smac97

Here is a Grok summary of the video: A few thoughts: 1. A very good presentation. Pragmatic. Doctrinal. Authentic. 2. It may be helpful in the future for the Brethren to address the biases that appear to be written into AI platforms. Some examples: AI Bias: 16 Real AI Bias Examples & Mitigation Guide And this: New research from BYU-led multi-institution consortium finds all major AI models ignore faith, religion in responses 3. I really like this: "AI’s environmental costs and excessive screen time can disconnect us from God’s creations. Reconnect with nature for perspective and gratitude." I think Elder Gong is making a solid point here. A while back my wife and I, and another couple, purchased an RV park in almost direct response to the burgeoning effects of AI. AI is yet another powerful inducement to sit in front of a screen. I think more and more people are finding extensive screen time eventually wears out its welcome, and even have some substantial downsides. An RV park situated in a beautiful area (just outside one of Utah's "Mighty Five" RV parks) is, we hope, a venue for people who want to get away from the ultimately unsatisfying trappings of the digital world and experience the beauties of the real one: Moonscape Overlook (I took this picture) Moonscape Overlook (Again) (I took this picture also) Steamboat Point These pictures, though I think are very pretty, don't really do justice to actually going and experiencing them. Anyway, kudos to Elder Gong! Thanks, -Smac

Thank you for sharing. If it is not intrusive to ask, would you be willing to explain which "truth claims" you found you could no longer accept, and why? It sounds like losing faith in "the Divine" came at the end, and so was it "the effect, not the cause" as well? If these are improper questions, please disregard. Thanks, -Smac

I think this is too shallow. People stop attending because they don’t believe. Many do turn to secularism but this treats secularism as a cause instead of a symptom. A fair point. There are likely many factors in play. Secularism may well be both a cause and an effect, depending on the individual. Thanks for sharing your thoughts — I really appreciate you engaging with this. You're right that at the most immediate level, sme (many?) people stop attending because they no longer believe. That's the core issue, and I don't want to downplay it. I also agree that we're living in a new kind of information environment. With so many competing ideas, worldviews, and critiques available at our fingertips, many sincere people encounter things that challenge rigid religious claims. It makes sense that in a pluralistic society, people would evaluate options and choose what seems most reasonable to them. I respect that process — I've tried to do the same in my own life. Where I see it a bit differently is on the question of secularism as cause or symptom. To me, secularism (especially the modern emphasis on the autonomous self as the ultimate authority) isn't just a neutral outcome of pluralism — it's become the dominant default worldview in the West. It shapes the very lens through which people evaluate religious claims in the first place. What counts as "making the most sense" or "withstanding scrutiny" often depends on assumptions that prioritize material explanations, personal authenticity, and self-expression above transcendent ones. That doesn't mean every person who steps away is consciously choosing secular humanism, or that there are not valid intellectual and personal struggles. Many are just trying to make sense of a complicated world. But I do think this broader cultural current makes it harder for religious belief — any religious belief that demands submission, sacrifice, or trust in things "not seen" — to compete on its own terms. I'd love to hear more about your perspective. What do you think are the strongest factors that lead people to find secular explanations more compelling? I'm genuinely interested. Thanks, -Smac

No worries. I took it as benign. Thanks, -Smac

Grok is an AI platform. I figured it would be easier/faster to have it summarize the content. That's a very valid point of view. Thank you for sharing this. I have seen a number of loved ones leave the Church under similar conditions. Some others have left by way of vilifying the Church as corrupt and terrible. That's an interesting perspective, and perhaps involves some presuppositions about the Church that are understandable from an "on the outside looking in" perspective. "Navel gazing" is an interesting characterization. It "refers to pointless, excessive self-contemplation or self-absorption. It describes a state of being so intensely focused on your own thoughts, feelings, or internal problems that you become oblivious to the outside world." If the Church is what it claims to be, then joining it and leaving it are important, even momentous, decisions. The frequency at which disaffiliation occurs is, in my view, not a particularly helpful metric relative to importance. Lots of people get married and divorced, both of which are important decisions. Thanks for sharing! -Smac

Saw these yesterday and today (YouTube videos on the "A Thoughtful Faith" channel) : Why People Leave The Church - Part 1: The REAL Problem Why People Leave The Church - Part 2: The REAL Solution Grok summary of Part 1: Grok summary of Part 2: Also saw these this morning (Deseret News) : Opinion: Moving from a deficit-oriented to a data-driven perspective on Latter-day Saints Latter-day Saints continue to demonstrate uniquely high religiosity, according to a new BYU report Very interesting reads, both of these, Here is a consolidated Grok summary of all four of the above items: I would be interested in your thoughts on these items. Thanks, -Smac

https://lds-theology-quiz.vercel.app/ Interesting exercise. It allows the respondent to type as much as you like, rather than select from A, B, C or D. More nuance and clarity is possible. I was interested in how my doctrinal/theological outlook contrasts with others. I was found to be aligned with BH Roberts (72%), Blake Ostler (72%), Joseph Smith (72%), Terryl Givens (67%) and "Progressive Mormon" (53%). Nearly 8,000 respondents so far. Here's how I compare to the other respondents: Divine Foreknowledge / Open Theism: You 90 · Avg 58 God's Nature Relative to Humanity: You 75 · Avg 25 Infinite Regress of Gods: You 40 · Avg 52 Nature of Eternal Intelligences: You 55 · Avg 56 Mechanism of Spirit Birth: You 50 · Avg 46 Nature of Human Free Will: You 100 · Avg 61 Atonement Model: You 5 · Avg 39 Scholars vs. Living Oracles: You 55 · Avg 39 Nature of Canonized Scripture: You 32 · Avg 35 Centrality of Heavenly Mother: You 30 · Avg 60 Nature of Exaltation: You 95 · Avg 59 Godhead model: You 40 · Avg 41 Evolution Compatibility: You 100 · Avg 73 Orthopraxy vs. Orthodoxy: You 50 · Avg 66 Brigham Young's Theological Legacy: You 45 · Avg 40 Gay Sealings: You 0 · Avg 18 Female Ordination: You 0 · Avg 43 Progression Between Kingdoms: You 50 · Avg 53 Priesthood/Temple Ban Origin: You 100 · Avg 62 I'm not sure how accurate this is, as my "scores" on several of these don't seem to reflect well what I wrote. Also, I was surprised that I swing pretty wildly between being close to the "average" response and departing substantially from it: Close to Average: Infinite Regress of Gods: You 40 · Avg 52 Nature of Eternal Intelligences: You 55 · Avg 56 Mechanism of Spirit Birth: You 50 · Avg 46 Scholars vs. Living Oracles: You 55 · Avg 39 Nature of Canonized Scripture: You 32 · Avg 35 Godhead model: You 40 · Avg 41 Brigham Young's Theological Legacy: You 45 · Avg 40 Progression Between Kingdoms: You 50 · Avg 53 Far from Average: Divine Foreknowledge / Open Theism: You 90 · Avg 58 God's Nature Relative to Humanity: You 75 · Avg 25 Nature of Human Free Will: You 100 · Avg 61 Atonement Model: You 5 · Avg 39 Centrality of Heavenly Mother: You 30 · Avg 60 Nature of Exaltation: You 95 · Avg 59 Evolution Compatibility: You 100 · Avg 73 Female Ordination: You 0 · Avg 43 Priesthood/Temple Ban Origin: You 100 · Avg 62 Also, I find it interesting that substantially more respondents are open to female ordination (43) than to same-sex marriage (18). Anyway, thoughts? Thanks, -Smac

Well tell me how I can tell my daughters and others how to know you are safe when they see you on the street or at church or at court when they have never heard of you before. I appreciate you asking this directly — it’s a fair and practical question. Teaching your daughters (and others) how to stay safe in a world with real dangers is important. No one should dismiss that. The challenge is figuring out how to do it without defaulting to “all men are potential rapists.” Here’s how I think about it: Reasonable caution is wise. Pay attention to how someone behaves in the moment — Are they respectful of boundaries? Are they behaving in a calm, steady way, or are they pushy/aggressive? Trust your gut if something feels off. Situational awareness (walking with purpose, staying aware of your surroundings, avoiding isolated areas at night, etc.) is smart for everyone, men and women. Character and community reputation matter. At church, court, or in social settings, people aren’t complete strangers. You can observe how someone treats others over time — their consistency, humility, self-control, and how they speak about women and children. Most decent men have a track record that becomes visible in a community. Blanket suspicion of all men creates its own problems. If the default teaching is “all men are potential rapists,” it becomes very hard for good men to build trust, even in safe settings like church. It also teaches young women to live in unnecessary fear of half the population, which can be paralyzing. I’m not asking you to tell your daughters that every man is safe. I’m asking for balance: Teach them that most men are not predators, while still giving them tools to recognize actual red flags (entitlement, boundary-pushing, anger issues, etc.). The vast majority of men are not a threat — they’re fathers, brothers, husbands, and friends who want women and girls to be safe too. The goal, I think, should be wise discernment, not generalized fear or distrust based only on gender. Does that make sense to you, or do you see it differently? Thanks, -Smac

I really appreciate you explaining your thinking. That helps. I understand the instinct to protect your kids, especially after hearing so many awful abuse stories. Those stories are horrific, and it makes sense why you’d choose a blanket “no sleepovers” policy. Removing the opportunity for harm is a reasonable parental choice in a broken world. I don’t question your right to make that decision for your own family. In fact, I had that same policy for my children. Where I still struggle is with the broader cultural shift that seems to treat every adult male as a potential threat until proven otherwise. When someone says “We don’t do sleepovers” as a general rule, that’s one thing. But when it’s paired with language that frames all men (or all people outside the immediate family) as inherent risks, it can feel like good people who have lived honorably are still being viewed through a lens of suspicion by default. I think part of why some men would react negatively to being told - especially by persons they know well and hold in high regard - that they are "potential rapists" is because even after years of trustworthy behavior, the default assumption in these conversations often still seems to be “better safe than sorry… from all of you.” It feels dehumanizing and alienating and demoralizing. I agree we can’t guarantee safety — that’s why wise parents set boundaries. I just hope we can do that while still affirming that the vast majority of fathers, uncles, grandfathers, and family friends are safe, loving people who would never harm a child. Blanket suspicion can erode trust and relationships unnecessarily. I’m glad we’re talking about it. Despite whatever hard feelings this thread may have engendered, I value your perspective and your desire to protect your kids. Thanks, -Smac

It’s so easy to take things the wrong way, as not intended when the subject is emotional. Several posters have noted that labeling all men as "potential rapists" is intended to provoke and offend. Amulek provided the most astute assessment: "All men are potential rapists" is per se inflammatory and provocative and offensive. "Women cannot reliably know which men are dangerous" is clinical and accurate. I agree with it. That's quite understandable. I would resent these things as well. I have a friend who was forcibly groped by a gay man in a very sexual way. I think we all can and should condemn that behavior, but I don't think we should to so by publicly asserting that "All gay men are potential gropers." I appreciate and understand that sentiment. Do you feel violent crime is trending up or down? I just saw this (dated 05/20/2026) : Preliminary FBI data shows a sharp drop in violent crime Nevertheless, situational awareness and vigilance on the individual level, and law enforcement and educational efforts on a broader scale, will always be necessary. I hear you, and I’m truly sorry for the experiences you’ve been through. Being groped, trapped, or made to feel afraid and powerless is wrong. No one should have to live with that kind of fear, especially not repeatedly. I can understand why you’re exhausted and frustrated, and why you’re teaching your daughters caution. Those feelings are valid. What I reacted to was the specific framing you have presented (and endorsed) — referring to me and all other men as “potential rapists” simply because we are male, and not because of our individual actions and character. That lands as a generalization about me and other good men, and I find it both ugly and unfair, especially coming from fellow Latter-day Saints I respect. I’m not asking you to walk on eggshells or constantly soften your words to protect men’s feelings. That’s exhausting for anyone. But I also don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss men’s legitimate discomfort with being lumped in with predators as “taking things the wrong way” or “their problem.” Most men I know fully support holding actual abusers accountable. What we resist is the idea that maleness itself justifies the unfair and provocative and demoralizing generalization under discussion here. We both want the same thing: a world with far less fear, harm, and abuse. I believe we can acknowledge real trauma and pain that women carry without assigning collective guilt or suspicion to all men. That doesn’t erase your experiences — it just refuses to treat decent men as part of the problem by default. I’m sorry this conversation has been painful on both sides. I still hold you in high regard and would rather not let this divide us. Thanks, -Smac

I appreciate you being open about your mystification — that helps. I think the reason many men’s first reaction is “Are you saying I’m dangerous?” is because broad statements about “men” as a group often sound like they’re being treated as guilty by association. It’s similar to how most people would react to any sweeping negative generalization about a group they belong to. For example, if someone said “I don’t trust Muslims because some are terrorists,” a lot of peaceful Muslims would probably feel defensive and say “You think I’m a terrorist?” rather than immediately asking what trauma led to that view. The same pattern shows up with many other groups. The instinctive pushback isn’t usually denial that bad actors exist — it’s rejection of being lumped in with them based only on shared identity. Most men I know fully acknowledge that terrible things happen to women, and they condemn the conduct of them men who do such things. But they resist being viewed with baseline suspicion simply for being male. That defensive reflex is very human. It doesn’t mean they lack empathy for women’s pain — it means they want their individual character and actions judged, not their gender. I think we can hold two things at once: Deep compassion for women who have been hurt by men. Resistance to framing men in general as the problem. Does that help explain where the “you think I’m a rapist?” reaction comes from? I’m genuinely curious how you see it. Thanks, -Smac

The argument that "men shouldn't be upset if it helps" depends on whether the phrase actually helps. I think it is helpful that women are not being told that they ought not presume to tell men what they "should" or "should not" think about this or that topic. Women can have opinions about such things. That said, I too question on whether the "all men are potential rapists" theme "actually helps." I have been wondering the same thing. I am very enthusiastic about promoting situational awareness and safety and mitigation measures. I think we can do that without resorting to open misandry and prejudice, collective and indiscriminate guilt, and transmitting demoralizing and alienating messaging to young men. There are some real costs that come with such things, to both men and women. That would, I think, be a reference to me. I'll own that. I resent being characterized - to my face - as a "potential rapist," particularly from fellow Latter-day Saints whom I otherwise have long admired and held in high regard. I also dislike being compared to a dog or a "nasty parasite." I still "support the cause" of finding ways to increase and improve safety for women and girls. The ugly misandry and prejudice that has been justified and endorsed in this thread will not dissuade me from that perspective. I agree. In fact, I find it counterproductive. The categorical suspicion comes with some real costs. Treating all men as potential threats might feel protective, but it also: Risks creating chronic anxiety and hypervigilance {in women and girls}; Makes it harder {for women and girls} to build healthy relationships with good men; Demoralizes and alienates men and boys; and Can lead to unfair prejudice (the same logic would be called sexist or bigoted if applied to other groups). I completely agree women should be smart and cautious "in vulnerable situations." Situational awareness is wise. But moving from “be careful” to “treat all men as potential rapists” feels like it goes too far and does real damage — both to women and to men who have never harmed anyone. By the way, I very much appreciate your input. You have done a far better job of articulating concerns about this theme than I have. Thanks, -Smac

Okay. Thanks, -Smac

For example, places that put curfews on women when attacks on women are happening rather than the men, among who the perpetrators hide. Could you provide some examples where women have been subject to such sex-based curfews? I would like to better understand this. A recommendation that a woman not walk alone through a seedy neighborhood at 2:00 a.m. is a de facto restriction. But then, that same advice would apply to and "restrict" men or teenagers or children as well. Would you object to such advice about situational awareness, reasonable precautions and mitigation efforts? I appreciate you elaborating — I really do want to understand where you're coming from. We both want a world with far less violence against women, children, and men. That’s not in dispute. We should never ignore predatory or improper behavior by men. At the same time, we shouldn’t act as if bad actors don’t exist. We have plenty of laws against such behavior, and we should enforce them vigorously. But since criminals don’t always obey the law, an ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure. As Mr. Miyagi said, “Best defense: no be there.” I’m fully supportive of laws that enable women to carry effective self-defense tools. When I asked for examples of “dumping it on women,” I was trying to understand the specific pattern you’re seeing. The curfew example is a fair one. No one should pretend that restricting women’s freedom is ideal. At the same time, I think we need to be careful about labeling any discussion of practical precautions as victim-blaming or “restricting women.” Personal safety isn’t a zero-sum sort of thing. Advising women (or anyone) to be extra aware at night, avoid walking alone in high-risk areas, or have a plan isn’t saying “it’s your fault if something happens.” It’s the same common-sense risk mitigation we apply in other contexts — lock your car, don’t leave your drink unattended, wear a seatbelt, be cautious with strangers online. These aren’t moral judgments on victims; they’re acknowledgments that the world isn’t perfectly safe and that individuals have some agency in reducing their exposure. Perpetrators bear full moral responsibility for their crimes. Full stop. But culture change and personal safety aren’t mutually exclusive. We can — and should — do both: hold men accountable when they commit violence, teach boys respect and self-control from a young age, and encourage everyone to exercise reasonable situational awareness. Most women I know already do some version of this, not because society dumped it on them, but because it’s prudent. The idea that we shouldn’t discuss women’s precautions at all until men perfectly fix the culture feels unrealistic to me. Bad actors have existed in every generation. I’d rather we encourage a multi-vector approach: society pass and enforce laws, individual men men take responsibility for their own behavior and treating women with dignity, and everyone using wisdom and caution in a fallen world. Does that make sense, or do you see it differently? Thanks, -Smac

I’m not senator but it seems like Adam and Eve and the Fall is a good example of the difference between collective guilt and collective consequences. Okay. Dot this difference apply to other categories? Women? Muslims? Japanese? Americans? Thanks, -Smac

Think up ideas that will persuade or teach men not to think of women in terms of property or domination, not to think that violence and abuse is acceptable as well as that figure out how to self police. Women are unlikely to be able to change the minds and hearts of men who devalue and dismiss them already, but maybe other men can find a way to communicate that those who will tend to be violent may listen to if they still respect other men in some fashion. What ideas do you have in mind here that we already do not have? And why is it that men can do this, but women cannot? Also, what does "self-police" mean in this context? I'm trying to conceptualize how this would play out in the real world. I agree. I have some limited influence. On my sons, certainly. And perhaps a lesser influence on other males of my acquaintance. There's this stuff: 1. Abstain from engaging in misconduct toward women and children. 2. Support the passage and enforcement of laws against mistreatment of women and children. 3. Condemn any ideology or rhetoric that justifies or excuses mistreatment of women and children. 4. Act to report - or, where possible, stop - known instances of mistreatment of women and children and protect them from harm . 5. Encourage others to not only abstain from mistreating women and children, but to affirmatively treat them with kindness and respect. 6. Subscribe to schools of thought and moral frameworks which facilitate the foregoing measures. 7. Encourage "situational awareness." 8. Model good behavior (i.e., I seek to treat my wife with kindness and respect, and abstain from any mistreatment or demeaning conduct, and hope that my daughters view that as the healthy and appropriate way for men to treat women). Do you have other ideas? Thanks, -Smac

Okay. Thanks, -Smac

Thank you for your response. You said this: "I have had an overwhelming sense of collective guilt, if you will, for the suffering that my gender has inflicted on women through out the ages." Could you help me reconcile your "overwhelming sense of collective guilt ... for the suffering that {your} gender has inflicted on women" with your statement here that you are "not suggesting that all men should be held responsible for the actions of some men"? I would like to better understand your perspective. And this: "I'm more concerned with the women and the generational harm borne at the hands of men. As one being among that category, I mourn that." You designate yourself as being in the "category" which has done "generational harm" to women, and that category is "men." Could you help me understand how that is not a reference to "collective guilt"? Could you explain the difference between "collective consequence" and "collective guilt" for the "actions of some {} men"? Does this apply to other categories? Do all women "inherit a collective consequence" of those women within that category who are sexual predators? Do all Muslims "inherit a collective consequence ... default suspicion, caution, distrust" because of the actions of 19 Muslims on 9/11? Do all Japanese "inherit a collective consequence" for the Rape of Nanking? Do all Americans "inherit a collective consequence" for the My Lai Massacre? Which categories "inherit a collective consequence," which do not, and how do we differentiate between them? Thanks, -Smac

How about collective responsibility? Could you clarify what you mean here? By way of example, let's look at the devastating statistics pertaining to the Rape of Nanking: What sort of "responsibility" do you feel I, a man living in 2026 (born long after the above atrocity), should carry for this? Also, are men as a category "collectively responsible" for 9/11 since all of the hijackers were male? Adults commit all sorts of wrongs against children. Are you and I, being in the category of "adults," "collectively responsible" for these wrongs? Also, I previously provide a list of several hundred women who have engaged in sexual misconduct, overwhelmingly against males. Do you, belonging as you to do the "women" category, have some sort of "collective responsibility" for the actions of these women? I really would like to understand these concepts of imputing "collective" guilt and/or responsibility onto an entire category based on nothing more than shared biological sex. I think men can do the following: 1. Abstain from engaging in misconduct toward women and children. 2. Support the passage and enforcement of laws against mistreatment of women and children. 3. Condemn any ideology or rhetoric that justifies or excuses mistreatment of women and children. 4. Act to report - or, where possible, stop - known instances of mistreatment of women and children and protect them from harm . 5. Encourage others to not only abstain from mistreating women and children, but to affirmatively treat them with kindness and respect. 6. Subscribe to schools of thought and moral frameworks which facilitate the foregoing measures. 7. Encourage "situational awareness." 8. Model good behavior (i.e., I seek to treat my wife with kindness and respect, and abstain from any mistreatment or demeaning conduct, and hope that my daughters view that as the healthy and appropriate way for men to treat women). These are the measures that immediately come to mind. However, none of these are predicated on me being male (except, I suppose, for the last one). Women can also do these things. By "collective responsibility" you seem to be referencing some sort of prospective and proactive effort to mitigate misconduct toward women and children in the future. Alternatively, Senator's reference to "collective guilt" seems to refer to some sort of reactive inculpation for past harms. Do you see any material difference between those two? I am in my 50s now. I have a wife and adult daughters. I have my mother, mother-in-law, sisters, sisters-in-law and nieces. I know many women, young women and girls in my ward and neighborhood. I care about all of these folks particularly, and about women and girls generally. One of the primary, and perhaps the primary, reason I generally dislike rap music is because of how frequently it glorifies things I find morally repellant, particularly descriptions of treatment of and violence against women. As a Latter-day Saint, the counsel of the Brethren regarding the treatment of women and children is clear and unequivocal (see, e.g., here, here and here). This is helpful to me. What is it that you think men can do that women cannot do in this regard? What sort of "dump it on the women"-style of behaviors are you referencing here? Thanks, -Smac

And to me as well. I appreciate the diplomacy here. I have been working on framing issues better. In Habits of a Peacemaker: 10 Habits to Change Our Potentially Toxic Conversations into Healthy Dialogues by Steven T. Collis (2024), "Habit One" is: And Habit Two: And Habit Three: Bluebell has reframed the disputed point from "all men are potential rapists" to "women have to treat all men as a potential threat until they know better." She also analogizes "all men," or the "potential" risks from all men, to a water-borne parasite: I have, in response, framed the disputed point this way: Please note the overlap: Bluebell: "The same thing applies for women in vulnerable situations with a man." Me: "I completely agree women should be smart and cautious 'in vulnerable situations.' Situational awareness is wise. But moving from 'be careful' to 'treat all men as potential rapists' feels like it goes too far and does real damage — both to women and to men who have never harmed anyone." To me, that women should "treat all {men when in vulnerable circumstances} as a potential threat" makes all sorts of sense. I think that's a pretty good place to end up. I'm not quire sure I follow your point. Are you saying the statement was intended as hyperbole? Something not to be taken literally, but to be taken as an effort to provoke and garner attention? I appreciate you sharing your sentiment. I can't get on board with the "collective guilt" thing. "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." (AoF 1:2.) I cannot inculpate all Muslims for the actions of those who commit terrorist act. I cannot inculpate all Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. I cannot inculpate all Japanese for the Rape of Nanking, nor all Germans for the Holocaust, nor all white people for antebellum slavery. I also do not feel any guilt for these terrible things to the extent they were committed by males. If "all men are potential rapists" is intended as mere rhetorical hyperbole, intended to garner attention rather than be construed literally, and if "treat all {men when in vulnerable circumstances} as a potential threat" is a more apt construction of the intended (and apparently agreed-upon) sentiment, then I think we agree far more than we disagree. I continue to have concern about the hyperbole having the unintended effect of demoralizing and alienating young men. I also continue to have concern about the hyperbole unintentionally creating an unhealthy environment for women. Nevertheless, the comments here have been instructive. Thanks, -Smac

Do you agree with this part of my comments? Perhaps we agree more than we disagree. Thanks, -Smac

This is not listening. Yes, it is. You are speaking, and I am listening. This is me saying what I think, in response to what you are saying. I'll just bow out. I don't think this discussion is productive. I will leave the last word to you. Thanks, -Smac

Why does there need to be a "generalized circumstance"? Because we are speaking in generalizations. A woman living in modern-day Afghanistan may well experience "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance" because she is living in a culture and system of laws in which violence against women is generally condoned and endemic/systematic. If there are particularized circumstances in the U.S. which compel/create "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance," I'd like to better understand those as well. But generalizations may also be worth considering. I think it’s completely understandable for any individual woman who has had bad or scary experiences with larger/stronger men to feel heightened caution around certain situations or people. That’s normal self-protection. No one should dismiss real trauma or pretend it doesn’t affect someone. The question is where we draw the line between healthy caution and chronic anxiety + hypervigilance as a default way of moving through the world. If a woman has had multiple bad experiences, it makes sense that she might be more guarded. But applying chronic hypervigilance toward all men (or most men she doesn’t know) has real downsides: It can become exhausting and anxiety-inducing for her over time. It makes normal, healthy interactions with good men much harder (including friendships, dating, working with male colleagues, etc.). It risks turning personal pain into a broad generalization about half the population — the same kind of generalization we rightly criticize when it’s applied to other groups (“all Black men are dangerous,” “all Muslims are threats,” etc.). Most men are not a threat. The statistical reality is that the substantial majority of men will never commit serious violence against a woman. Reasonable situational awareness (“I’m not going to walk alone at 2 a.m. with a stranger”) is smart. Living in a constant state of fear and suspicion toward men as a category, especially in a relatively safe place in the U.S., can cross over from protective into counterproductive. Personal experience should inform our caution, but it shouldn’t completely override broader evidence about actual risk levels in our environment. Trauma is real, but so is the cost of letting it define how we see all men. What do you think is the right balance here? I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from. There’s nothing wrong with women warning each other about real risks and sharing safety tips. That’s responsible. What is problematic, IMO, is encouraging “chronic anxiety and hypervigilance” as a default way of living — treating most men as potential threats until proven otherwise. That mindset: Fuels unnecessary fear and anxiety (which is already very common). Makes healthy relationships and interactions with good men harder. Turns personal caution into a broad prejudice against half the population. Reasonable vigilance is smart. Chronic suspicion of men as a category, especially in areas where women are generally pretty safe, is neither accurate nor helpful. Thanks, -Smac

No. I am suggesting that such discussions do not typically involve categorical denunciations of all women everywhere as "potential sexual predators." Some are. Most are not. Safety and mitigation measures should be developed and deployed and maintained. Laws need to be enforced. We can do that without vilifying all women because of the actions of some few of them. I am glad this topic is being addressed. I was not speaking of the category of "women teachers," or even "teachers." I was, instead, speaking of the category of women. Most women are not predators. The vast majority of them go through their entire lives without committing sexual violence. Painting them as “potential rapists” until proven otherwise requires treating millions of decent women as guilty until proven innocent. The thing is, though, is that I have not seen people going around advocating for this sort of thing. Again: Most men are not predators. The vast majority of men go through their entire lives without committing sexual violence. Painting them as “potential rapists” until proven otherwise (as Bluebell and others seem to do) requires treating millions of decent men as guilty until proven innocent. Thanks, -Smac

The "messaging" being what? If not "all men are potential rapists," then what messaging do you have in mind? Is this messaging the cause of "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance"? The effect? Both? Can messaging which demonizes men as a category exacerbate chronic anxiety and hypervigilance? I think so. "Chronic anxiety" is a persistent state of excessive worry or dread that lasts for months, often out of proportion to actual events. That's how I see it, anyway. Hypervigilance: I would like to better understand where you are coming from here. There are undoubtedly cultures in the world in which women face real and substantial risks on a day-to-day basis, such that chronic anxiety and hypervigilance are based on actual circumstances and experience. I hear you, and I’m not dismissing the real experiences you and MustardSeed (and many other women) have had. Bad experiences with men — harassment, assault, betrayal, etc. — are painful and leave scars. I get why that would create anxiety and hypervigilance. No one should minimize that. There are certainly places and circumstances times of day where women should keep their head on a swivel. That said, I think we have to be careful about scaling personal and shared experiences into a general rule that “all men are potential threats” or that chronic anxiety/hypervigilance is the rational baseline response for women in America. Most men are not predators. The vast majority of men go through their entire lives without committing sexual violence. Painting them as “potential rapists” until proven otherwise (as Bluebell and others seem to do) requires treating millions of decent men as guilty until proven innocent. I’m not saying women should be naive or ignore red flags. Reasonable caution is smart for everyone — men and women alike. But there’s a big difference between healthy situational awareness and chronic anxiety and hypervigilance applied to half the population as a default setting. The latter can become self-reinforcing and make normal, healthy interactions between men and women more difficult. Experiences matter. Trauma is real. But so does proportion and context. There are huge swaths of America where crime levels are low. Living in such a place in America while maintaining a level of fear as if it were 1980s South Africa or parts of modern Afghanistan seems like it may be more influenced by cultural messaging, social media echo chambers, and shared storytelling than by the actual statistical risk in a woman's daily environment. That said, I want to listen to what you have to say. What generalized circumstances exist in the U.S. which compel/create "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance"? Thanks, -Smac