All these are good questions. We teach our kids to practice defensive driving, to get out of the way of a drunk driver, perhaps not get on a ny subway past 9 or 10pm, to go with at least another friend if you are going out after 10 or 11pm in Manhattan when not in your own car. I expect my kids to let me know where they are if they are traveling out of town. I keep them informed of my own whereabouts if I am traveling. All these are common sense precautions about moving around the world in a safe way. If my son is drunk, I don’t want him to drive. He can protest, and act childish (he does from time to time) and doesn’t want to be told anything, and thinks he is an adult. And he is putting himself at risk in the process. I am an adult, and I make myself responsible to other people in the family, including my kids. There is no ego involved. I think a lot of this advice is being taken as some man telling some woman what to do. That attitude is self-destructive. If my wife tells me something, I take it seriously because she is looking out for me. If I let my ego get in the way, I am setting aside good advice. I can’t explain this any better. All these young people can take good advice, or suffer some unfortunate consequences in a probabilistic sense – it is just a higher risk path these kids are picking.
But that doesn’t mean women shouldn’t take steps to avoid situations that will put them in more danger. Here, bike riders (including electric bikes and scooters) always have the right of way. They must yield at red lights but then can plow through. It’s legal. Doesn’t make it safe, doesn’t mean everyone can see them. They have to take steps to keep themselves safer. They can wear helmets, they can have lights on their bikes, they can stop at lights rather than just yield, but if it is between the guy on the bike and the one driving a Hummer, the guy on the bike is going to lose.
Women should park under lights if they are taking a late train. Women should stay in groups. Yes, they are allowed to walk or park wherever they want, wear what they want, go to bars alone. If someone attacks them that person will be arrested.
Doesn’t change that the woman was attacked.
There was a time when subways in NYC had a lot of crime on them at all hours. Many people said the subways were a lost cause and that respectable people should avoid the subways altogether if they cared what was good for them. But some idealistic people thought it was possible to make the NYC subways safer, and that doing so would make NYC a better city and that the effort was worth the time and money. And the effort worked and now NYC subways are a LOT safer. They are not perfect, but the norms of behavior are just way better and way safer than they used to be. And everybody benefits. None of this would be true if the discourse had stayed stuck at the level of “Well what do people expect if they take the subway?”
(Of course there is still room to improve–I’ve been to cities where the subways are sparkling clean and where you literally could fall asleep with your purse on your lap and not worry. So it’s possible.)
Much of crime prevention and safety advice is not controversial, because it applies to everyone. For example, “do not leave your stuff unattended and unlocked because it may get stolen”, “watch for red light runners when your light to cross the intersection turns green”, etc..
However, it becomes a hot button when the advice applies or is seen to apply only to a specific demographic group, suggesting an added burden on that demographic group. The advice specifically for women mentioned in this thread is an example. Analogous examples would be advice for visible minorities to think twice about certain colleges because they are located in areas with a high level of racism against them, or religious minorities to increase security at their houses of worship, or LGBT people to avoid being too obvious about it when in certain places. Even though that may reflect how threats varying by one’s demographic group actually are at the moment, many people, out of a basic sense of fairness, do not think that is how things should be.
Another way that such advice can be controversial is if it implies that a specific demographic group is the threat.
It’s a nice thought but it took more police presence and more. No one wants to be the person hurt for the long term betterment.
Herein lies the problem.
Certain people on here are insulted that you say females should be careful. I say the same about men, btw. The argument is, why should females be singled out.
Well the rapist is looking for someone to attack. If you you don’t take precaution, you put yourself at greater risk. I can do things that make me more susceptible to attack (maybe not SA but attack) and I take precautions.
I understand people say it shouldn’t happen. And it shouldn’t. But it does. None of us can prevent that.
It’s no different than people say, don’t wear expensive jewelry or flash cash out in a busy , outside area - like in a downtown. Not the same crime but it also requires preventative behavior.
I understand people say the after the assault response is terrible and I get it and hopefully folks can create a movement to improve laws, police responses, mental health resources and more. Perhaps that’s going to happen from the Cornell tragedy.
But personally, I’m not sure why people are aghast when one mentions prevention.
Anyway, I’m jumping off - we’re going in circles.
I do hope that sexual assault is reduced to zero and frankly, I never thought someone had to think so deeply about it when going to college. I always worried about my little girl - but nothing like I’ve started thinking the last three days since this has come up here.
Yes - seems it was 6-7 hours with some of the men appearing to simply snort ketamine off of her body, according to her statement.
I need this explained to me. What human being walks into a room where a clearly impaired person is being physically violated and looks, does drugs, participates, walks away, anything other than stopping what is happening to the impaired person? Even if you don’t want to report what is happening as a crime, isn’t it basic decency, morality, human nature to take the impaired person to safety? It just completely boggles my mind that no one stepped in. I wouldn’t wonder if or assume that a woman “wanted” to be violated by others … I would remove her from the situation.
That’s relative, of course. I believe the snorting of drugs off her naked body was classed as sexual assault in the title IX investigation.
I’ve started reading some of the Sanday book that @maijem11 linked above. Not very far in but it does explain some of this behavior.
It’s also interesting that the foreword to the book was written by a judge who has presided over a number of rape cases, and noted the similarities between some of these fraternity related cases and the gang-rape initiation ceremonies among actual gangs in the cities. (She noted the gang members are more likely to be prosecuted than fraternity members, linked to some of the factors already discussed earlier about colleges taking over the initial investigations etc)
Is it also a factor that gang members are typically poor and fraternity members are often upper class? The whole “they have so much to lose” doesn’t apply to poor people, I imagine.
Definitely. Part of it is that things often work differently for wealthy, mostly white people anyway, and I assume part of it is also ability to hire expensive lawyers.
I was thinking money buys things - like good defense. And I’ve heard of snorting cocaine. I am out of the times. I don’t know what ketamine is but it killed Matthew Perry I think.
I think the “off the body” thing is a social media or movies made cool. I’ve never heard of it but have seen it - like eating sushi - on tv shows, etc. and i think tv shows and social medial have given people ideas.
If you watched Hawaii Five 0 in 1972, you might see a gun shoot a bullet and someone fall. Today you see a machine gun with 20 bullets, blood, sex, they talk about missing organs and more.
There is so much graphic and detailed entertainment out there vs. implied that today - kids have an entirely different mind of expanded things they can do or that can happen - vs. many years ago when we were youth.
I’m not going to mention the specific school other than it’s a large state university. Our daughter was a freshman. Three days after she moved in, at 1 AM on her first Saturday night, we received a call waking us up: police were in her hallway. A girl across the hall from her was found passed out on the men’s bathroom floor on the first story of her dorm building. The next day we found out she was one of at least six girls who had been roofied.
As I alluded to in a previous post, it’s the mere suggestion that women have to alter their lives in a myriad of ways just to avoid being SA’d. Women aren’t allowed to feel safe in their daily lives because their minds constantly have to go into protection mode. We should not have to live like this, but the current laws do not favor SA victims. There should be no loopholes in consent laws. SA cases should be fast tracked through the legal system so victims aren’t spending years being re-traumatized. States should face serious penalties for not processing rape kits in a timely manner.
It all boils down to an overall devaluation of women in this country.
ETA- this kind of thinking also shifts the burden onto women to protect themselves - and if they are SA’d, it opens up the door for victim blaming.
Contemporary art reflects society. I learned so much working with artists. This article shows us that the subject of SA has been with us for a very long time. Women have tried to shed light on how it devastates women. It’s worth a read.
I honestly think some people don’t even realize when they are victim blaming. They claim they’re not when it seems clear to many of us that they are. You don’t see it as much, but you also see victim blaming along some of the similar lines when men die in hazing rituals. All seems designed to shift the blame from how the fraternities behave.
I was being sarcastic. A response to the opinion that some of the men were going in just to do drugs.
I posted upthread about my friend still recovering from a SA decades later. And the implication that going out to dinner with a man, and letting him pay the tab is “consent”. Even if you end up a bloody mess after the assault because apparently saying “No” isn’t enough. Pushing and shoving isn’t enough. Screaming isn’t enough. Somehow you “signaled” consent because you weren’t quick enough to grab a frying pan and knock him out cold or poke out his eyes with your keys??? Unless you’ve put the guy in a coma it’s somehow “he said/she said”???
That’s great - let’s let everyone not take preventative measures in life. Don’t wear a seat belt. Don’t drive the speed limit. Carry your money in a clear plastic wallet around your neck. Wear lots of jewelry.
Sure, your life will potentially stink, but none of us will be devalued.
I understand the point, but it’s not logical.
Are certain groups - sometimes white males, sometimes females or people of certain religions or races - are all devalued.
100%.
Is it right.
No
But safety first.
In this case, that’s the first point.
Now, getting things to change from a reporting and legal sense - absolutely 100%, but they don’t happen overnight - and they likely don’t change a potential sexual assaulter from attacking.
I’m always - safety first.
On another note - I meant to write last night but I hadn’t waited 15 minutes.
This was posted from @SJ2727
It made me think, removing the world assault and putting in racist or homophobic, that it might be a lot of these same people and in my belief, these attitudes and behaviors are often developed at home (as youths).
One of the accused is calling out the obvious bias of Letitia James. [1]
Lopes’ filing argues that James’ appointment is “improper” and cites a post her office shared on X on Sept. 28, three days before her appointment was announced. In the post, she said: “What this young woman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable. I’m holding her in my heart and in my prayers. To her, and to all survivors: you’re not alone. We stand with you.”
The post, the petition contends, “made clear that she has formed an opinion about the case” and that “she has already reached the conclusion that Petitioner and the other named Defendants are guilty.”