Walking Home at Night
An Article written by Connor.
I've never felt safe walking about after midnight. Working in the pub trade can often lend a sobering reminder of how nasty late night antics can get.
Oddly enough, my wife has actually never felt this way. Possibly this is somehow related to where we live or maybe an anxiety issue of my own making. Perhaps its informed by experiences of being attacked, mugged, hassled or confronted several times a year.
What amazes me is that many men seemingly do not feel the same and apparently "cannot relate" to taking steps to ensure safety in the ways that women do. Personally, I've always stuck to brightly lit streets, made impromptu phone calls and even done the whole key-in-the-hand business many a time. These things are not a choice but a requirement; I feel I have to do them very often and many of my male friends share this feeling. After one experience in particular I was overwhelmingly afraid to be in town after dark for several months. When you're receiving unwelcome random hassle from strangers one wrong word or even dressing the wrong way can get you sparked out for no reason. Statistically speaking, men are far more likely to experience violence in this way, especially from randos… So why are some men apparently oblivious to this?
Perhaps this is down to naivety or arrogance? I worry that its seen as "unmasculine" to say this (which is a problem in its own right) or even that there is a fear that these concerns will not be taken seriously.
Recently, a lecturer of mine came up with this insightful syllogism - not all dogs bite, but some do… therefore treat all with caution. Except dogs are not human beings. Whatever profiling or precautions are projected onto them a dog's mental health is never affected and principles of self-identity are never eroded. Culture rarely cares about stereotyping canines or any wider effect that will come of it in unhealthy relationships between pets and owners. Imagine applying the same rhetoric to Muslims. Gender profiling is no different and its effects can be just as dividing and inaccurate.
The oft-mentioned counter argument to this is that these toxic behaviours usually only come from one gender. This is certainly true and requires our deep collective attention. Yet I think this fact does not allow for the type of collectivising that is currently happening; especially in a terrible time of mental health issues and poor debate. These statements define people too rigidly in a way that would feel barbed and nasty if gender were swapped for any other characteristic of identity. Its similar to the top 0.1% argument - that all the elites happen to have balls. Just because a working class bloke also has balls does not mean he has anything to do with their experience. This clumsy lack of intersectionality is all too common and forgets how these issues of identity can overlap or cancel each other out (both gender and class at the very least are both at play here) all in favour of one simple narrative to make life easier. Putting people into the simplest of boxes and needlessly keeping the conversation focused within that box prevents commentary on wider problems. For example, BLM may have ignored other ethnic minorities that experience the same problems for exactly the same reasons. At the very least we should pay full attention to how class, race and gender overlap in these discussions.
These zealous oversimplifications lead to divisive and toxic polemic that vilifies one gender and absolutely insists on characterising the other as passive and powerless. Its a dynamic that oversimplifies and caricatures gender roles in the most brutal and ugly way. A way that seems oddly archaic; painting an unnecessarily combative relationship between men and women too generally. This sets a cultural stage, forcing them to promptly adopt their places in an immutable conflict rather than focusing on the nuances at the heart of the issue and sharing their thoughts and feelings in an open and constructive way. I don’t think that this kind of rhetoric truly helps anybody involved. We wouldn’t dream of forcing apologies or collective responsibility based on ethnicity, so why do we do it here? I don’t know the work-around for this or what the correct answer is just that people must understand this isn’t ideal.
To me, this exercise feels increasingly like a modern religion replacement where profane sinful views are condemned in favour of holy ones. It’s the increasingly common thing of men and women alike having their slightly differing views not only tossed aside but entirely invalidated due to perceived connotations and for not being what some have decided is the undeniably "correct" view. This is a climate that breeds hostility like no other, where conversation and open thought are literally impossible. Noticing a thought within yourself that feels contrary to the mob narrative begins to make you feel physically ill, confused and shitty in a way that I can only imagine potential agnostics might feel in America's Bible Belt.
The inspiration for writing this piece comes from that feeling and witnessing the genuinely upsetting amount of arguments and resentment over the past few days. I definitely don’t believe that my view is "correct". Like anything I think it is an open question with a giant question mark on the end of it. It's not just open to contrary views, it demands them. If you aren’t willing to exchange ideas learn from others then you may as well not have them. I believe that how and why we form our views, not what views we have, matter more. Unless they are formed freely and with understanding then they often lack true value.
Not doing this leads to dogma, when lots of separate issues are compacted into a single unwieldly and angry soundbite. All of the subtleties of the original topics are lost in favour of piffy memes and tweets. Seemingly anyone can discover solid gold truths on a daily basis that, in reality, mask and ignore deeper complexities. It results in a kind of misplaced righteousness that demands to be agreed with but can barely be understood. There's often so much stuff to unpack and it isn’t even recognised with the intellectual sensitivity it deserves. These people halt centuries of debate at oddly specific viewpoints by virtue of a seemingly divine authority. Things are seldom as simple as we wish them to be.
Tragically, recent events have been bizarrely weaponised in order to springboard an entirely separate conversation about casual sexism which, while a just cause in its own right, feels irrelevant when the issue originally stemmed from unprovoked random violence and psychopathy. Band-wagoning in this way feels ghoulishly morose and even more like a hollow platitude when voiced by well-intentioned lads who feel they simply must offer their own assurances.
If we insist on moving the conversation to other, more general late night behaviours then the conversation is still inclusive to both genders. At the end of the day, twats at night pose a very real threat to all of us. A sub-section of blokes make life difficult for all of us and its usually other blokes that they go for violently. For women this can leave longer and deeper scars and is the often extreme manifestation of a phenomena that permeates our culture. It can come with an added degradation that is all but alien to the male experience. For men, utterly random violence is much more common to face and its impacts are often left unspoken or ignored for many reasons that hint at the desperate need to open up discussions about male issues. Though we may experience them in different ways, these issues do not belong to one gender alone. Crossing the road out of the way of a passer-by is common courtesy and needn't be so heavily gendered. What we should be doing is coming together in the face of horrible incidents rather than taking the opportunity to be at each other's throats and focusing on our differences; deciding who can and who can't have a voice in the conversation.
Oddly enough, my wife has actually never felt this way. Possibly this is somehow related to where we live or maybe an anxiety issue of my own making. Perhaps its informed by experiences of being attacked, mugged, hassled or confronted several times a year.
What amazes me is that many men seemingly do not feel the same and apparently "cannot relate" to taking steps to ensure safety in the ways that women do. Personally, I've always stuck to brightly lit streets, made impromptu phone calls and even done the whole key-in-the-hand business many a time. These things are not a choice but a requirement; I feel I have to do them very often and many of my male friends share this feeling. After one experience in particular I was overwhelmingly afraid to be in town after dark for several months. When you're receiving unwelcome random hassle from strangers one wrong word or even dressing the wrong way can get you sparked out for no reason. Statistically speaking, men are far more likely to experience violence in this way, especially from randos… So why are some men apparently oblivious to this?
Perhaps this is down to naivety or arrogance? I worry that its seen as "unmasculine" to say this (which is a problem in its own right) or even that there is a fear that these concerns will not be taken seriously.
Recently, a lecturer of mine came up with this insightful syllogism - not all dogs bite, but some do… therefore treat all with caution. Except dogs are not human beings. Whatever profiling or precautions are projected onto them a dog's mental health is never affected and principles of self-identity are never eroded. Culture rarely cares about stereotyping canines or any wider effect that will come of it in unhealthy relationships between pets and owners. Imagine applying the same rhetoric to Muslims. Gender profiling is no different and its effects can be just as dividing and inaccurate.
The oft-mentioned counter argument to this is that these toxic behaviours usually only come from one gender. This is certainly true and requires our deep collective attention. Yet I think this fact does not allow for the type of collectivising that is currently happening; especially in a terrible time of mental health issues and poor debate. These statements define people too rigidly in a way that would feel barbed and nasty if gender were swapped for any other characteristic of identity. Its similar to the top 0.1% argument - that all the elites happen to have balls. Just because a working class bloke also has balls does not mean he has anything to do with their experience. This clumsy lack of intersectionality is all too common and forgets how these issues of identity can overlap or cancel each other out (both gender and class at the very least are both at play here) all in favour of one simple narrative to make life easier. Putting people into the simplest of boxes and needlessly keeping the conversation focused within that box prevents commentary on wider problems. For example, BLM may have ignored other ethnic minorities that experience the same problems for exactly the same reasons. At the very least we should pay full attention to how class, race and gender overlap in these discussions.
These zealous oversimplifications lead to divisive and toxic polemic that vilifies one gender and absolutely insists on characterising the other as passive and powerless. Its a dynamic that oversimplifies and caricatures gender roles in the most brutal and ugly way. A way that seems oddly archaic; painting an unnecessarily combative relationship between men and women too generally. This sets a cultural stage, forcing them to promptly adopt their places in an immutable conflict rather than focusing on the nuances at the heart of the issue and sharing their thoughts and feelings in an open and constructive way. I don’t think that this kind of rhetoric truly helps anybody involved. We wouldn’t dream of forcing apologies or collective responsibility based on ethnicity, so why do we do it here? I don’t know the work-around for this or what the correct answer is just that people must understand this isn’t ideal.
To me, this exercise feels increasingly like a modern religion replacement where profane sinful views are condemned in favour of holy ones. It’s the increasingly common thing of men and women alike having their slightly differing views not only tossed aside but entirely invalidated due to perceived connotations and for not being what some have decided is the undeniably "correct" view. This is a climate that breeds hostility like no other, where conversation and open thought are literally impossible. Noticing a thought within yourself that feels contrary to the mob narrative begins to make you feel physically ill, confused and shitty in a way that I can only imagine potential agnostics might feel in America's Bible Belt.
The inspiration for writing this piece comes from that feeling and witnessing the genuinely upsetting amount of arguments and resentment over the past few days. I definitely don’t believe that my view is "correct". Like anything I think it is an open question with a giant question mark on the end of it. It's not just open to contrary views, it demands them. If you aren’t willing to exchange ideas learn from others then you may as well not have them. I believe that how and why we form our views, not what views we have, matter more. Unless they are formed freely and with understanding then they often lack true value.
Not doing this leads to dogma, when lots of separate issues are compacted into a single unwieldly and angry soundbite. All of the subtleties of the original topics are lost in favour of piffy memes and tweets. Seemingly anyone can discover solid gold truths on a daily basis that, in reality, mask and ignore deeper complexities. It results in a kind of misplaced righteousness that demands to be agreed with but can barely be understood. There's often so much stuff to unpack and it isn’t even recognised with the intellectual sensitivity it deserves. These people halt centuries of debate at oddly specific viewpoints by virtue of a seemingly divine authority. Things are seldom as simple as we wish them to be.
Tragically, recent events have been bizarrely weaponised in order to springboard an entirely separate conversation about casual sexism which, while a just cause in its own right, feels irrelevant when the issue originally stemmed from unprovoked random violence and psychopathy. Band-wagoning in this way feels ghoulishly morose and even more like a hollow platitude when voiced by well-intentioned lads who feel they simply must offer their own assurances.
If we insist on moving the conversation to other, more general late night behaviours then the conversation is still inclusive to both genders. At the end of the day, twats at night pose a very real threat to all of us. A sub-section of blokes make life difficult for all of us and its usually other blokes that they go for violently. For women this can leave longer and deeper scars and is the often extreme manifestation of a phenomena that permeates our culture. It can come with an added degradation that is all but alien to the male experience. For men, utterly random violence is much more common to face and its impacts are often left unspoken or ignored for many reasons that hint at the desperate need to open up discussions about male issues. Though we may experience them in different ways, these issues do not belong to one gender alone. Crossing the road out of the way of a passer-by is common courtesy and needn't be so heavily gendered. What we should be doing is coming together in the face of horrible incidents rather than taking the opportunity to be at each other's throats and focusing on our differences; deciding who can and who can't have a voice in the conversation.