[SystemSafety] Risk .... again

[Les Chambers]

I’ve been verballed 
 yet again. But this time by men. It’s probably my own 
fault , not expressing my ideas clearly and concisely.

As everyone on this list no doubt knows there are two major areas of activity 
relating to risk management.
	1.	Hazard reduction or elimination to prevent harm.
	2.	Harm mitigation in the unfortunate case where the hazard 
triggers an incident that causes harm.

———- Sidebar where I invoke:
The Hunting of the Snark, Lewis Carroll

Just the place for a Snark! the Bellman cried,
   As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
   By a finger entwined in his hair.

Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
   That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
   What I tell you three times is true.
—————
My post and my email to SCEGGS head of school addressed item one only.
I will not insult the list’s intelligence by typing item one above two more 
times.

Much of the response to my post addresses item two. The ugly stuff that occurs 
when the sexual violence is done. The women are blamed. The women are ignored 
and damage to the man’s career is mitigated. Women don’t report rape because 
‘now they’ll think I’m awful’. Or enduring a court case where you’re forced to 
repeat the ugly details and have your past sex life re-examined in detail in 
public by the defence to prove conclusively that you are a slut, is too much 
to contemplate.

Because this issue is so tightly wrapped in emotion the women I attempt to 
discuss it with go straight to item two as did many of the responses from this 
list. They should be enraged about item two. I salute them for being enraged - 
because society’s response is often appalling.

The sad thing is that item one it’s nothing more than a formalism of the 
common sense that responsible mothers and fathers perform every day. Jane 
teenager is headed for a party dressed to the nines in a little number that’s 
revealing far too much flesh. Her mother tells her to change it simply because 
it is nature’s lemma that if a woman shows too much flesh a man is going to 
think she’s available and as the drinks flow he may forget to ask whether or 
not she is. This will NEVER change.  The hazard reduction strategy that calls 
for all men to be trained as gentleman is foolish in the extreme. There aren’t 
enough trainers, there aren’t enough men who want the training and the men 
that do get the training don’t practice because clearly the training is 
ineffective. Yet the Sisterhood persists with it and it’s getting women raped 
every day. Better by far to profile scenarios that get women into trouble and 
put barriers in place to prevent harm.

I am a huge fan of Grace Tame. She was Australian of the year last year. She 
was the victim of a paedophile. She did not waste time ringing her hands about 
how men should be trained not be paedophiles. She set about identifying the 
six signs of paedophile grooming and suggested that they be taught in schools. 
And she’s not even an engineer.

Will common sense ever prevail in this debate? I live in hope and rest my 
case.

Thank you
Les






> On 2022-09-30 04:18 , mahonybp at tpg.com.au wrote:
> > 
> > It seems several of the issues that might be of interest in defining risk 
and risk 
> > management are raised in Les’ post.
> 
> They sure are.
> 
> I think a main issue which has not been raised is that there are important 
political issues here, 
> and risk calculation in itself is one of them. It is not socially neutral. 
It is seen by some (with 
> justification) as a contributor to maintaining the social status quo ante, 
when what many are aiming 
> for is to change the status quo.
> 
> Let me spell that out, with regard to sexual violence, and then with another 
example.
> 
> First, sexual violence against (mainly but not exclusively) women is 
prevalent even in so-called 
> "developed" countries. Most (but not all) perpetrators are men. Sexual 
violence perpetrated by men 
> against women is a lasting social problem.
> 
> Second, the characterisation of that violence. Courts have sometimes held 
that it is "not really". A 
> Stanford frat boy on the swim team avoids serious punishment and a jail term 
because, amongst other 
> things, he just happened to come across a drunken semi-comatose woman and 
decided to "take 
> advantage". That was not regarded by the court as if he had pulled a gun on 
a woman walking down the 
> street and coerced her. (I note there was considerable pushback; I think the 
judge was recalled - 
> judges in California at some levels are elected.)
> 
> Third, calculations such as one would apply (as Les might have applied) in 
assessing risk have 
> explicitly been used by courts (in GB and the US) for many decades to reduce 
the culpability of the 
> perpetrator. "You were wearing "provocative" clothing"; "that is known to be 
an unsafe place"; "you 
> were inebriated". The general scheme here is that the victim should have 
performed a risk 
> calculation and behaved according to that calculation; if she did not then 
the perpetrator was 
> somehow less culpable.
> 
> In trying to handle sexual violence, people are pushing back against all 
these three.
> 
> Ad the first: more subtle and better-designed handling of the situations by 
police forces and by 
> third parties: bartenders and bouncers at bars and clubs; self-defence for 
women (e.g., getting 
> people to shout and scream and make a fuss, rather than being intimidated 
into silence).
> 
> Ad the second: societies such as Sweden have introduced simple decision 
criteria. She must be asked; 
> she must say "yes". (And, of course, not just "she".) If that happened, it 
was consensual. If it 
> didn't happen, it was rape. Some Anglo-Saxon countries are on the way to 
that. For example, that 
> rule applies in certain universities (the sanction is that the perpetrator 
is thrown out).
> 
> Ad the third: there is a considerable movement (which, to make my moral view 
clear, I think 
> appropriate) to explicitly discount any "risk assessment" by victims, or the 
lack of such, in the 
> evaluation of crimes of sexual violence. It is so prevalent in legal 
judgements (they are public in 
> the UK; you can read them) that it needs to be strongly countered. In order 
to counter it in formal 
> contexts such as courts, you also need to ensure that juries are not 
inclined to it also, and to do 
> that you need to change the population-level way of thinking. Certain groups 
concerned with sexual 
> violence have realised this for decades and tried/are trying for change 
along those lines, and I 
> think (I hope) we are beginning to see signs of that in the general 
population. I don't think Les 
> should be at all surprised that he came across such pushback. (Indeed, I am 
glad to see he did, and 
> so, I think, should he be. There was little of that thirty years ago.)
> 
> I don't think you can just "step back" from such things and be "realist", as 
Les seemed to be trying 
> to do (to be clear: I am not criticising Les, neither am I saying that such 
risk calculations are 
> invalid). Because, if all do that, then social behaviour can reach a statis 
which is not necessarily 
> where one aims to be. Where we (most of us) want to be is in a society with 
little to no sexual 
> violence against women. Encouraging women to perform "risk management" is 
essentially what has been 
> tried for decades and obviously does not reach the place we (most of us) 
want to be.
> 
> A similar situation arises with road traffic. I live in a 30kph zone, quite 
a large one, in fact, 
> which covers the village centre and one housing estate 500m-1km up a dead-
end road which passes my 
> house. There are countless children around, some of them very young, and 
they play constantly on the 
> footpaths and on quieter streets. And old people who take time to cross the 
road. And people with 
> older dogs similarly.
> Pedestrians continually have to adapt to drivers ignoring the speed limit. 
People with children 
> under the age of five or six don't let them play with their older siblings 
and friends unsupervised 
> near my street or the main through road. They could, in a different traffic-
behavioural situation. 
> In my view, they should be able to, as I did when three or four. But they 
don't and can't. It is a 
> considerable restriction.
> 
> It is a stasis which we don't want to be in. We want to be in the position 
where it is safe for 
> small kids to ride their bikes around without adult supervision. (And it is 
not just kids; it is 
> household pets -- we have at least 8 cats around, and one at least is 
mobility-limited but still 
> crossed the road. And bicyclists. I don't want to start off and suddenly 
have to perform an 
> emergency manoeuvre because of somebody rounding the corner at 60kph.) And 
the legal situation is 
> indeed set up to enable this very social situation. But drivers ignore the 
restrictions.
> 
> I was talking to a neighbour whom I have seen around walking her dog for a 
decade and a half, wave 
> at but have never talked to before. This issue came up within 5 minutes (she 
had an older dog until 
> recently). In other words, it is a pervasive concern of us all. We have all 
adapted, to the 
> detriment of our quality of life. But where we want to be at is rather that 
drivers stick to the 
> posted limit. We won't get there without the limit being enforced more 
rigorously than it is. We 
> have talked with the district government about this; they are concerned, and 
we have had lengthy 
> discussions with specific politicians about how it can happen, including 
road redesign and so on.
> 
> And with all that, we still have friendly, pleasant neighbours who (a) walk 
their dog around about 
> my house once or twice a day and (b) barrel past it at 50kph (waving). They 
*obviously* do not 
> consider that regularly breaking traffic law is a big deal (cf. she was just 
lying there drunk, your 
> honour). A social rethink must be part of reaching where we (and the 
district government) want to be.
> 
> So, enforcing the speed limit; possible road modification; changing how 
people view their driving 
> habits. All a big ask.
> 
> As I said at the beginning, in both the sexual violence and the speeding 
situations, risk assessment 
> and management is part of what maintains the status quo, when we are really 
are looking for ways to 
> change the status quo. That is the dilemma.
> 
> PBL
> 
> Prof. i.R. Dr. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany
> Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs-bi.de



--

Les Chambers

les at chambers.com.au

+61 (0)412 648 992