Sabina Nessa, a 28-year-old primary school teacher, was on her way to meet a friend for a Friday evening drink. She set out on what should have been a five-minute walk through a well-used public park at about 20:30 BST and never reached her destination. She was discovered by a member of the public the following morning.
Six months ago, Sarah Everard was abducted, raped and murdered by a stranger. She followed a number of the protocols with which women are often issued: she walked along a main road, at the relatively early hour of 21:00, wearing sensible clothes.
And she trusted a police officer. One of the people we are told to seek out if we feel we are in danger.
Nine months before that, sisters Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman were murdered by a stranger. The theory of "safety in numbers" did not save the sisters, who were together when they were stabbed multiple times in a public park.
(續上一段)Staying in contact with partners via text and organising a cab to pick them up did not stop a man deciding to kill them in a so-called deal with a so-called devil.
Their friends found them in undergrowth two days later.
As Det Ch Supt Lawry says, of course women "should" be able to walk around free from fear. And of course the problem is with the men who murder them rather than the women wearing headphones. And of course women should not have to modify their behaviour in order to not be attacked or abducted or raped or killed.
But "worrying about our safety is an integral part of our existence as women," said Kelly Grehan, a director of 50:50 Parliament, a cross-party campaign group promoting gender equality.
"It is drummed into us from a young age that our actions determine our safety: when we were only allowed to go in public toilets in pairs, given rape alarms at secondary school and told we were 'asking for it' or 'jailbait' when we tried to dress like the pop stars we idolised before some of us had even started menstruating."
The killings of Ms Nessa, Ms Everard, Ms Henry and Ms Smallman create an extra frisson of fear because their randomness indicates all women are at risk. If Ms Nessa arranged to meet her friend at a different bar or at a different time; if Ms Everard had left her friend's house 10 minutes earlier or later;
(續上一段)if Ms Henry and Ms Smallman had chosen a different part of the park to have their picnic, it could have been different women facing the final few hours of their lives. It could be any woman - even if she had followed the rules.
Academic studies have examined the ways in which women and girls trade their freedom to feel safer. One of the largest studies conducted on sexual harassment in Europe found that almost half of the 42,000 women surveyed had restricted their freedom of movement based on the fear of gender-based violence.
As Prof Kelly says, the "necessity of safety work steals our time and our energy - being vigilant means it is seldom possible to just be in public space, to feel joy in exercise or notice the changing seasons".
After Sarah Everard went missing, Met Police commissioner Cressida Dick tried to reassure women that incidences of abduction and murder were "incredibly rare".
And it's true - women account for about a third of all murders and of those, only 13% are killed by a stranger. Most are victims of a partner or ex-partner. It is far more likely that we will be killed at home than in a park.
[Dr Fiona Vera-Gray:] "This won't ever happen to you. Except if it does, because for some of us it will, it will be your fault for not being scared enough. Don't panic enough and it's your fault, but panic too much and you're hysterical."
[Anna Birley, a co-founder of campaign group Reclaim These Streets:]"But the thing is, our lived experience of street harassment - cat-calling, a man exposing himself to us - tells us we're not safe, and murder is rarely the first crime someone commits.
In an ideal world, everyone would live their lives unmolested. It would be safe to amble down dark alleys or across parks, whether sporting a diamond-encrusted miniskirt and platinum noise-cancelling headphones or a sackcloth boiler suit and an air of high alert.
But until we get to that utopia, if it is even achievable, is the advice offered by police and various safety charities actually something that protects women? If we disregard the hugely problematic narrative of victim-blaming, are they pragmatic - if unpalatable - tips that would keep us safe from stranger danger?
The cases above are the high-profile ones. There will have been a strata of incidents in which women were attacked but not fatally. In which someone tried to pull or persuade them into a car but were shaken off. In which a man said something sexually aggressive that didn't lead to a physical assault but did leave the woman upset and frightened and angry.
Women are not attacked because of our route home; we are not attacked because our walk was not "purposeful" enough, or because of what we were wearing. If a woman is murdered by a man she doesn't know, it is because he wanted to murder her. There is no other reason.
Society as a whole - and women as individuals - owes him no excuse. No matter how well-meant, perhaps safety hints for women run the risk of offering one.
以下摘譯這篇我認為將問題論述得很完整的BBC文章:
Sabina Nessa命案: 遵守「規則」能保證女性的安全嗎?
And she trusted a police officer. One of the people we are told to seek out if we feel we are in danger.
而且她相信了一名警察。也就是我們被教導當感覺危險時，應該尋求幫助的其中一人。
Their friends found them in undergrowth two days later.
兩天後，她們的朋友在灌木叢裡找到了她們的屍體。
被殺的有十三趴，那受到騷擾的人呢
然後那角度明顯是衝著我來的，我只能閃去遠一點的車站出入口
這種就算要報案也無法
打不過就加入？變成已術跨男狂打睪酮變成艾比戰士，
這樣有機率嚇阻普男嗎？
我只是想活著⋯