that anyone not pursuing these measures is then somehow responsible for being victimized. We are no obligated to prevent victimization, it's simply a good idea for us to do so. The entire responsibility falls upon the victimizer regardless of what preventative measures are (or aren't) in place.

The actions and motives of a potential victimizer are outside our control, so recovering victims tend to internalize that responsibility and turn it into blame. They choose to see themselves as being completely at fault. It's more terrifying to admit that you can prevent but cannot stop somebody from victimizing you again than it is to blame yourself. That blame creates the illusion of control, but with some very nasty long-term consequences.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]troubleinchina
2007-09-09 11:26 am UTC (link)
"That blame creates the illusion of control, but with some very nasty long-term consequences."

I see that also in how a lot of people react to such stories - if she did something wrong, then obviously it's her fault, and as long as I do the right things, then I'm not going to get victimised. It's magical thinking at its finest.

I mentioned this bit to [info]biophys_kim below, and I'd like your thoughts on it:

"It's equally interesting to me how many of my male friends get very concerned about me walking alone, or being alone with some man they don't trust. It sometimes scares me how much men don't trust other men, and the implication in that."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]sanityimpaired
2007-09-13 07:07 pm UTC (link)
That's easy enough: I don't trust other men until they've proven that they're trustworthy.

Of course, that's equally true of women.

I also get very protective of my friends, regardless of gender. Though I have to admit that I'm more concerned about violence directed at my male friends and more about sexual assault directed at my female friends. I could say that's justified by statistics, but I should really be watching out for both regardless of gender.

Paranoia for the win?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]sanityimpaired
2007-09-13 07:08 pm UTC (link)
I should also add that I don't like anybody walking alone at night, myself included. Sometimes it's necessary, but it should be avoided where possible.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Societal pressure
[info]biophys_kim
2007-09-07 10:39 pm UTC (link)
This is an issue that really bothers me. For the longest time, I was never bothered by walking after dark by myself. Part of that came from growing up in a smaller town and thinking *that* kind of thing didn't happen there. But people (my grandmother, several of my male friends) started telling me that I shouldn't walk around at night by myself, especially once I started living in the "big" cities of Montreal and Halifax (big compared to New Brunswick at least). And somehow that imprinted on me because I started being scared to do that. And there was definitely a sense that if I was out by myself and something happened that I would have been at fault (not directly, but that I could have prevented it).

I know that it's sensible to do certain things in groups, but why do I have to be scared about walking and waiting at the bus stop alone after a late class while my husband doesn't? While being cautious isn't necessarily bad, why does not taking extra precautions have to imply that we could have prevented it? I really cannot understand why responsibility for this is placed at the hands of those who end up victims as compared to those who perpetrated rape/assault. People are able to accurately assign responsibility for other crimes, why is it so damn hard for rape?

I agree that if we're not careful to separate "taking certain precautions" from "being responsible" then we're just adding to the expectations around it. I know personally, that until I stopped and thought about it some, I thought that if I wasn't taking certain precautions like rarely (if ever) walking alone after dark, then I was being reckless. And this thinking doesn't do anything to combat the problem. It didn't make me more likely to assert that men were responsible for their own actions, it just made me scared.

Oh, and I guess I should also say hello since I've never posted here before (long time rather shy lurker) but I've read a lot (and learned and agreed with a lot) of your really interesting discussion posts here and thought it was finally time to speak up.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Societal pressure
[info]troubleinchina
2007-09-09 11:23 am UTC (link)
It is interesting to me the number of my friends who themselves are not scared to go out after dark, but who get concerned comments from friends and relatives about it. It's equally interesting to me how many of my male friends get very concerned about me walking alone, or being alone with some man they don't trust. It sometimes scares me how much men don't trust other men, and the implication in that. Do you have any thoughts? Is it something your husband might have thoughts about that he would be willing to share?

(Welcome! I like people! I like people who comment, even if they don't agree! I'm very easily please. *grin*)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Well..
[info]gailc
2007-09-08 06:35 am UTC (link)
If it's any consolation, if you live in Calgary, the violence is equal opportunity.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Well..
[info]gailc
2007-09-08 09:58 am UTC (link)
Well, I commented on the dressing issue but then immediately removed it from here and put it as a post in my journal that can only be seen by me. I knew I'd be crucified if I posted it either on my journal so people could see it or here.

I'm learning Ana :)

But I stand by my comment on Calgary. Right now it seems like hunting season on both men and women here no matter what you wear or who you are.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Well..
[info]troubleinchina
2007-09-09 11:18 am UTC (link)
That last bit worries me a great deal because it means that there's a great deal of stranger-violence against women going on in Calgary, more than other places I've lived.

See, that's part of what I'm thinking about - the media portrayal of violence is something I've spoken of before, and it gives us an image of particular women (typically young and white) being the victims of particular forms of violence (stranger assaults, usually rape), when you'd actually be at more risk walking down the street as a man then you are as a woman. But we don't talk about that much.

I mean, we don't send out emails warning men to not go out by themselves, but we do that for women. And then turn around and blame women if they're caught after dark and get attacked, especially if it's a sexual attack, because she was "warned". But we don't warn men.

I find this frustrating and irritating and all sorts of other things, as well as the undercurrent that men are somehow horrible monsters who, when presented with an unaccompanied woman like myself walking after dark will be driven into lust-filled frenzy or something.

I just... think better of them than that. What are your thoughts?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Well..
[info]gailc
2007-09-10 02:21 am UTC (link)
Strangely, BP Energy wrote an email to both men and women regarding not walking outside at night downtown. For the most part you are right though.

I share your feelings that men are better than that. I have personally not had a problem, not to say I never will. I really don't think that the majority of men would become overpowered with lust. Personally (and I may be wrong) rape/sexual assault is a way for these "people" to assert dominance and power over someone, not just an outlet for lust.

I have no vehicle and therefore I have to walk outside at night. I'm not afraid but I am very aware of where I am and who's around me. But I really don't think (and it may be just what's going on here) that it's a problem just for women. Chances are, if you're a man, you'll get robbed, shanked or have a gang decend upon you. Trust me, it's happened here and I have no doubt it will happen again.

Just a note on a couple of things that have happened here:

A male teenager was pushed into the path of a C-train by a young woman (they were on the platform). He died. This was a couple of months ago.

A month ago 3 or 4 men were shanked across the city and one lady was murdered a block away from my apartment by the same gang of men on the same night.

In February on the night before I was to go on a cruise, there was a man shot dead in a restaurant a block away from my apartment. I heard the gunshots and the sirens.

Violence is not reserved especially for women. Everyone has a personal responsibility to take precautions for themselves. And precautions don't alway work. But you have to do what you have to do. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

On an aside note, I once visited a Canadian police website that featured a page on the cases that they were working and cold cases. I was absolutely shocked to see that most of these cases were murders and deaths of men, not women.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Part One ...
[info]bubosquared
2007-09-10 11:49 am UTC (link)
I've been thinking, these past few days, about the things I do when out and about, and why I do them. Because I'm not afraid when I go out, but there's still things I do, often without knowing I'm doing them.

Some of them, I feel safe to say are about avoiding a mugging, not sexual violence -- semi-huddling over my iPod when I take it out in public, or pulling my keyring over my finger when I take out my keys to open the door so no one can snatch my keys, that sort of thing.

Others ... I often, usually without noticing, shift into "male" mode when walking, for example, especially when passing groups of drunk guys. Interestingly enough, even when I'm wearing a short skirt, or a deep-cleavaged top, this seems to at least confuse them enough that I can pass by without incident, which rarely happens when I walk "normally" -- even thought "normally" for me means large strides and a fast pace, and people often tell me I already "walk like a man," which, don't get me started on that particular meme.

Um, got off-track there, sorry. Sort of back on topic, I realised a while ago exactly how much of my self-confidence was tied up in, of all things, my boots, and it seriously shook me. I mean, it makes sense, in a way -- wearing shoes in which I can't run or fight would make me feel vulnerable -- but if I'm honest, I have to admit it's because the boots are an essential part of my "butch dyke in stompy boots" self-image, which means that in a roundabout way, I've bought into the Just World fallacy: I've never faced sexual violence not because I'm lucky, but because I'm strong and butch and scary (thus if other women did the strong and butch and scary thing, they too could avoid rape). That's a humbling and frightening thing to realise about myself, and it's something I'm going to have to get over if I'm going to get past my imminent/current hair-related self-image crisis.

Meanwhile, stranger rape actually only accounts for a minority of rapes. Most rapes are comitted by dates, "friends", aqcuaintences, etc. Which is something I wish I could beat into the skull of all those people muttering that women should always have a friend walk them home at night -- a male friend, of course, because women can't protect other women, don't be ridiculous! The fact that I'm quite likely to be more at risk from said escort than from the legendary stranger lurking in the bushes never seems to occur to them.

It occurs to me, though. There's a reason why I've only once actually asked someone to walk me home, and why that someone was my brother. (I'd smoked pot for the first time and was feeling a bit weirded out by my inability to at least feel sobered up like I can with alcohol, and wanted to make sure I wasn't going to fall over and hit my head on the way home.) Whenever a guy offers to walk me home, my first instinct is to ask why. What's in it for him?

Usually, the answer is ... benign? Acceptable? Something like that. He's going that way anyway, for example, and company would be nice on the way home. Or I'm tipsy and look like I might fall over or not manage to open my door when I get home. Reasons that might apply equally to guys, in other words, even if they're not always applied equally in practice.

When a guy offers to walk me home even though it's out of his way and I'm sober, and it's clear he's doing the "gentleman" thing, I get wary. And then I turn down his offer, and on one occasion I had to sneak out while he was distracted. Because when a man had made it clear that he buys into the idea that all man are raping animals, I will do anything in my power not to be alone with him. Because if I let a guy walk me home, and then he forces his way into my flat and rapes me, I'd get blamed for doing exactly what society keeps telling me to do, namely, to let a guy walk me home. Because I can't fucking win with this bullshit*, so I'm not listening to the bullshit anymore, I'm listening to my own damn instincts.

(Reply to this)

Part Two ...
[info]bubosquared
2007-09-10 11:49 am UTC (link)
Which I think is part of the problem. Women are told that we should treat every situation as a potential rape threat, but at the same time, we should be nice and non-threatening. If a drunk guy comes up to me in a pub and starts trying to make conversation, I shouldn't tell him to fuck off, because then I'm a bitch, but if I go along with it and he starts groping me, it's my own damn fault for "encouraging" him. If I refuse to let a male friend walk me home, I'm a feminazi, but if I do, and said friend rapes me in my own flat, it's my own fault for allowing him to be alone with me. I shouldn't assume that every man is an animal who will rape me given half a chance, except that I should, because they are and then will. And whatever I do, I shouldn't listen to my instincts, shouldn't ever act on a gut feeling that says "this is wrong, I'm uncofortable," I should just suck it up and be nice and yet somehow not "get myself raped." And when I do "get myself raped," I should fight back to prove I really didn't want it, although no, wait, I should lie still and not provoke him into killing me. I shouldn't scream, or he'll slit my throat to silence me, but I should scream so someone can save me.

(* I think I've told you about the incident with my LARP group in Belgium, when a male friend drove me home and the next fucking day everyone was apparently convinced we were together? Can't. Fucking. Win. Gah.)

And the flip side, of course, is this idea that men are all controlled by their penis, that they can't restrain themselves so women need to do it for them, and that the only reason a man would not rape a woman is because he can control himself, not because, you know, he's a decent homan being. Because obviously, they're not. They have no feelings, see, they don't think. They have to be dragged into marriage -- the old ball and chain -- because they couldn't possible feel something like "love", the idea that a man could actually love his kids and enjoy spending time with them without being forced to do so by his wife ("He's pussy-whipped!") is unthinkable, and feminists who expect better of men, who trust them to be human beings who can take "no" for an answer even if they've been "cockteased", who will do so because they want to have sex, not commit rape, because sex is fun and rape is not, feminists who trust and expect men to be able to love them, to love their kids, to function in society for reasons other than "because otherwise, they won't get laid," well, clearly, we're the men-hating, ball-busting bitches!

(Wow, I think I may have just comitted the longest run-on sentence ever. Someone call Guinness!)

I ... don't know if I had much of a point here, other than "I blame the Patriarchy!"

(Reply to this)


(36 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…