From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:01:59 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug14.093734.3457@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
> query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>>I was told by a 'liberated' woman that she thought that it was macho bullshit
>>for me to offer to escort her.  She made it home safely that night, but, since
>>she was so 'liberated', she went out many other times.  Eventually, someone
>>saw her as a victim, and she was mugged and raped.  I don't think being
>>'liberated' is a very good reason for wanting to go out alone.
> 
> Permit me to explain, then.  Rape is about control.  Some aspects of feminism
> are about control.  Women are being told to live in fear and never go out
> alone.  They are being told this by rapists, in the sense that they know that
> there are rapists out there and that they may get attacked if they go out alone
> at night.  But unfortunately they are also being told this by nicer people who
> are concerned for their welfare and are trying to protect them against rape.
> Well this pisses some women off.  Rightfully so.  If we (men) can go out on the
> street at night alone, why can't they?  It is truly discriminatory.  It has an
> effect not only on one's social life, but it also makes it difficult to take
> certain jobs, especially if you can't afford a car, and so on -- it affects all
> walks of life.  So some women are insisting that they have the right to go out
> alone at night, to take control of that aspect of their lives.  This is
> praiseworthy, if they can do it.  It's not always safe, but many things are not
> safe.  And it is an important thing affecting their lives.

Yes, but accepting someone's help when offered is not going to cost
self-control. She had the OPTION (well, with most people she would have) of
saying, "Yes, that is nice." or saying "No, I'll be fine." If she says "No,
I'll be fine." because she is trying to exercise self-determination by facing
unknown risks, she has already lost control.

Figure--she is declining help out of a desire to be autonomous and
ignore the danger. However, what she has perhaps really done is merely gone
against the grain of what other people tell her is prudent. In effect, she is
letting them determine her actions by rejecting them out of hand WITHOUT
considering the merit of the advice.

This is not much different than accepting without question someone else's
opinions. In both situations, your actions are determined entirely by the
actions someone else tells you that you should do. You fall in line, or reject
entirely.

NEITHER of those are the wisest moves. You have got to use your head and weight
the advice of others. 

> 
>>Since that has happened, I now usually INSIST on escorting a woman to where
>>she needs to go.  If she refuses, I will usually follow her from a distance of
>>about a block, and then run up to her if it seems like something may happen.
>>Maybe thats wrong, if theyt said I should not go, but, hell, I would rather be
>>stubborn and called a jerk or worse, than let someone get attacked.
> 
> This is a very tough judgement call.  I don't have any advice to contribute --
> hopefully some of the women on the group will answer this point (if a certain
> man hasn't caused them all to lose interest in this group yet).
> 
> However, don't be surprised if women react quite negatively to your doing
> this.  They are trying to take control of their lives, and you are saying to
> them, no, a man must be involved in your walking at night, either as rapist or
> as benevolent protector.  It is going to be perceived as an invasive thing.
> 
> One partial solution to this is to have women escort women, thus proving that
> men do not have to be involved.  This is anti-rape because rapists are in
> effect saying that they do.

What do you mean by the last sentence? 

DC

Newsgroups: talk.rape