No, I wasn’t comparing the two. But if your professional rep is impacted by working in a dangerous area, all people say is, “You should try working somewhere else.” Ugh. I hate that answer. Therein lies the problem. Cleaning up the area or at least adding building security should be discussed. Not “try something else.” Hope maybe your company can add security and be escorted to your vehicle.
If the parking lot’s unsafe to walk through after dark, it’s also unsafe for men to walk through after dark, and everybody should be escorted to their vehicles.
ETA: And agreeing strongly with Manda JO that putting a laptop out of sight is not equivalent to being expected to keep one’s body out of sight. Again, it’s possible to go all sorts of places and do all sorts of things without a laptop, and/or while hiding the laptop entirely. It’s not possible to go anywhere or do anything without one’s body; and covering oneself with cloth doesn’t fool anybody into thinking there’s no body there – even if they choose to pretend that there’s nobody there.
There is literally no where a woman can work that if she walks to her car after dark, some helpful asshole–usually in her own family, possibly male or female–will click their tongue and ask if that’s really a good idea and has she thought about the risk and is there someone who could walk her out. * It doesn’t matter if it’s objectively safe or not.* Women taking any risks with their physical safety are bombarded with cautionary tales and expressions of concern. These escalate whenever there IS an attack, however unlikely or non-analogous it is. This is the damage done by these “I’m not saying it’s your fault, but you should be careful” lectures. They attack core fundamental freedoms. And they come from women as well as men, because this is “rape culture”: women carry the burden of limiting themselves and being hyper-aware and most women just accept it. Of course women don’t have the same freedom of movement and association as a 15-year old boy. That’s the way the world is.
Word. And it is very deeply ingrained in our culture. I distinctly recall the “Central Park Jogger” case, where a young woman was jogging ALONE in Central Park and the overwhelming response of people at that time (1989) was that she shouldn’t have been jogging alone. Typical ‘blaming the victim’ mentality. She was not found until 1:30am (unconscious) but police believe she was attacked around 9pm. If a man had been jogging at 9pm in Central Park and was attacked, I wonder how many people would find fault with him for jogging alone at 9pm.
I recently took the Harvard Bias test (called Project Implicit, if memory serves), as part of a class I am taking, and learned that because of how deeply ingrained in our culture that these biases are, that women have unfair biases against other women and black people have unfair biases against other black people, etc. The biases are very deeply ingrained in all aspects of society.
Ooh, I DESPISE the suggestions that I shouldn’t walk places after dark. Because, you know, bad people suddenly materialize when the sun goes down.
My commute involves a short walk along well-lit streets that lots of other people use. Hundreds of women (and men) walk that route to commute every day. I’ve never heard of an incident. It’s a safe thing to do. And yet… I’ve had people quiz me about how can I DO that, aren’t I afraid?
I’m working night shift now, and I have to walk home from the bus stop. People are amazed that I’m willing to walk down the steps off the highway, into the industrial area that is dark at night, across the field, the street and the parking lot, through the hole in the locked fence to get to the “safe” area, and then five blocks to my house. So far, the only out-of-the-ordinary things I’ve spotted were deer grazing in the field, and people lighting up the steps to help me walk down.
I have a legal right to walk on any street any time of the day or night.
It’s called the “just world” hypothesis. We like to believe that something we do can prevent us from being victimized, because the idea that we can do “everything right” and still get sexually assaulted is scary as hell.
Even if it is true.
The problem is, what if you were personally the equivalent of a car with a suitcase/laptop visible? That is what many of us (mostly women) are taught from a young age - we are prey. All the time. This does not mean men are not sexually assaulted, because they are, absolutely. The only difference is that men rarely grow up with the feeling that they are being hunted. Unfortunately, that is what traditional “rape prevention” is about - make yourself less attractive to attack, and you will be “safe”.
Saying that is like a red flag to a bull to these types. They will come in and say “Of course you have the legal right, but I have the legal right to leave a laptop on a car seat. But I shouldn’t do it, and it’s not blaming the victim to tell people that. In the same way, when I tell you that you shouldn’t take any job that requires you to be out after dark without an escort, I don’t deny you have the legal right, I am just pushing you to accept this completely disproportionate and unreasonable limitation on your personal freedom because just-in-case. And if you object, you’re just a silly child who can’t accept the totally immutable way of the world.”
I have a sense that you feel I’m a misogynistic troll, but I sincerely am not comprehending how mentioning precautions relative to risk is somehow verboten. I see it more as taking appropriate precautions depending on the level of risk. There are some places where you can leave a laptop in an unlocked car and nothing will happen, and other places where it will get stolen in 5 minutes even if it’s in a locked trunk. As such, it seems prudent to take more precautions in the area where there is higher risk. I sincerely don’t understand why saying something like that would be seen as offensive.
How would you like for something like drink spiking to be addressed? It happens to both men and women, although it’s 4x more likely to happen to women and women have more negative consequences. There are lots of PSAs about ways to avoid having your drink spiked, such as not leaving your drink unattended. It seems like those kinds of recommendations would fit the criteria for victim blaming, but I personally don’t it that way. Those recommendations seems like reasonable precautions according to the risk.
Because one of two things are generally true:
The relative and absolute risks are highly exaggerated in order to make women afraid to participate in routine activities, like working late, leaving the gym in clothes that were acceptable inside, travelling for business alone or with male co-workers, driving alone between cities, walking outside after dark, drinking moderately, accepting a ride home from a male co-worker when my car has broken down, etc. By pushing the narrative that it’s “legal but unwise” for me to do these things, society severely limits my freedom because of my gender.
The relative risks are high enough and the disparities great enough between men and women that it really IS true that it’s reasonable and prudent for a woman not to participate in the ordinary activities of daily life. In which case, it should be taken seriously and dealt with–if we, as a society, wouldn’t let a suburban neighborhood get so dangerous that a 14-year old boy couldn’t safely walk home after dark after baseball practice, why are we content with letting it be too dangerous for his mom to walk the same path?
I will concede–have always conceded–that drinking to excess in an uncontrolled environment is always a bad idea for anyone and an especially bad idea for women. But that’s one small area that honestly doesn’t affect daily life much.
My question back to you: why do you think ANY risk increase for me is reason for me to substantially limit my freedoms, when presumably you also engage in risky activities, like walking around after dark without an escort? The dark increases your risk, as well–maybe not as much as mine, but since we don’t know the relative risk at all, why are you quick to assume it’s safe enough for you but too risky to chance for me?
filmore, where’s your actual evidence that wearing gym clothes increases anybody’s risk? Have you got a study or six to back that up?
And if not, then why, precisely, do you think that wearing clothes that indicate probable better physical fitness and therefore better ability to fight back would increase risk? If it’s not that you think that men who would otherwise not be rapists are uncontrollably overcome by the sight of some bit of women’s bodies, then what reason do you have for thinking that?
And look: if everybody, of any gender, just stayed home everyone would be at far less risk of being hit by a car. Why do you suppose it is that very few people advise men to stay home to avoid being hit by cars?
I would appreciate if you could expand on the drink spiking a bit more. It might have nothing to do with alcohol. Some of the drugs used are odorless and tasteless and can be added to water and the victim would never know. The designated driver drinking soda could have their drink spiked.
First off, I’ll admit I don’t have any stats about whether revealing gym clothes matter or not. Maybe we can just forget that and focus on waking to the car in the dark looking at a bright phone and wearing earbuds. I didn’t mean to imply that a woman needed an escort or couldn’t walk in the dark. But it’s my impression that a woman is at a greater risk in certain situations, and as such, she can reduce her risk in those situations by taking extra precautions. For the example of walking to the car, it’s my assumption that a man has a lesser risk for assault, so he can be a little sloppier about being aware without a proportional increase in risk. I would guess the risk of assault would be ranked like this highest to lowest:
- Woman looking at phone wearing earbuds
- Woman looking at phone
- Woman looking around to be aware of anyone nearby
- Man looking at phone wearing earbuds
…
A woman can still walk to her car in a dark parking lot, but she may need to take more precautions than a man to be a similar risk level. And the reality is, the risk at any one particular time is very low. Over someone’s lifetime the risk may be high, but the risk of it happening on any given night is very tiny. As such, it may be necessary to take precautions most of the time to avoid that one time when something happens.
I honestly have no idea what the actual, practical risks are of drinking in public. I’m long past the age where it’s relevant. If it’s really so risky for a woman to turn her back on a drink in public, well, I think that should be treated as a crime spree, not an inevitable fact. Imagine an area where it’s so common for men to have their drink tampered with by muggers looking to target them later that there are PSAs about how dangerous it was to turn your back on a drink. We wouldn’t tolerate that. The bar would soon run out of customers, as people fled for safer places. If it really is that dangerous, why do we tolerate it.
So you have no fucking idea what the relative or absolute risks are, but you are quick to decide where the line is. With literally no data about how likely ANYONE in those scenarios are to be attacked, you’ve decided the woman is taking a foolish risk and the man is taking reasonable precautions. Well, the people that tell me not to walk after dark, not to travel alone or with a male co-worker, not to get in an elevator with a single man . . .all those people ALSO don’t have any data. It’s just easier to tell me to limit my life–with the implication that anything that happens is the result of my carelessness, my unwillingness to “take precautions”.
Do you not see any problem with that?
When I was in 8th grade, attending a U.S. middle school, my health studies class was divided into small groups to perform little safety skits that we designed. My group (all girls) went with the message “Don’t try to hitch rides or ride with a stranger. Or you’ll be raped, then dead, then in a ditch.” We had a little pantomime. We covered our crotches when we said raped, put our hands around our own throats for murdered, and then slumped partway over to indicate we were bodies in a ditch.
It was met with laughter and treated very casually. The teacher thought it was simple but a good lesson. Looking back, by 8th grade my classmates and I had already absorbed the information that we were prey and what could happen to us, to the point that we discussed it openly and as a matter of fact.
Balancing freedom with safety is something everyone has to do. I don’t think “women aren’t getting the message to stay safe” is really a huge problem leading to assault. I’ve made decisions that I realized in retrospect were risky, but the only times I’ve experienced actual harassment, I wasn’t doing anything I’d consider even slightly dangerous or outside of the ‘good girls’ safety zone. There were no skits or discussions in my classes about not raping people, though. The fact that our “sex education” in high school was also seriously neutered down to basic biological facts (“how is babby formed”) makes me feel that there is definitely room for improvement on education outside of teaching women how to avoid rape by seeming less… rape-able. :smack:
I would still be interested in how you think the situation should be handled. According to that report, about 8% of students reported they had their drinks spiked. It’s not like 8% of people in a bar have spiked drinks per night. The current focus seems to be on informing people of the risks and advising them to not leave their drink unattended. It seems that might be considered victim blaming, since the potential victim is being advised to alter their behavior to avoid the risk.
Feel free to rearrange them if you think the risk profiles are different. You’re right that I don’t have any data. I’m just basing it on personal experience. In your opinion, how would you rank those actions based on risk?
I think it’s a problem that women have a much greater risk of assault than men. However, I don’t see it as a problem to acknowledge that risk and discuss ways of minimizing that increased risk.
Is anything at all being done to reduce the men spiking drinks? If not, then yeah, I’d call that victim blaming.
If 1 in 8 men on a campus were mugged by the time they graduated, would you consider that acceptable?
Stripped of context, I can’t possibly have an opinion. I don’t know. You don’t know either. But you’ve decided that the risk is bad enough for women that they need to take precautions but not so bad for men that they need do. What “personal experience” makes this clear to you? Because I don’t think it’s personal experience. I think it’s just a “common sense” idea you’ve adopted from a generally chauvinistic culture, and that you don’t resist because it doesn’t cost you anything.
Children have a much greater risk of Tiger attack than adults. That’s common sense. How much more? Who can say? But since they are at a much greater risk, we probably shouldn’t let them walk home from school.
More seriously, if we don’t know what the risk IS, or how much greater it is for women than men, how can we possibly have a conversation about minimizing it?
Do you think I am foolish for:
[ul]
[li]Driving across country by myself?[/li][li]Working late enough that I have to walk into a dark parking lot by myself?[/li][li]Walking or jogging in my neighborhood after dark?[/li][li]Travelling with a male co-worker I don’t know well?[/li][li]Driving through a “bad” area of the city by myself on my way to work?[/li][li]Taking public transportation by myself?[/li][/ul]
I don’t think any of those things is inherently so risky that they need to be avoided and I don’t think anyone is foolish for doing them. However, there are situations where a person ( male or female ) should be extra attentive and maintain a keen awareness of their surroundings.
Which is actually a good habit and good advice for about anyone. Sometimes I will see people unlock the door and come into my apartment building, and some one will come right in behind them without using a key, and they’re so deep in their phones that they don’t notice. Which is sort of scary, especially since so many assaults seem to be that kind of “push in” crime.
Myself, I check behind me before I unlock the door, and if there is anyone I don’t know close enough to “push in”, I don’t open the door. Even if that means I walk back out to the street. This kind of caution does not impact my life as a free single adult at all. I frequently walk 2 miles home from the karaoke bar at 3AM, in NYC. Because I find it refreshing at that time. And I don’t feel I’m being overly risky, because I’m aware of who’s around me at all times, and I do things like keep the volume low if I’m wearing earbuds,
And I don’t think wearing gym clothes or other revealing outfits increases anyone’s chances of sexual assault at all. I think it is a misconception because a lot of sexual assault (and other assault and even murder) victims are prostitutes. And prostitutes tend to be provocatively dressed. But they are victimized because they are easy targets for criminals because they get into cars when strange men, not because they wear mini-skirts and tube tops.
Cite, please?
Here’s another: Total of victims of violent crime, 2014: male, 1,497,420; female, 1,451,110. 2015: male, 1,227,870; female, 1,422,800. 2016: male 1,514,130; female, 1,368,190. 2017: male, 1,551,030; female, 1,555,300.
Here’s another: from Canada; total cases of violent crimes upon women: 1,155 per 100,000 population; upon men: 1,150.
Now women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than men, yes. But it’s just plain not true that women are significantly more likely, in general, to be assaulted than men.
So why are you advising women, and not men, to go around looking over their shoulders?
(And, while we’re at it: while going around staring into a phone may increase risk for people of any genders – though, as I pointed out upthread, it increases risk of walking into traffic or lightpoles or other people, probably a good bit more than it increases risk of being assaulted – going around looking anxiously over one’s shoulder makes a person look unsure of themselves and frightened, which quite possibly increases the risk of being assaulted, whether for one’s body or one’s wallet or just for being on the wrong street.)
That’s an interesting stat. Thanks for finding that. However, it could be that different genders are at different risks for assault in different situations. For example, maybe men get in more bar fights, so men need to be more cautious in bars. I did find some stats about parking lot risks:
Total in parking lots or garages 7.3%
Commercial parking lot/garage 2.0
Noncommercial parking lot/garage 3.9
Apartment/townhouse parking lot/garage 1.4
They don’t have the stats broken out by gender. My feeling is still that women are more at risk in parking lots than men. I’ll continue looking to see if I can find any details.
CITE!!! j/k 