From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:28:50 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug14.094954.8975@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
> *Dons Asbestos Suit*
> 
> 	I usually wind up having to walk women either home (if close) to a
> train station or bus stop, or to their car, after any situation where I
> have been dealing with women.  I don't mind being expected to do this, I
> guess because I have been trained to understand security and safety,
> (courtesy of the US govt, alas) and I don't want to see anyone get hurt.
> 	The reason that I specify women in the above?  Simple:  Most men
> are too proud to admit that they are worried about walking alone.  Most
> women are NOT too proud.  If someone asks me to walk with them, I do.  I
> expect the same if I ask, and I have always gotten it.

Proud? Let me get this straight, if you know you are probably going to
ridiculed and looked down upon for doing something, it is not 'pride' that
prevnts you from doing it, it is not wanting to be called effeminate (sp)
names.

I could just see one of the males in one of the clubs announcing:

"I'd like to leave now. Could someone please walk me out to my car so I don't
get attacked?"

You have missed an evvent that has shown up too much even on this
newsgroup--real men don't worry about being attacked syndrome. WOmen get wlaked
to their car, men do the escorting, and forget about the consequences
damnit--you're SUPPOSED to be a man!

Most men would rather risk the attack than be labelled a phrase that indicates
they were born either without male genitals, or they are real, real tiny.

That is not pride, it is trying to avoid ridicule.

> 	Also, women, while potentially just as good at self defense as men
> usually are, do not usually have the same background as far as physicality,
> as men do.  I do not know many women who fought often in school, or who
> were actively encouraged to engage in exertion, as many men are.  It is
> p[retty much a fact:  Your average male is genetically given a higher
> ability to fight than your average woman, while potentials may differ.

Maybe women should do something for themselves on their own--like overcoming
the difference by LEARNING to fight, and stop counting on men to be their hired
guns. (Actually, welfare-supplied guns.)  

									It
> is a fact:  Your average man has been in MANY more fights than your average
> woman.

See comment directly above. Just because I have been in more fights than you
does not place a responsabilty on me to protect you.  

	It is a fact:  Your average man recieves much more encouragement to
> engage in sports than your average woman.  Note the use of "average"

Well then I suppose women are just going to have to stand up for themselves and
compensate. This is 1992, and the old 'we've-been-denied-opportunities' line is
a little thin. You want to get stronger? Go to Vic Tanney. You want to get
meaner, go tke a self-defense class at some community service program?

You want me to defend you in a fight? You first be ready to defend ME!

> 	Someone posted earlier about men being less prone to being
> attacked.  I can't speak for any area other than the ones I know, but... 
> 	In my neighborhood there is virtually no violence done to women.
> The reason?  The last time a rapist was caught, (by the girls family),
> around here, he was supposedly castrated by the girls brother...  That is
> only a rumor, but it *has* worked wonders, and gossip does fly fast around
> here.  Also, men in my area are more prone to be in gangs than not in them,
> so there is a lot of that around here.  I am much more likely to be
> attacked than a woman, but, on the average, much more likely to be able to
> defend myself.
> 	Anyway, as far as it goes, I think that there definately IS a need
> for ANYONE who goes out late, or to a dangerous area, or has ANY worry
> about being attacked, to get someone to go with them.  It is inconvienent,
> sure, but, what's a little inconvenience compared to the risk of someone
> getting attacked or worse, killed?  

When the defendee is someone I do not know, the defender is me, an equation
kicks into place--the more likely she is to be attacked, the less prudent it is
for me to defend them. Why? Because of something you left out of your
equation--as their risk of being attacked goes up, MY risk of being attacked
goes up.

And no one who is not friend or family EVER is worth that.

> 	I personally would be upset if I heard about ANYONE getting raped
> or otherwise attacked, not just people I knew well.  If it can happen to
> them, it can happen to you.                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bingo!

I prefer not to increase my odds of being a stat for the purpose of someone
else not being a stat--unless it is friend or family.

DC

PS. But if I am ever walking through a high crime area, I'll give you a call to
help defend me, even though you are aware that I would not recipricate.

(And if you fail to see the reasoning behind that statement--women are happy to
ask for an escort, but pigs will fly before they will escort a male.)