>>Three articles worth a moment of your time
Three articles that don't offer a solution although together they describe the problem. 1) Attacks on women should be stopped, 2) Women shouldn't have to stay at home or be permanently accompanied when out, to prevent them 3) It's the men who perpetrate the attacks who are to blame. 4) By implication, it's men who should suffer any inconvenience needed to cure the problem.
What then is the answer, other than a minority of men spontaneously ceasing to abuse women? If that is the only solution, and it is definitely a better one than all women having to stay in or have a friendly companion with them at all times, how can it be brought about? Why are 99 men out of 100, or whatever proportion the non-offenders are, be held any more responsible* for the problem than the female victims (who of course shouldn't be blamed)?
Frankly if I thought my daughter or wife was at risk I would advise them to take responsibility for their own safety, including not going out alone. Even if I had command of the nation's police I could do no more in the short term, other than providing them with a police escort which is impractical.
Long term, more severe punishments, focused police attention to prevention and detection, education, cultural shift, can all have an effect. But in the end the only person who can really look out for an individual if is that individual him or her self. That IMO applies to every grown up person in most situations - self-preservation means either don't do dangerous things, or do them in as safe a way as possible.
Male or female, I would simply be an idiot to wander about alone at a time and place where there is a material chance of me being attacked. If asserting my right to do that results in my being hurt or killed, whose fault is that? The attacker's, obviously. But who could, practically, have prevented it? Only me, whether by being accompanied, armed to the teeth, or simply staying away from there.
Clearly that isn't fair, but what's the answer? Blaming the police because they aren't everywhere at once? Perhaps more CCTV, and would that help? How practical is 100% coverage?
I feel as if I must have missed something obvious. I usually do. But I'm at a loss as to exactly what the protesters want other than to blame the police, and more so because one of these monsters happened to be a policeman.
*What proportion of men commit these crimes? Apart from being unreasonable and impractical, a curfew for men would probably make things worse, because all the law-abiding men would be at home leaving the field clear for the muggers, rapists and murderers who by definition are not concerned with keeping the law.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 16 Mar 21 at 11:11
|
