I think the headline of this Washington Post piece is worse than the actual article. The headline suggests that women should stop having premarital sex in order to protect themselves from sexual violence, which isn’t really what the authors of the article are arguing. Their argument is partly backed by objective data that show that married women and children with married biological parents are less likely to be victims of sexual violence. I say that the argument is “partly” backed up by data because there are a lot of socioeconomic reasons why married people are less likely to be victims of crime (of all types) than unmarried people. The primary reason for this is because married people (as a whole) are wealthier and live in safer neighborhoods than unmarried people (as a whole). But, yes, having a man reliably around does protect women from other men. And, yes, biological dad is statistically more protective than part-time non-biological boyfriend.
The problem with the article (in addition to the headline) is that this advice is not particularly helpful. You can’t tell a young girl that she needs her parents to be in a happy marriage because that is not something over which she has any control. And you can’t tell a young woman that she needs to be in a happy marriage because every marriage would be happy if life gave people what they wanted. Picking a husband who will be compatible long-term, attentive and protective, and around all the time for the children is a task much easier said than done.
In any case, when a woman has to walk through a parking garage, you tell her to have her keys ready and some mace in her purse; you don’t tell her to dump her inattentive boyfriend and find a great guy to marry.
If the idea was that this article would be helpful in some way, it really only succeeded in irritating people and arousing a lot of mockery.
Yes, little ladies, leave the taking of lovers to your husbands, and let them beat them up instead!
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!
The WaPo is going the way of the NY Post, the WSJ Op-Ed page, the Washington (stupid) Times and Free Beacon (of ignorance).
It’s not fit to wrap a dead fish in, because it’ll be an insult to the intelligence of the poor dead fish.
And you wouldn’t line your birdcage with it, because if they ever find out, the PETA people will accuse you of wanton cruelty to animals.
lulz.
This applies to men as well as women though. People who live in suburbia and who’s idea of a night out is having a dinner party with their friends aren’t really exposed to danger. On the other hand people who live in the city and walk to and from bars, night clubs, and all the other fun “young and single” activities are exposed to a whole different level of danger.
There are standard rules to avoiding it. There are certain areas you don’t go to. It’s best to move around in a group of people that contains at least one sober individual. Displaying luxury goods like a rolex watch, iphone, or fancy car signals you would be a productive target to rob. Avoid groups of young adult males. Be aware of anybody who’s obscuring their face in this age of cameras. Stay in areas with an active police presence.
I’ve been mugged, and it’s because I wasn’t following those rules. I damn well knew I was increasing my chance of getting mugged, but I did it anyway because there was a specific DJ I wanted to see. And despite being mugged I’d do the entire thing again. Because the party was fun, and because yes I’m willing to roll the dice with my own life if it means having fun.
Ultimately, I’d hate living in suburbia. And I accept that my idea of fun means doing things that could land me in a dangerous situation, and I do them anyways.
“And you can’t tell a young woman that she needs to be in a happy marriage because every marriage would be happy if life gave people what they wanted.”
I am just working on the proofs of an article, so I just wanted to say that I’m pretty impressed with this sentence.
You may be a bird-brain, but you’re a pretty good writer!
If divorce weren’t an option, the numbers and rates for battered women living with her husband and their biological children would go way up. Also suspect that women in that category are the least like to seek medical treatment and police intervention when battered, and therefore, the stats are artificially low.
Curiously the reporters ignored the data that didn’t fit their hypothesis –the extremely low rate of spousal abuse for married women with no children.
No hostages to fortune.
It’s Bradford Wilcox. If he could find a way to fit “people who cut their genitals every other hour on the fifth Sunday of each year” into his marriage hypothesis, he would.
The man is a disgrace.
Damn, could have saved commenting time if I’d heard of him before. This would have sufficed.
Others may want to check it out for themselves:
Bradford Wilcox
Robin Fretfell Wilson
David Blankenhorn and IAV
The article is great! so women are supposed to marry their abusers? the WaPo article is really really confused on the issue of causality on multiple levels – for one, married women are not dating, hence, presumably, have intimate contact with fewer men than a woman who is dating. if it’s about couples living together, there are reasons why they don’t get married. and the WaPo writers should look into the probability that a child who has been physically abused will get into an abusive adult relationship and that his/ her children will repeat the cycle [barring major intervention]. and, as Marie2 points out, how many lives have been saved by the introduction of no-fault divorce? the article is offensive on all levels. It reads like something David Brooks would cook up.
it really only succeeded in irritating people and arousing a lot of mockery.
This kind of trollish liberal-baiting never arouses nearly enough mockery.
And they omitted the category with the fewest of the few…widows. Heh.
Why do I get the idea that that article was all about “those sluts get what they deserve”?
Here’s a thought: how about an article that tells men to STOP RAPING WOMEN!
This helpful hint brought to you by a woman who is sick of victim-blaming.
Another WaPo headline might be Final proof there is no human tragedy Brad Wilcox will not exploit in order to promote marriage
Hey Booman:
You’ve got yourself an awesome blog with lots of readers, and are also a blogger on Washington Monthly.
You mentioned in an earlier blog post about throwing a #nowi’mgonnavote or whatever to get things viral.
You should practice this. Whenever you come across a story like this, or the one where George Will complains about how rape victims have too many privileges, you should practice that.
Spend a day, or crowdsource a good, easy to remember, catchy #XXXXXXXX and make it go viral.
One of the best ways to encourage people who don’t vote to vote is to basically just re-post the garbage they write on facebook/twitter, where usually non-informed, politically agnostic people can see it.
Whenever I troll the trolls on other sites, I love to throw a #ConservativePride hashtag at the end of it. Using that or even #RepublicanPride after reposting an article where some conservative trashbag is talking about rape AGAIN might be a good way to get young people who don’t otherwise give a shit to go out and vote and pay attention.
I haven’t read the article and don’t plan to; but, from what I can tell, it seems to be implying that married men are trustworthy and perfect by virtue of being married. Sorry, life doesn’t work that way. We all know how Newt Gingrich cheated on two wives. My father married to my mother raped my sister. And, I wish I had a nickel for every married man who hit on me between the years of 17 and 50. I would be independently wealthy by now. I never married. And, just for the record, I was hit on by a married man when I was 62. Additionally, I never had a date who I didn’t have to fight off just to get into my place unscathed after the date was over. Men are horny bastards at most any age according to my experience. BTW, I consider myself a normal, average woman moderately attractive and, that most of what happened to me was NOT unusual.