From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:21:12 GMT
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

julie (Julie Wright) writes:

>biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:

...[deletiae]...

referring to fear of assault:

>>Consider: your male friends take a certain risk whenever they venture
>>outside. That risk is dependent upon their behavior, and the location.
>>The same conditions apply to you. The risks you take - the probability that
>>you will experience violence - can be estimated from the general incidence
>>of violence toward women in the area, something that is quantifiable. Again,
>>the same applies for men.

>>Now, suppose the risk as estimated by these statistics is the same for men
>>and women, and yet men feel more safe than women. Obviously, the feelings
>>of fear are then rooted in differences of perception and in the emotional
>>responses of the sexes rather than in the actual risk. I'm not familar with
>>Ann Arbor, or its crime statistics, but unless they're very different from
>>most "very nice towns", I'd expect that roughly comparable numbers of men
>>and women are the victims of violence there, and that hence women and men
>>should feel equally (in)secure.

>It boggles my mind the number of times I see this argument from apparently
>intelligent people.  

>As you point out above, the risk is _dependent on behavior_.  If men are
>much more likely than women to venture out alone, or at night, or in high-
>crime areas, and the statistics indicate that in spite of their lower-risk
>behavior women are _still_ about as likely to be crime victims, it seems
>obvious to me that women are at higher risk than men for equivalent 
>behavior.  In other words, your statement that "the probability that you
>will experience violence can be estimated from the general incidence of
>violence toward women in the area" _assumes_ that she will _behave_ like
>the average woman in the area; yet you compare the crime statistics as
>if the average man and woman in the area behaved identically, an idea
>which I find laughable, and say that this demonstrates she should behave
>like the average man, since she won't be at any greater risk than he is.

The underlying assumption in this rebuttal is that the majority of violent
crime occurs between strangers in a public place. If that were so, and
if many more men than women frequented "dangerous" locales, the rebuttal
would be valid. I lack access to primary statistical data, but recall
some statistics which make the point that most violent crimes occur
in homes or other non-public places, and between people who know each
other. If that is the case, then lower-risk-behavior practiced by women
in public places will have little effect on the total of violent crimes
perpetrated against them. To reiterate: not going out at night, avoiding 
poorly lit places, etc. - behavior in which women differ from (some) men -
may be only a consequence of exaggerated fears if relatively few violent
crimes against strangers occur in such settings, but such crimes are 
highly publicized.

Thus far, all we have to go on is the fear - legitimate or otherwise -
that some women have about being assaulted in some/most areas, and the
general lack of such fear - again legitimate or not - of men under
similar conditions.

Ignoring for the moment truly foolhardy actions - walking alone at night
through crack alleys, and such - what are the real risks for someone
walking through a typical neighborhood in a "nice" town? Are women
really more at risk for violence under such conditions, or do they
feel more at risk than they really are because violence against women
is highly publicized, and is the staple of TV "entertainment"?

>>OBfeminism: perhaps the sexes respond differently to perceived dangers.
>>If so, what - if anything - should be done about it?

>Perhaps the sexes respond differently because the dangers really are
>different.  I'm probably not any more likely to be burglarized than my
>friend in rural Pennsylvania, but she leaves her door unlocked and I
>have several locks on my New York apartment.  We're both being quite
>rational in our perceptions of risk, _I_ think, but if I started behaving 
>like she does, well, what do you think would happen?

If you think your risk of being burglarized in New York is the same as that
of your friend in rural Pennsylvania - an assessment I do not share - then
why do you consider it prudent to lock your apartment when she does not,
and yet assert that both of you are rational in your risk assessment?
Assuming that you mean to summarize all risks of becoming a victim of a
crime under the general heading "burglary", your behavior should be the
same as your friends, if the term "rational perception of risk" is to have
its generally accepted meaning.

Regards,
       H. Biesel


-- 
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.