"I will not tell girls not to walk alone. I will not tell them to be careful"

Zen65

I'm in two minds about this article which emphasizes the importance of dealing with the perpetrators of crimes against women, and dismisses any advice to women about self-protection as being part of the oppression of the gender.

When any of my teenage children were going out on the town for the night I gave them the same advice, regardless of whether it was a son or daughter I was speaking to: "Be careful". That is not vindicating the rights of a potential assailant; it is merely expressing the view that it is possible to alter the odds of being a victim. Not eliminate - but reduce.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/i-will-not-tell-girls-not-to-walk-alone-i-will-not-tell-them-to-be-careful-1.2272373

Since I was 12 I have been sexually harassed in public spaces. Men – grown adult men – shouting, heckling, calling to me on the street.

Minor incidents interposed with the more threatening: the white van that tailed me as I passed through Ranelagh; the blacked-out car, heavy with men, that drove beside me in the bus lane as I walked on the N11 at twilight; a 10-minute midnight sprint as I was chased by a suit from a suburban train station in Melbourne.

These are incidents where I felt the prolonged threat of the terrorised. More manageable are the episodes of fast, obvious sexual abuse: the Greek fisherman who followed me to a restaurant toilet and put his hands down my shorts as I washed my hands; the Spanish gardener who grabbed my breasts when I asked for directions. These are despicable but not debilitating.

On the one hand the author has suffered some very bad experiences at the hands of a small number of men, ranging from creeps to dangerous assailants. It is very clear that in the cases she documents there are some men who need to be changed, either through re-education or by incarceration. I do not disagree with her thinking at all there. The culture of sexual oppression is abhorrent to most people, as is the attempt to justify that oppression on grounds of culture, gender, religion, or morality, etc.

But what is fundamentally wrong with telling people to be careful about themselves? It is the advice we offer to young people of any gender when they go to parties, go travelling the world, or go to the cities to attend college. It is inherently sensible advice, and to dismiss it on the basis that it is the perpetrators of evil who need to be changed seems misguided.

Is it wrong to tell drivers to be careful about where they park their cars?

Is it wrong to tell children to be careful to whom they speak, and not to engage a stranger in conversation?

Is it wrong to tell the elderly to be careful to whom they answer the door?

I am 22, and I have known 10 years of female subjugation enforced by terror.
The fertilisation of fear is inescapable, and that fear is daily fed. I have grown up with the fear of the stranger in the dark. A demonic man with a knife who wants to hurt me.

This fear is conditioned; it arises from newspaper articles, from television shows on which women are invariably the victims of male violence and perverse desire.

This fear challenges me daily, but it does not inhibit. I rationalise that most cases of rape and sexual assault occur between acquaintances.
So I walk alone in the dark; I travel solo and determinedly, without inhibition. The world is vast and beautiful, and it is sad and absurd for 51 per cent of the population to live by the limitations that the daily threat of assault imposes.

Assaulted

A month ago in Granada, in Spain, I left a club alone to walk the 800m to my city-centre apartment. Underneath a way marker for the Camino de Santiago I was violently assaulted by a man I had never seen before.
Thirty minutes after I had left it I was back in the club, where my friends still danced. My dress was shredded and glistening red, my legs and arms soaking with the blood that should still have been under my skin.
I waited until I was noticed, and for the last time I offered myself entirely unto the kindness of others, passing out from the pain and a concussion that brought darkness.

I heard later that the ambulance took me to a maternity hospital. The sight of me was enough for one nurse to faint and another to weep.
After investigation it became clear that I had not been raped, that I had fought my attacker and escaped. Leaving the nurses to their recovery, my journey into trauma began.

Rolling in and out of consciousness, I was X-rayed, scanned and tested. Dimly aware in the glare of hospital lights and questions, I remember crying quietly as tall shadows stood around me. In the hours and days that followed I lost control of my body; it seemed to belong not to me but to the silent doctors and the nurses who occasionally came to grip my arm and look with pity on my face.

As the restriction of my autonomy continued, and the forced dependence on medication appeared ceaseless, I began to feel the first inklings of anger towards the individual who had put me in a hospital bed.

Wildfire

A television station called, a journalist arrived. Reporters had heard the story through the wildfire that spread on Facebook.
My friends fielded the requests. Would I go on television? No. Would I be interviewed? No. Could they show photographs of my face? No. It could help to identify my attacker: did I not think it important to share the story? Pause. To raise awareness? To warn other women? To help other women? To protect them ? Pause. Pause. Pause.

I considered my responsibility. Was I selfish to keep silent? Was I avoiding attention and questions because every time I spoke about the attempted rape I lived the reality of a nightmare? No. This is not why I refused to engage with the media surrounding me.
Did I want to talk about the man who dragged me to the ground, kicked my face in, broke my nose, sliced my lips, fractured my skull, blackened both my eyes and stamped his footprint on to my cheek?
Did I think it was my responsibility to become a spokesperson for the propagation of an exclusive brand of female fear? No, I did not, and, no, I do not.

I will not tell girls not to walk alone. I will not tell them to be careful, to live defensively and travel only in herds. This is no answer, only kindling to a fire of fear, lit in the first stages of adolescence and fuelled by the diesel of vulture-like news reports of violence against females. The power of masculinity relies on control and discipline of the body in public and private spaces.

The day after the attack, while I lay waiting for an operation in darkness, unable to open my eyes from the swelling, my friends seethed. Furious for me and ferocious for themselves.

They followed the trail of my blood on cobblestones to seek out CCTV footage. They knocked on every apartment door on the block, seeking out one clue, one single note of recognition from a sleeping ear awoken by my screams. Nothing. No one heard my world alter, no camera recorded the stripping of my rights by the ripping of my clothes.

The story of this assault is horrendous. The man who assaulted her is vile and deserves to be brought to justice. As I read her story I felt my blood pressure rise: I wish I could have been nearby to intervene. I consider briefly how I'd feel if this had been my daughter . . . and my 'Liam Neeson' persona begins to stir.

But the author then takes a strange turn in her story. She focusses on gender - in a way that I find to be alarming. Of course after such an experience it is natural to develop a distrust of men, but this goes beyond that (IMHO).

The reactions of friends varied greatly, according to their gender. “You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time” (male). “But you’re so sweet and lovely. This shouldn’t have happened to you” (male). “God, you’ve had a hard time, you poor thing” (male).

Men focus on me and subconsciously on my potential culpability. There is no reflection on the source; there is, however, an acceptance of the situation.

No man comprehends what a woman instinctively understands: that this attack was a violation of my right to be in any place at any time and not to be tortured by another; that, regardless of my amicable nature, neither I nor anyone deserves this.

My girl friends are angry, when I haven’t the energy to be. But I hear how their habits have changed and how fear is the root. Men tell you to be strong, but women can make me stronger, by fighting the tentacles of fear that leave traces of slime on their bodies.

Police

The police continued to visit my hospital. They took photographs, took my statement, took my clothes. They expressed regret that I had not managed to scratch the rapist’s skin.

Their disappointment was tangible, as I described a man without tattoos, scars or any identifiable features at all. The likelihood that a man who does not want to be identified would take measures to make himself indistinguishable was never acknowledged. Clearly, I had failed as a victim.

The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the author's bizarre gender bias, but rather to elicit your thoughts on the conclusion she draws from her experiences, which is that it is wrong to tell women to be careful. Transferred to any other situation her advice would seem reckless.

What are your thoughts?

Michael O Leary

This is a quick reply. I have recently given some self defence courses for women where I address this topic. Yes, everyone has a right not to be attacked but we live in an imperfect world. I am a reasonably big 44 year old who has done martial arts for over 20 years but there are some places that I would not go alone and if I did, then I would be careful.

And when I am crossing the road at the traffic lights with my two year old daughter, I tell her to keep looking left and right. Yes, the responsibility is on drivers to stop at the lights but the person crossing the road also has a responsibility.

As an aside, here are a few facts that I came across on violence to women.

*In a recent USI survey of students at third-level institutions in Ireland, 1 in 5 women surveyed experienced some form of unwanted sexual experience, with 11% experiencing unwanted sexual contact.
http://www.womensaid.ie/policy/natintstats.html

*According to the National Crime Council and ERSI, Domestic Abuse of Women and Men in Ireland 2005, 1 in 7 women compared to 1 in 17 men experience severe domestic abuse. Women are over twice as likely as men to have experienced severe physical abuse, and are more likely to experience serious injuries than men.
http://www.womensaid.ie/policy/natintstats.html

*A 2001 nationwide survey by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre found that 74% of those who experienced rape or sexual assault knew the person who assaulted them.
http://www.drcc.ie/get-help-and-information/facts-and-info-about-sexual-violence-and-rape/

*The Police Bureau of Portland, Oregon state that rapists who are known by the woman, test the potential victims boundaries in advance to be sure they won't be met with resistance during the attack.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/article/61860

*However a study by the University of Oregon found that women who take self-defence training were significantly less likely to experience unwanted sexual contact than those who didn't.
http://cascade.uoregon.edu/spring2013/social-sciences/are-women-safer-when-they-learn-self-defense/

*Also, according to a study done by Ullman and Knight (1993), women who fought back during the attack were more likely to avoid rape than women who did not fight back.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1993.tb00674.x/abstract

SVJKarate

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Yes, the responsibility is on drivers to stop at the lights but the person crossing the road also has a responsibility.

I can see that this analogy is just slightly flawed (because the victim in an assault does not have a responsibility to defend themselves), but the underlying thought is sensible.

The I.T. author's idea that teaching men not to attack women would solve the problem is misguided and frankly dangerous. We are human, and our history is made by the imperfections of people who started wars, swindled banks, or murdered fellow humans, among others. The author is abdicating on the basic responsibility we have as a society to advise caution to all our fellow humans, because the world has imperfections.

Those who do not stay alert for signs of danger are more easily attacked. That is not victim-blaming, it is simply a statement of a fact. It is the basis of all safety management, including industrial, military, and social. Tourist guide books regularly advise tourists not to wander alone in a city, especially in areas known to have higher incidence of attacks on tourists. Why should the advice not be given to women, simply because the majority of assailants are men?

Pat Mustard

I read that article and I think that anybody would have to feel terribly sorry for her, to have been so brutally attacked.

However, there is something wrong with what she is saying:

I will not tell girls not to walk alone. I will not tell them to be careful, to live defensively and travel only in herds. This is no answer, only kindling to a fire of fear, lit in the first stages of adolescence and fuelled by the diesel of vulture-like news reports of violence against females. The power of masculinity relies on control and discipline of the body in public and private spaces.

I remember when I was younger and used to walk home from nights out. The message from my parents used to be along the lines of "don't walk home alone, travel in a group, or better still, get a taxi home with your friends". I probably ignored that advice to an extent. But the advice was still given to me on a regular basis and the advice was still correct, despite me being male and reasonably capable of looking after myself.

I would be of the view that men and women should take steps to ensure their own safety at all times. There is something wrong when safety advice can be represented as an issue of gender discrimination.

The last line of the above paragraph is very strange and in my view, unfair:
"The power of masculinity relies on control and discipline of the body in public and private spaces."

She is obviously very angry and hurt but she seems to be saying that safety advice is a means by which men attempt to control women. That's not helpful to anybody.

Zen65

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The last line of the above paragraph is very strange and in my view, unfair:
"The power of masculinity relies on control and discipline of the body in public and private spaces."

+1

Of course she is angry and hurt by the attack, and feels that the police have judged her (which I'm sure they do not) when asking if she'd scratched her attacker, but to turn the article into an attack on men/masculinity in that fashion is just unreasonable. It would of course have been correct to say "The power of an abuser relies on control and discipline of the body in public and private spaces". Equating abuse to masculinity as she does is wrong, just as it would be wrong for people to equate prostitution to femininity just because the majority of prostitutes are female.

As I said at the outset however, the real issue for me is not her vitriol towards men (she's been attacked severely by a man and one should expect her trust in men to be damaged by that awful experience) - it is the idea that she sees no merit in advising other women to take the normal precautions that you'd advise anyone to take.

Pat Mustard

Zen65 wrote: »

As I said at the outset however, the real issue for me is not her vitriol towards men (she's been attacked severely by a man and one should expect her trust in men to be damaged by that awful experience) - it is the idea that she sees no merit in advising other women to take the normal precautions that you'd advise anyone to take.

Spot on.

shutup

It's a shame the attack left her with a mental disability.

Zen65

shutup wrote: »

It's a shame the attack left her with a mental disability.

It would be more useful if we could discuss the article, rather than attack the author.

The article that prompted me to open this thread is not the first article I've read where this point of view was proposed. Here is another, albeit this one is clearly coming at the issue from a very peculiar pseudo-feminist agenda.

shutup

Ok apologies. I too hate when my threads don't go the way I want them too.

Personally I don't think there is much to say about it. She is a foolish child. ( not because of her age but because of her child like arguments )

Something terrible happened to her and she has a problem with men and a misguided chip on her shoulder about caution.

Doug Cartel

shutup wrote: »

Ok apologies. I too hate when my threads don't go the way I want them too.

Personally I don't think there is much to say about it. She is a foolish child. ( not because of her age but because of her child like arguments )

Something terrible happened to her and she has a problem with men and a misguided chip on her shoulder about caution.

Seriously, if you have nothing to say about the article and all you can do is attack the author, just don't post.

MartyMcFly84

I actually lived in Granada for 5 years. Every September a fresh new group of students arrive from all over Europe. The Erasmus kids know how to have a good time.

To me in was an incredibly safe place. You never see fights on a night out or anything like that, you hear stories of some pick pocketing or theft. I think due to chilled out vibe many students would act or do things they may not do back home.

Night clubs stay open until all hours (7 or 8 am), an there is always somewhere else to go. I don't think many people would walk around hammered in Dublin on their own the same way I have seen people do it in Granada. However criminals are opportunist, seeing a drunk girl with a bag stumbling home on her own on quite street is exactly what these kinds of people look for. An easy target. To avoid being a victim its best to avoid making yourself an easy target wherever you are.

I know another girl who recently posted on Facebook, something similar happening in Granada to her. Being attacked at the doorway of her apartment after walking home from a night out on her own. The same walk she would have done hundreds times before.

I am guilty of doing it myself.

Doug Cartel

I think with these things you need to be careful how you interpret what is being said, how it is being said, context, and the authors perspective.

I'm at work and I only scanned this quickly but look at this bit, which I've edited down a bit and put in some emphasis:

A television station called, a journalist arrived. [...] Would I go on television? No. Would I be interviewed? No. Could they show photographs of my face? No. It could help to identify my attacker: did I not think it important to share the story? Pause. To raise awareness? To warn other women? To help other women? To protect them ? Pause. Pause. Pause.

I considered my responsibility. Was I selfish to keep silent? Was I avoiding attention and questions because every time I spoke about the attempted rape I lived the reality of a nightmare? No. This is not why I refused to engage with the media surrounding me.
Did I want to talk about the man who dragged me to the ground, kicked my face in, broke my nose, sliced my lips, fractured my skull, blackened both my eyes and stamped his footprint on to my cheek?
Did I think it was my responsibility to become a spokesperson for the propagation of an exclusive brand of female fear? No, I did not, and, no, I do not.

I will not tell girls not to walk alone. I will not tell them to be careful, to live defensively and travel only in herds. This is no answer, only kindling to a fire of fear, lit in the first stages of adolescence and fuelled by the diesel of vulture-like news reports of violence against females.

I think a lot of this article is about her experience and what she is now expected to do about it. As I said I only scanned the article, so maybe I'm reading things wrong, but I do not get the impression that she is saying the women should never be cautious, and that changing the way men behave is the only solution. I get the impression that she is saying that she is not going to become some kind of spokesperson, another cautionary tale. It's not something she wants to do, it's not something she should be forced to do.

SVJKarate

Doug Cartel wrote: »

As I said I only scanned the article, so maybe I'm reading things wrong, but I do not get the impression that she is saying the women should never be cautious, and that changing the way men behave is the only solution. I get the impression that she is saying that she is not going to become some kind of spokesperson, another cautionary tale. It's not something she wants to do, it's not something she should be forced to do.

That's an interesting interpretation, and I'd be happier if you were right. I must say I find it to be a strain to interpret her writing that way, but I agree it's possible. When you consider that she wrote and published an article about the incident, she has already become a spokesperson; and a spokesperson who does not want to advise taking precautions.

We all have to take precautions in life, male and female, to protect ourselves from injury, from disease, from financial loss, and from criminals / vicious thugs.

Michael O Leary

[qkitchen uote="SVJKarate;96211219"]That's an interesting interpretation, and I'd be happier if you were right. I must say I find it to be a strain to interpret her writing that way, but I agree it's possible. When you consider that she wrote and published an article about the incident, she has already become a spokesperson; and a spokesperson who does not want to advise taking precautions.

We all have to take precautions in life, male and female, to protect ourselves from injury, from disease, from financial loss, and from criminals / vicious thugs.[/quote]

It's a basic part of risk management. Risk is inherent in life and there is a risk in everything we do as well as a risk associated with doing nothing. However just because something is possible, it doesn't mean it is probable. We prioritise risk according to its probability and impact and apply controls to mitigate the risk. If you are more likely to be attacked then you prioritise a control for this risk. If you are more likely to die from heart disease, then you apply a control for this. Fairness does not come into it.

Doug Cartel

SVJKarate wrote: »

When you consider that she wrote and published an article about the incident, she has already become a spokesperson; and a spokesperson who does not want to advise taking precautions.

You are ignoring how she said that she felt pressured by the media and by her fiends to speak out about this.

so she writes an article saying women shouldn't have to live in fear, and a bunch of self appointed self defence "experts" are giving out about how she is doing it wrong. I can see why she was reluctant to speak out in the first place.

Michael O Leary

Doug Cartel wrote: »

You are ignoring how she said that she felt pressured by the media and by her fiends to speak out about this.

so she writes an article saying women shouldn't have to live in fear, and a bunch of self appointed self defence "experts" are giving out about how she is doing it wrong. I can see why she was reluctant to speak out in the first place.

Just speaking for myself, I am commenting on the idea put forward in the article, not on the person who wrote the article. I am also commenting as a father, husband, brother and son. Not as some kind of expert.

SVJKarate

Doug Cartel wrote: »

so she writes an article saying women shouldn't have to live in fear, and a bunch of self appointed self defence "experts" are giving out about how she is doing it wrong. I can see why she was reluctant to speak out in the first place.

That's harsh, I think. I've not seen anybody here claim to be an expert. We have opinions, probably because we have considered these matters over many years.

What the OP is questioning is the rationale of not advising women to take care when they travel, when it is in fact the same advice that you give to a man.

Everybody who has posted here agrees fully that women should not have to live in fear, but there's a substantial gap between not living in fear and not taking precautions. I have very little fear that I will be attacked in my bed, but I always have the burglar alarm 'on' when I sleep in the house at night. I do understand that the author does not want to be a spokeswoman for women, and certainly not for women victims. That's a personal choice and I respect that without question. However I struggle to understand why she finds it unacceptable for women specifically to take precautions.

Maybe, as you suggest, I am reading something in her post that isn't there?

Doug Cartel

Why are you trying to advise her in the first place? It's not going to roll back time and undo what happened.

Maybe you feel you need to right some wrongs stated in the article? You fear that someone might read it and think "Well I used to think that walking alone at night was kind of dangerous, but now I've read this story I think it might be a good idea". You feel you need to step in and get the info out there before someone does something foolish?

People love to pontificate after something bad happens. I'm sure a lot of them think they are being helpful - making sure that this bad thing doesn't happen again or something like that. Thing is the bad thing has happened, that horse has bolted, the victim most likely knew the sage advice being handed out, and they probably don't enjoy being made an example of.

The woman who wrote this article was the victim of an attack. This should not obligate her to have to act in some manner you approve of. She does not have to become a campaigner if she does not want to. She can say what she wants, and of course you are free to comment on this in return, but you could also try empathising with her and accepting that she doesn't want to have to relive this thing over and over.

Zen65

Doug Cartel wrote: »

The woman who wrote this article was the victim of an attack. This should not obligate her to have to act in some manner you approve of. She does not have to become a campaigner if she does not want to. She can say what she wants, and of course you are free to comment on this in return, but you could also try empathising with her and accepting that she doesn't want to have to relive this thing over and over.

Nobody is asking her to do anything. That is not the point of the thread, and nobody posting here asked her to do anything.

Nobody has suggested she should become a spokesperson. She elected to publish the article herself. When you publish an article you should be able to expect that others will debate it. This is a debating forum, so I think this is a good place to discuss her article.

She can say what she wants, and I've empathised with her feelings after such a horrific attack, and I understand why she may be feeling vulnerable to her perceptions of what others may think about the incident.

By opening the thread I'm simply asking others (yourself included) to comment on her article (and specifically not to comment about the author) because in it she expresses the view that cautioning women to take care is simply spreading an exclusively-female fear, and because there are others (such as the second article I linked) who also hold that rather than teaching women to defend themselves society should be teaching men not to attack women.

Michael O Leary

I think it's time for me to bow out. Everything that could be reasonably said, has been said. :-)

SVJKarate

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Why are you trying to advise her in the first place? It's not going to roll back time and undo what happened.

I think you've misunderstood, Doug.