[QUOTE=Mr Bus Guy]
I read this and the first thing that popped into my head was Little Red Riding Hood, daring young chick that was eaten by the wolf, and had to be rescued by the woodsman.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting thing about that story, though - in the older versions, the woodsman gives Red a knife, and she goes out and hunts the wolf, and its mate, and makes their skins into a new cloak to replace the red one.
So why, do you think, did we discard that part of the story - the empowering part?
[QUOTE=fessie]
“More to worry about” isn’t just our own personal safety, it’s about protecting our young. Yes, I’d say women are definitely more risk-averse than men. There’s the stereotype of Mama providing the soft nest for the kids, while Dad encourages them to roughhouse.
[/QUOTE]
That’s it…I think women are more biologically inclined to be risk-averse, and not just (or even primarily) because we are physically smaller & weaker. I think it’s more about protecting young & being the ones responsible (biologically speaking) for their welfare and making sure they survive to adulthood. And I believe studies have shown that it’s testosterone that fuels the need some men have to take physical risks. Of course, there’s a bell curve to everything, so not all women are going to be equally risk-averse, nor all men risk-prone, but I definitely thing there’s something to the biological/evolutionary aspect of it.
I’m going to be interested to see if my son (currently 9 months) turns out very different from my daughter. She’s 3, and has never been cuddly, but more physically adventurous and curious. He, on the other hand, is the snuggliest baby in the world, and we are always marveling at it, since she was never that way. So far, their actual development in terms of meeting physical milestones like crawling, standing, etc., has been pretty identical. If he turns out to be more physically adventurous than her, I’m in trouble!
This is actually quite timely. Three of my younger friends, two guys and a girl, just got back from traveling through Asia. The girl mentioned how the guys would plan out hiking trips or meeting spo0ts and she’d have to explain that no, she wouldn’t be able to just meet them there, she needed a male escort (legally), or no, she wasn’t going to walk that trail in a skirt and headcovering. Hadn’t crossed their minds.
Stats on stranger violence put men at a disadvantage, but as others here have mentioned, violence is a possibility, while harassment is almost definite for most women traveling alone.
[QUOTE=Mr Bus Guy]
When I was 17, two friends of mine and I piled into a station wagon and drove west for a month long vacation, armed only with a pile of cash, sleeping bags, tents, guns, fishing poles and ok - some illicit herbal materials. Mom and dad thought nothing of it. When I was 20, I bought a Eurail Pass, a round trip ticket to London, and disappeared with a friend for a month, again, no second thoughts. My sister wanted to do almost the same thing when she was 22, and my folks were having none of it.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve noticed this trend quite a bit in families with both sons and daughters– even if the girls wanted to take risks (going to concerts at young ages, taking the car out, backpacking through Europe), the parents wouldn’t hear of it. I had one girlfriend whose younger brother had to escort her to parties.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
That’s it…I think women are more biologically inclined to be risk-averse, and not just (or even primarily) because we are physically smaller & weaker. I think it’s more about protecting young & being the ones responsible (biologically speaking) for their welfare and making sure they survive to adulthood. And I believe studies have shown that it’s testosterone that fuels the need some men have to take physical risks. Of course, there’s a bell curve to everything, so not all women are going to be equally risk-averse, nor all men risk-prone, but I definitely thing there’s something to the biological/evolutionary aspect of it.
QUOTE]
Additionally, I’ve read that in any social and stratified species, most every healthy female can find a mate, and high risk behaviour doesn’t improve their reproductive output. When they are in competition, the lower level males can be shut out of reproduction all together, you could postulate that much heroic AND criminal behaviour derives from this nothing to lose position.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Interesting thing about that story, though - in the older versions, the woodsman gives Red a knife, and she goes out and hunts the wolf, and its mate, and makes their skins into a new cloak to replace the red one.
So why, do you think, did we discard that part of the story - the empowering part?
[/QUOTE]
In the original folktales, the girl (who doesn’t have a red hood) escapes using her own wits (she tells the wolf she has to go poop). Many of the fairytales we know today were drastically altered by Perrault and the Grimm brothers; in the original Cinderella, for instance, there are no stepsisters or stepmother, and the girl goes to the ball late on purpose so she can make a more effective entrance, the minx.
I could go on and on about this topic - it was an area of interest for me in undergrad - but what it boils down to is that female curiosity is generally linked to promiscuity and immorality in fairytales. Little Red Riding Hood is doomed from the beginning because of the color of her cloak (which was not a part of the story originally) - red is usually a color that implies sexual promiscuity in women. Perrault very much intended the story to be a warning to young girls about men, who according to him were all wolves underneath their skin. Bluebeard is another good example - the husband is a serial killer who gives his wife a key but forbids her to use it. She discovers he’s hiding the bodies of his dead wives - he discovers she’s been “unfaithful” to him - and in the end she has to be rescued by her brothers. For the longest time this fairytale has been interpreted as a tale of adultery, most notably by Bettelheim. Tsk, tsk, she shouldn’t have opened that door. She broke her husband’s trust. Um, yes, but her husband was a freakin’ psycho serial killer. What about him? Not surprisingly, older versions of this tale have the wife escaping his clutches all by herself, while newer versions have her praying at the window for her brothers to come save her. :rolleyes:
Sorry, this was a big fat hijack, but my point is that fairytales are a good example of the lessons society has been teaching girls for ages - stay at home and listen to your betters. Being adventerous usually ends badly and makes you a slut as well, apparently. In fairytales, anyway.
As an aside, I am much more independent and willing to take risks than my younger brother, traditional Korean upbringing notwithstanding. (I only have a few other girlfriends who were willing to travel by themselves in college, however.)
I wonder how much of it is women being more risk-averse, and how much is women being more social—wanting to go out together to bond or socialize or whatever. In other words, that one reason women only go to bars or strange cities in groups is the same reason they go to the restroom in groups (whatever reason that is 
).
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
the same reason they go to the restroom in groups (whatever reason that is 
).
[/QUOTE]
yeah, what IS that reason 
Well, so we can talk about you guys, and our new lipstick shade, and where we got the cute new shoes, and you won’t be rolling your eyes at us, of course. 
My kids don’t bear this out to any great extent. My daughter (oldest child) was gregarious, open and happy to take risks (but not physically so much, but she was thrilled to learn sports, how to ride a bike etc).
#1 son was shy, retiring, would not challenge any obstacle physically, had multiple fears as a toddler etc. Nevertheless, he learned how to ride a bike, skate, ski etc. Not a risk taker, even now, at 15.
#2 son was a more “conventional” male toddler in that he would climb anything, had no fear etc. About age 4, this changed for him–he became risk averse in a much more severe way than his sibs. Now he won’t learn to ice skate, ride a bike, skateboard–nothing. He is very cautious about his person.
This drives me nuts, given that I was a tomboy, did all of the above and more. I encourage him and hope for the best.
That all said, IMO, women ARE more risk averse than men–when it comes to personal safety. I wonder if this holds true for things such as investments, career changes etc.
I like to go places by myself, but it is only now, in my 40s that I am not pestered by men who think that woman alone=easy prey for harassment and/or potential dates. :rolleyes:
This thread just reminded me of a guy I knew in the Army, who sent his girlfriend home after dark night after night without ever giving a moment’s thought to her safety, but then when his male friend came for a few days visit, worried about escorting him safely around after dark.
Makes you wonder.
[QUOTE=outlierrn]
yeah, what IS that reason
[/QUOTE]
Tampon giving and drawing straws for the hot guy.
I don’t know how normal I am but I do a ton of stuff by myself. There are a lot of times I prefer it. I never feel any safer with a man around. I mean if some tweaker gets his hands on a gun and wants my money, a man isn’t going to stop him. I mean he would probably be less likely to approach us but I think that’s more a safety in numbers. It causes a bigger spectacle.
I go to bars sometimes alone. I’m sure it looks like I want to be hit on but really I just want to check out the bar. I’ve only lived in this city a real and this neighborhood a month and I just like scouting places out. I’m usually happy to chat with someone but if it’s overt flirting I’ll just tell them to get the fuck away from me. This hasn’t really happened because the only people that talk to me are gay guys and other women.
I eat alone often and I see movies alone always. I never understood why you would go see a movie with someone else. It’s not like you are going to be talking.
[QUOTE=Gala Matrix Fire]
It might be that men are attacked by strangers more than women are because women have been warned so thoroughly that they rarely ever do what men will do without even thinking twice about it.
[/QUOTE]
Probably to a degree. But also, violence towards men is more socially acceptable.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
That all said, IMO, women ARE more risk averse than men–when it comes to personal safety. I wonder if this holds true for things such as investments, career changes etc.
[/QUOTE]
I do recall a study where men and women investment patterns were compared, and the men generally did take more risks. Which helps explain why women have more assets than men despite a lower average income; over time, prudence beats daring when it comes to investing, most of the time.
[QUOTE=lobstermobster]
I go to bars sometimes alone. I’m sure it looks like I want to be hit on but really I just want to check out the bar. I’ve only lived in this city a real and this neighborhood a month and I just like scouting places out. I’m usually happy to chat with someone but if it’s overt flirting I’ll just tell them to get the fuck away from me. This hasn’t really happened because the only people that talk to me are gay guys and other women.
[/QUOTE]
You say that stuff but there are some bars you wouldn’t want to go into as a woman. Some in New Orleans like Snake N Jakes come to mind.
This thread has been an eye opener for me. The women and girls that are in my life simply don’t think about these things although I was sure that some do somewhere. My wife for instance is much prettier than a Tasmanian Devil but three times as mean and will storm through a warehouse full of blue collar guys like nobodys business ready to tear a new hole in anybody that is up for it. My mother and daughters plus my boss and her boss are the same. I didn’t realize this was still typical for women. As a tall and not petite male myself, I guess I just took it for granted that everyone can go wherever they want whether it is a laundromat or a biker bar with only the foul atmosphere to hurt them.
From my experience, in the past I would have waited for someone to come with me to a place I may have that was a “risk”. Or to a place I didn’t feel so safe. Though since being on my own and many of my friends are married or have commitments, if I want to do something or experience something new I have to do it on my own. I refuse to wait around for someone. Life is to short for that.
Though that being said, when I go some where new I tend to be very aware of who and what is around me.
As for a bar or something that seems might be in a bad area… I don’t push my luck. Especially in a new place where I don’t know anyone and no one knows me.
[QUOTE=fessie]
Well, we DO send our boys off to war while keeping the girls at home.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps historically, but not any more. 
Frankly, I’ve always thought that it was more that women are less stupid than we are, though that’s hardly an inviolable rule.
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
Frankly, I’ve always thought that it was more that women are less stupid than we are, though that’s hardly an inviolable rule.
[/QUOTE]
No, just differently stupid.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I do recall a study where men and women investment patterns were compared, and the men generally did take more risks. Which helps explain why women have more assets than men despite a lower average income; over time, prudence beats daring when it comes to investing, most of the time.
[/QUOTE]
I wish this would change for most men. Guys like to talk about their portfolio like it’s a BMW sitting in the driveway. 98% of men are better off with a passive/index style of investing. In otherwords, let your spouse handle it until you can trade in the BMW portfolio for a better, more efficient model.