Well, shouldn't it? Of the two people directly involved in a rape, the rapist and the victim, the woman only has control over the preparations and responses of one of them.

If you're talking about social policies, you'd consider the rapist, but when you're thinking on an entirely different level, on the level of the here and now that will be faced by some as yet unknown individual woman at some as yet unknown time, one must simply take for granted that the rapist exists and will make his move at an opportune time.

What exactly are you suggesting is the alternative for a woman who wants to not get raped? Assume that she has no reason to prepare or anticipate that sort of thing because if it happened it wouldn't be their fault?

Mistyped pronoun: that last "their" should be "her."

Okay, but the ladies would be able to take them off, unlike the ankle tags worn by offenders, right? So maybe the problem is with the aides' unfortunate explanation rather than the actuality of the device. Otherwise, it sounds just like that necklace my grandma ordered that has a little button she can push to alert the EMT's if she falls and can't get up. Or like the alert posts on some campuses with the button you push when you're being attacked to alert the police. Or any number of other devices that alert the authorities if your attacked...

Is acquaintance rape the most common form in Rome as well?

Yeah, the only problem I can see is that fact that everyone won't be getting these things.

It is basically a high tech rape whistle. What’s the problem (other than the fact that there would ever be a need for a rape whistle in the first place)?

Honestly? I'd wear one. I live in DC as a student and there have, in the past WEEK, been two sexual assaults, an armed burglary, and several other break-ins on and around my campus, which is in a "safe" part of town. I am genuinely more afraid of "stranger" rape than I am of acquaintance rape at this point, but it seems like it'd be handy for alerting the police to all kinds of other problems/attacks as well if you didn't have or couldn't access a cell phone.

I don't understand how this leaves the rapist out of the equation.

A device designed to help stick rapists in jail.....is bad?

A person isn't a rapist until the person commits his first rape. Until then, there is no way of knowing who in society will break laws.

I

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect women to at least participate in protecting themselves from rape. I consider it similar to protecting myself from getting into a car crash or keeping your house from being robbed. You do your part to get some kind of alert system in place so if it does happen, at least someone is alerted so it's easier to catch the rapist (or burglar, etc.) and hold them accountable for what they did (or tried to do). We obviously need to fix our legal system and how they view rape and the woman's role, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be encouraged to protect herself.

FYI: This dude was not elected, and his proposal was heavily criticized in the media et al.

The reason it was heavily criticized is that at best it is a band aid solution to a much larger problem of an inadequate Italian criminal justice system.

Many sex offenders are known criminals who are in and out of the system until they finally rape and/or kill someone.

There is little consistency to how they sentence individuals; judges have too much discretion; there is a lot less accountability; and few checks and balances are in place.

Having said that, rape is definitely one of the crimes on the rise in the past 5 to 10 years, so I'm sure this won't be the last of these types of proposals.

I'm obviously not Jessica and am not trying to speak for her, but I think what she meant was that while anti-rape devices certainly aren't bad, what IS bad is that men are never addressed in discussions about rape. When rape is addressed it's generally either victim-blaming or it's like, "Look, you too can stop rape...by donning this bracelet/toothed condom/whatever," instead of placing blame on THE RAPIST, who more than anyone is in a good place to stop rape. Even the passive language used in articles like these successfully remove the rapist from the situation. Anti-rape devices like this one are great and I hope they help out a lot of women, but it's not right that the only rape prevention tactics rest with the women who are presumed to be future victims.

Also: why just for rape? Shouldn't something like this be plenty useful for everyone in case of any mugging/assault by a random stranger-type crime?

Jess, I totally understand your position, but in this case I think the good outweighs the bad. Like adminassistant said, it- like Grandma's medibraclet- calls for authorities when you need help. Actually, I would prefer a smaller, more inconpicious button-like device you can carry in a pocket or on a keychain- I think it would be great to have if a woman was worried about a stalker boyfriend/husband or aquaintance rape. Something you could just press instead of having to reach for/find a phone and dial 911 (or whatever the Italian equivalent is). At my college they handed out WHISTLES to freshman female students. WHISTLES!! Like, if you are attacked, just blow this and hope someone who might be able to hear you will come rescue you! It would have been MUCH better to hand out something like this that would immediately contact authorities. This won't address ALL forms of rape- but it might help in some cases. At this point, I'll take what we can get. I just wish there was a bigger push to address aquaintance rape and really get people to understand that it's not just (or predominantly) strangers in bushes/dangerous areas of town you have to worry about. I've been in a situation before that could have gotten very ugly (but luckily didn't) and no one would have heard me or found me- I would have REALLY appreciated having one of those devices then for sure.

bittergradstudent - Makes sense. It could function as an general panic button.

"When rape is addressed it's generally either victim-blaming or it's like, "Look, you too can stop rape...by donning this bracelet/toothed condom/whatever," instead of placing blame on THE RAPIST"

offering safety measures does not victim blame. this government is attempting to offer a safety precaution to women. this is not blaming anyone, but as someone articulated earlier, women are targets for rape. using safety precautions is not accepting *responsibility* for being raped, and the tendency many feminists have to conflate the too is ridiculous.

Sounds like the "rape whistles" all the freshman girls at my college got.

Incidentally, would an anti-rape initiative that targeted potential rapists be effective? Somehow, I doubt they commit the act for lack of understanding.

i think kate nailed it.....

I don't see what the problem is. My campus has a bunch of "Public Emergency Response Telephone"s situated around campus. It provides a direct line to police who know exactly where the call is coming from. The bracelets sound like a portable version of the same system. Since they would only have one function, notifying authorities that you need assistance and relaying your exact location, they would be more inconspicuous and more reliable than cell phones.

Cate- what you are saying makes sense, in re-reading the post you are prob right (jump in any time Jess!) The public authorities don't spend nearly as much time addressing men and how men can prevent rape (seek active consent, don't have sex with her if she can't actively give consent). Most of the airtime is aimed at women and how we can "make ourselves safer" by never going outside after sunset or walking down anything other than Main steet with a police escort (which dismisses entirely the idea that home might actually BE the dangerous place for many women).

Sigh, the older I get the more I feel like my "alarm button" is going to be issued by Smith & Wesson.

The common feminist attitude that, when it comes to rape, women are always completely helpless and utterly powerless to have taken any hand whatsoever in their own fate, either in advance or in the moment, is, if nothing else, a very defeatist way to approach life, and at worst, a complete contradiction to the idea of female empowerment.

A more constructive approach might be to promote the fact that "no" is more likely to actually be taken to mean "no" if it's followed by a second "no" delivered in .45 caliber form, possibly followed by several additional .45 caliber "no"s as appropriate. That's the approach I take, anyway.

For women who can't afford a cell phone, it would be a novel idea to have some kind of wi-fi item to attach to a key-chain to immediately alert police that they need assistance.

And for that matter, roll it out to men and children.

Um, I should clarify: that's the approach I prepare to take. I have never actually had to refuse sex via handgun.

Once again, putting the onus on women to protect themselves from rape takes the rapist - remember him? - out of the equation. Not okay.

It is probably very hard to get the potential rapists to wear such kind of bracelets or possibly activate them in case they were planning on raping someone.

This seems like a good idea to me, it could help prevent rape. Obviously it would be a million times better if women could just go through an alley without need of protection, but that is incredibly hard to achieve, I assume.

I mean I appreciate the sentiment, but it's not without some introspection.

No matter how you spin it, it's a weak position to be in. I mean you push the button and hope that somebody arrives in time.

All the while knowing that if the cops do get there, you are still going to be faced with the possibility of not being believed, depending on the circumstances.

I'm a non-violent kinda character, but some days it's hard.

Yes. Yes I would. Like Meredith pointed out, though, it would be handy for it to be marketed for use for other types of assaults as well.

Yes. Yes I would. Like Meredith pointed out, though, it would be handy for it to be marketed for use for other types of assaults as well.

Indeed. It seems basically just like an easier and faster way to call 911. Probably smart for anyone that doesn't want to get mugged, raped or killed.

Also, I disagree very much that the rapists are taken out of consideration when discussing such accidents. There are idiots that blame the victims, but there are just that many people that talk about how rapists should be castrated and tortured and then fed to little puppies, which I personally find a bit ridiculous as well. I wouldn't say that rapists are not considered in the public discourse of rape, though.

Sorry folks, ran out for a second. Cate, Nazrafel thanks - you folks got it.

I'm not saying women shouldn't protect themselves in the ways that make them feel comfortable. But I don't think that I should have to wear a fucking monitoring bracelet to be safe. What happened to the idea that women should be allowed to walk freely in public spaces without fear of assault!?

And yes, this does take the onus off the rapist. Because the bracelet is all about how to stop women from being raped instead of how to stop men from raping women.

This also reminds me of the conversation we had a while back about Rapex, the anti-rape device.

It also related back to the women-only train cars to curb harassment. What happens to those women who don't take those train cars, or who don't wear a bracelet - will they be asked why they weren't taking the "proper precautions" before daring to go out into public?

I'm sorry I'm getting heated, but come on - I shouldn't have to wear an ankle bracelet like frigging a criminal in order to feel safe. These are our streets, our trains, our public spaces - and we deserve to walk freely around them without being raped. You want to help curb sexual assault? Here's a crazy idea - start with with the perpetrators.

Echoing some of the other comments here, this "rape bracelet" is nothing more than a band aid for a bullet wound. Yes, it may address some forms of sexual assault for some people, but it's not going to be as useful as people think.

In essence, is a placebo strapped around women's wrists. They feel safer wearing one and the officials in the government get to look like they actually care about preventing sexual assault.

As has been stated here previously, very few people are sexually assaulted by strangers as they walk through dangerous areas. Could this bracelet prevent that? Maybe. Will it? Probably not.

I see this backfiring in major ways. First of all, it should be available to everyone, not just women, for reasons of quickly alerting police to experienced and witnessed crime in general, not just sexual assault. Therefore, there will be more people and more expense involved in having them.

Second, what are the implications of accidentally tripping the "rape bracelet"? Whether women were just scared by the young boys across the street, or they just accidentally hit the button, are women then lectured for "crying rape"? That says nothing of the crying wolf phenomenon. If there are enough accidental calls to police, police won't respond as quickly (if they are going to respond quickly to calls from these bracelets in the first place, which I kind of doubt).

The next comes the victim blaming. If a woman wearing the bracelet is attacked, but is attacked in such a way she didn't have the time, strength, or courage to press the button, you better believe that will be brought up later as "She must have consented, then, because she didn't put up enough of a fight to even push a button."

This can even be taken a step further when a woman is attacked and isn't wearing a bracelet will be questioned as to why she didn't have one. "Weren't you asking for it by walking through this dangerous area wearing those clothes and not wearing a 'rape bracelet'? Why didn't you want to do everything to protect yourself? Didn't you get exactly what you expected?"

These may sound over the top, but I've been working with survivors for years now, and I would fully expect these reactions from others.

In theory, these "rape bracelets" don't sound horrible; however, my experience tells me that in practice, they have the potential to be another thing women are blamed for in their assault experiences.

I agree with you. I just don't really see an easy way how to make sure of that. And for the time being, I'd say it is better to be safe with a bracelet instead of being unsafe but proving a point.

Though, I am wondering, what would you propose to create such an environment?

ellestar, right on.[

bardock--her point was that the bracelet doesn't make you safe in the first place so your choices don't really make sense.

While it is a comforting thought to have such a device available, a common response to rape is for the victim to "freeze." I doubt a person in the state of shock that comes from being attacked would think to push a button to alert the police. A better defense would be to teach women assertiveness and self-defense strategies.

Do people really not see the problem with telling women that they should wear a government tracking device in order to avoid rape? Really?

If you don't see how this sort of device leads to victim blaming, take a look at what people are saying right here on this thread. "I'd say it is better to be safe with a bracelet instead of being unsafe but proving a point"; "I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect women to at least participate in protecting themselves from rape." The first seems to imply that being safe from rape is something women can choose as easily as they can choose to take birth control to be safe from pregnancy; the second is more nuanced, but the problem comes with the word "expect". If people who remain safely unnamed thanks to the passive voice can expect this (as if any women out there don't try to avoid being raped), then do they also get to decide what women have to do in order to be considered to have taken sufficient precautions?

Practically, sure, you can take self-defense courses and assertiveness training. Do whatever you need to do to feel safe, but that's a whole different kettle of fish from a government-sponsored initiative that could create a new standard that women are expected to meet lest they be seen as "asking for it" or taking too much of a risk.

I don't see how self-defense training precludes victim blaming and, frankly, I think the way to prevent victim blaming is by attacking the tendency to blame the victim rather than shooting down measures intended to help women which, in practice, can also be used against them.

Good as the intentions might be, really, all these bracelets do is cover up the fact that it seems like everywhere, rape is not discussed properly. Making women wear bracelets won't stop potential rapists.

I support the idea of self-defense training and other such things, but that really doesn't make potential rapists any less likely to attack. It's not solving the problem, just (hopefully) changing the outcome of the attempts.

Women shouldn't have to wear those bracelets. The world needs to work on making that a reality.

Jessica said: It also related back to the women-only train cars to curb harassment. What happens to those women who don't take those train cars, or who don't wear a bracelet - will they be asked why they weren't taking the "proper precautions" before daring to go out into public?

I think this is a really excellent point.

"What happened to the idea that women should be allowed to walk freely in public spaces without fear of assault!?"

---------

The Italian government specifically mentions that this bracelet is for women who happen to be walking alone in BAD areas (not your typical public area).

Gender, honestly, has little to do with it.

If you walk in a bad area, the risk of violent assault multiplies.

A more constructive approach might be to promote the fact that "no" is more likely to actually be taken to mean "no" if it's followed by a second "no" delivered in .45 caliber form, possibly followed by several additional .45 caliber "no"s as appropriate. That's the approach I take, anyway.

HA! I love it.

The Italian government specifically mentions that this bracelet is for women who happen to be walking alone in BAD areas (not your typical public area).

Now if only we could better define what a "bad" area is. I doubt this has to do with "hot spot" policing. Typically, "bad" areas are translated as areas with "people different than me." And who are these areas "bad" for? You're bringing up vocabulary and wording that is rife with negative connotations in both racism and classism.

What the bracelet seems to be a placebo for is for wealthier women who have to expose themselves to areas that are less economically advantaged. They fear those who live there. The bracelets give these women a false sense of security from their own prejudices.

Gender, honestly, has little to do with it.

Christ. Gender only has little to do with fear of rape if you're a man.

A wealthy woman wouldn't be walking home.

you know, i think self defense classes, rape whistles, that rapex condom thing, and this new contraption are all pretty okay ideas...

only problem is what about the people who are being raped by their partners, their dates, their friends, their family members, etc...? i think all of the above precautions target only stranger rape which is important to address but in the minority of all rape cases.

Furthermore, how is writing off the women who'd take advantage of this as privileged bigots any better than victim blaming, especially when you're going so far as to make a blanket judgment of an entire group of women whom you don't even share a country with, as far as I know.

Once again, putting the onus on women to protect themselves from rape takes the rapist - remember him? - out of the equation. Not okay.

What?
I have a big problem with security system companies. They put the onus of protecting homes on the home-owners!

Wow, you really dropped a bomb on this one. Maybe in the future you might want to decide that you don't necessarily have to stretch things QUITE so far (into cuckoo land) to "find" harm against women (where none exists).

Where are the government initiatives to stop the rapist?
If Rome has such a huge problem that women have to go around wearing rape bracelets shouldn't there be something DRASTIC happening to premediatate these acts?

this reminds me of a ad on tele here at the moment that I blogged about recently...
http://charlottescrazy.blogspot.com/2008/05/blame-victim.html

After reading some threads here I'd like to make one other point.
These bracelets aren't going to make you "safe". They're only going to enable the cops to apprehend the culprit more quickly. Chances are the rape will be completed. In some of the inner cities in the USA you can wait nearly an hour for cops or emts.

And since I'm presuming that these high-crime areas are precisely where these bracelets are intended they're not really going to do much.

Another point:
What if the rapist steals your bracelet, gives it to his sister and when the cops come tells her to say:"I hit the button by mistake"
If the cops aren't on the ball I could totally see them not asking for her ID to confirm her identity.

A lot of times there is a low-tech workaround to high-tech gizmos. I remember seeing some B grade cloak-and-dagger style movie where a kid was in a laboratory building and diverted the motion sensor by throwing freesbies down all four hallways at an intersection (so he couldn't be followed).

jabes1966--with regard to your first comment, the difference is that rape is not a property crime and no one ever, EVER says "you didn't have a security system? you must have been asking to be burglarized!" there's no stigma or suspicion put upon people who have their homes burglarized, even if they forget to lock the doors the way that there is rape victims.

Ellestar opined:

Christ. Gender only has little to do with fear of rape if you're a man.

The simple fact is 99% of the places that a woman would fear being raped, a man would also fear for his safety.

In other words if a white well-to-do woman has her auto break down in a black inner city slum (and she has a dead cell phone) and she has to go find a phone booth, a white well-to-do man wouldn't feel much safer.

As evidenced here:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/05/the_knoxville_h.php

This is a particularly gruesome assault upon a white man & woman by three black men and one black woman.
This story (which strangely got BURIED--go figure) brings up a whole host of issues about black hate of whites that obviously the liberal press doesn't want to deal with.
Quite frankly I think trying to find a solution to ONLY RAPE is always going to result in FAILURE unless it's encapsulated in a broader campaign to make sure that EVERYBODY is safe in their bodies and possessions everywhere.

The feminist constant preoccupation with rape (as the only crime that demonizes men and humanizes women) is really about stirring up hatred of men in women (much like constant stories of black oppression always seem to be in the media to stir up hatred of whites in blacks: Juna 6, Don Imus, blacks disproportionately affected by katrina, etc.. etc..)

Going on & on about rape is without this larger viewpoint of public safety in general is ONLY going to achieve (probably deliberately on some feminists' parts) the result of stirring up hatred against men.

How smart would it be if I started a campaign of preventing ONLY carjackings, or ONLY stabbings? The truth is it doesn't make very much sense at all, does it?

Typically, "bad" areas are translated as areas with "people different than me." And who are these areas "bad" for? You're bringing up vocabulary and wording that is rife with negative connotations in both racism and classism.
----------

uh....no.

A bad area is any area with a high crime rate.

It has nothing to do with "oh, these people are different me" Gang warfare exists between members of an ethnic group.

And anyways, are you trying to tell me that walking in an obviously slummy area, alone, at night is a sane idea?

Oh, and do you believe that any other violent crime that happens to a man, is somehow worse than rape inflicted upon a woman?

Let me rephrase my last statement, made a typo.

Is any other violent crime that could happen to a man less terrible than rape inflicted upon a woman?

Jabeswhatever -
STOP DERAILING. Fucking hell, man.

This is a post about rape. You came not only to a feminist site, but a thread specifically about rape and women and safety...to bitch about how women go on and on about...rape? Fuck off.

Furthermore, how is writing off the women who'd take advantage of this as privileged bigots any better than victim blaming, especially when you're going so far as to make a blanket judgment of an entire group of women whom you don't even share a country with, as far as I know.

I'm not writing off anyone. I personally don't think that "rape bracelets" will be effective for anything other than (falsely) alleviating some women's fear of rape and making government officials look hard on crime and pro-woman. My mention of race and class was in response to the fact that these would be in "bad" areas. My comment was to problematize what "bad area" really meant.

As has been mentioned a couple of times already on this thread, most women will be assaulted by someone they know, not by a stranger who is lurking somewhere in this "bad area." By focusing on making certain women feel better as they walk through "bad areas" will not alleviate the problem of sexual assault. It probably won't even alleviate the problem of sexual assault by strangers.

I brought up this problem of thinking of areas as "bad" based on Rebecca Campbell's book Emotionally Involved that discusses how researchers of sexual assault deal with the reality of rape. Her interviewers were nervous about "bad areas" of Chicago. They discussed these self-defense strategies they would use when they went to the projects to interview women about sexual assault. However, when an interviewer indignantly brought up that she lived in a project (and had since she was a child) that these researchers who were scared were fearful based on a lot of biases based on race and class. She pointed out that rapists really don't like to get caught and they would probably be much less hassled by police if they preyed upon poorer women from their own neighborhoods than a richer looking white researcher who cops (based on systemic racism and classism) would take more seriously and whose assaults they investigate investigate more thoroughly. Living there, she had more to fear than those who were just passing through. And living there, it was her home that the white researchers were disrespecting and fearful of.

I do not discount women's fear of sexual assault. It is a powerful thing and I believe that women should feel safe in public places. However, I'm not going to deny that fear has many of it's roots deeply embedded in racism and classism. According to the statistics, this fear is misplaced because sexual assault is mostly intra racial and perpetrated by people known to the victim.

I work closely with survivors of sexual assault. I have to see their pain nearly every day. If I thought that these bracelets had a chance in hell of stopping sexual assault, I would send my life savings to Rome to help fund them. I would give anything to have no job tomorrow.

Unfortunately, I have to live in a world where women are almost always blamed for the harm done to them. I reviewed an academic paper with statistics that stated that over 30% of the Italian population sampled believed that women who were attacked by complete strangers with weapons as they walked home from work were in some way at fault for the rape. So don't condescend to me that I have no idea what I'm talking about because I don't live in Italy. The problem lies in how a patriarchal society views sexual assault. If a society believes that rape bracelets will stop rape, they're in for a very rude awakening. Realistically, though, they're more likely to deny any assault that took place without someone tripping a rape bracelet as being consensual in some way.

I think Jabes has a point. Rape is only one of many symptoms of having people willing and able to commit violent crimes and get away with it more often than not. This makes me wonder if changes in rape rates tend to follow rates of violent crime in general. If so, attacking the causes of crime period might be more effective than attacking rape in particular, but I don't have the relevant statistics so I can't say.

Jabe was derailing the thread, but I think it's worth pointing out that a rape bracelet totally would have helped in the case he or she referenced in that race-baiting post.

Fact is, a personal item that connects to the police in emergencies in the same way a fire alarm alerts the fire department would stop some assaults and save some lives, and I don't see why those lives shouldn't be spared just because the system that stands to do so threatens to also lead to victim blaming, a phenomena that will always exist until it is tackled directly rather than fought through attacks on genuine attempts to help people.

Victim blaming needs to be fought through educating the police forces and the public at large, and any other measure will be ineffective and, in this case, counterproductive in the worst way possible through the shooting down of suggestions that might actually help people.

Like I said, my only quarrel is with the fact that rape and women have been singled out. Otherwise, this is just like being able to dial 911 at the drop of a hat and invites no greater threat of victim blaming than a cell phone, which does the same thing but slower.

You know? I should just adopt the rule that as soon as someone uses the phrase "demonizes men" - I should stop listening. It's the MRA calling card, and I have found - through this site no less - that even if the person doesn't call themselves such, they most certainly are reading up on anti-feminist crap.

And since I should bring it back to point, I gotta say that the idea of me wearing a bracelet that I would have to put on and take off frequently really means I'd start to forget to. I'd lose patience for it, I'd feel conflicted about being made to be *even more* responsible for my safety, and insisting on my goddam right to be where I want or have to be. I'm stubborn like that. Can you believe my audacity?!

And I'd be blamed.

I cannot envision this or any society siding with the survivor "especially if she had a tool she could have used but chose not to - wow how dumb." Oh hellz yeah I'd be blamed.

I can't explain it eloquently, but I don't equate this device at all with the emergency phones, or with the whistles. Those are for everyone (at least where I went whistles are handed out to anyone who wanted one). These bracelets, on the other hand, are only for women and do place a higher responsibility on them to prevent a rape. AS IF WE WOMEN DON'T ALREADY TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT OURSELVES.

You know? I should just adopt the rule that as soon as someone uses the phrase "demonizes men" - I should stop listening. It's the MRA calling card, and I have found - through this site no less - that even if the person doesn't call themselves such, they most certainly are reading up on anti-feminist crap.

And since I should bring it back to point, I gotta say that the idea of me wearing a bracelet that I would have to put on and take off frequently really means I'd start to forget to. I'd lose patience for it, I'd feel conflicted about being made to be *even more* responsible for my safety, and insisting on my goddam right to be where I want or have to be. I'm stubborn like that. Can you believe my audacity?!

And I'd be blamed.

I cannot envision this or any society siding with the survivor "especially if she had a tool she could have used but chose not to - wow how dumb." Oh hellz yeah I'd be blamed.

I can't explain it eloquently, but I don't equate this device at all with the emergency phones, or with the whistles. Those are for everyone (at least where I went whistles are handed out to anyone who wanted one). These bracelets, on the other hand, are only for women and do place a higher responsibility on them to prevent a rape. AS IF WE WOMEN DON'T ALREADY TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT OURSELVES.

The simple fact is 99% of the places that a woman would fear being raped, a man would also fear for his safety.

If it's so simple, I'm sure you can find a citation for it, then.

A bad area is any area with a high crime rate.

What kind of crime?

White collar?

Drugs?

Domestic violence?

Sexual assault?

It has nothing to do with "oh, these people are different me" Gang warfare exists between members of an ethnic group.

I have not heard of the epidemic of people walking home from work caught in gang crossfire.

And your "gang warfare exists between members of an ethnic group" begs a citation, please. And how is this germane to the subject of women's fear of sexual assault?

Is any other violent crime that could happen to a man less terrible than rape inflicted upon a woman?

Sexual violation, whether it be on a man or a woman is more terrible than other violent crimes (minus homicide), yes. And the statistics still show that women are more often victims of sexual assault (Tewksbury, 2007).

an interesting critique that i've yet to see mentioned (sorry if it has) but is ringing alarm bells in my head is the fact that women would be placing a government issues and controlled tracking device on their body. i see no mention of whether the signal would be active at all times, but the thought of it being so, is terrifying. in my professional life, i work for an organization that combats DV, IPV (choose your acronym) and knowing the statistics regarding abusive partners working in /on/for the police force makes me highly concerned for abuse of power regarding tracking and could potentially endanger women's lives!

an interesting critique that i've yet to see mentioned (sorry if it has) but is ringing alarm bells in my head is the fact that women would be placing a government issues and controlled tracking device on their body. i see no mention of whether the signal would be active at all times, but the thought of it being so, is terrifying. in my professional life, i work for an organization that combats DV, IPV (choose your acronym) and knowing the statistics regarding abusive partners working in /on/for the police force makes me highly concerned for abuse of power regarding tracking and could potentially endanger women's lives!

Rape is only one of many symptoms of having people willing and able to commit violent crimes and get away with it more often than not. This makes me wonder if changes in rape rates tend to follow rates of violent crime in general. If so, attacking the causes of crime period might be more effective than attacking rape in particular, but I don't have the relevant statistics so I can't say.

This might be true for stranger rape, which is more likely to be a crime of opportunity, but I don't think it would have much bearing on acquaintance rape, which is the more serious threat for a large segment of the female population.

Uhm, I don't think anything has been said about each bracelet being personalized, such that a person on a police force may track down a specific woman's location.

And also, as has been said, this is pretty much just a medical alert bracelet distributed on a wider scale. Did anything negative follow the distribution of medical alert bracelets?

Also, they aren't obligatory.

I don't see why you couldn't use the bracelet in the event of some cases of acquaintance rape, though of course unconsciousness and/or an unwillingness to call the police upon your attacker may stop you.

Nonetheless, I think the idea that this will have no effect on acquaintance rape is false, as is the idea that a measure which only targets stranger rape isn't worth enacting at all.

But of course, the situations that call for the use of this item should, and probably would, eventually spread to cover all extreme crimes and all potential victims in the same way that 911 is an all purpose and patron number.

Robos, I swear I am not picking a fight but I have to say that your comments make me realize how varied the idea of feminism is (not that you have outright identified as a feminist), since I find myself disagreeing with almost every point you have been making on every thread.

I have not counseled like ellestar, instead I volunteered at a center where most of the women were raped by strangers and/or by acquaintances, and/or relatives, and/or husbands. All of them felt despondent. Those who sought help from the police were often blamed. Some, especially due to anti-immigrant sentiment - were actually jailed on trumped up charges. Humor ellestar for a minute, please, and understand that this mechanical, techy gadget would have very real, and negative consequences for many women. Good in theory, not in practice. For it to work, it is essential for the police and officials to not be susceptible to victim-blaming, and that is impossible if the culture they are embedded in reinforces the idea that women are responsible for someone else's actions. On top of that, you are talking about a country that believes there is a finite value to a woman, and will deem her less worthy depending on her sexual history as proven by that ruling on the 14 yr old raped by her step-father.

Hey rape apologist (you know who you are). Read this post http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/you-think-that-was-assault.html at Shakesville for what happens when women actually fight back.

Can't imagine why any women might "demonize men" (Oh i don't know, maybe because they rape!)

Also, they aren't obligatory.

Yet I have the sneaking suspicions that women who don't wear one will be questioned as to why not and partially blamed for the lack of bracelet. Do not underestimate society's propensity for victim blame.

There will be victim blaming no matter what. Victim blaming isn't going to increase just because women have one other means of protecting themselves. Therefore, new means of protecting yourself should not be dismissed just because of omnipresent victim blaming.

It's pretty easy to make a list of reasons about why you think something sucks. However, the only solid reason not to at least try this idea is if it is directly competing for funds with another initiative aimed at curbing sexual assault.

So, what are some ideas from those who think this idea will lead to victim blaming? What are some perpetrator oriented measures that have not been implemented that you think would be better and more helpful?

ellestar,

i dont understand why you are being so coy. You wouldn't walk down a street known for extreme violence.

As for self-raical warfare, Have you ever been to Southern California? Heard of the Bloods and Crips? The Mafia? Wars between mostly white biker gangs?

-----------------------
Sexual violation, whether it be on a man or a woman is more terrible than other violent crimes (minus homicide), yes. And the statistics still show that women are more often victims of sexual assault (Tewksbury, 2007).
-------------------

This is completely subjective. Im not gonna argue this; but being nearly beaten to death is as an atrocity equal to rape.

Since you want to play the game of "let me pick statistics that show victimization of my gender"

Here:

From the US Department of Justice:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/vsxtab.htm

Men experience violent crime 54.2% more than women.

"Violent crimes included are homicide, rape, robbery, and both simple and aggravated assault."

Since you want to play the game of "let me pick statistics that show victimization of my gender"

From where I stand, the only person who seems to be playing games is you. Ellestar accurately cited statistics on the prevalence of sexual assault. In a thread about sexual assault, of all places! Mercy me!

Did you know victim blaming is in the Bible? It's true!

That said, I don't think something as deeply entrenched as this is going to be affected by new technologies, especially when the introduction of whistles, horns, mace, cell phones, and other such devices have had no discernible effect.

I am going to agree with those that said this isn't removing the rapist from the equation.

To me it's a method for protecting yourself. It is an unfortunate fact that rapes happen, and that they happen mostly to women, but until that fact changes - and I'm not saying that isn't something we should work for - there need to be readily available methods for fighting back/notifying authorities.

I can however see how this could lead to (more) victim blaming. It's not a stretch. I know if something ever happened to me one of the first questions would be "why were you so stupid to walk around with the city your iPod on?" You know, like millions of other people do without getting attacked every day.

I don't think it's inherently a bad idea. Just something to add to self defense classes and keychain pepper spray, I guess.

But not a replacement for methods that actually deter perpetrators, of course.

"i dont understand why you are being so coy. You wouldn't walk down a street known for extreme violence."

I am going to ignore the coy insult - and instead say that, uhm, sometimes those extremely violent streets are unavoidable. Some of us, uhm, grew up on those streets. Some of us had no choice. What's your point with this? If something happened to me, and I lived and therefore had no choice but to walk in those bad areas, it would somehow be my fault?

I really need to put in my two cents here.

I feel like almost all of the posts here, (even the original one, sorry Jess) are totally missing the point.

Would publicly availability of these devices actually lower the quantity of rapes that occur?

It does seem hard to predict, but let's say this is instituted as a widespread program, and over the next two years the number of rapes in Rome has a statistically significant decrease, it would take a pretty significant drawback for me to say that such a measure wasn't worthwhile.

Of course, if after two years there's no change beyond what would be predicted by chance, then this idea ought to be scrapped (at least for the time being).

The comparison to prisoners doesn't sound particularly apt to me, not without some for of coercion, anyway.

...and lastly, I'm certainly not naive enough to believe that this alone would solve much of the problem of rape. But I would still like to see some numbers on reduced instances of rape and violent crime that result (or don't).

Im not victim blaming...

Its not anyone's fault that they live where they do and if they happen to be attacked.

Did you Jem, live a normal life? Did you not take precautions, living in the bad area that you did?

The rape bracelet, along with the 911 system, are precautionary measures intended to HELP the victims and IMPRISON the perpetrators.

mirm: Hey rape apologist (you know who you are). Read this post at Shakesville for what happens when women actually fight back.

More like, what happens when women fight back unarmed. In the year 2000, 550 rapes were prevented in the United States per day by the mere display of a firearm. A few others were also prevented by the use of a firearm, but weapons were only fired 0.9% of the time they were used to prevent violent crimes.(1) Or, give a relative rate instead of an absolute one, when a woman targeted for rape was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when unarmed.(2)

Of course, one hears a lot of nonsense about guns being taken away from women and used against them. As if the woman wouldn't still be at a disadvantage if she had simply never brought the gun, and ignoring the train of thought that makes one wonder, if that were indeed the case, whether we should perhaps require convicted sex offenders to carry handguns at all times, so that if they attack someone, that person can take their gun and use it against them, the fact of the matter is that women are actually 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured during violent crimes in which they offer no resistance than in those in which they resist with a firearm.(1)

Of all the causes of rape, critical lead defficiency on the part of rapists does seem to be among the leading ones. Of course, that's not quite right, since as I mentioned most defensive uses of firearms don't involve firing the weapon. I guess that's the placebo effect at work, eh? Such a shame that the law is determined to rob the vulnerable of the coercive power that the predators can get by simply being strong and numerous.

---

(1)National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics

(2)U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American
Cities, 1979

Would I wear such a bracelet? No, but I don't carry pepper spray either. Then again, when I go walking at night (I live out in the country) I carry a big stick. It makes me feel *safe*, like I have at least taken a precaution in case something happens, whether it is from a four-footed predator or a two-footed one.

If rape bracelets, pepper spray, guns, knives, walking sticks, cell phones, whatever, makes someone feel safer, then I see nothing wrong with taking back that bit of control.

I never realized until I moved back to the country, how much *control* I was giving the city over my actions. Where I walked, what I wore, when I walked, how I treated others while I was walking...

As long as the circumstances of our lives dictate our actions instead of our actions dictating our circumstances, we will never be able to get to the point where the first reaction will be to teach people to *respect* one another instead of always looking out for number one and hurting someone before they have the chance to hurt you.

A place to start is to give control to women, even if it's something as ineffective as a rape bracelet or pepper spray. In essence it tells women (or whoever decides to wear one) that they will have some control over what happens to them, that they aren't a complete victim.

My $.02, I'm sure someone will be along in a moment to call me an apologist.

FeDhu: A place to start is to give control to women, even if it's something as ineffective as a rape bracelet or pepper spray.

How could you possibly call it "control" if it's ineffective? That's just the illusion of control, which is even more dangerous than lacking control but knowing it!

First of all, let me restate that if they implement this, I think it should be for all crimes. My main issue is that this crime will benefit the government officials that put forth this plan more than it will help any potential victims. I also see this as having a major chance of backfiring.

i dont understand why you are being so coy. You wouldn't walk down a street known for extreme violence.

Coy? I believe I've been extremely forthcoming.

Again, I'm going to have to ask you to define your terms. What is "extreme violence"? (Sorry, I keep imagining a street where they shoot arrows at me and I have to dodge swinging axes or something.)

If you're asking if I would be willing to walk down a street known for gang-related crime (since that's what you defined as "bad" above): Sure, if I needed to get somewhere. I don't have a car and public bus systems are not known for leaving me at the doorstep of most places I need to get to. But I'm not clear what point this proves.

Im not gonna argue this; but being nearly beaten to death is as an atrocity equal to rape.

In terms of recovery symptoms of depression, negative self images, anxiety, feelings of helplessness and loss of control and psychosomatic symptoms, survivors of sexual assault experience those negative symptoms occur in greater intensity and for longer duration than victims of other violent crimes (see Harrell, Smith, & Cook, 1985, and Resick, 1990 for review).

Individual experiences are subjective, but the statistical data hold that you're full of it.

Men experience violent crime 54.2% more than women.

So? Most crime is male perpetrated.

From your same site:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0538.pdf

"Violent crimes included are homicide, rape, robbery, and both simple and aggravated assault."

I looked at your statistics. It does not say that men experience sexual assault more than women.

Also from the same site you gave me (thanks, it was very helpful in further proving my points):

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0502.pdf

I have to warn you, if you want to play dueling statistics and citations with me, you'll lose. First of all, I teach statistics. Secondly, I'm writing a dissertation on this very subject. I already have 300 pages of argument against whatever point you're failing to make.

I can't believe people here are actually arguing that rape is no "worse" a crime than other crimes. Ranking crimes is completely counterproductive. Rape is, in the vast majority of cases, a crime directed specifically towards women and with a specific purpose, which is why we're focusing on it on a feminist website and in a different way. Are people here really claiming not to understand how rape has been used throughout history as an oppressive tool? You can admit that rape is in many ways a "unique" crime without saying that other forms of assault are not also disturbing. Not recognizing the way rape functions in our society is to say that the "hate" aspect of hate crimes is irrelevant. It's not.

But I'm not clear what point this proves.
-------

The reason why I posted here originally, was to support the idea that wearing a bracelet for bad areas while walking alone isn't a bad idea. Really, that all i was trying to say before the conversation shifted.

You asked me to define a "bad" area, accusing me of classist and racist sentiment.
Your constant asking of a definition gave me the impression that you deny the existence of crime-infested, slummy neighborhoods, that i have seen many times in my life.

If a woman walks in an area with consistently high crime rates, isn't it a rational assumption to assume that she is at a higher risk of being raped, and that the bracelet might be a good idea?

There really is no difference between the 911 system and the bracelet.

I defined a bad neighborhood as one with high instances of violent crime, not necessarily gang violence. A very simple definition that applies to many slummy areas. And no, it doesn't mean that there are people with crossbows waiting to shoot you. It doesn't mean that walking there will always get you killed.

I only brought up racial gangs because you said that people define bad as something that isn't like them. Which is ridiculous, because when a black guy in certain black neighborhoods wears the wrong color tshirt, he gets shot.

And regarding stats

1) I never said that men are sexually assaulted more

2) Men are obviously the chief perpetrators.

But, you could also say that men make up the majority of the police force, which in turn prevent crime.

And about the statistics

1) I never denied that women are sexually assaulted more.

2) Men are obviously mostly the perpetrators, i didn't find that worth mentioning because i thought it was common knowledge.

I only mentioned the male violence statistic because generally, feminists criminally ignore any statistic that upsets their continuum of absolute female victimization. Females are not the only ones suffering in the world.

The fact that MRA and feminism dwell on one-sided victimization, targeted against a common enemy (a demographic of millions), is upsetting to me.