From: seggev@unssun.scs.unr.edu (Guy Seggev)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Safety
Date: 18 Dec 1992 22:06:46 GMT
Organization: University of Nevada-Reno
Distribution: world
Reply-To: uunet!unr!unssun!seggev@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Guy Seggev)
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Summary: women don't have to be afraid.
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Many people, both male and female, have writen about how women don't
feel safe while men do.  I agree that this is unfair, but I submit that
it's unfair torward both sexes.  Women are being deprived of thier
freedom to act by thier fear, while men are given a false sense of
security.

There is, IMO, NO SUCH THING AS A SAFE PLACE.  You can trip in your own
bathtub, knock your head on the fixture, and drown in three inches of
water.  This is not something I worry about, though I do preffer
bathtubs that have some sort of traction patches in them.

There are three scenarios involved in walking about late at night:
1. You get from point A to point B without incident.
2. You encounter a hostile person and are beaten by them.
3. You encounter a hostile person and are NOT beaten by them.

I would argue that 1 is most common, and that #2 is the LEAST common.
Simply encountering someone who MAY hurt you, doesn't mean they will
attact.  Case #3 can range from staring down a potential attacker, to
running away, to seeing him/her ahead of time and taking a different
route.  It doesn't necessarily mean that someone attacked you and you
shot them.

The question is, how to avoid situation #2.  Being beaten/robbed/raped
is something I'm sure everone wants to avoid.  Is staying home a viable
option?  I don't think so.  I remember a woman who posted that she had
been outraged when police said that women should not go to the mall at
night.  I agree with her sentiment.  A woman should not have to have an
escort to go out at night.  So a better solution is needed.

I think that the best solution would be for people to take responsibility
for thier own defense as much as they are able.  Take martial arts,
Jujisu or aikido preferably.  Learn to use a firearm, and if the law
in your area permits, carry one.  If you can't carry a firearm, for
leagal or other reasons, find some other weapon.   Learn to spot trouble
before it happens and avoid it.  If all else fails, learn to run really
fast.  This advice applies to men just as much as it applies to women.

I have noticed that most men think nothing of going out late at night,
so long as they avoid 'known trouble spots.'  I think that this stems to
a very large degree from that fact that they don't think they'll be
attacked.  Contrary to poular belief, most me I know DON'T have any
delusions about rushing someone who is holing a gun.

But even if women are more likely to be attacked, they certainly don't
have to stand there and take it!  A friend of mine, who I'll call Tammy
(not her real name), is about 5' 4" and weighs about 98lb.  A 'friend'
of hers which she had just driven home (his home) asked her if she would
come in with her.  When she refused, he grabed her by the shirt and
pulled.  The aftermath:  he had two broken ribs, a broken nose, various
other bruises and minor hurts.  Tammy had a ripped shirt and was
'practically in hysterics' (her words) for two days because she had
'hurt him.'  The man in question was about 6' tall and I'm not sure what
he wieghed, but i'm fairly sure he had a decent advantage in that
department as well.  (I was much less sympathetic torwards him than Tammy
was, BTW).

I am not silly enough to try to claim that with enough training, ANY
woman could do this.  Some people (men included) simply arn't cut out
for fighting, for whatever reasons.  But even people who abhorr (sp?)
violence can usually learn to defend themselves.  And enough women COULD
learn to defend themselves, that attacking any random woman suddenly
becomes a dangerous proposition.

This principle can and has worked before.  How often is an El-Al (the
Israeli Airline) flight attacked or highjacked?  Closer to home, a town
in florida, which was having problems with transients coming through and
commiting armed robberies, enacted a law that required every store and
household to own at least one weapon.  This law was mainly a reaction
against a ban on weapons passed in Califonia, but had an interesting
side effect:  Crime in the area went down.  It has been speculated that
criminals are less willing to hit 'hard targets' (i.e. targets which may
very well shoot back).

Someone will no doubt reply, telling me that ALL violence is horrible,
that's what the police are for, and that an ordinary citizen shouldn't
have to defend herself.  To these arguments, I have this answer:
Violence IS horrible, but the police can't be everywhere at once.  It's
been proven that a larger per capita police force does not cure this
situation.  And in a perfect world, people wouldn't have to defend
themselves, since no one would want to attack them.  But we don't live
in a perfect world, so everyone needs to know how to defend themselves.
I would even argue that it is the duty of every citizen to at least
*try* to learn to defend him or herself, and if possible teach others.
This last is probably more relevant to another newsgroup, however.


Guy Seggev
seggev@unr.nevada.edu

'There is nothing to fear but fear itself' - Winston Churchill


-- 
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.