From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy)
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:32:38 GMT

In article <3144@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.COM (Dan Welch) writes:
>In article <1gkv73INNaqq@agate.berkeley.edu> vanhoek@bend.UCSD.EDU
>>(Karen van Hoek) writes:
>>It's definitely true that men don't go wandering in a lot of areas
>>late at night, but the number of areas where men _can_ go walking
>>late at night is far greater than the number a woman can go to.

>Not true at all.  What *is* true is that men think they are safer in
>certain places.  The truth remains, however, that they are just as
>vulnerable to assault.

[...]
>You male friends are fooling themselves -- as, to a certain extent,
>you are, too.  Anytime you go outside at all you are placing yourself
>at risk.  Men often feel that they are not as much at risk, because
>(after all) they are rough and tough and able to handle themselves.
>The fact is, though, if someone has a gun pointed at you, there isn't
>a whole lot you can do, no matter how rough and tough you are.

[...]
>Karen, I understand your feelings, but you have to understand that the
>"safety" men have is just an attitude, and one that may be wrong.  I
>am willing to go walking at night, not because I think I am some great
>hero that can fend off attack, but because I know that, in reality, my
>chances of being attacked are pretty small.

You're right that no one is absolutely safe, and that a man who thinks
he is "safe" is fooling himself.  However, there *are* differences for
men and women:

1. Women are, on average, smaller.  My SO can pick me up and toss me
across the room if he wants to.  He's not in incredible shape, although
he's fairly strong, but I am very light.

2. Women *look* more vulnerable.  If someone was going to pick me or my
SO to attack, would they pick the stocky, muscular one or the skinny,
lightweight one?  This is a societal percetion, too - people *think* of
women as vulnerable, and in need of protection (see the "chivalry"
threads that pop up every once in a while - this is one reason this
stereotype of women *needing* protection and men being "good" and
providing it is so damaging).  I understand from some crime-prevention
shows that I have seen that muggers *do* prefer attacking women (this is
from an interviewer talking to a guy who was convicted of several
muggings).

3. Women are less likely to be trained in defense.  My brother was sent
to self-defense training; I was not.  Certainly, I *could* take such
training, but how many people really do?  A lot more men learn to fight,
one way or another.  Not all attackers have guns, after all.  The guy
who tried to snatch my purse didn't have any weapons at all.

4. Women are often dressed more vulnerably - dresses, high heels, etc.
This is not as changeable as it might seem; some offices *require* this
sort of dress for the female administrative staff, in particular.

It would be interesting to see some statistics on random-victim crimes
(i.e. not bar fights, gang wars, crimes of passion, etc.) to see what
the proportion of male and female victims is there.  For example, if a
person is watching people walk down the street and choosing one to rob,
how often will they choose a woman vs. a man?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn

--
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
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.