Poirot if you walk alone at night it's not because you're worried about being attacked by men, it's because you're worried about being attacked.

That's simple plain common sense and applies to me as much as you. In fact, on the evidence it applies to me more than you.

Whether the motive for the attack is sexual or financial or simply plain aggressive bastardry doesn't make the slightest difference to the good sense of not putting yourself in danger.

As it happens, in my adult life I've been attacked by a man three times, but I've been assaulted by women on several occasions. I've had one bloke, egged on by his girlfriend, try to take a swing which I dodged and defused the situation by offering to buy him a drink which he accepted to her disgust, another try a king hit from behind, which didn't end well for him. I've had my hair pulled, my shirt ripped, drinks poured on me, a high heel ground into my foot, all by women. The affect of alcohol on "young ladies" can be horrendous. the only time I actually felt threatened by a man was at a train station late at night when a couple of young islanders demanded my wallet and were most displeased to find it was empty. The train arrived just in time, but I lost the wallet.

I still wouldn't walk down a dark laneway alone.

Anti,

If I was to walk down a darkened laneway - and I was attacked.....what are the odds it would be a woman?

And what are the odds it would be a man?

Notwithstanding, domestic issues are less cut and dried than random attack.

Poirot, if you were walking down a dark alley and were attacked, it would be most unlikely, but I suspect that the gender of your assailant would be less cut and dried than you think. if it was a sexual attack, then certainly a man, but if it was a financial one, either gender might do it, possibly even skewed toward women. Even desperate men are not keen on attacking women for money, although it does happen. Women in the same position have no such scruples.

On the other hand, if I was to walk down a dark alley and got attacked, it would be much more likely than it would be for you and it would almost certainly be a man, although there is a fair chance he would have a woman nearby.

It is almost certain that he would be in some way suffering social disadvantage, whether substance abuse or poverty or both. They would be the reason for the attack, not his gender.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You seem to be trying to imply that masculinity is inherently more violent, rather than the obvious fact that very few people of either gender accost people in dark alleys.

You're focussing on the wrong characteristic, like worrying about the make of the car that just hit you instead of why it left the road.

To be fair, Anti. I also depend on men to keep me safe in this world.

Antiseptic

'Killarney, the fact is that 60% of partner violence is mutual and more than half the rest is initiated by women.'

That is NOT a fact. Never has been; never will be. Stop wasting everyone's time pretending it is.

And seeing you're so nifty with numbers, why don't you find out the number of men who raped women in the aftermath of our friendly rapper's instruction from hell, and then count up the number of women who raped men. Then express the difference as a percentage.

Killarney it may not be a fact in your world but out where both genders experience of partner violence is counted it is a well researched and documented fact.

The time of only asking women about their experience of partner violence, of assuming that women are less prone to human failings than men, of free run to the gendered lies and deception that has propped up the DV industry for far to long is hopefully coming to an end.

The sooner its finished the sooner we might be able to get serious about tackling real causes of abuse of both adults and children.

R0bert