Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Unintended consequence of ***some*** modesty teachings is distrust of men and other insights


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Oh my gosh, Tacenda.  I am so, so sorry that happened to you. 
 

And MustardSeed, whatever it was, the same.

 

Someday it will be nice that such experience won’t have to be revisited because some won’t accept that so many women have very good personal reasons to view all men as potential sexual predators and other women learning from the experiences vicariously are wise enough to adopt similar cautious attitudes.  I am not claiming it is a healthy attitude, I am claiming it is healthier than what a woman has to go through after being sexually assaulted.

So sorry both of you had to endure those kinds of experiences.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

So sorry both of you had to endure those kinds of experiences.

Yes, grateful neither situation ended badly. We both are traumatized emotionally, we may not realize it but it's there. Sorry to speak for Calm, maybe I'm wrong.  But I believe an accumulation of incidents such as these cause harm to the psyche. I've had several incidents from a child forward that may be minor compared to other's experiences but added up aren't great. 

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

We both are traumatized emotionally, we may not realize it but it's there. Sorry to speak for Calm, maybe I'm wrong.

It definitely creates an edge where there wouldn’t be.  It has made me much less confident to venture out on my own.  I have and never will travel on my own, for instance.   I am not sure if it raised my dislike of confrontation or not as that was already pretty high.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Tacenda said:

All I know is that the judgement goes far against women wearing inappropriate (for whom, haha) clothing. And how the judgement almost feels worse than the person that getting the judgement. I think some girls or young women and even older women, just want to be loved or accepted. Or get some attention that may be lacking strongly in their lives and they haven't been able to feel like their intellect or personality is enough. They may have grown up with a father that didn't give her the attention needed. She may have been sexually abused and learned that it is the way to feel loved. Or she may just be proud of her body and the work outs that led to it. 

It's our jobs to not just go by their poor decision but look beyond it. And not let someone's clothing choice cause a reaction of disgust for them, we need to love them instead. 

I remember going out to dinner after the temple, which we did for my in-law's birthdays every year. It was during Halloween and a woman walked by with an outfit that showed her cleavage. Well my MIL had a fit, and was even a little loud with her disgust of the woman. I was embarrassed by my MIL's reactions and hoped the woman didn't see it. 

We all need to get a grip on it, and look in to the soul of the person behind the lack of clothing. There's most likely something lurking and would answer to the why. 

 

Humans are much to hung up on clothing and appearance. Goodness, for most of our time as a species on earth humans ran around naked. 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Well anecdotally I do unfortunately see every man who is walking in a sidewalk towards me or behind me as a potential rapist.  

That’s because a thing happened this one time- in Provo.  

So everyone is a potential threat if they are male.   Unfortunately. 
 

So many women have so many stories that it’s just a fact, we end up sounding sexist but in reality we are traumatized. 

Sometimes I walk in an area that doesn't have homes just outside of a neighborhood. And just the thought that someone could get me, makes me run as fast as possible to get to where there's homes. I'm not a runner, but the thoughts takeover and I run faster than I thought I could.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Sometimes I walk in an area that doesn't have homes just outside of a neighborhood. And just the thought that someone could get me, makes me run as fast as possible to get to where there's homes. I'm not a runner, but the thoughts takeover and I run faster than I thought I could.

I got home late last night and couldn’t enter the code correctly to open the front door.  It took me 4 tries…I kept thinking “what if there’s a guy around the corner”- 

my husband says he never has that experience ( though maybe he was referring to entering the code wrong 😩)

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I got home late last night and couldn’t enter the code correctly to open the front door.  It took me 4 tries…I kept thinking “what if there’s a guy around the corner”- 

my husband says he never has that experience ( though maybe he was referring to entering the code wrong 😩)

front_door.png

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Except once inside, maybe “he” got in somehow before me.  

The writer of that comic said that sometime in the next 30 years he will release a wolf into a random front yard so that no one should feel embarrassed about this fear.

Link to comment
On 2/8/2024 at 10:51 PM, Calm said:

many women have very good personal reasons to view all men as potential sexual predators

This is not to say this position needs to stay in place past a reasonable point….though sometimes even here women get it wrong or don’t listen to their wiser selves.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 2/8/2024 at 12:05 PM, The Nehor said:

You are talking about a specific subset of Islam and not Islam in general. There are Christian and Jewish subsets with similar practices.

Maybe you're referring to the dhimmis living in Islamic countries.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Teancum said:

Gotta say I am with Smac on this one.  

Eeek! Strange bedfellows at times! I disagree with Smac on this one. ; ) The issue is biological men. It remains - generally speaking - a biological fact that men are physically stronger than women and that too high a percentage of them are prone to mischief against women. It is not about the fact that these men might be Muslim or black or LDS. Introducing these descriptors unnecessarily confuses and pollutes the issue. Now, is there a better way to communicate this legitimate concern that women have? Absolutely. I do not care for a general conversation where women continue to exclaim - "All men are potential predators". I understand what they are saying. I just think there's a better way to express it. : )

Edited by Vanguard
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Eeek! Strange bedfellows at times! I disagree with Smac on this one. ; ) The issue is biological men. It remains - generally speaking - a biological fact that men are physically stronger than women and that too high a percentage of them are prone to mischief against women. It is not about the fact that these men might be Muslim or black or LDS. Introducing these descriptors unnecessarily confuses and pollutes the issue. Now, is there a better way to communicate this legitimate concern that women have? Absolutely. I do not care for a general conversation where women continue to exclaim - "All men are potential predators". I understand what they are saying. I just thing there's a better way to express it. : )

I discussed this with my husband and son last night and they immediately sided with smac. Then I explained the idea. My husband suggested there are 2 ways to have this view. One as a stance - he explained it so much better, but my memory is bad. The second as a protective measure. He felt the first way was discrimination, but the second was necessary for safety. I think he is right on that.

We both felt, like you, there might be a better way to say it, but honestly I can't think of one.  It entirely depends on someone understanding the concept no matter how you say it and many won't take the time or allow themselves to understand it like my husband did. I still hope someone figures out a better way to say it though. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Rain said:

I discussed this with my husband and son last night and they immediately sided with smac. Then I explained the idea. My husband suggested there are 2 ways to have this view. One as a stance - he explained it so much better, but my memory is bad. The second as a protective measure. He felt the first way was discrimination, but the second was necessary for safety. I think he is right on that.

We both felt, like you, there might be a better way to say it, but honestly I can't think of one.  It entirely depends on someone understanding the concept no matter how you say it and many won't take the time or allow themselves to understand it like my husband did. I still hope someone figures out a better way to say it though. 

Yes, as women what we don't know may kill/hurt us, so we tend to lump any male stranger together whatever they look like. It's our defense mechanism. Males are usually stronger of course, but women hopefully carry an arsenal of items in their purse/fanny pack/back pack to prevent harm. I don't because I'm not in precarious situations like when I worked in the city and parked in parking ramps or other lots with not a lot of people there sometimes. I worked till 6:00 so in the winter it would be dark. 

And when I go on walks now on a paved trail that previously was a railroad, I am often alone and passerby's scare me, so I should bring something to protect myself for sure. Now I will do a better job now that I think about it. 

As I've mentioned in the past, in wards I've attended often, the men are nicer than some of the women. So it's not like I hate men, far from it. Love LDS men that I've known in my various wards, couldn't be better men than them sometimes. Women are another subject, don't hate women, it's just I've run across some that haven't treated me well. 

 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Rain said:

I discussed this with my husband and son last night and they immediately sided with smac. Then I explained the idea. My husband suggested there are 2 ways to have this view. One as a stance - he explained it so much better, but my memory is bad. The second as a protective measure. He felt the first way was discrimination, but the second was necessary for safety. I think he is right on that.

We both felt, like you, there might be a better way to say it, but honestly I can't think of one.  It entirely depends on someone understanding the concept no matter how you say it and many won't take the time or allow themselves to understand it like my husband did. I still hope someone figures out a better way to say it though. 

Good conversation with your hubby. : ) Part of the problem I have is the idea that my two wonderful daughters (21 & 16 yros) would be communicating with me that I am a potential predator against them. Afterall, most abuse comes from people close to and who women know intimately, right? Yuck. 

Edited by Vanguard
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Eeek! Strange bedfellows at times! I disagree with Smac on this one. ; ) The issue is biological men. It remains - generally speaking - a biological fact that men are physically stronger than women and that too high a percentage of them are prone to mischief against women. It is not about the fact that these men might be Muslim or black or LDS. Introducing these descriptors unnecessarily confuses and pollutes the issue. Now, is there a better way to communicate this legitimate concern that women have? Absolutely. I do not care for a general conversation where women continue to exclaim - "All men are potential predators". I understand what they are saying. I just think there's a better way to express it. : )

Valid points. Let me ponder this.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

[Walks up to the placid calm waters of this thread]

Trans women who transitioned after going through a male puberty will never know the problems being discussed in this thread.  Right, @The Nehor ?

 

My thread, please don’t derail it.  Start your own thread if someone wants to add this wrinkle into it.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

[Walks up to the placid calm waters of this thread]

Trans women who transitioned after going through a male puberty will never know the problems being discussed in this thread.  Right, @The Nehor ?

Transgender people are around four times as likely to be victims of violence as a cisgender person. That includes rape and sexual assault. Transgender men and transgender women are roughly equal in these statistics.

If you want to post a gotcha you might want to check the stats and make sure the gotcha is genuine first.

Link to comment
On 2/10/2024 at 9:09 AM, Vanguard said:
Quote

Gotta say I am with Smac on this one.  

Eeek! Strange bedfellows at times! I disagree with Smac on this one. ; )

That's okay.  Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

On 2/10/2024 at 9:09 AM, Vanguard said:

The issue is biological men.

Respectfully, I disagree.  The issue is about what some biological men do.

If it is not prejudicial to characterize the entirety of a category (men) as "potential rapists" because a subset of that category commit rape, then it would likewise not be prejudicial to characterize the entirety of another category - black men, Muslim men, Hispanic men, etc. - as "potential rapists" because a subset of that category commit rape.

And yet, I don't think any of us would feel comfortable designating all black men, or all Muslim men, or all Hispanic men, as "potential rapists" solely because they are in that category.  Such a designation would be per se prejudicial.

On 2/10/2024 at 9:09 AM, Vanguard said:

It remains - generally speaking - a biological fact that men are physically stronger than women

I concede the point.  But in my view, that does not justify harboring prejudicial perceptions of all men as "potential rapists" (let alone publicly and unapologetically declaring that prejudicial perception).

It is likewise "a biological fact that {black} men are {typically} physically stronger than women," but characterizing all black men as "potential rapists" because of this would, in my view, be prejudicial.  Inherently.

On 2/10/2024 at 9:09 AM, Vanguard said:

and that too high a percentage of them are prone to mischief against women.

Any non-zero percentage is "too high."  Nevertheless, I think it is wrong to harbor literal prejudice against an entire category of persons where A) the person did not choose, by word or deed, to belong to that category, but B) is nevertheless deemed a "potential rapist" because of his membership in that category.

On 2/10/2024 at 9:09 AM, Vanguard said:

It is not about the fact that these men might be Muslim or black or LDS.

Why not?  Certainly some Muslim, black and Latter-day Saint men commit rape, so why is merely "be{ing} Muslim or black or LDS" not a sufficient basis for designating a man as "a potential rapist"?

On 2/10/2024 at 9:09 AM, Vanguard said:

Introducing these descriptors unnecessarily confuses and pollutes the issue.

How so?  How is "All men are potential descriptors" materially distinguishable from "All black men are potential rapists"?  Both are, in my view, per se prejudicial statements.  

Earlier in this thread I posted excerpts from an article noting that appreciable numbers of women commit sexual assault.  Are we therefore prepared to publicly declare that "All women are potential rapists"?  If not, why not?  

On 2/10/2024 at 9:09 AM, Vanguard said:

Now, is there a better way to communicate this legitimate concern that women have? Absolutely. I do not care for a general conversation where women continue to exclaim - "All men are potential predators". I understand what they are saying. I just think there's a better way to express it. : )

Sounds like we might agree more than we disagree.

Patently prejudicial statements are not helpful in civil discourse.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet, I don't think any of us would feel comfortable designating all black men, or all Muslim men, or all Hispanic men, as "potential rapists" solely because they are in that category.  Such a designation would be per se prejudicial.

This is true.  I’m a worse person than I realized- and if I could eliminate the fear I feel 100% of the time when I’m alone and a man I don’t know approaches me I would sign up immediately. 
 
it doesn’t take much to squelch the fear in the moment- but it’s real for a time and it’s really unfortunate for us all. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:
Quote

And yet, I don't think any of us would feel comfortable designating all black men, or all Muslim men, or all Hispanic men, as "potential rapists" solely because they are in that category.  Such a designation would be per se prejudicial.

This is true.  I’m a worse person than I realized- and if I could eliminate the fear I feel 100% of the time when I’m alone and a man I don’t know approaches me I would sign up immediately. 

Some years back I was teaching at a local university.  My practice was to arrive very early (5:15 or so) and get some legal work in at my on-campus office.  Reaching that office required me to walk through a series of interconnected buildings and hallways.  One day as I made my way to my office, I found myself walking behind a young woman headed in the same direction (apparently to the same building).  I was walking about 50 feet or more behind her, and nobody else was in sight.  After the third or so instance of her looking back at me, I perceived that I was making her nervous, likely because A) I'm a pretty big guy, B) I was seemingly "following" her, and C) there was nobody else in sight.  Although I posed zero threat to her, I called out to her and said something like this: "Miss!  My name is Spencer Macdonald, and I teach several courses in the business school.  My office is in the ___________ building, which is where I am headed.  I am not following you, but I will stop here and wait a few minutes until you get to where you are going."  She smiled, gave a sigh of relief, and continued walking.

Was this woman wrong to view me as a "potential" threat?  Nope.  She was engaging in situational awareness.  She noted that she was (seemingly) being followed down a hallway by someone physically larger and stronger than her, and she was all alone.  Still, she did not pepper spray me, nor scream "Rapist!" at me, nor report me to the police as a "potential rapist."  She just kept track of where I was.

Several hours later, I walked down that exact same hallway on my way out to my car.  At this point in the day the hallway was packed with hundreds of people, half or more of which were women.  Were these women walking down this packed hallway and, when passing me (or any of the hundreds of men in it), thinking "there goes a potential rapist"?  I really doubt it.  Why?  Because a person being male, ipso facto, is not a sufficiently reasonable basis to impute malevolent - or "potentially" malevolent - intent onto that person.  A man who is behaving suspiciously toward a woman in vulnerable circumstances can be reasonably treated with caution and suspicion.  Otherwise, however, the imputation of malevolent intent onto a man simply because he is male, and for no other reason, is per se prejudicial.

19 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

it doesn’t take much to squelch the fear in the moment- but it’s real for a time and it’s really unfortunate for us all. 

I have a daughter who is presently a student at the university described above.  I would hope that she would be prudent in exercising situational awareness, but I would hope that she would not succumb to harboring ugly prejudices against men as a category simply because they are men.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
On 2/10/2024 at 9:09 AM, Vanguard said:

Eeek! Strange bedfellows at times! I disagree with Smac on this one. ; ) The issue is biological men. It remains - generally speaking - a biological fact that men are physically stronger than women and that too high a percentage of them are prone to mischief against women. It is not about the fact that these men might be Muslim or black or LDS. Introducing these descriptors unnecessarily confuses and pollutes the issue. Now, is there a better way to communicate this legitimate concern that women have? Absolutely. I do not care for a general conversation where women continue to exclaim - "All men are potential predators". I understand what they are saying. I just think there's a better way to express it. : )

What would be a good way to express it in your opinion? (sincere question)

Because though women know that it's "not all men", we also know that we can't tell the difference between the ones it is and the ones it's not.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Several hours later, I walked down that exact same hallway on my way out to my car.  At this point in the day the hallway was packed with hundreds of people, half or more of which were women.  Were these women walking down this packed hallway and, when passing me (or any of the hundreds of men in it), thinking "there goes a potential rapist"?  I really doubt it.  Why?  Because a person being male, ipso facto, is not a sufficiently reasonable basis to impute malevolent - or "potentially" malevolent - intent onto that person.  A man who is behaving suspiciously toward a woman in vulnerable circumstances can be reasonably treated with caution and suspicion.  Otherwise, however, the imputation of malevolent intent onto a man simply because he is male, and for no other reason, is per se prejudicial.

I don’t think you understand what most women mean when they say this as in how we process the information that because we can’t tell when a man is “safe”, sometimes even when they are well known to us (there is a reason why alcohol is so frequently present when there is sexual assault), we say every man is a potential rapist and what we do with that idea.  (See webbles’ post, though expand it a bit for also preparing ourselves mentally for even in unexpected scenarios—the neighbour or the boss who has always been friendly and respectful, an in-law who we saw as so in love with his wife—so as to be less likely to freeze or miss subtle signs if there are any)

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...