On August 21, a 17-year-old girl was brutally killed in Duivendrecht while cycling home in the middle of the night (NOS). Such incidents inevitably make front-page news. But behind the headlines lies a broader reality: most women murdered in the Netherlands are not killed by a stranger in the street, but by someone they knew and trusted. Yet in the public debate the same reflex questions are heard: “Why was she cycling alone so late?” or “Why didn’t she do anything?”
Those questions say more about us than about the victims. They create a false sense of safety and obscure the real issues: how do boys become perpetrators, how do criminals select their targets, why can victims often not act – and why does the danger so often come from close by?
Free Workshop: Realistic Self-Defense for Women. On Saturday August 30, from 16:00 to 18:00, Evelien is offering this free training in response to Lisa’s murder. Register here (Google Forms). For questions: contact Evelien Dietz (+31681579382).
Boys who become men – and sometimes perpetrators
Violence against women rarely comes out of the blue. Behind a rape or murder often lies a biography that begins in childhood. Boys growing up in environments with abuse, neglect or sexual violence run a demonstrably higher risk of later becoming violent themselves. Not because of fate, but because they learn that power and fear are “normal” forms of interaction.
Personality traits also play a role: lack of empathy, impulsive anger, obsessive jealousy and the tendency to always shift responsibility outside themselves. When repeated, these patterns lead to violent behavior in relationships or in public life.
And then there is the environment. Boys who become socially isolated sometimes seek refuge in online subcultures that dehumanize women, such as incel communities. Frustrations are reinforced there and turned into rage. Add toxic ideas of masculinity – that a “real man” must be dominant, sexually demanding and emotionless – and the breeding ground is laid.
The statistics translate this into hard numbers. In the Netherlands, over the past ten years an average of 43 women were murdered per year (CBS). That is almost one femicide every eight to nine days – a rhythm that cannot be dismissed as “incidents.” In more than half of the cases, the perpetrator was a (ex-)partner.
That is precisely why the government launched the Stop Femicide! action plan in 2024. Goal: earlier detection, faster intervention and better registration. The Femicide Monitor of Leiden University has been collecting data since 2014 to make patterns more visible. The line is clear: most perpetrators had already shown red flags years earlier.
How criminals select their targets
But this does not yet explain what happened in Duivendrecht. There was no relationship history there, but a random attack in public space. To understand that we need to look at how criminals think.
In criminology there is the routine activity theory: crime arises where three elements come together – a motivated offender, a suitable target and a lack of guardianship. That means perpetrators always select. Not based on morality, but on opportunity.
Research shows how subtle that selection works. In a classic experiment psychologists Grayson and Stein showed convicted offenders video images of people walking down the street. Within seconds they could indicate who looked vulnerable. Their assessments were strikingly unanimous, based on details in body language, gait and alertness. Later research added that perpetrators with higher psychopathy scores were even better at this “reading” of vulnerability. At the same time, a recent reflection by Impact Boston warns that safety tips such as “don’t walk alone at night” are often too simplistic and can contribute to stereotyping and fear, while ignoring the fact that danger is often closer by — from people you know. (See: IMPACT: Think critically about safety advice)
For victims this feels unfair – and it is. No one should have to be afraid of cycling home at night. But as long as perpetrators exist, it helps to know how they see the world. Those who appear confident, who scan their surroundings and who listen to their intuition are less likely to be chosen. That is not “victim’s fault,” but insight into the cynical game of offender selection.
That women already know this is clear from CBS figures: 45 percent of young women sometimes walk or cycle around to avoid unsafe places. Adjusting behavior is not paranoia, but a rational strategy in a society where the threat is real.
The forgotten reflex: freeze
And yet even preparation is often not enough. This brings us to the second reflex question: “Why didn’t she do anything?”
Besides fight or flight there is a third automatic reaction: the freeze response. In the medical literature this is called tonic immobility. Research among rape victims shows that 70 percent became paralyzed during the assault; in 48 percent it was extreme. Their body froze, their voice stopped – without them having any control. It is an ancient mechanism that occurs under extreme threat.
To then ask “why didn’t she scream?” or “why didn’t she fight back?” misunderstands this biological reality. It is as involuntary as breathing.
In partner violence it gets even more complex. Years of gaslighting and control slowly break down the will to resist. Women lose confidence in their own judgment and strength. The moment of leaving – often presented in campaigns as the solution – is in fact the most dangerous. Research into femicide shows that the risk of murder peaks when a woman tries to leave.
That is why victim blaming is so misleading. It shifts the guilt to the one with the least power, and leaves the choices of the perpetrator out of the picture.
The role of policy and society
Violence against women is not a private problem, but a social issue. The government tries to address this reality with the new Sexual Offences Act, in force since July 2024. It criminalizes sexual harassment in public space and for rape and assault coercion is no longer required: the absence of consent is sufficient.
In addition, there are calls for a Dutch variant of Clare’s Law, which gives people the right to know whether their (potential) partner has a history of violence. A proposal to this effect was submitted to Parliament in 2025.
But laws alone are not enough. It is also about culture. If nearly half of young women systematically avoid routes, that says something about our collective failure.
Responsibility and realism
It is often the classic scenarios — “the scary man in the bushes pulling you off your bike” — that make the biggest headlines. While most women in the Netherlands are murdered by someone they knew. In the past five years, in three-quarters of the cases the perpetrator was a (ex-)partner or family member (NU.nl).
Self-defense training helps in a certain sense to avoid giving the impression of being an easy target. Those who are trained are more alert, move more convincingly and react faster. And if it really goes wrong, you can win seconds that are literally vital. But the most effective form of self-defense often lies even earlier: learn to recognize abusive men early, don’t start a relationship with them or step out as soon as that behavior becomes visible.
And that does not only apply to yourself. Do you see your daughter, sister, friend, neighbor or colleague getting caught up with such a guy? Start the conversation. Not lecturing, but involved. Read up, talk to others, learn how to approach this in a supportive way. Sometimes that can make the difference.
Do you want to know how to increase the chance that you are the one who makes it home safe in a physical situation? Then you can always contact us: team@kalah-amsterdam.nl.
Free Workshop: Realistic Self-Defense for Women. On Saturday August 30, from 16:00 to 18:00, Evelien is offering this free training in response to Lisa’s murder. Register here (Google Forms). For questions: contact Evelien Dietz (+31681579382).
