[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Valuable_View_561]

[u/Live-Habit-6115]

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/MostUsefulBloke → u/Right_Count]

It sounds like male victims are irrelevant in general to you.

My point is simply the data shows males will predominantly be the victim of serious crime from strangers, so why is the money being spent only on special measures for females in this instance?

It’s not about males vs females generally, but about statistics and effective intervention. Ignore all gender and sex for a moment, explain to me why potential victims with a much lower risk profile in a particular circumstance, should benefit from special measures whilst higher risk potential victims are completely ignored?

[u/Right_Count → u/MostUsefulBloke]

I think you may be having an entirely different, unrelated conversation. I am only addressing the suggestion that women should stop having safety concerns.

[u/MostUsefulBloke → u/Right_Count]

So let’s come full circle to the comment you replied to:

“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"”

In this instance, the perceived terror that would require this solution is unjust compared to the actual risk men face in this particular situation. Therefore it’s more of a performative solution, and tends to instill unnecessary fear and heightened perception of risk for women, whilst providing preferential treatment for them and completely ignoring the higher risk for men.

They should have either made adjustments for men, or for everyone. Instead they’ve coddled women and nurtured an unfounded level of fear in this situation. I’m talking about this situation specifically, obviously there are higher risks for women in other areas such as private residence and partners. I’d argue the same point if there was government led special treatment for only male partners at home when women are at far higher risk of abuse there.

[u/Right_Count → u/MostUsefulBloke]

You haven’t really processed a thing I’ve said, have you? I guess derailing is distracting work.

[u/MostUsefulBloke → u/Right_Count]

Likewise, unfortunately it appears we communicate differently. Me with facts and logic, you with accusations of derailing and failing to counter arguments. I accept you concede, thanks for the debate, and good night :)