Do women need protection from men?

[Anakin McFly]

I'm having a Facebook fight, where my position is yes, because right now women are harmed by men at staggering rates and anything that could prevent future victims is a good thing even if this isn't ideal because ideally such harm would not occur. Whereas they're arguing that this simply reinforces the patriarchal notion of women as vulnerable weaklings and men as rape machines unable to control themselves, and instead why don't we just teach men to stop raping? Except that some men are rape machines unable to control themselves, and the idea that telling them "pls don't rape" would stop them is laughable. But at the same time I realize it sounds very patronizing and I don't know what the solution is.

(topic at hand is privacy and whether e.g. there's a need for female dormitories to be separated from male ones, or why female common showers/dressing rooms are often locked with keycard access but male ones are open to anyone, which they're arguing is a double standard because men can get raped by women too. Which yeah, but it's extremely rare compared to the inverse.)

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

They do need protecting from some men. But that doesn't mean that men need to do the protecting. The examples you gave could be set up by women just as easily as by men. So women can take ownership of their own protection. And similarly if the men feel unsafe in their dormitory (or wherever) they're perfectly capable of arranging their own locks.

It doesn't need to be one sex protecting the other.

[aels]

I read the title and said 'yes' so I have turned into the cartoon feminist I always knew I would be. I am very tired in my body and my brain right now so I can't phrase anything properly but I don't think it's patronising to recognise that women often experience a common and legitimate threat from men, and that there are measures that can be taken to make women either actually safer or just feel a bit safer. I mean, you could argue that *everyone* needs protection from men since men are also the primary cause of harm to other men. I don't think women statistically represent the same threat to men that men can represent to women.

I also agree with Opiate that it doesn't necessarily have to be men protecting women, and frankly, I wouldn't necessarily feel safe with men protecting me, in that the number of 'allies' who are either misogynistic or outright predatory is not zero. And IMO, the people who complain about women taking steps to make themselves safe are the first ones to complain when a women doesn't make herself safe (maybe she goes out alone at night or gets drunk) and is then victimised. It's the same logic that says that we need to treat all men like potential rapists and at the same time calls us man-hating bitches because NOT ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS, OH MY GOD. I'm rambling now. I have good thoughts on this but they belong to Awake Aels. Sleepy Aels got nothing.

[Anakin McFly]

I think that's a useful distinction to make - "protection from men" vs "protection by men". I'd think the latter is the one that would be patronizing and potentially more dangerous, plus it makes women dependent on men to protect them from men, which isn't a good arrangement.

I was also thinking about the differences between protective measures that require restricting women's freedom (don't go out alone at night, etc) vs restricting men's freedom (you can't go in there), where the latter seems more justifiable because it doesn't put the responsibility on victims.

[phe_de]

In a perfect world, women wouldn't need protection, because all people would respect each other.
But the world is not perfect; and most violent crimes are committed by men.

Therefore, it makes sense to implement measures that give women more safety without restricting their freedom.
Whether lockers that need card access is an appropriate measure is for the concerned women to decide; after all, it's an inconvenience for them as well.
But since Hogwarts-style protections are not possible in the real world, I guess they sort of make sense. Like women-only parking spaces.

[The Creep]

I think vulnerable people need protection. Full stop. Sex needn't come into it either way.

[Anakin McFly]

But since Hogwarts-style protections are not possible in the real world

lol that's actually how this all started

Like women-only parking spaces.

I disagree with this one, because I think it's a measure that will actually make things more dangerous, for the same reason that someone is less likely to be raped in an open public space than somewhere private like a room. Public spaces - like car parks - should not be segregated, because then public policing is possible. Areas where privacy are needed (esp. bathrooms and showers) are completely different, unless it's a nudist colony.

Dormitories are a grey area, though. I can understand how a fully mixed dorm might be safer than a segregated one, because it increases numbers and makes offenders less likely to be able to get away with stuff and others less likely to be able to excuse their behaviour. But that's also assuming one with proportionate gender ratios vs say one women alone with a dozen men.