It is just not sufficient to have people march in a Melbourne street “protesting against violence in the community” when Jill Meagher has been raped and murdered. (1). Instead, surely it is time for some good old fashioned commonsense to prevail; to put an end to the nonsense that many women believe : that they must be able to go alone, and safely, anywhere at any time, day or night.
Up until about the 1980’s in New Zealand (NZ) children were warned about “stranger danger” : don’t ever go with a stranger etc. Also, girls were especially warned against walking alone late at night.
It was a time before “Women’s Liberation”, when men were not afraid to be gentlemanly and protective towards women, and to escort them as the need arose, and most certainly if a woman or girl had to be out late at night.
Then in the 1970’s – 1980’s came the myopic, ideologically driven radical feminist movement, and the bewilderingly angry deriding and humiliating of any man who held to such values. We heard that a woman had the right to go anywhere at any time, and was quite capable of looking after herself in any situation, according to the likes of Rape Crisis and various fellow travellers.
Police investigating crimes against women in the streets were similarly rebuked if they should publicly caution against such behaviour. It is now rare to hear of such warnings and, sadly, not at all rare to hear of women and girls attacked when hitch-hiking, or walking alone at night, or at any time in risky areas.
By the 1980’s in NZ also came the zealous crusade, led by lesbian activist and Justice Department psychologist Miriam Saphira, to eliminate “stranger danger” from lessons to youngsters, and to be replaced by “Keeping Ourselves Safe” (KOS). The dogma held was that it was not the stranger out there one should be wary of but the adult male in the home!
Well, we seem to be reaping what we’ve sown, and internationally of course, not just in NZ, as we learn of women and girls attacked, raped, even murdered, for taking such risks. The latest tragic case is of a 29 year old Irishwoman and ABC Radio staffer Jill Meagher.
With her husband waiting at home, and leaving friends in a bar at 1.30am on Saturday 22nd September 2012, she declined the offer of a lift, departing on a five minute walk home which she had done many times. Days later her body was found midst tall weeds, beside a remote gravel road north of Melbourne.
The (NZ) Weekend Herald (2) put it this way : “Meagher had no reason to fear the walk home…the area is at the heart of Melbourne’s bar and restaurant life, Sydney Street was well-lit and there were people about” etc.
So Jill Meagher had no reason to fear the walk home alone? So the street was well-lit, with people about? People? Yes, including one, at least, who was obviously dangerous and deranged, and about to become a rapist and killer.
Surely it is time for the public, including the Police, to speak up and challenge the absurd, politically correct hokum that a woman or girl must be able to go, alone, anywhere, and at any time, day or night, free from risk to her safety.
In other words, surely it is time for some good old fashioned commonsense to prevail once more in this respect?
30th September 2012
References:-
- According to TV3/Radio Live News 30th September 2012 and the Australian 30th September.
- “Family overcome as woman’s body found”; (NZ) Weekend Herald 29th September, Greg Ansley, Australia correspondent.
This post makes me think you really don't understand how rape culture works. I would recommend reading Rape Culture 101 to gain a substantive understanding of the issue. http://www.shakesville.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html
ReplyDeleteThank you for that Anne - Barbara
DeleteThanks for speaking sense about this Barbara. We should remember that a man walking alone late at night is actually at greater risk of being subjected to violence (usually but not always from male offenders) than is a woman. For whatever reason, there are more men prepared to attack other men than those prepared to attack a woman. The motivation against men will be predominantly either violence for its own sake or robbery. Such violence may be either of a random, anti-social nature or an opportunity for the offender(s) to prove dominance and fighting ability. The motivation for attacks on women will more often involve sexual urges (but even then domination and power over the victim will be key motivators and arousing factors).
ReplyDeleteEverywhere in the world there is a small proportion of the population prepared to use criminal violence for various reasons and if one is unlucky enough to cross paths with one or more of those people then one is likely to suffer. Such criminals will be more prevalent at certain places and times (e.g. thieves at tourist centres, robbers in isolated alleyways, stranger rapists in town late at night) and I fully agree with you Barbara that our focus is better to be on appraising risk realistically and taking precautions than on insisting on an ideal society. Sure, if we are aware of further actions that authorities could usefully do to increase safety, then march and insist on those actions (remembering that solutions to one issue may damage our society and lives in other ways). But a general outcry of anger at reality seems a waste of energy, as pointless perhaps as standing in a jungle complaining bitterly that wild animals are trying to eat you. The marchers' energy might better be invested in joining voluntary street patrols or helping make society more nurturing generally.
Feminist outrage at women's particular risk from sexual assault is understandable but unhelpful in several respects. Firstly, feminists ignore (and seek to obscure) the fact that men are at greater risk of violence than are women, that we all face risk. Secondly, the actual risk becomes exaggerated and generalized in most women's minds, resulting in impaired ability to consider the risk realistically in various situations. Thirdly, a feminist ideological explanation is faulty. Street violence is not something generally based on patriarchal domination of women but is used by a small proportion of people against either men or women for various selfish purposes. I agree Barbara with your thesis that the feminist ideological explanation seems to inspire women to insist they should always be safe regardless of what they do and where they go. It would be nice if that were so but it has always been unrealistic for both men and women. To the extent that ideological beliefs reduce our acceptance of responsibility for considering risk and taking safety precaustions, those beliefs are unhelpful.
According to Buddhists, we might take responsibility for placing unnecessary temptation in front of others. Feminist women who marched earlier this year in the 'Slutwalk' protests reject the idea that they have any responsibility for the messages their behaviour and presentation may communicate to men, or that they need care about arousing strong natural instincts in men. I see that as uncaring, but that's not to imply that a victim of violence is in any way responsible for the offender's actions. The feminists are correct in holding offenders totally responsible for sexually violent behaviour regardless of circumstances
Dear “Empathic”,
DeleteThank you very much for taking the trouble to write so fully and thoughtfully on this matter. Yours is largely a refreshingly down-to-earth comment. There are just several points you make on which I could not agree.
1. Men “at greater risk”. Because I would need to see reliable statistics on that, I would prefer “also at risk”.
2. I cannot go along with the feminist notion – to an extent with which you agree – that “domination and power” over female rape victims “will be key motivators and arousing factors.” That really is just political dogma.
3. You say that “The feminist idea that seems to inspire women to insist that they should always be safe regardless of what they do and where they go [and when!] has always been unrealistic for both men and women.” I agree, (regarding women anyway) but then in your final comment, and with respect, you appear to contradict yourself with this sweeping statement : “The feminists are correct in holding offenders totally responsible for sexually violent behaviour regardless of circumstances.”
This leads me to ask , what about the vital consideration in such crimes, virtually unheard of nowadays, the sixtyfour dollar question of provocation?
- Barbara
Thanks for your reply Barbara and sorry I have only just become aware of it.
ReplyDeleteMen are definitely more often the victims of violent crimes in our society than are women. This is contrary to the impression most people now have due to feminist propaganda and the well-intentioned but harmful White Ribbon Campaign.
For example, Table 6.2 in the Statistics NZ document "Crime Victimisation Patterns in New Zealand: New Zealand General Social Survey 2008 and New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey 2006 Compared" (see http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/crime_and_justice/crime-victimisation-patterns-nz.aspx) shows that both recent major NZ crime victimization surveys record considerably more male than female victims of violent crime generally.
See also the NZ Ministry of Health statistics on interpersonal violence (see http://www.health.govt.nz/nz-health-statistics/health-statistics-and-data-sets/maori-health-data-and-stats/tatau-kahukura-maori-health-chart-book/nga-mana-hauora-tutohu-health-status-indicators/interpersonal-violence) that shows many more male than female victims of both mortality and hospitatlisations due to assault or homicide for both Pakeha and Maori.
So men are more often victims of violence in our society than women are. Men commit most of that violence but women commit a significant minority of it. The same trends apply in domestic violence overall but not for intimate-partner violence specifically. Male and female intimate partners initiate physical violence against each other at approximately the same frequency but injuries caused by male partners is much more serious on average.
I don't know whether a lone woman or man is more at risk of attack when walking alone at night and I doubt there are any statistics to guide us on that. In my own experience most men have a moral code against hitting or harming women, but fewer men have a code against hitting or harming men also. Most men would be protective towards a woman who was walking alone at night, as I would be (I know the feminists would tar and feather me for being so patronizing). I have known many men who, especially as teenagers or young adults, were bullied or assaulted when walking alone at night as I have been.
Part 2 still to come
Concerning your second point, considerable research shows that a sense of domination and power is a key arousing factor for many rapists, at least under longer-established concepts of rape (as opposed to more recent feminist inventions). In contrast, sex offenders against children are more often motivated by paedophilic sexual attraction comparable to the attraction most adults experience towards other adults. The distinction is evident in rapes of very old people where the rapist is not sexually attracted to the victim but is aroused by the sense of domination, and this appears to be similar even for younger victims where there may or may not also be a degree of sexual attraction. Serial rapists have developed an addiction to the sexual arousal associated with domination. Sorry, I don't have time right now to look up relevant research but I am confident based on my past reviews of the literature.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your third point, I don't see any contradiction in my position. Each party is fully responsible for his/her decisions and actions. If I leave my wallet visible on the seat of my car, I am responsible for doing that but not for the actions of a thief who breaks into my car to steal the wallet. I could be seen as responsible for my carelessness, foolishness or inadequate assessment of risk but not for the criminality of the offender. Similarly, if I walked alone in a bad part of town at night I would see myself as responsible for taking a risk, being naive or foolish but not for the decisions and actions of a robber or violent thug. Provocation may increase the understanding we have of an offender's behaviour and reduce the punishment we see that behaviour deserves, but for me it does not remove the offender's full responsibility or in any way shift that responsibility to the victim. The 'victim' is responsible for his/her 'provoking' behaviour but that is best considered separately. For example, if someone screams personal, hurtful insults at another person, he/she can be held responsible for that and in my opinion should be warned or prosecuted for something such as offensive behaviour, slander or harassment even if the other party hit them in response for which that party should also be warned or prosecuted.
The only exceptions I see to this would be cases of deliberate trickery, fraud or entrapment. To some extent, the 'slutwalk' attitude crosses into this area but only to the extent of inviting attention. If a woman dresses in a way that most others would see as consistent with being a prostitute then she can reasonably be held somewhat responsible for approaches from people looking to purchase a prostitute's services. Yet the 'slutwalk' attitude would be that such approaches amount to harassment (unless from a very attractive alpha male, probably!). But even the most prostitute-like 'slutwalk' woman is not responsible for anything beyond an approach; someone who choses to abduct and rape an attractively dressed woman, or a woman dressed like a prostitute, or a drunk or naked woman, is fully responsible for that choice and action.
As I previously wrote, there is a lack of caring in the 'slutwalk' attitude. There is room for both genders to consider each other's biological urges and weaknesses and to help each other by showing some restraint and sensitivity. But that's very different from being responsible for those weaknesses or another's behaviour.
Anyway, keep up the philosophical thinking, straight talking, b.s. detection and efforts to improve the moral basis of our society. It's so important that some in society are prepared to do that. I agree with some of your positions and disagree with others (especially your unfounded beliefs about homosexuality), but I respect your right to hold them and your willingness to debate them.
DeleteMany thanks “Empathic” for your further discussion and statistics. You are correct of course : men are more often victims of violence in our society than women.
However I cannot agree with your belief that the female victim of male rape should never, ever, take any responsibility for her situation, regardless of the circumstances.
On this point it is surely worth bearing in mind that it is only over the past several decades of feminist rape activism that such an attitude as yours has taken hold in our society.
One only needs to read of the erstwhile commonsense Police Crime Prevention “Simple Rules For Women” issued about thirty years ago, a copy of which I quote from.
In a long list of “Do’s” and “Don’ts” is this : “DON’T wear enticing clothing when out alone at night. You are to avoid attention – not attract it”.
Thanks to the women’s movement browbeating and publicly ridiculing the Police, they have been intimidated into no longer issuing such commonsense warnings, and I say more’s the pity.
I regret that time does not permit me to go into more discussion on other points you make, but I must query your final comment about my “unfounded beliefs about homosexuality”. What beliefs, and in whose opinion are they “unfounded”? Only in the opinion of you, a writer secure in anonymity, after all.