It was a thing back in the day (maybe still, just to a lesser extent?) they gave women whistles to blow when being sexually assaulted. But found that nobody really responds to a whistle. So then they said to scream rape, but again, most people didn’t bother. Last I heard, they said that yelling “fire!” Was more likely to get someone to help you. Or ya know… Don’t rely on help from an apathetic populace.
It was a horrific story. Fortunately, it’s not actually true.
Researchers have since uncovered major inaccuracies in the Times article, and police interviews revealed that some witnesses had attempted to contact authorities. In 1964, reporters at a competing news organization discovered that the Times article was inconsistent with the facts, but they were unwilling at the time to challenge Times editor Abe Rosenthal. In 2007, an article in the American Psychologist found “no evidence for the presence of 38 witnesses, or that witnesses observed the murder, or that witnesses remained inactive”.[7] In 2016, the Times called its own reporting “flawed”, stating that the original story “grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived”
The problems that get left out of that story’s narrative IIRC was that she was inside her apartment building’s lobby. Like yes people should have responded (assuming they could actually hear her, most apartment lobbies aren’t built with acoustics in mind) but that’s way different from there actually being like 20 people in the street looking on as the Bystander Effect implies.
EDIT today I learned that the reports of witnesses and their inaction was grossly exaggerated by an unscrupulous journalist. So the following statement is almost entirely fabricated. My apologies. Comment left intact for transparency.
38 people in her neighborhood admitted to hearing her and choosing not to intervene. They all gave different reasons for not helping.
It was a thing back in the day (maybe still, just to a lesser extent?) they gave women whistles to blow when being sexually assaulted. But found that nobody really responds to a whistle. So then they said to scream rape, but again, most people didn’t bother. Last I heard, they said that yelling “fire!” Was more likely to get someone to help you. Or ya know… Don’t rely on help from an apathetic populace.
I think that’s the point of a rape whistle, people might ignore a call for help, but will instinctively look towards a shrill piercing whistle.
They might not help, but extra visibility might deter the attacker.
There was the horrifying story of Kitty Genovese in New York in 1968. Edit 1964
It was a horrific story. Fortunately, it’s not actually true.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese
Wow, I stand corrected. TIL thanks.
The problems that get left out of that story’s narrative IIRC was that she was inside her apartment building’s lobby. Like yes people should have responded (assuming they could actually hear her, most apartment lobbies aren’t built with acoustics in mind) but that’s way different from there actually being like 20 people in the street looking on as the Bystander Effect implies.
EDIT today I learned that the reports of witnesses and their inaction was grossly exaggerated by an unscrupulous journalist. So the following statement is almost entirely fabricated. My apologies. Comment left intact for transparency.
38 people in her neighborhood admitted to hearing her and choosing not to intervene. They all gave different reasons for not helping.
Yeaaahhh, I don’t know why but I was thinking that was like 10 years later.