Troubling Allegations Against Former Sheriff in Pinal County, AZ (Church mbr)

[Danzo]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Or it can help you prepare for the possibility of it occurring and therefore increase one’s chances to prevent or lower damage (which does not mean a victim blew it by not preparing enough, sometimes there are no options that allow one to avoid the abuse because another human is involved who can act to negate preparation).

There can be a limit to how much someone can prepare for things, at a certain point it becomes avoidance behavior, In the sense of anxiety disorders when people think that obsessing over something over and over somehow prevents the thing they are worrying about from happening. 

Anyway, I think I hit a nerve with my comments, further engagement probably won't be productive.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

was a bit surprised that what I thought was helpful was taken as somehow supporting abuse and being dismissive of peoples concerns.  I seems I am not very good at communication. 

 

It seems to be a topic that is difficult to communicate about.  

I would not use the term “worry” myself in this regard.  I do experience anxiety disorder (not sure if it’s actual anxiety or just my body feeling tension, etc and my brain looking for an explanation), so I definitely know what intrusive thoughts and paralyzing anxiety is like…and yet this belief I need to be cautious around men due to chances of possible harassment and assault, mentally and physically preparing myself to the best of my current abilities given my limited resources is not something that causes me anxiety.  It is something to be added into plans like I try to plan to drive the safest route.  Choosing caution does not always indicate anxiety, just as having savings, insurance, an EpiPen does not indicate fear.  In fact thoughtful caution tends to lower anxiety in my experience.  It is more the unknown, the unfaced, the unprepared for that causes me true anxiety.

Certainly some may react to the idea of risk not generally being able to quickly tell the few dangerous guys from the multitude of decent guys as something to be frightened about and irrationally alter behaviour.  Some may react to the possibility of a serious car crash by completely avoiding cars.  Or they may take a defensive driving course, drive carefully and choose to keep their car in good shape and always wear a seatbelt because they understand the risks.  

———

Back to communicating….

I would like to understand what you are trying to convey.  Comparing assault to something also potentially fatal seems like it would be helpful  

Using bluebell’s example of an allergy to bee venom to avoid baggage of language that burdens this topic as much as possible, how would you describe what you see as the best state of mind and set of behaviours one should use when considering the possibility of being stung knowing one could get very ill or even die?

Would you apply the same type of caution to the possibility of physical harassment and assault?

If not, why not?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

There can be a limit to how much someone can prepare for things, at a certain point it becomes avoidance behavior, In the sense of anxiety disorders when people think that obsessing over something over and over somehow prevents the thing they are worrying about from happening. 

Perhaps by changing the focus a bit, it can become productive. 

I certainly agree going to the extreme would be unhealthy.  You can see it happen with preppers who use all their resources preparing for disasters that may never happen.  

Yet the Church has encouraged food storage and preparing for the possibility of lost jobs or other crises.

I assume you are not adverse to some preparation for potential risks.

I am not seeing anyone here advising obsessing over the possibility.  Have I missed something?

Not sure why obsession is what you go to when reading this thread. Can you explain why you went to the more extreme reactions?

[MustardSeed]

Anxiety disorders? Ok. ✅

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Danzo said:

I have been following this thread.  I don't doubt those experiences.  I have known people who have had those experiences and worse.  I have assisted in the process of turning abusers into law enforcement.  I am married to a woman who experienced traumatic sexual abuse as a child. People can and do do bad things to each other, really bad things. Things that do lasting damage.

In no way am I trying to minimize those experiences.

I was trying to point out the damage that can occur when people turn to absolutes (Every  ___ is a _____).   

Also, there is real harm in visualizing every one you meet (or a significant subset) as a threat or a predator.  I just spent last Sunday at the emergency room with a woman I minister to who was suffering from an episode of mental illness, caused in part by her belief that everyone was out to get her.   Fortunately she is receiving the help she needed, but there was a huge amount of pain and suffering that was experienced by this woman's husband and children.  Due to me and my wife's family history, we, unfortunately have had quite a bit of lived experience dealing with mental health problems.  The reason we were able to help this sister was because of this experience (the husband had no Idea what to do).

There are many situations, when dealing with men (and women) where caution is healthy and well advised.   

Anxiety disorders are also real, and it can be unhealthy to ruminate on over fears of potential harm from others.

I wasn't trying to dismiss anyone, or victim blame or minimize anyone's experiences, I just wanted to point out that visualizing every male as a predator can be bad mental hygene.

I was a bit surprised that what I thought was helpful was taken as somehow supporting abuse and being dismissive of peoples concerns.  I seems I am not very good at communication. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really do appreciate the effort, and women need more advocates in their lives.  There is real mental harm when worrying about a threat is irrational. If the threat is rational (based on logic and personal experience), then harm is mitigated by being aware and concerned about it.  When you went to the 'this isn't good for your mental health' angle, you implied (probably not on purpose) that women are behaving irrationally.

That is why your post was taken as it was.  

 

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Danzo said:

I have been following this thread.  I don't doubt those experiences.  I have known people who have had those experiences and worse.  I have assisted in the process of turning abusers into law enforcement.  I am married to a woman who experienced traumatic sexual abuse as a child. People can and do do bad things to each other, really bad things. Things that do lasting damage.

In no way am I trying to minimize those experiences.

Same here.

14 hours ago, Danzo said:

I was trying to point out the damage that can occur when people turn to absolutes (Every  ___ is a _____).   

Also, there is real harm in visualizing every one you meet (or a significant subset) as a threat or a predator.  I just spent last Sunday at the emergency room with a woman I minister to who was suffering from an episode of mental illness, caused in part by her belief that everyone was out to get her.   Fortunately she is receiving the help she needed, but there was a huge amount of pain and suffering that was experienced by this woman's husband and children.  Due to me and my wife's family history, we, unfortunately have had quite a bit of lived experience dealing with mental health problems.  The reason we were able to help this sister was because of this experience (the husband had no Idea what to do).

I agree with these sentiments.  And as you note, the "real harm" of this sentiment not only affects the individual, but those within his/her sphere of influence.  For my part, I have, in recent years, often withdrawn from having casual conversations with women in social environments.  Unless my wife is there, I don't say really anything at all.  And when she's there, I keep my conversation with women brief and distant.  In hindsight, I think my reservations (reluctance?  fear?) about having such conversations largely traces back to this February 2024 thread in which @Calm and @bluebell, among others, not only endorsed and justified this "all men are potential rapists" mindset, they criticized me for objecting to it, and some even ridiculed me for questioning it.  And this all happened while at the same time many also acknowledge that this mindset is prejudicial and unhealthy.

Some in that thread, and in this one, have tried to parse out what people mean when they declare to the world that "all men are potential rapists."  Such efforts are, for me, unavailing.  If this message board were to ever have an in-person get-together, I would not attend.  As much as I otherwise hold folks like Calm and Bluebell in high regard, I don't understand the societal expectations associated with "all men are potential rapists."  I can only withdraw and abstain from interaction. 

14 hours ago, Danzo said:

There are many situations, when dealing with men (and women) where caution is healthy and well advised.

Certainly.  Situational awareness is a very important concept, particularly (but not exclusively) for women and girls.

14 hours ago, Danzo said:

Anxiety disorders are also real, and it can be unhealthy to ruminate on over fears of potential harm from others.

I wasn't trying to dismiss anyone, or victim blame or minimize anyone's experiences, I just wanted to point out that visualizing every male as a predator can be bad mental hygene.

I was a bit surprised that what I thought was helpful was taken as somehow supporting abuse and being dismissive of peoples concerns.  I seems I am not very good at communication. 

I have experienced the same surprise. 

There's some real irony here.  The comments in this thread have, for me, prompted a presumption about women I did not have previously.  I did not think that "all men are potential rapists" was a commonly-held perspective among women.  Now, it seems, I am supposed to think that this is how many (most?) women view men.  

Not sure what to do with all this, except to be extraordinarily cautious in interacting with women who presumptively view all men as per se "potential rapists."  And since I don't know which women do and do not think this way, I end up projecting my own fear-based prejudice onto all women.  If I am going to be viewed this way regardless, purely by dint of my being an adult male, then the safest in-person interaction with such folks is no interaction at all.  And that's a bummer, since I have spent many years enjoying online discussions with women on this board.

Quite a quandary.  Interact with women and risk being viewed as a "potential rapist" (or, substantially worse, risk that something I say might be construed as actualizing that supposed risk).  Or abstain from interacting with women and succumb to a categorical prejudice.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 11 hours ago by smac97

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I really do appreciate the effort, and women need more advocates in their lives.  There is real mental harm when worrying about a threat is irrational. If the threat is rational (based on logic and personal experience), then harm is mitigated by being aware and concerned about it.  When you went to the 'this isn't good for your mental health' angle, you implied (probably not on purpose) that women are behaving irrationally.

That is why your post was taken as it was.  

 

I am sorry that the post was taken that way.  Unfortunately, Mental health is more complicated than rational/irrational.   It is interesting that brushing teeth, washing hands, covering mouth when coughing or sneezing, is seen as normal hygiene, while mental hygiene, like avoiding rumination, avoidance behavior, and negative thoughts can seen as something irrational.   Practicing physical hygiene doesn't mean one is sick, practicing good mental hygiene doesn't mean one is mentally ill.   Both are helpful in preventing illness. 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am sorry that the post was taken that way.  Unfortunately, Mental health is more complicated than rational/irrational.   It is interesting that brushing teeth, washing hands, covering mouth when coughing or sneezing, is seen as normal hygiene, while mental hygiene, like avoiding rumination, avoidance behavior, and negative thoughts can seen as something irrational.   Practicing physical hygiene doesn't mean one is sick, practicing good mental hygiene doesn't mean one is mentally ill.   Both are helpful in preventing illness. 

As someone who has family members with mental health struggles like bipolar, I agree it’s complicated. 

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Same here.

I agree with these sentiments.  And as you note, the "real harm" of this sentiment not only affects the individual, but those within his/her sphere of influence.  For my part, I have, in recent years, often withdrawn from having casual conversations with women in social environments.  Unless my wife is there, I don't say really anything at all.  And when she's there, I keep my conversation with women brief and distant.  In hindsight, I think my reservations (reluctance?  fear?) about having such conversations largely traces back to this February 2024 thread in which @Calm and @bluebell, among others, not only endorsed and justified this "all men are potential rapists" mindset, they criticized me for objecting to it, and some even ridiculed me for questioning it.  And this all happened while at the same time many also acknowledge that this mindset is prejudicial and unhealthy.

Some in that thread, and in this one, have tried to parse out what people mean when they declare to the world that "all men are potential rapists."  Such efforts are, for me, unavailing.  If this message board were to ever have an in-person get-together, I would not attend.  As much as I otherwise hold folks like Calm and Bluebell in high regard, I don't understand the societal expectations associated with "all men are potential rapists."  I can only withdraw and abstain from interaction. 

Certainly.  Situational awareness is a very important concept, particularly (but not exclusively) for women and girls.

I have experienced the same surprise. 

There's some real irony here.  The comments in this thread have, for me, prompted a presumption about women I did not have previously.  I did not think that "all men are potential rapists" was a commonly-held perspective among women.  Now, it seems, I am supposed to think that this is how many (most?) women view men.  

Not sure what to do with all this, except to be extraordinarily cautious in interacting with women who presumptively view all men as per se "potential rapists."  And since I don't know which women do and do not think this way, I end up projecting my own fear-based prejudice onto all women.  If I am going to be viewed this way regardless, purely by dint of my being an adult male, then the safest in-person interaction with such folks is no interaction at all.  And that's a bummer, since I have spent many years enjoying online discussions with women on this board.

Quite a quandary.  Interact with women and risk being viewed as a "potential rapist" (or, substantially worse, risk that something I say might be construed as actualizing that supposed risk).  Or abstain from interacting with women and succumb to a categorical prejudice.

Thanks,

-Smac

You could ask men who don’t struggle with this issue (like Nehor or SeekingUnderstanding, among others) how they are able to deal with the quandary. Most of us know men who are very capable of doing it so there are probably plenty you could go to for advice. 

[Danzo]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Using bluebell’s example of an allergy to bee venom to avoid baggage of language that burdens this topic as much as possible, how would you describe what you see as the best state of mind and set of behaviors one should use when considering the possibility of being stung knowing one could get very ill or even die?

Someone with a bee sting allergy is at heighten risk,  This person probably should carry an epi pen, and perhaps avoid flowers in the spring, as well as probably avoiding the local bee keepers.

Once they have taken these precautionary steps, it is probably better for them to stop imaging that every insect they see is a bee.  It would be bad if their fears of bees kept them up at night, or prevented them from going out in the world. Bees are small, they could be anywhere and in theory, one could be justified in thinking that bees are hiding everywhere, after they could be under the desk, but rarely are. 

They should also recognize that their condition is unique to them, they should not be asking their friends and family to avoid bees, bee keeping and other activities, as well as recognize that bees are an important part of agriculture and are a great benefit, as well as recognize bees are mostly harmless to most people. (my grandfather kept bees).

They shouldn't project their condition to other that don't have their condition. 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quite a quandary.  Interact with women and risk being viewed as a "potential rapist" (or, substantially worse, risk that something I say might be construed as actualizing that supposed risk).  Or abstain from interacting with women and succumb to a categorical prejudice.

I'll try to be more polite than my 2024 me. But it is very off putting how much of a victim you seem to want to be here. It's not about you. That's also a really big false dichotomy you have set up there. 

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what to do with all this, except to be extraordinarily cautious in interacting with women who presumptively view all men as per se "potential rapists."  And since I don't know which women do and do not think this way, I end up projecting my own fear-based prejudice onto all women.  If I am going to be viewed this way regardless, purely by dint of my being an adult male, then the safest in-person interaction with such folks is no interaction at all.  And that's a bummer, since I have spent many years enjoying online discussions with women on this board.

I currently serve on a city council,  a couple of years ago, one of the city councilors was accused of inappropriately touching a city worker.  The alleged touching occurred only once in a public place surrounded by other people.  No one around them noticed anything and the incident wasn't reported for until a few weeks after the alleged occurrence.   The alleged incident occurred when the city councilor was hugging the city worker (both admitted that it was common to greet each other by hugging each other).  The councilor was charged with misdemeanor sexual assault, the result was a hung jury and the DA declined the opportunity for a new trial.   I wasn't present during the alleged incident, so I have no idea what really happened, as a city councilor, I was privy to the police reports, internal investigation, etc. From my point of view it all boiled down to he said/she said and perhaps the intention of the touching that did happen.  Due to the alleged incident, the councilor is no longer on the council.

About a month ago, I was in a meeting and that particular worker was assigned to sit next to me and I was a bit scared.  I don't think I behaved outwardly different than I would have with any other employee, but I definitely had a heightened awareness about what I was doing at all times.  I couldn't take the risk that any accidental clumsiness on my part could be misinterpreted.  I  was sitting on the edge of my seat the whole time, the edge that was furthest away from her.  I consciously  kept my arms folded and on the table in view whole meeting.   

I wonder if she was feeling the same thing about me sitting next to her.  Was she as frightened of me as I was of her?  Was there anything I could do to put her at ease? Was there anything she could do to put me at ease?

Probably we will never know.

Edited 8 hours ago by Danzo

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'll try to be more polite than my 2024 me. But it is very off putting how much of a victim you seem to want to be here. It's not about you. That's also a really big false dichotomy you have set up there. 

"All men are potential rapists."

Spencer is a man.

Seems like I am part of the group the above declaration is about.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You could ask men who don’t struggle with this issue (like Nehor or SeekingUnderstanding, among others) how they are able to deal with the quandary.

If I'm not mistaken, they don't see it as a quandary.  They are on board with the characterization that "all men are potential rapists."

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Most of us know men who are very capable of doing it so there are probably plenty you could go to for advice. 

I have actually run this statement by several men of my acquaintance.  The responses have been interesting.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 9 hours ago by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

"All men are potential rapists."

Spencer is a man.

Seems like I am part of the group the above declaration is about.

Thanks,

-Smac

This has been explained to you over and over and over and yet you refuse to listen. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I currently serve on a city council,  a couple of years ago, one of the city councilors was accused of inappropriately touching a city worker.  The alleged touching occurred only once in a public place surrounded by other people.  No one around them noticed anything and the incident wasn't reported for until a few weeks after the alleged occurrence.   The alleged incident accident occurred when the city councilor was hugging the city worker (both admitted that it was common to greet each other by hugging each other). 

In the present environment, particularly the "all men are potential rapists" milieu, I would never hug any woman except close family members (and, perhaps, one sister (in a church member sense) who used to be in my ward, and who is Latina and hugs everyone)).  Handshake or fistbump or high-five, yes.  Nothing else.  

YMMV.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

The councilor was charged with misdemeanor sexual assault, the result was a hung jury and the DA declined the opportunity for a new trial.   I wasn't present during the alleged incident, so I have no idea what really happened, as a city councilor, I was privy to the police reports, internal investigation, etc. From my point of view it all boiled down to he said/she said and perhaps the intention of the touching that did happen.  Due to the alleged incident, the councilor is no longer on the council.

His reputation, nevertheless, is tainted.  

See, that situation probably won't happen if I never have any physical contact apart from a handshake/fistbump/high-five, and if I refrain from any substantive conversation with women other than what I described above.  Such precautions, coupled with the near omnipresence of security cameras and smart phones, reduce the risk of "he said/she said" situations arising.

I remember years ago thinking Mike Pence and his variation on the "Billy Graham Rule" was overwrought and unnecessary.  Now, for other reasons, I have adopted an even more strenuous rule than that one.  

From the Wikipedia article:

Quote

In March 2017, The Washington Post noted that U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, a practicing Evangelical, never eats alone with a woman other than his wife, Karen, and that he will not attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side.^[6][7][8] Emma Green, writing for The Atlantic, noted that the controversy was an example of how "notions of gender divide American culture": while "socially liberal or non-religious people may see Pence's practice as misogynistic or bizarre", for "a lot of conservative religious people" the "set-up probably sounds normal, or even wise".^{[9][10][11][12]}

Polish science fiction writer Jacek Dukaj called this rule inevitable and likely to grow in popularity as an outcome of the #MeToo movement and cancel culture.^[13]

Is "all men are potential rapists" part of #MeToo and/or "cancel culture"?  I'm genuinely curious.

More:

Quote

Controversies

The rule has been criticized for viewing women as potential objects of lust, as well as restricting opportunities for women to network with any male colleagues who happen to implement this rule.^[6][17] 

My rule avoids this criticism, I think.  I don't view women a "potential objects of lust," but rather a category of which some unidentified portion views "all men" as "potential rapists."  I have formulated precautions against the furtherance of that characterization.  I stay as far away from it as I can by having only minimal interactions with most women.

Quote

When applied to workplace dinners or meetings in the United States, it could result in illegal labor discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.^[18][19][20] 

Yes, it might.  Fortunately, I own my own business and don't have any employees.  I have plenty of female clients, though.  Interactions are pretty much all by telephone or online, so not really a problem there.

Quote

American pastor Tracey Bianchi says that one result is that "women are marginalized and cut out of opportunities to network, share their ideas, and advance in the organization."^[21] 

I am curious if this is happening.

Quote

Bianchi also says that the rule conflicts with the practice of Jesus himself, who spent time alone with the Samaritan woman at the well.^[21] 

I suspect Jesus is a special exemption from the "all men are rapists" declaration.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

About a month ago, I was in a meeting and that particular worker was assigned to sit next to me and I was a bit scared.  I don't think I behaved outwardly different than I would have with any other employee, but I definitely had a heightened awareness about what I was doing at all times.  I couldn't take the risk that any accidental clumsiness on my part could be misinterpreted.  I  was sitting on the edge of my seat the whole time, the edge that was furthest away from her.  I consciously  kept my arms folded and on the table in view whole meeting.

I continue to hold doors open to women when I have the opportunity to do so.  However, I do not say anything to them, and only smile and nod in response if they say "Thank you."  And if I am also going through the door, I wait several seconds to give them a head start.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I wonder if she was feeling the same thing about me sitting next to her.  Was she as frightened of me as I was of her?  Was there anything I could do to put her at ease? Was there anything she could do to put me at ease?

Probably we will never know.

My experience - involving not interacting with women except in de minimis ways - has incrementally become less fear-based and more "Hey, this keeps you and your reputation safe and may help her feel comfortable."  It does come at a cost, but one I am finding manageable.  I am fortunate in that I spend a lot of time with my wife and we have a lot of mutual friends (with whom I can converse, but not touch beyond a handshake/fistbump/high-five).  I also have a big extended family, and also a wonderful ward.  Plenty of friends and acquaintances.

I previously felt that "all men are potential rapists" is alienating and demoralizing.  Now, for me, it mostly just alienating, and in manageable ways.  I have been formulating ways to approach my sons and give them some instruction along these lines, as I think they are more susceptible to the "demoralizing" aspect.  None of them is married, and to get married they are expected to approach women who may harbor this "all men are potential rapists" sentiment.  Encountering such a terrible thought never entered my mind when I was courting my wife.  I treated her with respect and decorum, but I never thought that I had some sort of obligation to demonstrate to her that I am not a rapist.  I'm glad of that.  My sons may not be so fortunate.

When women publicly declare that they think that "all men are potential rapists," I think we should believe them.  I could frame this declaration as rhetorical hyperbole, as something that should not be taken at face value.  Based on this thread and its predecessor, I think men are better off taking it at face value and responding to it in that way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 8 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This has been explained to you over and over and over and yet you refuse to listen. 

If some men were going about declaring that "All women are potential sexual predators," I think women would be entitled to participate in conversations about that declaration.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 8 hours ago by smac97

[MustardSeed]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If some men were going about declaring that "All women are potential sexual predators," I think women would be entitled to have a say in conversations about that declaration.  Free speech is a wonderful thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Apparently participating does not equal listening.  Instead, being of a victim mentality and finding apparent joy in argument seems to be the order of the day.  
im not worried that you are, or will turn into, a rapist.  But since you are male, and I am female, I will always have a watchful eye on precarious situations with you and every other male.  Sorry if that upsets you.  But not really because I didn’t cause that need for awareness.  

thanks to those who try to get it.  

Also, Anxiety disorder is a mental health diagnosis with a code and everything. Awareness is not mental disorder.  It’s life.  

 

 

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If some men were going about declaring that "All women are potential sexual predators," I think women would be entitled to participate in conversations about that declaration.  

Thanks,

-Smac

If the data supported it and all the men that felt that way had actual real life experience that warranted it, then absolutely.

In such a case, women should be a part of the conversation *in order to support men and advocate for changes to keep men safer*.

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Apparently participating does not equal listening.  

I am listening.

48 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Instead, being of a victim mentality and finding apparent joy in argument seems to be the order of the day.  

I think we have a disagreement.  

48 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

im not worried that you are, or will turn into, a rapist.  

I'm glad to hear that.  Could you explain how you reached that conclusion?

Could you also explain when "All men are potential rapists" applies to a particular man, and when it does not?

48 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

But since you are male, and I am female, I will always have a watchful eye on precarious situations with you and every other male.  

That is eminently reasonable.  Why not just say that?

48 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Sorry if that upsets you.  But not really because I didn’t cause that need for awareness.  

It doesn't upset me at all.  I agree that situational awareness is a good idea.  I can affirm that without needing to characterize half of humanity as "potential rapists."

48 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

thanks to those who try to get it.  

I do "get it," I just don't agree with it.  I am all for situational awareness, but not for slandering all men everywhere as "potential rapists."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 7 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

If some men were going about declaring that "All women are potential sexual predators," I think women would be entitled to participate in conversations about that declaration.  

If the data supported it

What data supports the declaration that "all men are potential rapists"?

How do data measure/assess potentiality in this way?  And can those datasets also measure potentiality about women being "potential" sexual predators?

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

and all the men that felt that way had actual real life experience that warranted it, then absolutely.

In such a case, women should be a part of the conversation *in order to support men and advocate for changes to keep men safer*.

Might some women object to being characterized as "potential sexual predators" by dint of their sex?  Is that allowed to be part of the conversation?

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is eminently reasonable.  Why not just say that?

Honestly because I’m done being polite.  Until you with others start requiring your team to change as loudly as you try to disqualify (me) with argument, nothing will change.  Men don’t often listen to women as much as they will listen to other men and Smac we need you to defend us, not fight every line we write as though it is a sport.  For you it looks to be a game.  For us it’s daily concern.  
 

Edited 7 hours ago by MustardSeed

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Honestly because I’m done being polite.  

You see this as a difference between polite and not polite?

12 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Until you with others start requiring your team to change as loudly as you try to disqualify (me) with argument, nothing will change.  

I don't know what this means.  I have never endorsed or winked at or rationalized any sort of misconduct toward women.

12 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Men don’t often listen to women as much as they will listen to other men

Here I am, listening to you, with no differentiation based on sex.

Is it possible that you are equating not listening to you with not agreeing with you?

12 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

and Smac we need you to defend us, not fight every line we write as though it is a sport.  For you it looks to be a game.  For us it’s daily concern.  

To paraphrase a passage from Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre: “I like to serve {women} and to obey {them} in all that is right.”

I find all sorts of problems with the declaration that "all men are potential rapists."  I think it's wrong and unhealthy, and even counterproductive and caustice.  I think I can express that disagreement to women, in the same ways I express disagreement with men.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What data supports the declaration that "all men are potential rapists"?

How do data measure/assess potentiality in this way?  And can those datasets also measure potentiality about women being "potential" sexual predators?

Might some women object to being characterized as "potential sexual predators" by dint of their sex?  Is that allowed to be part of the conversation?

Thanks,

-Smac

The date has been put up before, and this thread and in other threads. At this point, there’s really no reason to put up more data. You won’t engage with it anyway.  You’ll just put up exceptions to the data and only want to talk about those.  That tends to be your MO.  I don’t want to circle that drain again.

And of course, women can say whatever they want. But if the tables were turned I don’t think any woman who objected would have a leg to stand on.