Ship of Fools: Stranger danger

Thread: Stranger danger Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027773

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I thought of posting this in Hell, because it makes me angry, but I'm posting it here because I want a serious discussion.

About ten days ago a young woman disappeared in Charlottesville, Virginia. She had dinner with a female friend in a restaurant, then attended two parties. She left the second party alone and wandered around. She was caught on various surveillance cameras; a map showing the various sightings in chronological order makes it clear she was wandering aimlessly. Many people who saw her had the impression that she was drunk.

She left the party at 12:15; she talked and texted to friends on her cell phone until 1:30, when the battery apparently died. In that last call she said she thought she was lost. A surveillance camera showed a man walking past her going in the opposite direction; then he turned and began following her. Later a surveillance camera in a bar showed her with the man; he was drinking alcohol. (The police showed the man's picture to her friends, and they all said they had never seen him before.)

No one knows what happened after that, but police believe she got in his car and was driven away. I strongly suspect that she is dead.

She had a right to wander around, and no one had the right to do anything to her. However, it's no good having She had a perfect right to be where she was carved on your tombstone.

I know that women are more frequently attacked by someone they know, but I am still very disturbed that she did not realize that what she was doing was unsafe. I think this type of attack is much more preventable than attack by an acquaintance or relative. This woman should have been given information on how to keep herself safe.

I say she should have been given information, not advice or rules. She was eighteen. By the time most women are twenty-five they know how to avoid this kind of trouble, but it's something that has to be learned. Someone should have helped her learn it.

Moo

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

This was not a girl from a rural community. She was from Fairfax VA, one of the most populous counties in the US (it is a suburb of Washington DC). She had probably as much exposure to life and 'the street' as any person of her age who does not reside in a major metropolis.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I know that women are more frequently attacked by someone they know, but I am still very disturbed that she did not realize that what she was doing was unsafe. I think this type of attack is much more preventable than attack by an acquaintance or relative. This woman should have been given information on how to keep herself safe.

I say she should have been given information, not advice or rules. She was eighteen. By the time most women are twenty-five they know how to avoid this kind of trouble, but it's something that has to be learned. Someone should have helped her learn it.

You seem to be assuming quite a lot. Your main reason for concluding that the woman in question had never been told that strangers sometimes attack lone women, particularly drunk lone women, is that she was drinking and wasn't with friends. Possibly in much the same way people drive despite knowing motor vehicle fatality statistics or smoke knowing the risk of cancer. It sounds a lot like you think there should be "rules" despite your protestations to the contrary, since your main point is that this young woman apparently violated them.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Well, this is a new twist on victim blaming. This victim escapes blame on the basis of speculation that she was ignorant of "the rules for women", but now it's society's fault for not teaching and enforcing "the rules for women". So women who are assaulted are either reckless or ignorant, still either Madonnas or whores.

Does society have any rules for men? How about "don't assault women"? ISTM men are the ones who need educating. If that poor woman has been hurt or killed, the person who did it is responsible. That's the person to blame. That's the person that needs to be taught the rules of society.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

Ah, yes, idealism.

Because we can teach everyone in America that the rules some people need to use to survive are not the same social rules that rich white women apply when choosing who to associate with.

Good luck with that.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Sometimes, there is a very thin line between victim blaming and telling people to be more careful. The one to blame is always the perpetrator, there's no doubt about that. But I do believe that sometimes we have a duty to tell people to be more careful.

I sometimes accompany groups of young people who come from the Netherlands to Brazil for a church exchange visit. Whenever this happens, I try to talk with them and their families first, and among the subjects are some safety rules, and whether they agree to follow them.

Does this put the blame on them if they do happen to break these rules and become the victim of violence? No of course not, the blame is on the perpetrator. But unfortunately, I have to make these safety precautions clear to them sometimes.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
This woman should have been given information on how to keep herself safe.

How do you know no one ever did this? Do you honestly think her parents never told her to get into a car with someone she didn't know? Isn't it just possible that her parents taught her from an early age that this is dangerous and that she made a poor choice anyway?

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Does society have any rules for men? How about "don't assault women"? ISTM men are the ones who need educating. If that poor woman has been hurt or killed, the person who did it is responsible. That's the person to blame. That's the person that needs to be taught the rules of society.

All true. And I think this could take care of a lot of the crap that takes place on and around college campuses. But it is not going to do a thing about the predatory sociopaths who don't care about the rules of society.

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

Does society have any rules for men? How about "don't assault women"? ISTM men are the ones who need educating. If that poor woman has been hurt or killed, the person who did it is responsible. That's the person to blame. That's the person that needs to be taught the rules of society.

Surely this is a bit surreal. The problem isn't with the vast majority of men (people for that matter) who have fully internalized society's norms about assault, rape, and murder. It's a matter of minimizing the risk of encountering the worst case scenario of the small minority who haven't.

(X-post with ruthw.)

[ 24. September 2014, 03:19: Message edited by: marsupial. ]

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

Sorry to double-post but RuthW put this much better than I did: by all means educate and make society's expectations clear, but the random violent sociopath who is everyone's worst case scenario is not going to be solved by education.

Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :

You do remember that young "rich white woman" from Alabama who disappeared on a vacation trip to Aruba and is presumed to have been murdered by a nasty sociopath who has since been convicted of another murder in a different country. As far as I remember, she'd been out drinking with strangers--in other words, taking the kind of risks discussed in this thread. And I am not blaming her, I am just pointing out that risky behavior has nothing to do with one's ethnicity or socioeconomic status. It may have something to do with level of maturity...

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

I was around 8 years old when I heard repeated broadacasts on the (then) radio asking if anyone had any idea of "the whereabouts of A...D...D...". She was 18 and I remember her name to this day (50 years later).
That is when I realised that women could just disappear off the face of the earth leaving not a trace. Just like that [clicks fingers]
Nothing has changed.
Nothing will change.
Nothing will ever help.

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

I'm sure this woman did know the dangers, but lots of young people have hook ups and casual sex with strangers and never get murdered. So being young she might have felt it wouldn't happen to her. And she may have often gone off with strangers and so may her friends and as nothing bad had happened before she might not have expected it to.

Last year my longer term housemate and I asked our other housemate to leave at the end of the lease because she was regularly bringing different men home. She insisted they were all her 'friends' so perfectly safe. However we don't have locks on our bedroom doors and whether they were friends or strangers, felt unsafe (uncomfortable hearing their loud shenanigans too). However she just thought we were weird because in her social circles her behaviour was perfectly normal. The guys even wandered around the house in their underwear in front of us without seeing why we might be uncomfortable.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

I say she should have been given information, not advice or rules. She was eighteen. By the time most women are twenty-five they know how to avoid this kind of trouble, but it's something that has to be learned. Someone should have helped her learn it.

Many people may have helped her learn it and she ignored them.

Just like the large percentage of young people who drive recklessly - they think nothing bad will ever happen to them. My friend's son died, aged 19, being driven by an 18 year old friend at crazy speeds. Another saw a young man screaming in anguish and beating his car because he'd just run over and killed a 6 year old boy. Many lives changed forever due to someone ignoring those who helped him learn.

Apparently our brains are not fully mature and able to risk assess well until we are 25 years old. [Frown]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

In our city there are street patrols (run by community volunteers) who try to help people in this state - by talking to them, finding them a taxi to get home safely and in some cases giving them a pair of flip-flops because their stilettos are broken (NB they offer help to anyone who seems to need it, not just girls on their own).

I think it's very sad that she spent all that time wandering around, obviously drunk and confused and lost, and the only person who cared enough to do anything about it seems to have been a predator.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

When I said she needed information, I meant she needed to learn how to size up men who approached her. She was not snatched off the street. She went to the bar with him willingly, and presumably she got into his car willingly.

If she had refused to go with him, there were other people around who would have intervened if he had used force against her.

In the mid-fifties, I was a student in Germany. Like almost all students then, I hitchhiked. Drivers did not assume that a woman hitchhiking was really looking for, or available for, sex. However, women still had to be careful. When a man stopped his car for me, I asked where he was going, and I paid very careful attention to how he looked at me. If he looked only at my face, as most of them did, and was going in the direction that I was, I got in the car. If he looked at my body, I said I wanted to go somewhere else, and I didn't get in the car.

In my OP I said that most women know how to judge situations by the time they are twenty-five. They are preyed upon at a far lower rate than teenagers.

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna
Well, this is a new twist on victim blaming. This victim escapes blame on the basis of speculation that she was ignorant of "the rules for women", but now it's society's fault for not teaching and enforcing "the rules for women". So women who are assaulted are either reckless or ignorant, still either Madonnas or whores.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo

She had a right to wander around, and no one had the right to do anything to her. However, it's no good having She had a perfect right to be where she was carved on your tombstone.

I am not interested in assigning blame. I am interested in keeping as many young women as possible alive.

Moo

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Moo:

quote:
She was not snatched off the street. She went to the bar with him willingly, and presumably she got into his car willingly.

But people who are drunk often behave in ways that they would never consider when sober. And at a party you may find yourself drinking more than you intended, and perhaps not realising that you've had too much until it's too late to stop. And even if you don't intend to get drunk someone else may spike your drink (NB I am not suggesting that this is what happened here).

People do stupid things all the time; that doesn't give others the right to take advantage of their stupidity. But apparently nobody tried to help her find her way home, either. According to the OP she was wandering around randomly for over an hour before this guy picked her up; if I was one of the people who saw her during this time I'd be feeling very guilty today, even if I hadn't realised that she needed help.

It's not just the predators who are the problem; it's the people who are too scared, or too indifferent, or too preoccupied to intervene. All the rest of us, in other words. [Votive]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
When I said she needed information, I meant she needed to learn how to size up men who approached her. She was not snatched off the street. She went to the bar with him willingly, and presumably she got into his car willingly.

If she had refused to go with him, there were other people around who would have intervened if he had used force against her.

In the mid-fifties, I was a student in Germany. Like almost all students then, I hitchhiked. Drivers did not assume that a woman hitchhiking was really looking for, or available for, sex. However, women still had to be careful. When a man stopped his car for me, I asked where he was going, and I paid very careful attention to how he looked at me. If he looked only at my face, as most of them did, and was going in the direction that I was, I got in the car. If he looked at my body, I said I wanted to go somewhere else, and I didn't get in the car.

In my OP I said that most women know how to judge situations by the time they are twenty-five. They are preyed upon at a far lower rate than teenagers.

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna
Well, this is a new twist on victim blaming. This victim escapes blame on the basis of speculation that she was ignorant of "the rules for women", but now it's society's fault for not teaching and enforcing "the rules for women". So women who are assaulted are either reckless or ignorant, still either Madonnas or whores.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo

She had a right to wander around, and no one had the right to do anything to her. However, it's no good having She had a perfect right to be where she was carved on your tombstone.
I am not interested in assigning blame. I am interested in keeping as many young women as possible alive.

Moo

This is the same philosophy as mandates veils for women (because you can't trust men not to rape you if they can see your face and find you attractive), that means no-one dare walk anywhere or cycle anywhere any more (because you can't trust motorists not to run you down), that means that victims of bullying have to find alternative routes home or change schools, that means that the more vulnerable one is, the more one is restricted. Whether the intent is to blame the victim or not, the fact is that the onus to change is on the person who isn't doing anything wrong in the first place.

It's superficially seductive, but the end result is everyone except the top priveleged predator is afraid to move.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

How far do we go with avoiding victim-blaming? You would avoid saying wisdom-goes-not-there. So should I not also teach my daughter such wisdom so that I avoid the implication that women must be constrained to avoid bad men? Why can't we teach feminism and wisdom? How about 'You have the right to go there,' 'wisdom goes not there,' AND 'let's fight to make it safe to go there!'

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Many people who saw her had the impression that she was drunk.

I just wanted to pick this up (neither pro nor anti the point you are making Moo) but in my small (and safe) community in the last year we have had two or three young men who have come to terminal grief where their decision making capacity was clearly impaired by drink - in two cases it may never be clear quite how they came to harm (though their bodies have been recovered). Earlier in the year, a the body of a young woman was recovered from the river Ouse in York, again drink was a factor. Sadly, nowhere is safe if you have had too much to drink.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I would echo BroJames point. A couple of years ago, a University student was having a night out with friends. He became drunk and was asked to leave the pub. His more sober friends put him into a taxi to take him back to his Halls. He realised he did not have enough money for the full fare, and asked to be dropped off a short walk from Halls. Somehow he missed the entrance and wandered about for some time, lost. Several people saw him over the next couple of hours. One group of people gave him directions and also a drink of milk. The taxi driver, driving another fare, also saw him. Nobody realised that his disorientation was increasingly due to hypothermia rather than drunkeness. He never made it back.

This case upset me partially because the young man was the same age as my son, but also because a school classmate died in the same situation. Young men, lightly dressed for a night out, deciding to walk home after an evening drinking, in sub zero temperatures.

How do you convince young men that this is not safe?

ETA - for my classmate, RIP, John McS. [Votive]

[ 24. September 2014, 13:52: Message edited by: North East Quine ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
When I said she needed information, I meant she needed to learn how to size up men who approached her.

I'm highly skeptical of the idea that it's so easy to "size up" who is a sexual predator and who isn't. Successful predators are successful because they seem just like everyone else. How many times have we seen interviews with people after someone they know has been revealed as a serial offender expressing their shock and disbelief at the revelation? "I can't believe it! He was always so nice." is the way those interviews usually play out.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Studies show that is is usually a very few men who commit many rapes on campus. They know to look for the freshmen, the girls who have little experience with alcohol and men. A lot of pain could be saved by simply nailing these creeps and jailing them. (I am also a fan of castration.)

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

I'm honestly not sure how education on "stranger danger" could have helped this girl. She was alone, intoxicated, unsure of her surroundings, and with a dead battery on her phone. Rape and abduction are far less likely than things like passing out and sustaining a head injury, falling over an edge or into a body of water, or wandering into traffic. Things that are unsafe for anyone, regardless of gender or age.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
seekingsister: I'm honestly not sure how education on "stranger danger" could have helped this girl. She was alone, intoxicated, unsure of her surroundings, and with a dead battery on her phone.

Maybe it could have prevented her from being in a situation where she was alone, intoxicated, unsure of her surroundings, and with a dead battery on her phone.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
seekingsister: I'm honestly not sure how education on "stranger danger" could have helped this girl. She was alone, intoxicated, unsure of her surroundings, and with a dead battery on her phone.
Maybe it could have prevented her from being in a situation where she was alone, intoxicated, unsure of her surroundings, and with a dead battery on her phone.

Did you skip the rest of my post?

Lots of bad things can happen to a drunk, disoriented person that have nothing to do with stranger abduction. She needed education on "intoxication danger" and frankly everyone - male, female, old, young - needs to know that being drunk and alone is not safe in any environment.

[ 24. September 2014, 17:13: Message edited by: seekingsister ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
seekingsister: Lots of bad things can happen to a drunk, disoriented person that have nothing to do with stranger abduction. She needed education on "intoxication danger" and frankly everyone - male, female, old, young - needs to know that being drunk and alone is not safe in any environment.

With this agree — to a degree. I don't think becoming drunk is always a bad thing, it's happened to me once or twice. But there are some things you have to be careful of.

[ 24. September 2014, 17:24: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

She may well have been educated about any and all of those things. I was certainly educated about all of the following, and that didn't stop me from doing them:

having sex without protecting against pregnancy
making a date with a complete stranger that turned into sex (that wasn't what I was expecting; call me terminally naive. But when it turned out to be what he wanted, I wanted it too and didn't leave).
gone skinny-dipping with two other strangers and almost lost my clothes in the dark under blowing sand.
gotten so drunk I ended up being forcibly taken to the hospital
driven waaaaaay too fast
ridden a motorcycle without a helmet
continued eating too many sweets after being diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes

I don't know if I'm particularly lucky that nothing fatal has happened to me yet, or if it's actually the case that, although these are all things that it's more prudent to avoid, the actuarial risks of something fatal happening as a result are actually lower than other things we risk every day, like driving a car.

I suspect many people have lists of imprudent things they've done despite having been educated not to do them.

Actually, the verdict is still out on the Type 2 Diabetes, and it's not like I'm trying to press my luck, but it's been really hard for me to somehow change my habits, and I don't know whether this is because changing habits is particularly hard, or because I haven't had the right shocking-come-to-Jesus moment education about Type 2 Diabetes and its risks, or because I'm just stupid.

But from my experience I don't think "someone should have educated her" or "why didn't she know" or "why did she act this way even when she did know" is particularly relevant. Perhaps the last question might possibly be useful, if addressed from a point of view of, what causes certain kinds of behaviours even if one has been warned against them, and is there anyway to help change that? As a practical idea, rather than a wringing our hands kind of idea.

[ 24. September 2014, 20:42: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm highly skeptical of the idea that it's so easy to "size up" who is a sexual predator and who isn't. Successful predators are successful because they seem just like everyone else. How many times have we seen interviews with people after someone they know has been revealed as a serial offender expressing their shock and disbelief at the revelation? "I can't believe it! He was always so nice." is the way those interviews usually play out.

I am not saying that it's easy to size up a sexual predator. It is, however, usually easy for a woman to recognize the fact that a man seems to be taking a great interest in her body. (This is much easier to do when there is plenty of light.) People who live next door to a serial sex offender never realized anything was wrong because he never looked at them with sexual interest.

What I'm saying is that women need to notice how men look at them and speak to them.

Moo

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

As the recipient of passes completely out of the blue from people I thought I had perfectly normal professional or platonic friendly relationships with, either it's way the fuck harder to size people up properly than it seems to kibitzers, or I'm really stupid. And it's not like I never notice: there are certainly some men who give me the creeps and I give a wide berth to (no matter how much they seem to be treated as "oh that's nice Mr. so-and-so at church"). So it's not like I have no radar at all. But there are people who slip completely under that radar. And I presume similar things happen to other people. So cut the poor woman some slack.

Moo, you said in the OP you were angry. Can you explain what you're angry about?

[ 24. September 2014, 21:51: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Problem is, being drunk impairs your judgement and lowers your inhibitions.

Whilst you are talking about acquiring inhibitions and good judgements. You can have these things and drink will still mess with them.

And you are naive when you're young, and you think you're not - says the woman who went back to a guys flat at night because he asked her to help him with his essay. He was 52 I was 19, (and sober as it happens), but he was a student on my course and a single parent with a young child at home. I really didn't expect him to get drunk and proposition me.

I was lucky, I played dumb when he dropped hints, and ended up sleeping on his floor cos I was not going to walk 30 mins back to halls at past midnight. But. He stalked me on and off for the next couple of years, turning up drunk outside my bedroom door at 6am, turning up in student bars and declaring in front of whoever that he wanted to have sex with me.

Still, could have been worse.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

An eighteen-year-old woman is almost certainly dead. If she hadn't been abducted, she would probably have lived another sixty years. It's a terrible waste of human life.

Also, no one knows what happened to her, so there can be no closure. If and when the body is found, there will be closure; however sometimes bodies are so well concealed that they are never found.

Moreover, the university community in Charlottesville is hurting badly. They have lost one of their own in a horrible way.

Moo

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Crosspost, replying to Moo.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
An eighteen-year-old woman is almost certainly dead. If she hadn't been abducted, she would probably have lived another sixty years. It's a terrible waste of human life.

Also, no one knows what happened to her, so there can be no closure. If and when the body is found, there will be closure; however sometimes bodies are so well concealed that they are never found.

Moreover, the university community in Charlottesville is hurting badly. They have lost one of their own in a horrible way.

Moo

I understand being angry about those things. What I don't understand is your emphasis on all the things that "if she hadn't done thus-and-such, she'd still be alive." To me that's somewhere between blaming the victim and magical thinking "see, I do all these things, so I'm safe."

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
What I don't understand is your emphasis on all the things that "if she hadn't done thus-and-such, she'd still be alive."

I don't blame her. I blame the people who never warned her that she should carefully size up strange men before she went anywhere with them. At least she should get a clear look at the man, which she could not do on the dark street or the dimly-lit bar.

Moo

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
What I don't understand is your emphasis on all the things that "if she hadn't done thus-and-such, she'd still be alive."
I don't blame her. I blame the people who never warned her that she should carefully size up strange men before she went anywhere with them. At least she should get a clear look at the man, which she could not do on the dark street or the dimly-lit bar.

Moo

I think what many people on this thread are saying, is that she had almost certainly been told that, but inexperience and alcohol knacker your judgement.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Moo, how do you know she didn't get a clear look at the man? And what if a clear look at the man didn't tell her anything? What if a clear look at the man actually told her the reverse: here is someone I recognize from being around the University, so I trust him, and he's not giving off any obvious danger signals to me? What if a clear look at the man told her that of all the options available to her, going with him seemed to be the best one? What if she was drunk and befuddled and it didn't matter if she got a clear look at all (if there was even anything to be picked up from a clear look)?

What you're saying adds up to a bunch of "she should have done this and it would have saved her". You've taken it one step away from victim-blaming to instead blame the people who you think (without evidence) didn't teach her these things. But it's still magical thinking.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Moo, how do you know she didn't get a clear look at the man? And what if a clear look at the man didn't tell her anything? What if a clear look at the man actually told her the reverse: here is someone I recognize from being around the University, so I trust him, and he's not giving off any obvious danger signals to me?

I know that they met on a dark street and went into a dimly-lit bar. There were no bright lights in the area which would have enabled her to see him. The importance of seeing him clearly was that she could have paid careful attention to how he looked at her. If he showed signs of sexual interest, alarm bells should have gone off.

He worked in a technical capacity at the university hospital, and it's unlikely that their paths had crossed. Moreover, her friends, when shown a picture of him, said that they had never seen him before.

Moo

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The importance of seeing him clearly was that she could have paid careful attention to how he looked at her. If he showed signs of sexual interest, alarm bells should have gone off.

Right, because people are so good at paying careful attention and making decisions based on close observations when they're hammered. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Moo: I know that they met on a dark street and went into a dimly-lit bar. There were no bright lights in the area which would have enabled her to see him. The importance of seeing him clearly was that she could have paid careful attention to how he looked at her. If he showed signs of sexual interest, alarm bells should have gone off.

It has happened sometimes that I've been in a bar at night with a woman whom I'd only met that evening. I can assure you that in all of these occasions, the thought of sex has crossed my mind.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

[cross-posted with Moo and LeRoc]

Fine, whatever. Never go anywhere with a man you don't know. If by accident you find yourself hypothermic and a short walk from your dorm but disoriented and going in the wrong direction and a man you don't know shows up to help you to your dorm, tell him no thank you and keep wandering around until you freeze to death. Or wait, it's night time and you can't see him clearly, so definitely there's double reason not to accept any help.

But oh yes, there's a long list of other ways to protect yourself from ever getting in that situation. And on and on and on. Of course you would never ever ever get yourself in a situation where you meet a man you don't know while you're alone. And we won't blame you when something bad happens to you, because we know it's not your fault, but we presume that must mean someone failed to teach you these things because if someone did teach you these things and you ignored them, then we're getting close to blaming you, and we know we don't want to blame you, and it's far too convoluted to try to accept that sometimes people do foolish things, and sometimes people do reckless things, and sometimes actually there are no warning signs at all even in broad daylight when stone-cold sober, and it doesn't seem sufficient to be angry at the perpetrator, because that would require acknowledging that there are people like the perpetrator who do awful things that we can't always protect against. So we won't go near any of that painful confusion, and we'll just decide that there's a slam-dunk obvious answer: people didn't teach you these things.

It would be too painful to acknowledge that sometimes really dreadful things happen and there isn't some magic formula that can keep everyone safe.

I'm sorry for your anger, and I'm sorry for your grief, and I'm sorry that you and the whole community are hurting this bad, and I'm most of all sorry for this young woman for whom I am praying she might be found alive, but expecting that she won't be. And I wouldn't say things this way in All Saints, but you came to Purgatory and asked for serious discussion, and what might be acceptable and sympathetic in someone grieving may not actually have half a leg to stand on in serious discussion.

[ 24. September 2014, 23:23: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
It would be too painful to acknowledge that sometimes really dreadful things happen and there isn't some magic formula that can keep everyone safe.

I don't think anyone on the Ship believes there's some kind of magic formula that can keep everyone safe.

However, there are also certain realities about the current US rhetorical climate particularly on college campuses.

Yes, maybe this girl was taught all sorts of things about risky behavior blah, blah, blah. On the other hand, if her parents didn't feel comfortable talking to her about this stuff, then maybe she wasn't.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
What I don't understand is your emphasis on all the things that "if she hadn't done thus-and-such, she'd still be alive."
I don't blame her. I blame the people who never warned her that she should carefully size up strange men before she went anywhere with them.

Why do you assume nobody warned her?

I know that it is dangerous to walk alone at night through certain areas. In my home city, I even know which areas are the worst. But I still do it sometimes, if I have somewhere I need to be, because I don't want to let that narrative win out. I make the choice to take the risk, because it is my choice to make. That's despite me being in a demographic with one of the highest rates of being victims of assault and murder.

Am I doing wrong? Fuck that shit. I will not live in a world where criminals make me afraid to walk out of my own door.

I know the stats. I know what is dangerous. That information is not hidden from me. Nobody "didn't tell me". If I get stabbed to death tomorrow, nobody can say "Amy's friends should have told her to stop going places on her own".

If I get assaulted, there will be only one person to blame: the one who did the assault.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
I know that it is dangerous to walk alone at night through certain areas. In my home city, I even know which areas are the worst. But I still do it sometimes, if I have somewhere I need to be, because I don't want to let that narrative win out. I make the choice to take the risk, because it is my choice to make. That's despite me being in a demographic with one of the highest rates of being victims of assault and murder.

Am I doing wrong? Fuck that shit. I will not live in a world where criminals make me afraid to walk out of my own door.
{snip}
If I get assaulted, there will be only one person to blame: the one who did the assault.

I agree completely with what you say. However, you are not eighteen years old. In my OP I mentioned that women over twenty-five are attacked much less often than teenagers. This is because, like you, they understand the risks and know how to walk safely in unsafe areas.

Of course the only person to blame for an assault is the attacker. I said that in my OP.

Moo

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
It would be too painful to acknowledge that sometimes really dreadful things happen and there isn't some magic formula that can keep everyone safe.
I don't think anyone on the Ship believes there's some kind of magic formula that can keep everyone safe.

I associate the kinds of things Moo is choosing to focus on and the way she is focusing on them, with that kind of magical thinking, which can be present whether the thinker realizes or not that that's what it amounts to.

Your link is a more practical assessment and invitation to discussion than simply repeatedly asking "why didn't anyone teach her these things". And raising points for a broad discussion that should perhaps happen is different from asking about a particular woman "why didn't anyone teach her these things?" as if knowing those things would certainly have kept her safe.

[ 25. September 2014, 00:04: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Moo,

Since you chose to post this in Purgatory for discussion:

You have posted no public policy strategies for this sort of situation. Why is this? You seem to believe that this young woman lacked information on "Reading Nonverbal Language of Unfamiliar Males". How would you propose to address this? Who would teach it, and what would be required pass? What sort of restrictions would women have to live under until they qualified?

If you wish to blame unspecified adults in her life who "should have taught her better", I think it likely that this is a grief reaction on your part, rather than a cooler analysis of the situation. Autenrieth Road is right: this is magical thinking which does not take into account the far greater likelihood that inexperience and alcohol consumption impaired her ability to assess risk.

quote:
In the mid-fifties, I was a student in Germany. Like almost all students then, I hitchhiked.

If you were eighteen and drunk, late at night, and had a transporter and a time machine, this constitutes relevant experience. Experience in a different country, in a different time, when there were different social attitudes toward hitchhiking, when you were a different age (possibly?), at a different time of day and in a different cognitive condition than this young woman, means not much.

I am genuinely sorry for your anger and grief, but when it comes to public policy, they impair judgment just as badly as alcohol.

If you still wish to go with the magical thinking route, and blame her parents for not teaching her something you believe would have saved her... well, don't we all wish parents were better at parenting? Don't parents wish they were better at parenting? Intervention would require prayer or public policy measures or both. So what do you propose?

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
She left the second party alone and wandered around.

This is the bit that bothers me; why did she leave alone? Were her friends too drunk to realise that was what she was doing? Or did she not seem to be that drunk to them? Or were they just teenagers who thought that she was invulnerable like the rest of them?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:

I know that it is dangerous to walk alone at night through certain areas. In my home city, I even know which areas are the worst. But I still do it sometimes, if I have somewhere I need to be, because I don't want to let that narrative win out. I make the choice to take the risk, because it is my choice to make.

I don't.

Both of my sons have been threatened with knives in a certain area of our town. They ran out of danger.

I can't run that fast.

I avoid it completely, day and night.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I don't blame her. I blame the people who never warned her that she should carefully size up strange men before she went anywhere with them. At least she should get a clear look at the man, which she could not do on the dark street or the dimly-lit bar.

Moo

I still feel like this is completely missing the point and that you are fixated on the role of this man in Hannah's disappearance.

Did you consider the fact that maybe she was interested in this guy (even through beer goggles) and so had no problem with his sexual interest in her? Is there something about his face, which you think could have told her easily that he was dangerous? I'm missing how lighting would have affected anything.

Here is a list of alcohol-related deaths of American university students.
Recent alcohol-related deaths

I can see - drowning, car crash, hypothermia, alcohol poisoning, head injury, fall, accidental fire, etc.

It is tragic what has happened to Hannah (although we still don't know all the details) but I think the element of "scary black man abducts precious white teenager for sex" is what fuels prurient interest in her story. It seems there are young people dying after drinking too much in far more mundane ways - at least from the media's perspective.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It is tragic what has happened to Hannah (although we still don't know all the details) but I think the element of "scary black man abducts precious white teenager for sex" is what fuels prurient interest in her story.

No, because there was equal concern when Morgan Harrington disappeared, and no one knows to this day who abducted and murdered her.

There was also a black teenager, Alexis Murphy who disappeared, and great concern was shown in that case.

People around here object strongly to having young women abducted and murdered. It's much worse than having someone die in a drunk driving accident.

Moo

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
No, because there was equal concern when Morgan Harrington disappeared, and no one knows to this day who abducted and murdered her.

There was also a black teenager, Alexis Murphy who disappeared, and great concern was shown in that case.

You are wrong to say that there was equal concern. You have linked to a local news station for the story about Alexis - the black girl - and on the Wiki for Morgan all of the links are to VA news outlets as well.

What we have here with Hannah is an international news story. I was in VA last week and it was all over the news. I was very surprised to return to London and see British newspapers carrying it as well.

What's even sadder about this, is that's it's only the wide interest in Hannah that has the police publicly saying that the area she was taken from has seen the disappearance of several girls her age in the past few years. The media picks up certain stories and not others, become some stories sell. "Black man kidnaps white teenager" ALWAYS gets clicks and sells papers.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

There was equal concern in this area. I'm not that interested in international coverage. It's local concern that fuels the investigation.

Moo

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Moo,

You still haven't addressed what you think ought to be done.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I can tell you what I did with my daughters. The older one weighed about ninety pounds, and was timid. I enrolled her in a course on self-defense for women. She began to appear self-confident and able to take care of herself. I don't know whether she was given specific advice on how to hold herself and to walk, or whether the change was the result of increased self-confidence in her ability to handle confrontation. The important point here is that people who appear prepared to fight rarely have to. Predators prefer those who look like pushovers.

My younger daughter was physically larger and more aggressive in temperament. She had also had a great deal of acting experience, and had mastered the art of projecting the image she wanted people to have. She knew how to behave like someone who would not be a pushover. I would have sent her to the self-defense class, but other things made it impossible.

I think that parents should objectively assess their daughters strengths and weaknesses before they go off to college. If they project vulnerability, they need some sort of lessons to overcome this weakness.

Moo

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I can tell you what I did with my daughters. The older one weighed about ninety pounds, and was timid. I enrolled her in a course on self-defense for women. She began to appear self-confident and able to take care of herself. I don't know whether she was given specific advice on how to hold herself and to walk, or whether the change was the result of increased self-confidence in her ability to handle confrontation. The important point here is that people who appear prepared to fight rarely have to. Predators prefer those who look like pushovers.

My younger daughter was physically larger and more aggressive in temperament. She had also had a great deal of acting experience, and had mastered the art of projecting the image she wanted people to have. She knew how to behave like someone who would not be a pushover. I would have sent her to the self-defense class, but other things made it impossible.

I think that parents should objectively assess their daughters strengths and weaknesses before they go off to college. If they project vulnerability, they need some sort of lessons to overcome this weakness.

Moo

This reads as someone who has lulled themselves into a false sense of security. You are aware that there have been a great number of reports of sexual assaults committed against female members of the military, who I would guess have a little more training than your kids do.

And besides, what is a drunk girl going to do against a gun, even if she has self defense training?

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It's local concern that fuels the investigation.

Moo

Not really, given that the suspect was just apprehended in Texas.

National coverage is the reason for this.

[ 25. September 2014, 13:34: Message edited by: seekingsister ]

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think that parents should objectively assess their daughters strengths and weaknesses before they go off to college. If they project vulnerability, they need some sort of lessons to overcome this weakness.

Ah: parents should parent their daughters (let's not forget the onus of this thread!) better. How do you think this could happen?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

No, publicity is good. Not only does a hue and cry pretty well ensure that the guy gets captured sooner or later. But it creates fear. Other rapists will know that they cannot operate with impunity forever.
We are social creatures; the pressure of societal disapproval is a powerful tool. And it is probably the only one (outside of prayer) that all of us can use. Let us all shame them, pour out our contempt on these toilet fish in word, story and song, create denigratory Facebook photoshop memes, and in general make it clear to everybody that this kind of thing is totally unacceptable.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
No, publicity is good. Not only does a hue and cry pretty well ensure that the guy gets captured sooner or later. But it creates fear. Other rapists will know that they cannot operate with impunity forever.

America has the largest incarcerated population in the world and is one of a handful of civilized nations that still executes criminals. Rapists know they can get punished. ESPECIALLY black men who rape white girls, which is probably one of the only crimes that has been consistently prosecuted and punished throughout American history (and in many cases falsely prosecuted, but that's another story).

If this guy killed Hannah he did so because he is depraved, not because there haven't been enough social media campaigns on "No means no." That might help with date rape but will have absolutely no effect on stranger rape, which tends to be committed by violent individuals with no sense of morality.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Moo:

quote:
I think that parents should objectively assess their daughters strengths and weaknesses before they go off to college. If they project vulnerability, they need some sort of lessons to overcome this weakness.

This sounds like blaming the victim and her parents. Anyone who thinks that walking confidently with your head up will conceal the fact that you are a head shorter and forty pounds lighter than your attacker is indulging in magical thinking. In that kind of situation, it doesn't really matter whether you're "projecting vulnerability" or not. You ARE vulnerable. Even if you are six foot six with muscles on your muscles you might still be attacked by a group, or some weedy person that you don't think of as a threat might get lucky with a baseball bat. When I was at university (on a relatively safe campus) the number of violent attacks on men slightly outnumbered the number of attacks on women.

Yes, you can try to minimise the risk by avoiding dark areas, not going off on your own with strange men, abstaining from drugs and alcohol, learning martial arts, whatever. But you can't eliminate it entirely; even if you do everything 'right' you might still be attacked. Even if you spend your entire life hiding under the bed, someone might break into your house and rape you.

And hiding under the bed is boring. And most strangers are not out to get you.

Oh, and what seekingsister said.

[ 25. September 2014, 16:32: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Risk taking can be a product of depression, including excessive consumption of alcohol, use of illegal drugs and risky sexual behaviour.

I've done all of these. It wasn't because I didn't know that I could be putting myself in mortal danger.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Not really, given that the suspect was just apprehended in Texas.

National coverage is the reason for this.

AIUI it was communication between police departments, rather than reports from civilians, that resulted in his capture.

Moo

Posted by nickel (# 8363) on :

What to do (other than praying)? Maybe working on multiple ways to get the message out: that especially for young women, it's important to always go with a buddy, always have a plan to get home safely, always make sure someone knows where you are. Parents, teachers, authority figures can lecture all we want. Put it on a poster and paste them in every bar. And maybe it would help the message sink in if these kids hear it from their peers.

When I was around 23, and in a big city for the first time, I thought nothing of walking back to the hotel after dark by myself. Keep your eyes open, walk strong, and no bad guys will mess with you, right? I thought anyone who felt different was needlessly timid. Until a woman about my age told me she'd been assaulted on dark city street, despite walking strong, keeping her eyes open, etc. Was it her story, or was I finally old enough to give up the 'invincibility' of youth?

Bad things will always happen to good people. Continued prayers for all the missing, everywhere. But I also add a plea to God that the police have this perpetrator -- because I want my own strong, smart, beautiful, young niece at UVA to be safe.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... We are social creatures; the pressure of societal disapproval is a powerful tool. And it is probably the only one (outside of prayer) that all of us can use. Let us all shame them, pour out our contempt on these toilet fish in word, story and song, create denigratory Facebook photoshop memes, and in general make it clear to everybody that this kind of thing is totally unacceptable.

Word. We are social creatures, and societal disapproval is a powerful tool. Unfortunately, it is mostly directed at victims, and sometimes those dispensing it believe they are helping when they do this. [brick wall]

This thread is a perfect example of societal disapproval. Every time the subject of sexual assault comes up, all the clichés about don't get drunk, don't dress slutty, don't take rides from strangers, don't put your hair in a ponytail, wear overalls because they're hard to remove, don't wear overalls because cutting the shoulder straps makes them easy to get off, etc. get recycled over and over. The message, over and over and over, is that if something bad happens, the woman must have done something wrong. Trying to find yet more things women should or should not do to protect themselves - gosh, if only she'd had better parents - just reinforces this message even more. Here's the exhaustive guide to how to not get raped:

“The Official ‘How To Avoid Rape’ Satire. Inspired By Terrible Advice Everywhere.” (Click for the transcript if you can't watch the video.)

SEXUAL ASSAULT IS NOT A PROBLEM WOMEN CAN SOLVE BECAUSE WOMEN DID NOT CREATE THE PROBLEM. We all have responsibility for our personal safety, but that does not mean we are in any way responsible for crimes committed against us.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Well, if I have a daughter of the relevant age, I will tell her not to enter in a car with a strange. It might not solve the problem of rape, but it might save my daugher.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
We all have responsibility for our personal safety, but that does not mean we are in any way responsible for crimes committed against us.

No, it doesn't. The responsibility for the crime rests with the criminal, whether we're talking about rape, mugging, burglary, or whatever else.

Women have the right to walk down dark, lonely streets at night without being raped. The wealthy have the right to walk down those same streets wearing expensive watches and jewellery without being robbed.

These aren't situations where "educating criminals" will help you, though. As has been pointed out upthread, plenty of date rapists don't really understand that they are committing a crime. Educating these people about consent can certainly reduce the incidence of date rape, because most of those people don't think of themselves as criminals or bad people.

On the other hand, violent dark alley-lurking stranger rapists know perfectly well that they are criminals. Muggers know that they are criminals. They are unlikely to come to a change of heart with a discussion of consent.

But even though I am not responsible for the crime, I would feel foolish if I parked my car in a dodgy area and left my wallet open on the passenger seat. It is not possible to eliminate all risk, of course - criminals are everywhere - but I would feel foolish if I was the victim of a crime in circumstances where I thought I could have avoided being a victim by being more prudent.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by nickel:
Bad things will always happen to good people. Continued prayers for all the missing, everywhere. But I also add a plea to God that the police have this perpetrator -- because I want my own strong, smart, beautiful, young niece at UVA to be safe.

Absolutely this.

A predator often commits crimes of opportunity. That meant had it not been Hannah another young girl could have been grabbed. Unless all women in a city are going to stay locked up at home at all times, there will always be opportunity. In London 14 year old Alice Gross is missing and she was walking around her area unimpaired in the middle of the day with a functioning phone.

Of course there was also the man in Ohio who snatched his daughter's classmates and locked them in a basement for 10 years - he wasn't even a stranger,

We can teach our daughters self defense and we can teach young men about date rape, but can we ever rid society of the small number of evil people who kidnap and attack? I sadly suspect not. It goes back to prayer - prayer for those we know and love to stay safe.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Not really, given that the suspect was just apprehended in Texas.

National coverage is the reason for this.
AIUI it was communication between police departments, rather than reports from civilians, that resulted in his capture.

Moo

It appears not.

quote:
A woman who went to a beach in Galveston, Texas, to relax instead helped police catch the suspect charged in the disappearance of a University of Virginia student.

The woman, who identified herself to ABC News station KTRK as Karen, said she recognized Jesse Matthew from wanted posters related to the Hannah Graham case.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

It appears not.

quote:
A woman who went to a beach in Galveston, Texas, to relax instead helped police catch the suspect charged in the disappearance of a University of Virginia student.

The woman, who identified herself to ABC News station KTRK as Karen, said she recognized Jesse Matthew from wanted posters related to the Hannah Graham case.

But the wanted poster was issued by police, not the media.

Moo

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

Moo - I am not saying the police weren't involved.

You claim that the is "equal attention" to the Hannah case as there has been to two previous ones. When I pointed out that those two cases appear to only have been covered in local media, you claimed that in your opinion only local attention matters because it's the local police who run the case.

And yet - we have clear evidence that the widespread coverage of the Hannah case contributed to the woman in Texas identifying the suspect halfway across the country. If it turns out that he is the one who also committed those other two crimes, then frankly I don't see how you can legitimately argue that local media coverage alone is successful. It seems to have failed from what you have posted.

It's OK to admit that you were wrong to say 1) that only local media attention is important in solving cases like this and 2) that TX police found the suspect when in fact an ordinary citizen did.

The rest of your posts are matters of opinion but it's a bit silly to keep arguing against fact.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Let's also not forget what happens when an intoxicated young woman does ask for help - all of a sudden she is now the dangerous stranger:
Renisha McBride

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Well, if I have a daughter of the relevant age, I will tell her not to enter in a car with a strange. It might not solve the problem of rape, but it might save my daugher.

But how will you ensure that she is never too drunk to remember this sensible advice?

A lot of teenagers do reckless things. Most survive and learn not to do that again. Some, tragically, do not. It is always hard to accept that bad things happen to good people and we look for somebody to blame, even the victim. But the truth is that shit happens.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Which goes back to what seekingsister was saying. Maybe the girl left with the guy because she wanted to have sex with him. Which is only victim blaming if you think that a girl seeking sex is worthy if punishment.

To put it another way-- if a guy went home with a strange woman and was attacked/ killed/ dissapeared, would we blame him for anything, or simply count it as bad luck that he picked the wrong woman?

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

I am puzzled that what Moo has been saying on this thread is that Hannah should have been taught how to read nonverbal signals. But what Moo describes as providing her daughters is not nonverbal signal-reading skills, but rather skills at projecting confidence.

That is a strange disjunction.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It's OK to admit that you were wrong to say 1) that only local media attention is important in solving cases like this and 2) that TX police found the suspect when in fact an ordinary citizen did.

I'll deal with #2 first. When the woman who located the fugitive said that she recognized him because she had seen the 'Wanted poster', I assumed that she meant literally that. A 'Wanted poster' is put up by local law-enforcement officers in public places. It occurred to me recently that she may use the phrase 'Wanted poster' to refer to a media picture of the fugitive. I took the meaning of the phrase at its face value.

I never said it is only local media attention that is important in solving crimes.Here is what I said

quote:
No, because there was equal concern when Morgan Harrington disappeared, and no one knows to this day who abducted and murdered her.

There was also a black teenager, Alexis Murphy who disappeared, and great concern was shown in that case.

People around here object strongly to having young women abducted and murdered. It's much worse than having someone die in a drunk driving accident.

Media coverage is driven by the desire to reach the maximum audience. They pick and choose their stories to achieve this. In the case of all three disappearances, the local community showed its concern by searching for the victims and by providing food and other help to the searchers. Maybe the English papers picked up the story because it was a black man suspected of murdering a white woman. I don't know about the ethics of English newspapers.

Incidentally, the man arrested and convicted of murdering Alexis Murphy was white. Rapists and victims come in all colors.

Moo

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I am puzzled that what Moo has been saying on this thread is that Hannah should have been taught how to read nonverbal signals. But what Moo describes as providing her daughters is not nonverbal signal-reading skills, but rather skills at projecting confidence.

That is a strange disjunction.

What flashes through my mind is my strong opinion that we should teach girls to develop and trust their own radar about dodgy situations, and that a girl should have the unchallenged right to Ignore/ avoid/ get the hell away from someone with whom she feels uncomfortable, no apologies. Last time I articulated this opinion,there was a strong counterargument that this was misandry.

So, if we tell a girl (as some do) it is rude and man- hating to avoid a person she doesn't like, and she buys that, imagine how confusing it is to that girl when she is actually with someone she might like. "Oh, if I don't go home with him, he'll think I don't like him,or I don't trust him, or that I'm some sort of paranoid freak. After all, he keeps telling me he's a nice guy, and he promises he'll drop me off at the door..."

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Yes, that's true as well. 'Nice' girls are taught to be polite, when being assertive is a more useful strategy for getting out of dangerous situations.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Oh, and Moo:

quote:
Maybe the English papers picked up the story because it was a black man suspected of murdering a white woman. I don't know about the ethics of English newspapers.

I don't know which newspapers were running it, but it wasn't a front-page story. I heard about it as the result of this thread.

English (British) newspapers' ethics are about the same as American ones, really; the most important consideration is what stories will sell extra copies of the newspaper. I should imagine they ran the story because the victim is young and pretty and because nobody knows (yet) what happened to her. The race of the (alleged) attacker is less of an issue here, although as seekingsister says there is a definite hierarchy of concern over victims, with small children and young blonde women at the top. Not sure who qualifies for bottom place; it might be a draw between convicted criminals ('serves them right') and pensioners ('nobody cares what happens to helpless old women,' as Terry Pratchett says).

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
JoannaP: But how will you ensure that she is never too drunk to remember this sensible advice?

You can't of course, there are no guarantees. Parents can raise their children in such a way that they hope they will prepared for situations that might arise in the best way they can. But like you said, shit happens.

This includes knowing their limits with alcohol. As an adult I can handle alcohol. Maybe this is exactly because I've been drunk a couple of times in my late teens. I know my reactions and I know where my limits are. I still get tipsy every now and then, but there's no real danger in that.

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

What flashes through my mind is my strong opinion that we should teach girls to develop and trust their own radar about dodgy situations, and that a girl should have the unchallenged right to Ignore/ avoid/ get the hell away from someone with whom she feels uncomfortable, no apologies. Last time I articulated this opinion,there was a strong counterargument that this was misandry.

So, if we tell a girl (as some do) it is rude and man- hating to avoid a person she doesn't like, and she buys that, imagine how confusing it is to that girl when she is actually with someone she might like. "Oh, if I don't go home with him, he'll think I don't like him,or I don't trust him, or that I'm some sort of paranoid freak. After all, he keeps telling me he's a nice guy, and he promises he'll drop me off at the door..."

Read Gavin de Becker's 'The Gift of Fear'--it is a whole book that expands on what Kelly wrote. de Becker works in the personal security industry and gets called on stalking cases, workplace violence cases, and so on. He has a lot of really excellent advice, and one of his major points is that women are so socialized to "be nice" that they override their gut feelings of disquiet about an individual. These gut feelings are the "gift of fear" and should on no account be ignored; they are there to protect you. It's an excellent, but scary, read.

And I very much agree with seekingsister and other posters who point out that all the "walking tall" in the world will not protect you from someone who is larger, and/or armed, and/or has the benefit of surprise. I've read accounts of women with black belts in martial arts being attacked and overcome. Certainly it happens to women in the military, who have combat training and weapons training. And of course, men get violently attacked by other men all the time.

Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :

I note from the news stories that Hannah is 18. Many young people cast off parentally-imposed inhibitions after leaving home to do their own thing. It could be that Hannah was well taught at home, but away and on her own she decided to live differently.

One thing leads to another, and having one-too-many drinks when you are not used to drinking can seriously impair judgment. ISTM at that point the best warnings are seldom heeded.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

There was a lot of coverage about this one white woman who disappeared at the hands of a black man.

Did anyone hear about the two black women that were also murdered during this same time period?

I think not.

http://www.ebony.com/news-views/black-teen-girls-killed-but-do-you-care-403#axzz3Dn95F5IP

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I am puzzled that what Moo has been saying on this thread is that Hannah should have been taught how to read nonverbal signals. But what Moo describes as providing her daughters is not nonverbal signal-reading skills, but rather skills at projecting confidence.

That is a strange disjunction.

In a lot of acting and self-defense classes a lot of time is spent on reading non-verbal signals and what your body language is likely telling others about what you think and feel and are likely to do.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Here's a broader perspective on sexual violence:

Prevalence of and factors associated with non-partner rape perpetration: findings from the UN Multi-country Cross-sectional Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific

The justification for looking beyond particular crimes in North America, and taking a world-wide view:

quote:
Although this study focused on countries in Asia and the Pacific, the findings are of substantial global interest, partly because most of the world’s population lives in this region and the countries are very culturally diverse. Moreover, the high consistency between associated factors described in South Africa and North America and those from countries of this region is notable. This finding suggests that this study’s results are of global relevance to the problem of non-partner rape perpetration.

And what were the findings, you ask?

quote:
The prevalence of female non-partner rape perpetration varied between 4% (in urban Bangladesh) and 41% (in Papua New Guinea), but in most sites was between 6% and 8%. The prevalence of multiple perpetrator rape perpetration was mostly between 1% and 2%, but was substantially higher in Cambodia (5%), Jayapura in Indonesia (7%), and Papua New Guinea (14%).

Rape of an intimate partner was more common than was non-partner rape in all countries. The combined sample prevalence of intimate partner rape in men who had ever had a partner was 24%, ranging from 13% in Bangladesh to 59% in Papua New Guinea.

Although the title of the thread is "Stranger danger", we always must remember that non-strangers are actually more dangerous to women. These perpetrators cannot be avoided by not going to certain places, or deterred by walking confidently. If 6-8% of men have raped a woman they don't know, and 1-2% have participated in a gang-rape, and a whopping 24% have raped a partner, they can't all be predatory psychopaths on the lookout for a vulnerable victim. Some, if not most of them must be our friends, family, neighbours and coworkers. If the we cannot reason with "evil people" or the "violent dark alley-lurking stranger rapists", what about reasoning with these ordinary, everyday rapists?

quote:
All men who had raped were asked about the reasons for the most recent rape. Of those who had raped a nonpartner woman (but not a man or a partner), the most common reason for the most recent rape expressed sexual entitlement (statements endorsed by 73% of men across the region), followed by entertainment seeking (59%), anger or punishment (38%), and alcohol or substance use (27%). When asked about what consequences they had ever experienced after rape, only 55% of men had felt guilty ...

Anyone care to estimate what percentage of rape survivors feel guilty? Is anyone telling men not to get drunk because they might rape someone?

The study also has suggestions for preventing rape. (Note the absence of helpful advice for women such as keeping your hand over your drink or wearing low-heeled shoes.)

quote:
This study emphasises the importance of prevention of rape perpetration before it is committed, especially through interventions in childhood and adolescence. Complex approaches are needed, including structural interventions to reduce poverty, support better parenting, reduce exposure to child abuse, and build more gender equitable masculinity ideals. Additionally, interventions at the society level are needed to strengthen laws and criminal justice responses to rape. Effective rape prevention clearly requires long-term strategies, including challenging of practices that are deeply rooted in cultural ideals of masculinity and sex hierarchy.

In other words, building a more equitable society for all - men, women, and children - and challenging rape culture, not wasting time developing a roofie-detecting nail polish that is never going to work.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Women have the right to walk down dark, lonely streets at night without being raped. The wealthy have the right to walk down those same streets wearing expensive watches and jewellery without being robbed.

The problem with that sort of comparison is that what we tell people about reducing the risk of 'ordinary' crime is either about routine precautions that are easy to take (keep bag closed, shut your windows when you go out, lock your car...) or about taking special care in unusual, clearly dangerous situations. Whereas the message to women about sexual offences sounds a lot like "live your whole life in fear".

Going out at night, having a drink, flirting with someone you like the look of, accepting a lift home, are all ordinary things to do. They aren't reckless or stupid or dangerous things to do. Men do that sort of thing all the fucking time without a hint that they are inviting assault.

I'm all for people taking sensible precautions against crime, but it seems to me that there's more than a hint that the sort of precautions which I, a physically unimposing male who would probably be easier to assault than most women I know, would only think about taking in exceptional circumstances, say when alone in an especially rough area, are expected of women as a matter of daily routine. And if they are so negligent as to not to want to live like that, they are considered to have a causal and/or moral responsibility if they are unlucky enough to be the victims of crime. That can't be right.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

Going out at night, having a drink, flirting with someone you like the look of, accepting a lift home, are all ordinary things to do. They aren't reckless or stupid or dangerous things to do. Men do that sort of thing all the fucking time without a hint that they are inviting assault.

I'm all for people taking sensible precautions against crime, but it seems to me that there's more than a hint that the sort of precautions which I, a physically unimposing male who would probably be easier to assault than most women I know, would only think about taking in exceptional circumstances, say when alone in an especially rough area, are expected of women as a matter of daily routine. And if they are so negligent as to not to want to live like that, they are considered to have a causal and/or moral responsibility if they are unlucky enough to be the victims of crime. That can't be right.

Exactly.
And if they do live in fear, they are judged for that, too. One of the "justifications" rapists use that Soror Magna cited up there was "revenge" -- so, the act of doing all you can to avoid a dodgy person might provoke him to decide he has been insulted enough to retaliate. And then weepy fanboys write torrid essays slong the lines of, " hey, rape is bad, m'kay, but You Just Don't Understand What It's Like To Be Rejected."

The reason a lot of women don't report assault is there is always, always some way to assign fault to her. It's like a rhetorical spiderweb that just hangs there waiting for an incident,

[ 28. September 2014, 18:13: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
There was a lot of coverage about this one white woman who disappeared at the hands of a black man.

Did anyone hear about the two black women that were also murdered during this same time period?

I think not.

http://www.ebony.com/news-views/black-teen-girls-killed-but-do-you-care-403#axzz3Dn95F5IP

Unfortunately, sex workers of all races are murdered at a far higher rate than the general population. These crimes are frequently unsolved, not because no one cares, but because sex workers usually meet their clients in places where there are no video cameras and, frequently, no witnesses.

It's not that the police don't try to solve the crime; it's that there are few, if any, clues. In most murder cases, the attacker and the victim know each other. The police question the victim's acquaintances and their replies help zero in on the perpetrator.

The murder of a sex worker of any race is as serious a crime as the murder of anyone else. It's the lack of clues, rather than indifference, that stymie the police.

Moo

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

While it's probably true that women aged 25+ have a better idea of which guys are trying to hit on us (though that that does NOT tell you which ones will accept rejection graciously and which will turn dangerous) that sense doesn't just fall out of the sky and into our brains on our 25th birthday. It's learned from experience. Locking up an 18 year old to protect her until she's 25 will just leave you with a 25 year old who is even more naive than your typical 18 year old because she's never had a chance to learn.

Every toddler learning to walk will fall over, and a few will badly injure themselves. That doesn't mean you can or should keep them off their feet until they're five because five year olds are better at walking.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The problem with that sort of comparison is that what we tell people about reducing the risk of 'ordinary' crime is either about routine precautions that are easy to take (keep bag closed, shut your windows when you go out, lock your car...) or about taking special care in unusual, clearly dangerous situations. Whereas the message to women about sexual offences sounds a lot like "live your whole life in fear".

Here is the way I have always thought:

There are, amongst the ranks of our fellow humans, a number of violent criminals. Some are muggers, some are rapists. There are places where it is prudent not to walk, particularly at night, or you run the risk of being mugged. This doesn't mean that you are completely safe walking down well-lit streets - some people are mugged in the middle of the day on the High Street - but it is still prudent to avoid dark alleys through dodgy housing estates.

I view a (bush-lurking stranger) rapist as a kind of special-purpose mugger. He only targets women (rapists jumping out of bushes and raping men is exceedingly rare), and rapes rather than (or maybe as well as) stealing your stuff. So the kind of precautions I am talking about are the same as the precautions that I would consider prudent for me - a not particularly intimidating-looking man.

(Yes, I agree that there is a tendency to wriggle around and find a way to "blame" the victim for not taking sensible precautions. This tendency is more pronounced in the case of rape (and ties in to all the nonsense about how she was clearly asking for it by wearing a skirt / not wearing tights / having an elasticated waistband / wearing attractive clothing / having a vagina) but also happens to mugging victims. We frequently see victims of mugging blamed for using an expensive phone in public, looking like a tourist and so on.

This leads me to believe that there is a general victim-blaming reflex (which couples to a desire to believe that only foolish people would be victims of X - I am safe, because I'm too smart to behave in that way). In the specific case of rape and sexual assault, this victim-blaming reflex couples to latent (or sometimes patent) misogyny, and ends up with some variation on "Only sluts get raped. I / my wife / sister / daughter / whoever is safe, because they don't do that.")

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

This leads me to believe that there is a general victim-blaming reflex (which couples to a desire to believe that only foolish people would be victims of X - I am safe, because I'm too smart to behave in that way). In the specific case of rape and sexual assault, this victim-blaming reflex couples to latent (or sometimes patent) misogyny, and ends up with some variation on "Only sluts get raped. I / my wife / sister / daughter / whoever is safe, because they don't do that.")

This makes a lot of sense.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This leads me to believe that there is a general victim-blaming reflex (which couples to a desire to believe that only foolish people would be victims of X - I am safe, because I'm too smart to behave in that way). In the specific case of rape and sexual assault, this victim-blaming reflex couples to latent (or sometimes patent) misogyny, and ends up with some variation on "Only sluts get raped. I / my wife / sister / daughter / whoever is safe, because they don't do that.")

Absolutely agree with this.

When I was in college there was a man who went around groping women's butts from behind as he rode past on a bicycle. This was at a self-contained campus university in a well-off suburb. He wore a hat and hood making it difficult to identify him as he rode away. Occurred periodically throughout my entire time there and one of my friends was molested by him. The advice we were given was "He targets women with long hair." That's it - don't have long hair. Helpful, right? He struck at any time of day or night as well.

In my first year, a man was found hiding in a stall of the women's bathroom in the dorm next door to mine. In the middle of the day. When a girl started to shout for help he jumped out of a window and ran off. The campus police eventually said that they believed the "serial groper" as he was known was the same man who was lurking in the bathroom. He was also a suspect in another case where a female student caught a man outside of her window touching himself.

These are the types of people who commit stranger rape - willing to take risks to get close to victims, to the point of absurdity. What could we have done to avoid him, had he taken it to the next level of assault? Not used the bathroom? Not walked to class? Not left our rooms?

It is comforting to imagine that our friends and loved ones have special skills or senses that can help them avoid these types of attacks. But I think it is simply a coping mechanism. I don't see how we can fully protect ourselves from people like this, short of removing them from society once they are caught.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Leorning Cniht:

quote:
I view a (bush-lurking stranger) rapist as a kind of special-purpose mugger. He only targets women (rapists jumping out of bushes and raping men is exceedingly rare), and rapes rather than (or maybe as well as) stealing your stuff. So the kind of precautions I am talking about are the same as the precautions that I would consider prudent for me - a not particularly intimidating-looking man.

But by this logic, the advice you would give for avoiding the bush-lurking stranger is 'Don't be a woman; he targets women'.

This is not particularly useful advice for those of us who happen to be female (and cisgender).

quote:
This leads me to believe that there is a general victim-blaming reflex (which couples to a desire to believe that only foolish people would be victims of X - I am safe, because I'm too smart to behave in that way).

Yes... and we're back to the magical thinking.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0