If you’re not asking vulnerable people to throw caution to the wind, be specific about what should be different.
I know it feels like absolute shit to have the worst assumptions made about you because of your gender, race or whatever else, but aside from treating everyone fairly whenever no risk is involved, we can’t ask people to assume the best about others when deciding anything, if doing so puts them at the mercy of a stranger in any way.
Hell. I’m a tall man, and I would have reservations if a girl wants to have a first date at her place, alone. Odds are, 99.99%, it’ll be fine, might get laid, woo. But what if it isn’t fine?
We’re not discussing the kind of discrimination where you instantly and completely dismiss someone as a human being, but the kind where you are careful about what kind of human being they might be.
The first kind robs people of life opportunities, the second only ever hurts our feelings.
I’d prefer to see the discussion happening from the position that some men are violent, which causes women to be cautious. There should be a common understanding in both that men can be violent towards women in high rates, but also that it’s not a reason to label the whole group or speak implying such.
Now we’ve had both a very clear blanket statement about women and people mocking those who take offense to that and talking about “the good ones”. That’s not a discussion that is going the right way. That’s the sorta shit that causes more discrimination and bad sentiments.
I’m not saying women can’t (or aren’t allowed to be) be prejudiced, I know it’s a reaction. It’s the discourse that makes it out to be all men that goes overboard and is just the same as what racists do. It’s one thing to cross to the other side of the street when you saw someone you are worried about coming, okay you probably do fear something so individually whatever, fine, but if you go online and justify it with “well those people statisticially…” you’re just spreading really discriminatory shit and of course people are going to pipe up.
We’re not discussing the kind of discrimination where you instantly and completely dismiss someone as a human being, but the kind where you are careful about what kind of human being they might be.
I know, but it’s not like racism is just thinking someone is a human. I’d say most racism isn’t like that, but small things.
But no one here is suggesting any of this is grounds for completely disregarding a person or a demographic of people.
I would turn down that first at-home date, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t make a counter-suggestion. And even then I would risk offending her by revealing my unwillingness to immediately trust her.
And if she does take offence, that isn’t exactly telling of her having a healthy understanding of how the situation might look to me. Even as I turn her down, it’s not like I’ve already decided she’s a crazy person.
The people getting mocked are ones who feel they’ve been wronged by this kind of caution, for example by getting an overly careful and roundabout “no”, taking offence because someone would assume the worst about them. That they wouldn’t have taken a straight answer well.
In reality, it was going to be a “no” either way, and she was perfectly within her right to do it carefully with a complete stranger.
Throwing around the stats and explanations is to help us understand. The point is that the numbers are such that vulnerable people do not even have the option of being fair, because if they are, inevitably, they will run into at least one nutcase which will then proceed to explode in their face.
Unfortunately, the real solution here is actually to take it on the chin, because most of the time, it really isn’t personal, or even consequential.
In any situation where two or more people interact, a more vulnerable party has every right to take whatever precaution they feel is needed to be safe, until they know for sure that doing so isn’t needed.
When this is the case, there is nothing to take offence from. It’s not about you.
But it can still hurt, and when you then see stats and stories about violent men thrown around it feels like people are telling you that “they were right about you” and that you should feel hurt.
But that’s not the point. The point is that there are good reasons to be careful. And when someone does so around you, unless there are additional circumstances to consider, there’s nothing there that’s a personal slight upon your character, gender, or anything else.
I think in this specific case and unfortunately in these sort of discussion, the people being mocked seem to be those who take offense to the discourse that paints men in generic terms as violent or take it personally (which while not meant as such, can obviously feel like it to some).
Unfortunately, the real solution here is actually to take it on the chin, because most of the time, it really isn’t personal, or even consequential.
I think the real solution would be to for the discourse to be such that it doesn’t make it seem like it’s all men. Of course if it seems like all men are being blamed, people will complain. It’s not a huge switch in the rhetoric either to make it clear that’s not what is being said imo. But here it felt like they doubled down on it instead.
So what exactly is the change you want?
If you’re not asking vulnerable people to throw caution to the wind, be specific about what should be different.
I know it feels like absolute shit to have the worst assumptions made about you because of your gender, race or whatever else, but aside from treating everyone fairly whenever no risk is involved, we can’t ask people to assume the best about others when deciding anything, if doing so puts them at the mercy of a stranger in any way.
Hell. I’m a tall man, and I would have reservations if a girl wants to have a first date at her place, alone. Odds are, 99.99%, it’ll be fine, might get laid, woo. But what if it isn’t fine?
We’re not discussing the kind of discrimination where you instantly and completely dismiss someone as a human being, but the kind where you are careful about what kind of human being they might be.
The first kind robs people of life opportunities, the second only ever hurts our feelings.
I’d prefer to see the discussion happening from the position that some men are violent, which causes women to be cautious. There should be a common understanding in both that men can be violent towards women in high rates, but also that it’s not a reason to label the whole group or speak implying such.
Now we’ve had both a very clear blanket statement about women and people mocking those who take offense to that and talking about “the good ones”. That’s not a discussion that is going the right way. That’s the sorta shit that causes more discrimination and bad sentiments.
I’m not saying women can’t (or aren’t allowed to be) be prejudiced, I know it’s a reaction. It’s the discourse that makes it out to be all men that goes overboard and is just the same as what racists do. It’s one thing to cross to the other side of the street when you saw someone you are worried about coming, okay you probably do fear something so individually whatever, fine, but if you go online and justify it with “well those people statisticially…” you’re just spreading really discriminatory shit and of course people are going to pipe up.
I know, but it’s not like racism is just thinking someone is a human. I’d say most racism isn’t like that, but small things.
I can somewhat agree with that.
But no one here is suggesting any of this is grounds for completely disregarding a person or a demographic of people.
I would turn down that first at-home date, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t make a counter-suggestion. And even then I would risk offending her by revealing my unwillingness to immediately trust her.
And if she does take offence, that isn’t exactly telling of her having a healthy understanding of how the situation might look to me. Even as I turn her down, it’s not like I’ve already decided she’s a crazy person.
The people getting mocked are ones who feel they’ve been wronged by this kind of caution, for example by getting an overly careful and roundabout “no”, taking offence because someone would assume the worst about them. That they wouldn’t have taken a straight answer well.
In reality, it was going to be a “no” either way, and she was perfectly within her right to do it carefully with a complete stranger.
Throwing around the stats and explanations is to help us understand. The point is that the numbers are such that vulnerable people do not even have the option of being fair, because if they are, inevitably, they will run into at least one nutcase which will then proceed to explode in their face.
Unfortunately, the real solution here is actually to take it on the chin, because most of the time, it really isn’t personal, or even consequential.
In any situation where two or more people interact, a more vulnerable party has every right to take whatever precaution they feel is needed to be safe, until they know for sure that doing so isn’t needed.
When this is the case, there is nothing to take offence from. It’s not about you.
But it can still hurt, and when you then see stats and stories about violent men thrown around it feels like people are telling you that “they were right about you” and that you should feel hurt.
But that’s not the point. The point is that there are good reasons to be careful. And when someone does so around you, unless there are additional circumstances to consider, there’s nothing there that’s a personal slight upon your character, gender, or anything else.
I think in this specific case and unfortunately in these sort of discussion, the people being mocked seem to be those who take offense to the discourse that paints men in generic terms as violent or take it personally (which while not meant as such, can obviously feel like it to some).
I think the real solution would be to for the discourse to be such that it doesn’t make it seem like it’s all men. Of course if it seems like all men are being blamed, people will complain. It’s not a huge switch in the rhetoric either to make it clear that’s not what is being said imo. But here it felt like they doubled down on it instead.