From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Date: 15 Aug 92 11:33:26 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug14.210956.22424@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.092850.9423@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>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.
> 
> 	Yes, PROUD.  Most men (according to your post) are willing to risk
> sexual assault, robbery, or just plain violence rather than risk being
> insulted?  According to my book, thats pride, and too damn much of it.
> Perhaps 'stupidity' (not saying a man is stupid for going alone, just to be
> clear, but that action IS stupid).  But, hell, if someone thinks that it is
> better to risk (quite a high risk around here) their life, just to avoid a
> bit of name calling (which I have NEVER seen happen when a guy did ask)
> then I say more power to them, and I will STILL either accompany them or
> follow them.

That is pride in your book. It is trying to maintain some self-respect in
other people's books.

Do not confuse the avoidance of a negative with the trying to achieve a
positive.

As for your following them out--do whatever suits YOURSELF, even if it DESTROYS
someone else's autonomy.

Heel, why should THEY get to deicide what they want when YOU are there to look
out for them?

> 
>>
>>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.
> 
> 	If the above is your opinion (and, since you stated it in the "Most
> men would rather risk the attack than be labelled" I am going to assume
> that you at least support it in some way) then I worry about you.  In all
> the times I have seen a guy ask for company, I have NEVER seen ANYONE
> ridicule them.  It is a fact of life around here, and in most places.  To
> go out alone, especially late at night, is to virtually BEG to be attacked.
> Then you have the other things they can do, and the chances get pretty
> grim.

No, I have never seen anyone come out and state "What a wus!" However, in
low-crime areas where I hang out, women who request an escort are grudgingly
given one. A man who would ask for an escort...


> 
>>
>>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.  
> 
> 	Many women do, as do many men who do not fit the norm, take self
> defense classes.  Though that still dosent change one basic fact:  Your
> average woman was not RAISED in a situation where defence or figiting
> skills were given support, and, as a result, no matter how much or how good
> their later training is, they have a VERY HUGE problem to overcome:  Mind
> set.  If you learn to do anything later in life, it is much more difficult
> to get so good as to become instinctual with it, as you almost need to be
> with self defence. An example:  A friend of mine decided several years ago
> to learn karate.  After about 5 years of very intensive training, they got
> their brown belt (I met them while they were eithe blue or purple (looks
> the same to me)) and they were considered QUITE skilled by both the
> instructors and other students.  Yet, even though I have had no martial
> arts training, and the only hand to hand skills I have were from various
> military training, I was able to DEMOLISH them in sparring, and, in the one
> real fight we had (an argument got out of hand) *I* had to be pulled off of
> *THEM*.  Now, as I do not claim to be a great fighter (insurgency is more
> my game), this was a pretty strange situation.  After a bit of discussion
> between myself and the person involved and their instructors, it was
> generally aggreed that because they had begun the training in their 30's
> and simnce mine had mostly occurred between the ages of 17 and 19, that I
> had a more "instinctual" grasp of fighting.  My friend woulod have to be
> several orders of magnitude better in outright skill before they would be
> able to overcome their age defecit.  That is the general consensus from the
> group.  So, I do not think that merely taking training will help a whole
> lot, though it may give some options.   The problem still remains:  it is
> true that most women, even with decent training, will not be able to defend
> themselves as well as a man with similar training.  

Gee Hero, I guess you are right. Since you have received some trainng early on,
and you have proven you can beat up any woman out there, I guess all those
women might as well look to us men-folk for protection.

I say BULLSHIT! I say women get training in self-defense NOW, no matter what
their age, and don't let egotistical pigs like you tell them that they have to
always count on us men for defense because there is no way that they can ever
lick us in a brawl.

As for "women with training can not defeat  man with similar training", I guess
the answer is the same that any man would be told in the same situation--looks
like they'll just have to train harder and longer.


> 
>>
>>	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 hope that the rest of the world does not feel like that...
> 	Ever hear of a woman named Cathy Genovese?  She was murdered in New
> York (I believe) some time ago.  Seems that a man just walked up to her,
> stabbed her, and ran off.  She began to scream, a few people looked out
> their windows, but nothing more.  She screamed that she had been stabbed,
> and that she was being killed...  No one helped out.  She tried to crawl
> off, and the man came back several more times, each time stabbing her and
> then running off...  she continued to crawl and scream for help but no one
> came.  Finally, the man killed her.  It was SEVERAL HOURS AFTER THE MURDER
> before the police were called.  When asked why they didn't jpoin in, many
> of the neighbors listed their good reasons as "We thought it was a lovers
> quarrel," or "We were just too dang tired" or "I thought someone else was
> going to help" .  A woman died, and it could have been EASILY prevented if
> the neighbors had just called the police or even gone down there...

Yes, famous story. NO ONE COMPLAINS THAT NO ONE WENT OUT THERE ALONE TO FIGHT
OFF HER ATTACKER WHILE HE WAS THERE YOU IDIOT! You are taking a story and
warping it to fit your own whims. What is sick about this story is no one went
out to help her while she was alone, and that no one called the police, but
that they stood there and watched like it was some horrible floor show.

DO not try to equate THAT situation with what is being discussed here. What is
being discussed here is should I place myself in mortal peril for someone I
barely know? The answer is no. If you ask if someone should help when they do
not increase the risk to themselves, the answer is yes. Two radically different
hypos.

Maybe YOU would have gone out there and fought her attacker. That happens quite
a bit, and usually, the police then have two victims instead of one. (Of
course, you could have grabbed your butcher knife and run out there and tried
to knife-fight him, I suppose. But as he is probably better trained in fighting
with a knife... Now, if you had had a gun, then you could have shot him with
relative safety. Tell me, do you carry a gun when you escort someone through a
rough area???)


> 
>>> 	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.
>>
> 	What if you were attacked while walking alone?  What if, say,
> someone just came up from behind, whomped you with a lead pipe, and then
> proceeded to sodomize your unconcious body?  Would you want help?  Would
> you understand if a passerby decided that it was better to leave you to
> your fate because it would be raising their risk if they helped you out?

A single passerby? Yes, I would. Because the most prudent course of action for
them to take would be to sprint to the nearest pay phone and dial 9-1-1. If
they were smart, they could also yell back while they were running, "I am
calling th epolice! Someone call the police!" I would prefer THAt over them
trying to fight off the attacker, getting killed themselves, and then I
CONTINUE to be sodomized with NIL hope of rescue.

In battlefield survival in ROTC, the first thing we learned to do when coming
upon another injured person is CALL FOR HELP!

> Would you later tell them, assuming that you could, and assumming that you
> survived, tell them that they were quite smart for not raising their own
> risk and not helping out someone who was not a friend or family member?

Yes, I would tell them I understood. You are forgetting that they were not the
ones who would have sodomized me. I might have been pissed off about them not
trying to summon other help, but as for not risking their own necks, that would
be understandable.

> 	Or, would you wish that they had helped you, that they had cared
> enough bout people to help, even though it increased their risk?  Would you
> be thankful if they tried to save you from this?

If they tried to help, I would be VERY, VERY thankful, as it is an action that
they were under no obligation to take, and placed themselves at risk to try and
help me.
  
> 	It is NOT a different situation, by the way.  It is simply another
> person raising their risk of injury to help out another person lower
> theirs.  Most reports show that attackers of the mugger rapist sort will
> run off if confronted by other people.  It could save your life.

And what about the ones who will not run off?

Besides, you have cleverly made your hypothetical situation into a single
attacker situation. When you walk someone out to their car, you are not given a
guarantee that it will only be one person lurking. 25% of all rapes, and
probably a higher percentage of muggings, are done by two or more people.

Now, let's take your hypo and plug YOU into it.

I am laying on the ground helplessly knocked out. Three males, all holding
weapons of some kind, are taking turns sodomoizing me. You are unuarmed.
Would YOU try to scare them off?

If you answered "yes" to that question, you are a fool. The only chance you
would have of saving me would be to CALL FOR HELP. When they knock you out, or
kill you, after you try to fight them off for me, BOTH of us now have to wiat
for a third passerby to come along, use his or her brain, and call for help.

Of course, I might be sodomized somewhat less, as the attackers now have
someone else to party with--you.

Which of course, brings us back to what I have been saying--why should I risk
my neck for you?

> 
> 
>>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.)
> 
> 	Hey, if you are ever in Chicago, look me up.  I'll be happy to
> escort you.  As far as it not being reciprocated, no big deal.  I would
> just ask a friend of mine to go with me for the return trip.  I do not
> worry about what I will get out of something like this.  I just like to
> know that someone else was able to avoid a bad experience.  (That goes back
> to the fact that I have been trained to deal with these kinds of attacks,
> and thus I believe my chances of recoveringfrom or avoiding an attack are
> as good or better than someone elses.)
> 	Sam (Who is quite amazed at the flying pigs outside his window...)

Sam, are you a woman? If not, go re-read the last line.

DC

Newsgroups: talk.rape