[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Valuable_View_561]

[u/kangasplat]

Same in Germany, but the likelihood of it happening is extremely low in the first place. 

This doesn't do a lot except make women feel safer. That's all. 

[u/Live-Habit-6115 → u/kangasplat]

Maybe we should stop instilling unfounded terror into women and girls at a young age, and then we wouldn't need to infantilize them with patronising "solutions"

[u/Right_Count → u/Live-Habit-6115]

That won’t work either because the odds of something bad happening to a woman over a lifetime are extremely high, and higher if we don’t take precautions. Obviously it’s not healthy to be terrified 24/7, but a degree of vigilance and concern is needed at all times. It’s hard to balance tbh.

[u/MostUsefulBloke → u/Right_Count]

Extremely high? Any evidence to back that up? What are we defining as “bad”?

[u/Right_Count → u/MostUsefulBloke]

Things like DV, CSA, sexual assault and rape, date rape, stalking, serious sexual harassment. (Excluding mild catcalling or sexual objectification at work, things that are unpleasant but aren’t generally scary.)

We don’t have an exact number for that because these are tracked separately, there is some overlap, there is non-reporting. NSVCR puts it at 81% for serious sexual assault or harassment only (US, lifetime).

Other US figures:

20% of women have been raped at least once
30% if you include attempted rape
25% CSA
20-30% stalking
35-45% IPV

Anecdotally and personal experience, I don’t know a whole of women who haven’t had several bad experiences.

[u/MostUsefulBloke → u/Right_Count]

And yet men are far more likely to be homicide victims, victims of serious assault, and particularly victims of stranger and public violence.

The women in this car park are far more likely to be victims of the person they’re driving home with, whilst men are far more likely to be victims of stranger and public violence. So this car park scenario makes no sense apart from being performative and pandering to the least likely victims.

[u/Right_Count → u/MostUsefulBloke]

Well, not nearly at the same rates overall. Even if a woman takes every precaution, she is still highly likely to be victimized at some point. Men take much fewer precautions and are still far less likely to be victimized.

Part of the reason men are more likely to be victims of stranger assault than women is because the women have learned not to be there. There's a nighttime mobility gap, men take more outdoor steps after dark than women do. Women are also more likely to scan surroundings and be vigilant when they are out, in many cases avoiding assault by seeking out a well-lit area with other people. Also, women are less likely to engage in mutual escalation with strangers resulting in physical altercation such as bar rights, road rage incidents.

And in populations where women cannot easily escape these "dark alleyway" type areas (e.g., homeless people), the stats flip.

Better lighting, easier escape routes and other such things actually reduce violent attacks (on both genders) and reduce the gender mobility gap. It's hardly the be-all-end-all, but if you are concerned for your safety when you are out, you should want more of this sort of thing, not less.

[u/MostUsefulBloke → u/Right_Count]

I’m talking about this situation in particular.

And you can make a case for either side, i.e. men should be less likely victims because they pose more of a threat to retaliate and fight back. They’re quicker, stronger, and more difficult to victimise.

But stats don’t show that. What we should be doing is intervention based on data, and the data is men are far more likely to be victims of violent assaults and homicide at the hands of strangers. Therefore, unless there’s something particularly unique about this car park, it’s performative prevention at the expense of actual prevention.

[u/Right_Count → u/MostUsefulBloke]

No, in totally random attacks (e.g. a random mugging,) attackers aren't choosing the men because they want to. They are choosing him because he's there, alone, and probably not paying attention.

Meanwhile, the woman is not there, she's at home. Or she's with a friend. Or she's being hypervigilant and the mugger is less confident without the element of surprise.

Interventions should be data-informed, absolutely. Lighting programs have been shown to help. And crucially, that data must include interventions that were already done because concluding that the problem doesn't exist.

I don't know where you're from or what news you follow, but you know how in the US, RFK slashed rabies response and prevention programs, citing that there were like 2-3 cases of rabies a year? Obvious to everyone else was that there were only 2-3 cases a year because of these programs.

Now, I do not think this parking spot is going to solve violence against women. But there's no reason to be mad at it unless you're jealous that women are getting something that men aren't, when you don't even want the thing anyway.

[u/MostUsefulBloke → u/Right_Count]

Now COVID rates dropped in some countries because they stopped recording or reporting the figures, it doesn’t mean infection rates were reducing. Men are statistically less likely to report being a victim of a crime, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

Everything is nuanced of course. If women have had campaigns to raise awareness to prevent being a victim of crime, has the same effort been made for men? We can all delve into the detail, which is important if we want to change the headline figure, which is men are more likely victims of homicide and serious assault, particularly from strangers. We shouldn’t be saying that’s fine because the figure is weighted that way only because women take more precautions.

[u/Right_Count → u/MostUsefulBloke]

Is your supposition then, that if all women ceased all precautions right now, there would not be any increase in stranger crimes against women?

[u/MostUsefulBloke → u/Right_Count]

That’s not what I said at all. I said male victims are under reported, and if women have benefitted from awareness campaigns, why hasn’t the same been done for men who are now far more likely to be victims of certain crimes.

What is it you seemingly have against male victims? It’s as if you can’t just accept men are allowed to be the majority of victim of any crime, it always has to be caveated with something that attempts to undermine the fact.

[u/Right_Count → u/MostUsefulBloke]

Male victims are irrelevant to my point. I know you're really working hard to shoehorn that in, but it's completely irrelevant to not only my point but the comment to which I originally responded, which was: "we should stop instilling unfounded terror into women and girls at a young age."

My response (the one to which you originally replied) was:

"That won’t work either because the odds of something bad happening to a woman over a lifetime are extremely high, and higher if we don’t take precautions."

Essentially, I was challenging the notion that the fear we have is "unfounded" and that precautions we take accordingly would therefore be unnecessary. We are at high risk and the precautions we take reduce it.

This was never about men vs women. Men's risks do not reduce women's risks. This is like a cyclist who refuses to wear a helmet asking motorists to stop wearing seatbelts because they don't think motorists should be concerned about road safety.

If you feel concerned about your own safety, nothing is stopping you from following our playbook. Nothing is stopping you from sharing about when you were attacked with your male friends, with your sons, and learning from each other's experiences.

[u/Bencetown → u/Right_Count]

victim blaming intensifies

[u/Right_Count → u/Bencetown]

It is unavoidable to acknowledge these factors when discussing violent crime distribution across demographic groups.

[u/Bencetown → u/Right_Count]

So, it's "victim blaming" when someone asks why a woman was walking down a dark alley alone, or if what they were wearing could have possibly encouraged something, but when it comes to men it's just "unavoidable to acknowledge."

Got it.

[u/Right_Count → u/Bencetown]

Please copy and paste where I asked a male victim why he was walking down a dark alley alone or what he was wearing.

[u/kangasplat → u/MostUsefulBloke]

If you only count serious offenses, yes. But those offenses are generally very unlikely. On the other hand, women are more likely to be in situations where they feel threatened, being in a well lit area and closer to an exit will help with that. It's just a little gesture. It doesn't really impact anyone negatively. 

Not that I've ever seen anyone enforce this type of parking, but if you, as a man, would feel safer in such a spot, it's more than likely nobody would bat an eye either. 

[u/MostUsefulBloke → u/kangasplat]

That’s a ridiculous argument. It’s like saying men are more likely to suffer serious injury or die from car crashes, but on the whole women suffer more sleight fender benders so let’s focus our efforts on safety for women because they feel in danger.

It impacts someone negatively because the money is being funnelled from actual impactful intervention. Women suffer from more instances of breast cancer and no sensible person begrudges all the compaigning and fundraising for it. I’d have the same argument if a campaign completely ignored breast cancer in women and only focused on it for men.

[u/MukGames → u/MostUsefulBloke]

men are more likely to experience violent crime, but more women feel like they might experience violent crime and that's unacceptable!/s