In Ottawa, we had two horrible incidents a few years ago where two women were murdered in wooded areas that were actually quite close to well-travelled roads/housing developments. The best that could be reconstructed afterwards is that the attackers fooled the women into stopping and talking to them, rather than jumping out of shrubbery.
We had two recent incidents in the last month of attacks on paths -- this time both victims were male.
If an area is dangerous for women, it's dangerous for everyone.
The reaction should be to remove any obvious hiding places for attackers, possibly to increase lighting (if that can be done w/o increasing glare), and if necessary, put up signage suggesting that it not be used after dark. That also depends whether the path is an important pedestrian/cyclist link that needs to be accessible 24h/day or whether it's just for recreation.
Bright lights make people think they are more likely to be seen, this reduces the attraction of a given area to someone who wishes to commit a crime (be it against a person, or a property).
Ah, that explains it. And is a correlation I'm surprised I didn't spot, given that I was for a long time more comfortable with badly lit areas for a related reason - no clear view of anything I might do defensively.
This is on the Dockland Light Railway, on the Isle of Dogs.
Mudchute DLR is where the line goes underground, and one side is open parkland. Crossharbour is the next station north, Island Gardens the next south, both with more urban approaches.
I think some DLR services terminate at Mudchute, rather than going on and across the river. Crossharbour, which I'd describe as beyond rather than behind the Asda store, does look a sensible alternative for people who would cross Mudchute Park.
I'm a country tigger, and I've been more scared walking down Cornmarket Street in Oxford. And, where it is, there's possibly plenty of light in that Park.
What if it was someone attacking just redheads. Or people under 5 feet tall. Would you have any objection to a sign telling people that fit those descriptions should be extra careful?
I'm not about to put my safety aside for my politics, that's just foolish.
I'd imagine since they aren't murders, they know that the attacker is male. What if they put race in, too, and put BLACK MALES PLEASE DO NOT ATTACK OUR WOMEN would people be ok with that?
The things people do to make a point, seriously...well good for them.
If a serial killer were killing young women whom he picked up in bars, should this information not be communicated because it might make young women who go to bars afraid of going to bars?
Wouldn't it be the height of irresponsibility NOT to make this information (and the attendant risks) public?
The posting of a sign does not preclude the authorities from taking action to prevent what is happening from happening. Shouldn't the objection be if the authorities do nothing other than post a sign, rather than making people aware of the threat?
Nobody is telling you to put your safety aside for your politics.
If you would be deterred from walking in that area by the first sign, would the second one not also make you be careful? Both signs contain the basic information "there have been a series of violent attacks in this area." Whether you choose to deal with that by not walking alone, by pressuring the local government for better lighting, carrying a knife, taking self-defense classes, or any other method, you have the information. Nor are you going to be made safer by other women leaving the park. [edited to remove a half-sentence that I forgot to take out before clicking "post"]
You're missing the point. If women are being attacked (presumably by men, as 99% of random outdoor predators ARE male), then why should the WOMEN be the ones being kept out of the park? I'd rather see the police escorting MEN thru the area -- but if that were to be suggested, can you imagine the hue and cry that would go up?
I have SERIOUS problems with your suggestion of keeping men out. It's one thing to tell people to be careful, as they are known targets -- but to treat people as criminals? You've then been insanely fortunate to stay under the police radar.
You're perfectly ok with painting people as criminals, with profiling. Fuck 'em if they're innocent, right? The Bush style of dealing with 'undesirables'.
Thank you. As long as it's only the freedom of WOMEN that is interfered with, you're fine. But the problem here isn't women, it's the behavior of MEN; and as soon as someone suggests an approach which actually addresses the problem instead of treating the symptom, you go thru the roof. This is a fine illustration of the reasons why nothing ever changes.
The issue isn't that men are all criminals. It's that telling women they have to be extra careful/need an escort/should avoid the park, is saying the normal state of affairs is women are victims and targets.
It's also putting the onus for not being attacked on them, not the attacker.
The example of redheads you gave isn't good because that is a useful marker for a much smaller subset of the population. Women are 51 percent of the US; this means half the country is being told they have to worry about being attacked, and they are responsible for making sure it doesn't happen.
The much smaller subset of the smaller part of the population isn't being told to stop it. It's a political point, not about the actions of men, but the treatment of women when being attacked.
Further, and why it's so offensinve, it's a form if victim-blaming. If a woman gets attacked the public will say, "Oh, she ought to have known better."
At the same time, when one points out (as these people did) that blaming the perpetrators (as a class, in the same way women are being treated; as a class), in the form of unknown men (just as this warning was aimed at the unknown women who might be attacked), people get upset... it so unfair to men.
Well, as a man, I don't see anything wrong with it. It's in the same category as telling men who don't want to be rapists that it's very simple, all they have to do is not rape people.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-08-18 06:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-18 06:36 pm (UTC)In Ottawa, we had two horrible incidents a few years ago where two women were murdered in wooded areas that were actually quite close to well-travelled roads/housing developments. The best that could be reconstructed afterwards is that the attackers fooled the women into stopping and talking to them, rather than jumping out of shrubbery.
We had two recent incidents in the last month of attacks on paths -- this time both victims were male.
If an area is dangerous for women, it's dangerous for everyone.
The reaction should be to remove any obvious hiding places for attackers, possibly to increase lighting (if that can be done w/o increasing glare), and if necessary, put up signage suggesting that it not be used after dark. That also depends whether the path is an important pedestrian/cyclist link that needs to be accessible 24h/day or whether it's just for recreation.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-18 07:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-18 07:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-18 08:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-18 07:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-18 07:24 pm (UTC)Mudchute DLR is where the line goes underground, and one side is open parkland. Crossharbour is the next station north, Island Gardens the next south, both with more urban approaches.
I think some DLR services terminate at Mudchute, rather than going on and across the river. Crossharbour, which I'd describe as beyond rather than behind the Asda store, does look a sensible alternative for people who would cross Mudchute Park.
I'm a country tigger, and I've been more scared walking down Cornmarket Street in Oxford. And, where it is, there's possibly plenty of light in that Park.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-18 10:52 pm (UTC)I'm not about to put my safety aside for my politics, that's just foolish.
I'd imagine since they aren't murders, they know that the attacker is male. What if they put race in, too, and put BLACK MALES PLEASE DO NOT ATTACK OUR WOMEN would people be ok with that?
The things people do to make a point, seriously...well good for them.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-18 11:43 pm (UTC)If a serial killer were killing young women whom he picked up in bars,
should this information not be communicated because it might make young
women who go to bars afraid of going to bars?
Wouldn't it be the height of irresponsibility NOT to make this information
(and the attendant risks) public?
The posting of a sign does not preclude the authorities from taking action to prevent what is happening from happening. Shouldn't the objection be if the authorities do nothing other than post a sign, rather than making people aware of the threat?
no subject
Date: 2009-08-19 12:43 am (UTC)If you would be deterred from walking in that area by the first sign, would the second one not also make you be careful? Both signs contain the basic information "there have been a series of violent attacks in this area." Whether you choose to deal with that by not walking alone, by pressuring the local government for better lighting, carrying a knife, taking self-defense classes, or any other method, you have the information. Nor are you going to be made safer by other women leaving the park.
[edited to remove a half-sentence that I forgot to take out before clicking "post"]
no subject
Date: 2009-08-19 12:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-19 01:58 am (UTC)I have SERIOUS problems with your suggestion of keeping men out. It's one thing to tell people to be careful, as they are known targets -- but to treat people as criminals? You've then been insanely fortunate to stay under the police radar.
You're perfectly ok with painting people as criminals, with profiling. Fuck 'em if they're innocent, right? The Bush style of dealing with 'undesirables'.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-19 03:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-19 04:40 am (UTC)Take a breather.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-19 04:57 am (UTC)It's also putting the onus for not being attacked on them, not the attacker.
The example of redheads you gave isn't good because that is a useful marker for a much smaller subset of the population. Women are 51 percent of the US; this means half the country is being told they have to worry about being attacked, and they are responsible for making sure it doesn't happen.
The much smaller subset of the smaller part of the population isn't being told to stop it. It's a political point, not about the actions of men, but the treatment of women when being attacked.
Further, and why it's so offensinve, it's a form if victim-blaming. If a woman gets attacked the public will say, "Oh, she ought to have known better."
At the same time, when one points out (as these people did) that blaming the perpetrators (as a class, in the same way women are being treated; as a class), in the form of unknown men (just as this warning was aimed at the unknown women who might be attacked), people get upset... it so unfair to men.
Well, as a man, I don't see anything wrong with it. It's in the same category as telling men who don't want to be rapists that it's very simple, all they have to do is not rape people.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-18 11:06 pm (UTC)