From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Date: 5 Jan 1993 23:59:15 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1id4svINNbu0@agate.berkeley.edu> andyw@meaddata.com writes:
>In article 15032@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au, pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Ms D Alexander) writes:
>>In article <1hsskrINN1pt@meaddata.meaddata.com> andyw@meaddata.COM writes:
>>>I think __PART OF THE DIFFERENCE__ in fear about violence between men and
>>>women is just a difference in attitude about getting hurt.  This is
>>>not a scientific survey, but men just seem to be more accepting of
>>>personal risk than women.
>>
>>This is one hell of an assertion, but it makes more sense when taken in
>>context, and here your next paragraph is of assistance...
>>
>>>When you look at things like skydiving, whitewater rafting, bungee
>>>jumping, sports you can get hurt playing, etc, men seem to be more
>>>tolerant of a given level of risk than women would be. ___WHEN YOU
>>>COUPLE THAT ATTITUDE WITH A SITUATION WHERE THERE REALLY IS A
>>>DIFFERENCE IN SAFETY BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN___(walking in bad
>>>neighborhoods) you end up with a really big diffence in your perceived
>>>level of safety.
>>
>>I'm not sure that making a comparison between the fear of injury from
>>sporting activities, and the fear of injury which results from acts of
>>violence is legitimate.  The two are conceptually miles apart.  Sporting
>>activities are undertaken willingly.  Violence is not very often the
>>result of a deliberate action by the victim.
>
>The comparison was meant to illustrate that given the same level of danger,
>most men are less fearful of a situation than most women are.

If that is what the comparision was meant to illustrate, the wrong
analogy was picked, then.  This comparison illustrates that when people 
would rather be exposed to danger as a result of their own free choice
rather than as a result of the deliberate malice of another person.  If
ones wishes to draw the conclusion that given the same level of danger
that one group is less fearful than another, you should have both of
them go bungee jumping. 

>>>I think the issue that needs to be addressed is actual measurable
>>>differences in safety, not what peoples FEELINGs are.
>>
>>Certainly, but the statistics on violence against women (in my country,
>>anyway) provide some justification (sadly) for women being fearful.
>>
>Whoa whoa... I'm not saying women don't have a legitimate reason to be
>careful about going out at night... see highlighted sentences from my
>original post.
>
>But don't alot of studies show that most violence against women is by
>someone they already know?  I don't think _all_ the difference in fear of
>being out at night is based on real differences in personal safety.

You "don't think"?  In other words, you don't trust the reports of women
who go through it.  Where are your "most reports?"  How do you define
"most violence?" 

>Society as a whole has to work on making the streets safer.  But women
>who are mad because men can go out at night and not be afraid have to
>realize that some of that difference is simply a difference in attitude.

How? 

>Some people have posted saying that a woman shouldn't have to take self
>defense classes just so they can feel safe, that it isn't fair.  But if

Self-defense doesn't mean jack shit when the other guy has a gun, or
there are more than one of them.  

>you are more afraid on the streets at night because you don't think you
>can defend yourself, it is fair to say "take a self defense class".
>The difference in attitudes and feelings is your responsibility.  The 

This doesn't wash; it sounds like you are trying to deny any
responsibility that you have for the consequences of your actions on
other people.  Human beings are mental and physical creatures.  Why do
you admit the validity of physical damage but not mental damage?  Are
you suggesting that there is a gene on the part of the X chromosome that
we have that you don't that causes women to spontaneously get scared at
night of parking lots?  If a woman is raped, her feelings and fears are
NOT her responsibility and she cannot be called to task for them.  True,
she is stuck holding the bag, but she is not to blame for them; she
didn't initiate the chain of circumstances that brought the event about.
Although I know that you are not saying this, your logic can nonetheless
be used to say that if an abusewd child grows up feeling lousy, that
it's their "fault."  They must deal with it; they are left holding the
bag emotionally.  However, this sounds a lot like "blame the victim."  

>difference in real measurable safety is societys responsibility.

What to you is real and measurable?  Why do you not trust the statements
of women as indicators of what is "real" and "measurable"?  I don't
know if this is in your unconscious mind, but this attitude can indicate
that fact that you think that something that a woman thinks or perceives
is not real and measurable simply because it isn't perceived also by a
man.  I'm sorry, but there are things in this society that treats the
two so dofferently that a woman will see that a man might be blind to
and vice versa.  

I repeat, why do you not consider the statements and perceptions of
women to be "real" or "measurable"? 

Regards,
Janis C.


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.