ON TURNING INTO A PUMPKIN AT DUSK

Laura at I'm Not a Feminist, But . . . has written a sensitive and thoughtful post about the common expectation in our society that women not walk about after dark without a man. She professes extreme irritation at this state of affairs, and I can definitely relate.    The cultural assumptions regarding women's need for male protection often do a disservice to both women and men.  As Laura points out:

(a) Women’s freedom of movement is hampered in a way that men’s freedom of movement is not.

(b) The notion that women are most at risk of rape on the street after dark is statistically incorrect.  The vast majority of sexual assaults and rapes take place off the streets and are committed not by strangers, but by acquaintances, friends, and relatives. 

(c) The notion that men are somehow invincible is false as well, yet much more of a fuss is made of women’s safety-- to the detriment of both men and women.  (This point was actually raised, unwittingly perhaps, by Richard in the comments thread of Laura’s post.)

(d) The notion that women need a man for protection often translates into the man “taking charge” of the woman’s movements or decisions.  Laura described how a well-meaning male friend recently expressed guilt for “letting” Laura walk home alone.  All too often, women’s decisions about their own safety are not respected.  Laura also criticizes the flip side of this -- the injustice to the man of having to feel that he is still responsible for a woman’s safety even when she has turned down his help. 

Here are some moments of irritation and anger from my own memory bank that illustrate some of the points made in Laura's post:

-- There was the time in boarding school when I decided to run the half mile from the main part of campus to my dorm, which was located in an isolated, wooded area next to a boy’s dorm.  I was a runner and it was a beautiful spring night and it felt good after a long day to just pump my arms and my legs and fly across the athletic fields.  The joy I felt was not to last for long, however.  A boy from the neighboring dorm caught up with me, grabbed me from behind, scaring me half to death.  “I’m a-gonna rape you,” he joked before “reassuring” me that he would walk me back.  We walked to the dorm together, while he made fun of me because he assumed I was running out of fear.  It pretty much wrecked my night.

-- Still in boarding school, I was once at the library with a group of friends, and a boy offered to walk me back to my dorm.  I turned him down, primarily because he really “liked” me and I didn’t want to “lead him on.”  He kept insisting and I kept fobbing him off.  Then he got pissy and said, “Well, don’t blame me if you get raped.”  Nice.  Thanks, guy, for using the prospect of rape to try to force me to spend time with you when I don’t want to.

-- As a young college student hanging out in New York City, my parents were fine with me having a social life all over the city until all hours but they asked that I always take a cab after nine o’clock at night unless I were with a man.  I and most of my women friends adhered to similar safety precautions.  My boyfriend, on the other hand, blithely wandered about the city by himself all the time -- even though he got mugged THREE times.  I mean held up at gunpoint or knifepoint and MUGGED. But, except for me, no one ever said to him, “You really need to change your habits.  You can’t be walking around by yourself at night.”  And he continued to think somehow that he didn’t have to  be careful because he was a young, strong MAN.  In fact, the only time I ever came close to being mugged, was when I was with this boyfriend.  He wanted to take a shortcut through the park and I thought it looked too deserted.  He insisted it would be fine because he was there with me.  Predictably enough, a woman and a man caught up with us and were actually discussing whether they should “take [us] down.”  They abandoned the plan, I think because I started laughing (out of nervousness).  It really annoyed me that I had put myself in danger by buying into the assumption that being with a man was the be-all and end-all to protecting myself. 

-- Once I attended a baseball game with the same boyfriend at Yankee Stadium.  Yankee Stadium is located in a somewhat sketchy section of the Bronx.  Unless there is a game, which draws crowds of people to the area, it is not a safe place to go (or at least it wasn’t back in my day).  So, after the game, Boyfriend and I went with the crowd from Yankee Stadium to the subway trains that would take much of the crowd back to Manhattan.  As we made our way through the crowd with me walking in front of my Boyfriend, Boyfriend kept trying to propel me through the crowd by my elbow or by shoving me.  I kept yanking my arm away from him and he kept grabbing me and pushing me.  I kept telling him to let go of me, yet he ignored my wishes.  Let me tell you, I was pissed. Bad pissed.  It was one of the very few times in my life that I have been really furious with someone and when we got back to his apartment, we had a knock-down drag-out fight.  I told him, “Don’t you EVER do that again.”  His response was that he was in charge of making sure I made it home safely because it was a sketchy area and I could somehow (?) get swept away from the crowd.  He felt that his obligation to protect me should override my clearly stated wishes that I did not want to be grabbed, propelled, or shoved.  Apparently, when a woman is perceived to be in danger, her own decision-making capacity is not to be considered worthy. 

-- In this vein, well-meaning men all too frequently speak in terms of whether they will “let” the women in their lives do something they believe is dangerous.  Laura’s friend felt guilty that he had “let” her walk home alone.  I had a male colleague who told me he would not “let” his wife use a chainsaw.  Recently at Pandagon, Amanda discussed a Dear Abby letter regarding a man who wanted his girlfriend to pick him up at night at the airport as a romantic gesture. The letter writer said, “No one in his right mind would permit . . . his girlfriend to travel alone by car, cab, bus or subway during the hours of darkness as a ‘romantic gesture.’ It could result in her suffering severe mental or physical injury as a result of a car-jacking, assault, rape or kidnapping.” (Emphasis added). Gee, I guess I shouldn’t have permitted my ex-boyfriend to walk around at night since he kept getting mugged -- except as a woman, I have neither the right nor the ability to control a man's movements. 

-- At my last firm, there were a couple of female associates (including me) and a night secretary who used to work each night until about 7:30 or 8:00.  One night a slightly more senior male associate (who was something of a pompous windbag) stayed late and noticed the night secretary leave at her appointed time of 7:30 while we female associates stayed at our desks a while longer.  The senior male associate professed shock and outrage that we had not offered to walk the night secretary to her car and asked that in future we travel as a group to our cars.  So the next night, I said to the night secretary, “The other female associate and I can walk you to your car.”  The night secretary laughed at me and said, “I’ve lived in this town all my life and I don’t think it’s dangerous for me to walk a block to my car at 7:30.”  I personally agreed with her and you would think that that would be that.  But oh no, senior male associate made a big deal to the managing partner about the fact that the women were not traveling in packs to their cars at the ostensibly late hour of 7:30.  Again, apparently, we are not seen to have the capacity to make our own decisions about our own safety. 

--  A couple of years ago, a woman was leaving a party when two men at the party followed her out, grabbed her and raped her.  The investigating police officer made a statement to the press advising single women not to go to parties at night unless they know everyone there!

Obviously, street violence is a huge problem with major consequences, and certainly there is no denying that women are generally seen as easier or more desirable targets.  But the solution should not be to ignore or override a woman’s own decisions regarding what precautions she will take.  The solution should not be to make ridiculous pronouncements that women should never go to parties or never travel after dark.  The solution should not be to assume that having a man around is an absolute protection.  The solution should not be to lead men to believe that somehow they are not at risk themselves of violent street crime. 

Comments

[will]

"The solution should not be to make ridiculous pronouncements that women should never go to parties or never travel after dark. The solution should not be to assume that having a man around is an absolute protection. The solution should not be to lead men to believe that somehow they are not at risk themselves of violent street crime."

1. Both men and women should be careful when walking at night.

2. A woman is not necessarily more safe simply because a man is with her.

3. However, there is some greater safety in numbers.

4. It is easier to overpower most women than it is to overpower most men. (Of course, a gun or knife tends to overpower everyone.)

For the most part, I think it is ridiculous to walk around at night for a woman. Just plain stupid. For the most part, I think the same thing about men. But, what happened to all of the talk about how women are more likily to get raped than men? I think you are trying to have it both ways.

I completely agree with your concept that the woman should be in control of her own safety. But that doesnt mean that she should be stupid.

"Obviously, street violence is a huge problem with major consequences, and certainly there is no denying that women are generally seen as easier or more desirable targets."

So, dont be stupid.

[The Happy Feminist]

Right, Will. I'm not saying women aren't at risk or shouldn't be careful.

But I would absolutely disagree with your conclusion that women should never walk around at night. It depends on where you are and the time of night. I don't think in my town that it is unsafet to walk around at 7:30. My goodness if I didn't walk around at that time of night, then I would be pretty limited. (How would I do those last minute sprints to the FedEx box around the corner to mail out last minute pleadings???)

Also, my post isn't trying to have it both ways on the issue of rape. Women are mostly the victims of rape. Usually the rapist is someone the woman knows. But STREET attacks are relatively rare. The hysteria over women walking around at night obscures that fact and the fact that men are at risk too. I know more men who have been victims of violent crimes on the street because men are more likely to do damn fool things like walk around in Brooklyn at three in the morning.

[will]

"But I would absolutely disagree with your conclusion that women should never walk around at night. It depends on where you are and the time of night. I don't think in my town that it is unsafet to walk around at 7:30."

I agree that it is about context/location/time.

BUT.....as someone who used to prosecute cases, I suspect that you would agree that women get grabbed at 730 at night in otherwise "safe" parts of town?

I dont see how "men are fools for walking around alone at 3am" (which they are) equals women should be fools too. I do agree that they should have equal right to be fools.

Same goes for answering your door. In Richmond, a family was brutally murdered (husband, wife, two small kids) because they answered their door. I dont answer my door to people that I do not know even though often I may be physically more powerful than they are. Women are not as strong as men. It makes even less sense for them to open the door.

But, the fact that one gender does something stupid does not mean that the other should.

However, if you are simply saying that both have the right to put themselves in bad situations, I agree.

[The Happy Feminist]

Women get grabbed at every hour of the day or night whether in "safe" parts of town, at home, or what have you. So what's your point? That I shouldn't go outside at 7:30 even in a safe part of town? I do a cost-benefit analysis and I have determined that the cost to me of hampering my movements to that extent is too much relative to the risk involved. Everyone engages in that cost-benefit analysis to some degree or another. After all, we all leave the house despite the fact that we would be safer from street crime if we just locked ourselves at home.

Some people, women and men, make foolish choices as a result of their cost-benefit analysis-- like my ex-boyfriend's habit of wandering around the deserted streets of Brooklyn at odd hours. In my experience, men are more likely than women to engage in riskier behavior because of this myth of male invulnerability. This is a cultural myth that hurts men as well as women.

I think you may be missing the point of my post. The point isn't that women aren't vulnerable to assault or that people shouldn't be careful. The point is that the cultural myths regarding street crime distort our responses to it in damaging ways.

[The Happy Feminist]

Also don't forget that the post points to instances where people have opined that women shouldn't even drive cars after dark, or attend parties! If those are the sorts of precautions that are really necessary, then that means that women really are second class citizens.

If my choice is between the risk of being assaulted or not enjoying basic freedom of movement, I would prefer to risk being assaulted. I don't believe that is really the choice that I face, however.

[will]

"Also don't forget that the post points to instances where people have opined that women shouldn't even drive cars after dark, or attend parties! If those are the sorts of precautions that are really necessary, then that means that women really are second class citizens. "

I agree that is ridiculous. However, I do think that the vast majority of men and women seriously underestimate their ability to get hurt by random and not so random acts of violence.

[katie]

The situation with women out alone at night brings to mind a somewhat analogous case: when Blizzard decided to forbid World of Warcraft players from identifying their guilds as "GLBT friendly" on the basis that it would be very likely to result in harassment. Talk about getting it backwards.

[Tara]

I live in Montreal which is relatively a very safe city and I walk anywhere any time. Sometimes people have asked me about it, and my response is: when women stay off the streets, *that* makes the streets unsafe for women. If we were all out there going about our business as though we had every right to do so, the streets wouldn't be so deserted or scary to begin with.

[a]

I agree that random street crimes are seen as more of a concern for women than for men, and agree it shouldn't be seen as such. Most street crime of that sort, in my uneducated view, is about getting some cash off the person - likely from men or women. Sure, women may seem like an easier target as we're not generally as strong, but we're also more likley to carry mace or pepper spray. I'd be interested in what the muggers view is.

I also think it is all relative to the likelihood of being attacked. Everyone should take reasonable precautions, but everyone has the right to continue to live their lives.

This train of thinking keeps reminding me of reactionary behavior to terrorism - a somewhat new phenomenon in American life, but one which seems to be less focused on gender in what people must/should/can do to be "safe".

[Ann]

I have a friend who is terrified to go running at night by herself, which is probably reasonable -- some of the areas we run through, I wouldn't go alone either. But fortunately, anti-feminist though she claims to be, she doesn't need a MAN to accompany her to feel safe. Who does she call? ME! Not that I'm the burly bodyguard or anything, but she feels safer just having another person around to call for help, beat the attacker with a stick while he's busy tearing off her pants, or whatever it is she envisions. And I agree. At 125 pounds I am hardly going to overpower anyone, but I don't think that's necessary, because it's probably the extra person and their ability to go for help, come at the attacker from the other side, etcetera, that matters more than my physical strength.

And carjacking? Puh-leeze. Like a man can't be shot in the head and thrown out of his car into the road just as well. Unless men have evolved bullet-proof skulls since the last time I checked.

[Kai Jones]

As was recently posted on a Usenet group that I read, instead of telling all us wimmens to stay home, how about we institute a curfew for men? Men are committing most of these stranger attacks, so getting them off the streets would be far more effective at stopping that kind of attack than any possible advice to women.

[The Happy Feminist]

That's funny, Kai. When my father was in college, all the female students had a curfew, whereas the male students could wander around at will. I always felt it should be the other way around!

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Too often, women's risk-taking is automatically dismissed as "being stupid" if it has anything to do with their personal safety.

I take the NYC subway alone at all hours of the day and night. I walk alone in my neighborhood after dark. Nothing bad has ever happened. But rest assured that if anything ever does, someone will say that I was being stupid.

I know the risks, and I'm willing to take them. I want to come and go as I please, without depending on anyone else to escort me. I'm happy for an escort if it's convenient, but if not, I won't let that stop me from going.

Is it so hard to accept that some women weigh the risks and decide that maximum personal safety isn't worth it?

[Tara]

To me the connection to terrorism is very interesting. When Israelis keep going to work, keep riding the bus, that's brave and admirable. When the British people got back on the T, that's a sign of character. When women keep living their lives as if they're free and have a right (and overwhelming actual odds) to be safe, we're being rash, if not stupid.

[The Fat Lady Sings]

Wonderful, insightful post. Like you, I too can recite chapter and verse all the times men in my life felt they had the right - no, the responsibility to 'guide' me into doing what they thought was 'right'. It pissed me off then - but I was usually not strident about it; buying into the 'don't upset the guy' belief. Not anymore, kiddo. I'm old and cranky and I'll be damned if anyone else other than myself is going to determine my life's paths – literal or no.

As for the rest of your commentary – I say you are right. Blaming women for the violence done to them is still the preferred way to deal with rape or other gender specific attacks. 'You shouldn't have been there', 'Why were you wearing that?', 'Well - you pissed him off!’. I am sick unto death of that line of bullshit - usually coming from out the mouth of a police officer or judge. The reason Will didn't seem to get the thrust of your arguments is he buys the premise that women wouldn’t get attacked if they didn't put themselves in harms way. He should be asking himself why there is such an epidemic of such violence. If men attacking women wasn't an accepted truism, women wouldn't have to constantly look over their shoulder wondering if where they are going is safe.

[will]

"I know the risks, and I'm willing to take them. I want to come and go as I please, without depending on anyone else to escort me. I'm happy for an escort if it's convenient, but if not, I won't let that stop me from going.

Is it so hard to accept that some women weigh the risks and decide that maximum personal safety isn't worth it? "

I agree with Lindsay. If you know the risks, and choose to take them, so be it.

[The Galloping Beaver]

I'm asking this because I truly don't know the answer, but is there a greater consequence of reported attacks on unaccompanied women than attacks by unaccompanied men at night?

My view has always been that there is safety in numbers when there may be an inherent risk, such as night time in a dangerous section of town. I also don't think the presence of a male with a female deters any potential attacker. The numbers do. But even then, I see the need as one of the extremes.

[The Galloping Beaver]

Sorry, I meant "attacks ON unaccompanied men"

[Tara]

I was in Israel in 2001, during the Passover when there was fatal terrorist attack every day, in a grocery store, on a bus, at a bat mitzvah, in a cafe.

Some of us were talking about the precautions we took - do we ride the bus or not, go out saturday night or not, etc etc.

One woman pointed out that actual danger is not so great. Even during that time, your chances of being killed or wounded in a traffic accident were only just barely surpassed by your chances of being involved in an attack. In other words, miniscule. The danger wasn't real but the fear was real.

I feel like that's what's going on here. What really are the chances every time you go out after dark that anything is going to happen? I've never seen statistics - I suspect because no one's bothered to collect them because they'd rather rely on the conventional wisdom that keeps women shut in than on actual data. The truth is, we don't even know the risks!

I find Will's statement: "If you know the risks, and choose to take them, so be it" disturbing. It's funny how he's saying almost exactly the same thing that others are but manages to twist it to be ominous and foreboding.

Anyway, we're not choosing "to take risks." We're choosing to live as free people. If half the energy currently aimed at scaring women were instead directed towards investigating *actual* risk factors in women's lives (which I suspect would end up centering on things like violence by a partner or family member and heart disease) and the other half were directed towards teaching people that violence is unacceptable in any circumstance, I think our quality of life would be much better served.

"The reason Will didn't seem to get the thrust of your arguments is he buys the premise that women wouldn’t get attacked if they didn't put themselves in harms way. He should be asking himself why there is such an epidemic of such violence. If men attacking women wasn't an accepted truism, women wouldn't have to constantly look over their shoulder wondering if where they are going is safe"

Sorry but I neither said nor implied that women deserve to get attacked.

"I find Will's statement: "If you know the risks, and choose to take them, so be it" disturbing. It's funny how he's saying almost exactly the same thing that others are but manages to twist it to be ominous and foreboding. "

I was saying the exact same thing Lindsay was saying. But, I guess it is different because I am a guy?

If you actually care what I said, go back and read it.

I will quote part of it:

"However, I do think that the vast majority of men and women seriously underestimate their ability to get hurt by random and not so random acts of violence."

[Will]

The last post was from me.

[scantee]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vsx2.htm

Although violent crimes against men have decreased substantially in the past 30 years, men are still more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women.

[Tara]

Will:

Actually it's your reading (and possibly writing) skills that I question.

The way you write doess imply that women can avoid harm by not going out at night.

No one said you wrote that women deserve to be harmed.

But you located the agency, to choose to be harmed or not, with the woman. And then you say "so be it," let women live have to choose between living free and dying and wash your hands of it.

Nice.

[The Happy Feminist]

Will, you know I love you (you fat bad-toothed misogynist you), but I have to say that I read the "so be it" thing the same way. I believe you when you say that you just meant to reiterate Lindsay's point, but it definitely sounds like you were saying, "Welp, if the wimmins take the risk and get killed, they only have themselves to blame." But, since that's not what you meant, te absolvo.

I think what Tara is objecting to is the emphasis in your comments -- you are still focusing on the risk women face (which trust me, we are constantly made aware of), when the real issue is whether the way those risks are perceived in society is distorted.

[The Happy Feminist]

And thank you, scantee, for the statistic. I think that's pretty important.

I believe that women are more likely to be the targets of certain gender-based crimes -- rape and domestic violence -- but we're less likely to be the ones getting beaten up in bars or mugged on the streets.

As a feminist, I make a big deal out of gender-based injustices. The gender-based injustices I see are:

-- Women rape and domestic-violence victims are often unlikely to be believed or taken seriously due to a whole slew of gender-based myths that I'd rather not get into in this thread

-- Men are lulled into a false sense of security about their own physical safety. Prevailing cultural norms often foster in men a false sense of invinvibility.

-- Women meanwhile are treated as especially vulnerable creatures who have more reason than men to voluntarily limit their own freedom of movement in public as though we are second class citizens.