How one dresses has no bearing on anything. Maybe some rapists target women based on dress, but there’s no way for a woman to know what kind of dress a rapist targets. Some rapists might target those who dress revealing. Some might target those who cover up. Some might target those who wear blue. Who the hell knows? Advice on how one should dress to avoid rape is no more useful than “try not to be near a rapist”. It’s offensive because it’s tied up with slut-shaming, directly implying that women who dress in a certain way bear some culpability if they are assaulted.
Your wife had the opportunity to take wise precautions to mitigate risk simply by not drunkenly partying with her friends. She chose not to take these sensible and wise precautions and went out anyway. No, it’s not her FAULT, but she did choose not to mitigate the risk to her self, right? She could have stayed home and avoided that particular risk - but not knowing which nights were more dangerous, she could have never gone out to drunkenly party with friends. That would be the sensible decision, the one that she *didnt *make. She could have gone out and soberly partied with friends- but her potential assailants are still i that bar and may still assault her even if she is sober - or he may roofie her. Safer to avoid partying with her friends. Considering the number of rapes that are date- or acquaintance-, it’s probably safer to not have any friends at all!But then again, a woman living alone is running a serious risk, too, as sometimes rapists just break i to commit stranger rape.
The problem with this approach is that a) its not “her FAULT” but let’s face it, she does bear some of the responsibility for her own assaults. I mean, she made those decisions that led to them. and that leads to b) an endless rabbit hole of precautions that only apply to a woman keeping herself safe. There is always one more thing she could have or should have done. The wise and sensible precaution to best mitigate risk is locking yourself in a fortress and never doing anything (the " simple fact" that started this thread.) . All activity carries some risk, even NOT having steel shutters on your windows. It can easily be taken to the point where a woman should never leave her house,never hold a job, never get into a relationship - the wisest choice is to join a convent, I mean, that’s also not entirely safe but…you know what? there is no option that will *eliminate *risk. and somewhere between wise precautions and being locked in a vault, it starts to get ridiculous.
I am extremely sorry that your wife has experienced these things.
Thanks for all the interesting posts from everyone.
A couple things:
This:
I don’t think it’s fair to say that I’ve had things explained to me “six ways from Sunday” when I hadn’t read any of the new posts, and you use my words from BEFORE those posts as some sort of example of me not getting it.
Re: burkas
Sorry, but I don’t think criticizing a culture that forces their women to wrap themselves in black garments that other men are not even allowed to look at is “bigoted” And by “culture” I mean the practices in most of the areas of Saudi Arabia.
If you think that criticism is bigoted, then whatever. Good luck with that.
Another trend I see in the some the posts is the tendency to treat the statement as “advice” or telling people what to do, which, as I hoped I made clear, was absolutely NOT anything I was even remotely thinking.
Finally, it’s not Manson76!
Which of those things I listed would you, personally, consider unnecessary risk? If you were a woman, would you consider accepting a co-worker’s offer of a ride home–saving you a $25 uber–an unecessary risk? What about going into a career where you can reasonably expect to have to travel and work late with men? (this is everything from being a geologist to being in entertainment)? What about driving cross country by yourself?
What are risks that women accept that you consider “unnecessary”?
It isn’t that you are being told to avoid all risks because that is impossible. It’s the simple fact that people are really, terribly bad at risk assessment. Walking along across a parking lot itself doesn’t carry THAT much risk until you include all the particulars. (Where, when, who, how etc )
And ultimately you are right, you assess the risk vs what the anticipated loss is. I can tell you that my wife and I fall squarely on the side of taking less risk though and I would want my daughters to fall on that side as well.
I think there is a broad consensus that “don’t get shit-faced drunk” is reasonable advice for everyone, as it increases all sorts of risks, not just the risks of sexual assault. But let’s say those things happened to your wife when she had been out with her friends and not drunk–just dancing. Would you feel the same way about that advice–that she had a reasonable option to mitigate those risks (don’t go to clubs). What if those things happened on public transportation? Would avoiding public transportation be a reasonable option?
Discussions of risk mitigation all fall into three categories–insultingly obvious (don’t get shitfaced), literally incorrect and irrelevant (don’t wear a short skirt) and disproportionately limiting (don’t go out after dark; don’t travel alone).
I don’t know, ask her. And who said eliminate?
It does have a bearing. Should it? Not in a moral society that recognizes each individual’s right to be free from assault. You and some others tie it to slut shaming. I don’t. But to pretend that choices have no impact on outcome is naive or disingenuous.
I think one should be able to walk nude in a prison full of crazed inmates and still be safe. Or wear a Trump hat on campus for that matter. However, that isn’t the real world unfortunately. I don’t think assault of any kind is justified. That doesn’t mean I am going to press my luck in dangerous environments.
Unfortunately, I don’t have a comprehensive answer on what risks to avoid. Here’s one, would you hitchhike and accept a ride from a vehicle with visible rope and knives? Or would you prefer a little old lady as ride giver? That preference means you assess risk and make decisions based upon that.
I absolutely could not agree more, and because of that, I still to this day have never had a problem with her going out with her friends, even after all of that. We made other concessions to safety… I always know where she is, she checks in with me every hour or so, and if something seems awry, I can be where I knew she was last located within 10 minutes or so.
My biggest issue with this debate is claiming that just raising the idea of trying to avoid the risk completely is somehow misogynist. I don’t think that is a fair blanket characterization to make.
Unfortunately, I have to come up with one, because it’s my actual life every day. And it’s not nice hyperbolic choices with little old ladies and a car full of knives–I’m not giving you hypotheticals here–I am relating real choices I have to really make, have made.
For whatever reason, men love to lecture women on how “It’s not fair and it’s not right, but women need to accept that they have to take responsibility for their safety and limit themselves. That’s a cold, hard, unfair truth.” But you never want to tell me what the limits ARE. The message is pretty clear that the limits are whatever leads me to being assaulting–anywhere I am, anything that happens to me is evidence that I was taking “unnecessary risks”. If you aren’t willing to make any comment on the specific nature of those risks, why are we even having this conversation? If the only risks you want to talk about fall into the comically obvious–“don’t get into a knife-filled car with a strange man while shit faced drunk” this is a waste of time.
By keeping the conversation in the “painfully obvious” register, you get to avoid addressing the fact that these “risk assessments” demand massive curtailments of my agency and liberty.
That’s insane. If law and order eroded to the point that it was unsafe for a man to not take these precautions, we’d consider it the end of civilization. That’s some Old West shit. I mean, how high to the chances of assault have to be that if you don’t hear from someone hourly, that’s reasonable evidence they have been assaulted? I mean, inner-city cores weren’t that dangerous to men in the 80s, and that was recognized as a crisis in public safety. Why isn’t this a crisis?
It’s misogynistic when the advice offers exclusively a combination of
[ul]
[li]condescendingly obvious/hyperbolic[/li][li]ineffective[/li][li]disproportionately limiting[/li][/ul]
find me one doesn’t do that, I will say it’s not misogynistic.
To be clear, I offered no advice to anyone to do anything.
Sorry you don’t approve of the methods we felt, for both of our sakes, to be the least limiting option with at least some margin of safety.
As to your list, again, that just doesn’t seem like something fairly labeled as misogyny. If I give condescending and ineffective advice to a male friend, is it misandry? Or is it just condescending and ineffective advice?
I’m not advocating FOR the position of “wimmen should be locked up in the kitchen”, I just don’t think it is fair to label every suggestion of risk avoidance as being misogynistic in nature.
I know more than one person who always ended up getting in fights in bars, and very seldom was the person who started them. My advice? Stop going to the damn bar. Stay home and find another way to entertain yourself. Hell, I follow that advice myself, just because I don’t even want to hit the possibility of being in an unexpected fight with some drunken idiot. These friends were all male, so again, was my condescendingly obvious, drastically limiting advice misandry?
No, but you came across as flippant about a serious, sensitive subject and you seemed to go out of your way to highlight a “technically correct”, meaningless point that served to support the person that was making those suggestions.
Worse, your attempt to create a hyperbolic example that would self-evidently keep women safe actually revealed a common, critical misunderstanding about the nature of sexual assault–the home is often the most dangerous place for a woman.
I’m glad that your wife is comfortable with these precautions, but can you see how a lot of women (and probably most men) would find this excessively controlling and limited? It sounds more like rules given to a teenager who borrowed the family car.
And I’m glad that you don’t have a problem with her going out. That’s great. I mean, it’s not a risk to you, so really it shouldn’t be a concession you have to make, but like I said, I’m glad you are both ok with it.
Do you do the same if you go out with friends? (ETA - she always knows where you arr, you check in every hour or so, and you stay within a 10-20 minute radius of where she is)
I said that in my post #87; and I was referring to things you’d said in posts #22 and #32.
Posts #10, 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, 27, and 30 all came before post 32, and all addressed the reasons why your original statement is not a “simple fact”.
You didn’t make a statement criticizing forcing the wearing of burkas. You threw the burkas unnecessarily into a statement about something else entirely.
FWIW, I’m against the forced wearing of burkas. I’m also against my telling women who choose to wear them, or for that matter women who choose to wear nuns’ habits, or choose to wear Amish clothing, that they shouldn’t do so. If they say they’re doing so to avoid being raped, however, I’ll criticize that; because there’s pretty much a total lack of evidence that wearing more clothing improves one’s chances of not getting raped.
Did I get your name wrong somewhere? When I look at that post, it says manson1972. If I messed it up someplace else, I apologize.
I don’t disapprove of your methods. I am taking you at your words that those are reasonable precautions. My point is this: imagine that your male friend and you were going on a trip together. He says to you “Ok, in this city we are in, it’s really not very safe for us to walk alone, and if you go out, you need to make sure someone knows where you are at all times. If I don’t hear from you once an hour or so, I am going to come get you, because I think it’s likely you’ll need help”. What sort of city does that sound like? Do you think it’d be a place you’d want to vacation? If your town became so crime-ridden that you had to give this same advice to male friends and relatives who visited, wouldn’t you move, or be screaming holy hell for the local, state, and federal governments to protect your freedom more effectively? So why do we accept such a world for women?
It’s misogynistic if it’s rooted in an assumption that women are less capable of assessing risk (obvious advice) or that their agency matters less (limiting). Most of the bad advice is rooted in misogynistic assumptions about how rape happens (women tease men past the ability to restrain themselves with their short skirts and beguiling ways).
What kind of bars do you have in Wyoming? Jesus. If you can’t safely go to the average bar without being physically assaulted by a drunk idiot, that’s insane. It’s only misandry if you’d only say that to dudes because you figure girls are smart enough to figure it out themselves.
Look, it might be technically possible for risk-mitigation advice from men to women to not be misogynistic. However, in the real world it is a tool misogynists frequently use to perpetuate their views and reinforce power structures that benefit them. Anyone seeking to give advice should consider this.
More to the fucking point, why are you more interested in getting bogged down in a conversation that can be summed up as “well, techinically, a man COULD be in the right in this situation”. I mean, you’ve read two pages of discussion about this incredibly complex question of to what degree the threat of sexual assault is present in different circumstances and how fear of that assault can affect women’s rights, and the thing you (and the OP, originally) want to talk about is “well, technically, this other dude might be right.”
Fair enough. But flippant does not equal “misogynistic and racist”
Okay. In light of those who say a woman is in more danger staying home, I change my statement to “Women can reduce their chances of sexual assault by staying out of their home”
Is that statement “misogynistic and racist”?
Just out of curiosity, was your advice to not go to the bar rooted in their sex or in their experiences? Do you tell *all *men not to go to the damn bar? Because i this thread, we are dealing with statements / advice/ general “rules” that are offered to all women, not just ones that find themselves inexplicably getting into fights.
You quoted my post #12 in your post #87. That’s to what I was referring. I am assuming that all the posts between my #12 and your #87 was what you were referring to.
Great, I also avoid telling women what to wear. And will continue to criticise those cultures who do. However, I will not criticize women for their clothing choices, regardless of why they are choosing them.
No it wasn’t you. Doesn’t matter, that’s why I didn’t quote the poster.
It absolutely can be if you’re being flippant about serious issues because they only apply to women and (in this case) women in very specific cultures.
No one has said that women are more in danger at home. They’ve said that the factors that make a woman vunerable to sexual assault are vast and muti-faceted, and even hyperbolic solutions like remaining in the home 24/7 will not make all women safer–and might in some cases increase their risk of assault. And the statement can’t be evaluated outside of a broader context.