Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't see how this is any different from what you are arguing against.  The woman saw you as a threat because you were a man.  If you had been a woman, she wouldn't have seen you as a threat.  The fact that you were following her and no one else was in sight increased the potential threat to her.  So, she saw you as a "potential rapist" because you were a man.  I don't think women who say "all men are potential rapists" are also saying they want to pepper spray all men, scream "Rapist!" at all men, or report all men.  Only that they must have situational awareness around all men because any man could potentially harm them.

Exactly….after this last post of his, I am wondering if he is so focused on the words “potential rapist” he hasn’t registered the context in which they have been given.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, webbles said:

I don't see how this is any different from what you are arguing against.  The woman saw you as a threat because you were a man.  If you had been a woman, she wouldn't have seen you as a threat.  The fact that you were following her and no one else was in sight increased the potential threat to her.  So, she saw you as a "potential rapist" because you were a man.  I don't think women who say "all men are potential rapists" are also saying they want to pepper spray all men, scream "Rapist!" at all men, or report all men.  Only that they must have situational awareness around all men because any man could potentially harm them.

Bingo!   I was thinking the same thing as was going to say something.

Correct me if I am wrong ladies, but when women say that they perceive all men as a potential threat, I think they are thinking in terms of situation awareness including environment/circumstance and are not on high alert in a crowded grocery store, or convention, or church, for example, when they pass by a man.  It is "situational awareness" as smac correctly describes, and it happens to be the fact that we are men that triggers that situational awareness.  Nothing wrong with that.  I think @smac97 is likely making this something more than it is.  

I often take Trax to get to work and I walk through a wetlands park with ponds near my house to get there.  It is very early in the morning, and sometimes it is still dark outside.  Sometimes I walk by women out walking or jogging alone and I sense and see the anxious look on their faces as I pass them by.  I would have heightened situational awareness if I was them too, and I feel anxious for them.    I am always relieved when they have dogs with them, because it lessens the silent tension.   I think it would think that there was something wrong with a woman who didn't perceive me (because I am a man) as a potential threat in that situation.   The same women passing me in a busy grocery store most certainly wouldn't feel the same anxiety.   So yes, it is the fact that we are men that causes anxiety, but I think it is also coupled with other factors of situational awareness.

 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, pogi said:

Bingo!   I was thinking the same thing as was going to say something.

Correct me if I am wrong ladies, but when women say that they perceive all men as a potential threat, I think they are thinking in terms of situation awareness including environment/circumstance and are not on high alert in a crowded grocery store, or convention, or church, for example, when they pass by a man.  It is "situational awareness" as smac correctly describes, and it happens to be the fact that we are men that triggers that situational awareness.  Nothing wrong with that.  I think @smac97 is likely making this something more than it is.  

I often take Trax to get to work and I walk through a wetlands park with ponds near my house to get there.  It is very early in the morning, and sometimes it is still dark outside.  Sometimes I walk by women out walking or jogging alone and I sense and see the anxious look on their faces as I pass them by.  I would have heightened situational awareness if I was them too, and I feel anxious for them.    I am always relieved when they have dogs with them, because it lessens the silent tension.   I think it would think that there was something wrong with a woman who didn't perceive me (because I am a man) as a potential threat in that situation.   The same women passing me in a busy grocery store most certainly wouldn't feel the same anxiety.   So yes, it is the fact that we are men that causes anxiety, but I think it is also coupled with other factors of situational awareness.

 

Beyond just random strangers, it applies to people you may know well. Maybe they get drunk. Maybe they were just biding their time. My wife was sexually assaulted by her host dad after a of months living in his house. She was also violated by a man that she had known for years who just had an opportunity. I don’t know why SMAC is attempting to turn women’s lived reality into a prejudicial statement. It’s not that all men have a rapist living inside of them. But that women must live as if nearly every man in their life is a potential rapist. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Make sure your daughter understands that Provo is not a bubble.  I was extremely naïve as a young adult. 

When I was there in the 70s, we were told by BYU security at a lecture that predators come there from out of state because of its reputation for innocence of its women and children.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

That’s wonderful. 

 

Agreed.  Situational awareness.  A man and me alone, he’s a potential danger.  I never have those thoughts about women, even though technically a woman could probably take me down. Sounds like you are suggesting that this is as problematic as racism?  If so, I accept that judgment. I can’t change it.

 

That would be largely inappropriate, wouldn’t it?  Ironically, though it would’ve helped me a couple of times. It’s a balancing act in my head and every single time the voice that says shut up is the voice that wins. The 99 times that the man is safe, this strategy works. The one time that he’s not reinforces that inner battle every other time. 

 

What if he’s not behaving suspiciously but just walking behind a woman? What if a man steps into an elevator with a woman alone? What if a man knocks on a door and the woman in the house is alone? What if a woman walks out into a parking lot and a man walks in her direction? What if I need to stop and pump gas at night. When I look around, and I see one other person standing in the parking lot looking in my direction, if it’s a man versus a woman?  Do you realize that these types of things happen every single day constantly? Where is the line to be drawn where a woman doesn’t need to or shouldn’t question her safety with a man? 
 

I had two run-ins with exhibitionists living in Provo. I was a runner and I ran every day for an hour. 
Then there was the time that I was walking home at night from a Dancehall, and there was a streaker running down the street towards me.

I saw a lot of penis in Provo, but I never broke the law of chastity.

Then the event happened that changed my view of the world.  
 

Make sure your daughter understands that Provo is not a bubble.  I was extremely naïve as a young adult. 

 

let me be clear on some thing. I met a lot of men this weekend. None of these men that I met brought to mind the idea that they would be a potential rapist. 
 

But if anyone of those men, before I met them, stepped into an elevator alone with me already there alone, I’m coming up with self defense plans in my head pretty quick. 

Yes, it's not like you go around thinking "potential rapist". It's just the defense plans you make because of the inner awareness of that potential. 

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Calm said:
Quote

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

"This" being "All men are potential rapists"?

I don't know what there is to misunderstand about it.  

3 hours ago, Calm said:

as in how we process the information that because we can’t tell when a man is “safe”,

"{W}e can't tell when a {black} man is 'safe.'"  

Why is this a prejudicial statement but "{W}e can't tell when a man is 'safe'" is not?  

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

"{E}very {black} man is a potential rapist."

Why is this a prejudicial statement but "{E}very man is a potential rapist" is not?  

3 hours ago, Calm said:

(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)

I'll give it a look.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

don't know what there is to misunderstand about it.  

And that is the problem.  You are think you know what it means, but are focused on what is being said and how it makes you feel, etc and not why women say it….which is why I guess you think repeating the phrase over and over is engaging what is being said instead of ignoring it.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 hours ago, webbles said:
Quote

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.

I don't see how this is any different from what you are arguing against. 

Because the woman in my story was not operating in an "All men are potential rapists" context.  If we replicate the story, but this time with it taking place in the middle of the day with hundreds of other people - including large numbers of other men - around, would she have viewed me as a "potential rapist"?  I really doubt it.  

3 hours ago, webbles said:

The woman saw you as a threat because you were a man. 

I don't think so.  I was a man who was, arguably, behaving suspiciously toward her {insofar as me walking in the same direction as she was without anyone else around is "suspicious").  And since it was 5:15 or so in the morning, she was in vulnerable circumstances.  So no, not just because I am "a man."  A man behaving in a particular way and in particular circumstances can be reasonably viewed as a potential threat.  But all men everywhere are always to be viewed as "potential rapists"?  Regardless of their behavior?  Regardless of circumstances?

If I were to say "The woman saw the man as a threat because he was a black man," that would be seen - and rightly so - as a patently prejudicial statement.  I don't think we can say that a black man, who has done nothing except be a black man, who has neither behaved strangely nor said anything untoward nor encountered a woman in vulnerable circumstances, can be reasonably viewed as a "potential rapist."  I think this is simple prejudice.  And the patent prejudice doesn't go away once "black" is removed from the sentence.

3 hours ago, webbles said:

If you had been a woman, she wouldn't have seen you as a threat. The fact that you were following her

I was not following her.  I did not know her, nor did I know where she was going.  

3 hours ago, webbles said:

and no one else was in sight increased the potential threat to her. 

A few hours later, when if she had been ahead of me in the same hallway, only in the daytime with hundreds of people around her, she should not have seen me as a "potential threat."  I was an adult male both times, but only a subjective "potential threat" when she suspected me of "following" her, and of her being all alone.  It is the circumstance and behavior that can justify viewing someone as a potential threat.  To say that everyone within a category of persons are - simply by belonging to that category, and with no indication or evidence of suspicious behavior or vulnerable circumstances - "potential rapists" is to exhibit prejudice to that category.  Whether the category is "all men" or "all {black} men" or "all {Muslim} men" or "all {Latter-day Saint} men," the prejudice is there.

3 hours ago, webbles said:

So, she saw you as a "potential rapist" because you were a man. 

Not just because I was a man.  But some label me and all other men as "potential rapists" on that sole criterion.  But characterizing another category - all black men, for example - and "potential rapists" based on that singular criterion (being a black man) is rightly seen as prejudicial.  

3 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't think women who say "all men are potential rapists" are also saying they want to pepper spray all men, scream "Rapist!" at all men, or report all men. 

Understood.  What they do want to say, though, is that they have prejudged all men as "potential rapists."

They would not say all black men are "potential rapists," though, nor all Muslim men, as this would be patently prejudicial.

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Only that they must have situational awareness around all men because any man could potentially harm them.

There is no limiting principle here.  "All women are potential rapists" is no less prejudicial, and no more rational.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 2/8/2024 at 7:01 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

"All black men are potential rapists."

"All Muslim men are potential rapists."

These seem like patently prejudicial statements.

Maybe because the skin color and religion is patently prejudicial?

So prejudice against skin color and religion is okay, but prejudice against sex and age is okey-dokey? 

What are you saying here?

On 2/8/2024 at 7:01 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There is nothing about being Muslim or black that makes a man extra likely to be a rapist.

We have not been discussing "extra likely."  That is not the phrase to which I have objected.

On 2/8/2024 at 7:01 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What a horrid argument. 

Perhaps you should re-visit what I have said and argued, rather than mischaracterize it as you did just now.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They would not say all black men are "potential rapists," though, nor all Muslim men, as this would be patently prejudicial.

Can you not hear yourself!? Can you explain to me what “Muslim” or “black” do here? Men are potential rapists. Yes. Clearly. What do Muslim or black do as modifiers here? Other than reveal bigotry? 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So prejudice against skin color and religion is okay, but prejudice against sex and age is okey-dokey? 

What are you saying here?

We have not been discussing "extra likely."  That is not the phrase to which I have objected.

Perhaps you should re-visit what I have said and argued, rather than mischaracterize it as you did just now.

Thanks,

-Smac

lol. Go on continue to make a victim of yourself. Poor Smac the victim or women’s prejudice. When was the last time that you were scared of being raped?

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
2 hours ago, pogi said:

Correct me if I am wrong ladies, but when women say that they perceive all men as a potential threat, I think they are thinking in terms of situation awareness including environment/circumstance and are not on high alert in a crowded grocery store, or convention, or church, for example, when they pass by a man.  It is "situational awareness" as smac correctly describes, and it happens to be the fact that we are men that triggers that situational awareness.  Nothing wrong with that.  I think @smac97 is likely making this something more than it is.

Calm: "{W}omen typically view all men as ... potential rapists."

"All men." 

Not sure how else to read that.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I often take Trax to get to work and I walk through a wetlands park with ponds near my house to get there.  It is very early in the morning, and sometimes it is still dark outside.  Sometimes I walk by women out walking or jogging alone and I sense and see the anxious look on their faces as I pass them by. 

You are only proving my point.  If you were to pass them by at 1:00 in the afternoon, with dozens of other people around, would she view you as a "potential rapist"?  I really doubt it.  Most women do not harbor such irrational prejudices against "all men."

Conversely, it makes a lot of sense for a women to have heightened situational awareness against a man (not "all men") who is following her, or behaving strangely, and in circumstances where she is vulnerable.  In that scenario is the behavioral and circumstantial markers that justify heightened situational awareness - including viewing that one particular fellow at that particular time and in that particular space - as a potential threat to her safety.  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I would have heightened situational awareness if I was them too, and I feel anxious for them.

So would I, but not based on the single criterion of "he's a male, ergo he's a 'potential rapist.'"  The very phrase "situational awareness" bespeaks additional criteria that are in play.  The situation.  The time of the interaction.  The location.  Whether others are present.  Whether the woman is in a vulnerable circumstance.

If a woman of decorum and intelligence is walking down a public street in the middle of the day, and if a black man is walking toward her in the opposite direction, and if he is not doing or saying anything odd or menacing, then would that woman think "Huh, here comes a black man, a 'potential rapist'"?  And if so, would that be considered prejudicial?

Now answer the same question but omit the word "black" from its preceding sentences.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I am always relieved when they have dogs with them, because it lessens the silent tension.   I think it would think that there was something wrong with a woman who didn't perceive me (because I am a man) as a potential threat in that situation.   The same women passing me in a busy grocery store most certainly wouldn't feel the same anxiety.

Exactly.  That is my point.  

Pogi-the-Male passing a woman early in the morning jogging on a trail early in the morning and with nobody else around just might elicit an "anxious look" from the woman, because of the additional criteria (time of day, isolation, Pogi's acting weird, etc.).

In contrast, Pogi-the-Male passing a woman "in a busy grocery store" would "most certainly ... {not} feel the same anxiety."

Same guy, but in one circumstance you are a "potential rapist" and in the other you are not.  Why is that?  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

So yes, it is the fact that we are men that causes anxiety, but I think it is also coupled with other factors of situational awareness.

I can agree with that.  But "the fact that we are men ... coupled with other factors {is what can cause anxiety}" is an entirely different proposition from "all men are potential rapists."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But some label me and all other men as "potential rapists" on that sole criterion.  But characterizing another category - all black men, for example - and "potential rapists" based on that singular criterion (being a black man) is rightly seen as prejudicial.  

Because all men is one criterion…they are male.  “Black man” is not a singular criterion, but two….he is black and he is male.  It is the male criterion that is relevant, but attaching black or Muslim implies it is that criterion which is relevant—otherwise there would be no reason to include it—and it isn’t relevant, so focusing on that by including it would be prejudicial..

If your issue is with dogs in general, you can’t interchange “beagle” with “dog” because using just the breed implies the issue is the breed and that it is not dogs in general that is the issue.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Smac, how do you think I, someone who holds potential rapist in my mind somewhere constantly, would act differently than the woman who was walking behind you given I don’t mindread in your scenario?  How could you tell she did not believe that and could tell I do….besides asking?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  I was a man who was, arguably, behaving suspiciously toward her {insofar as me walking in the same direction as she was without anyone else around is "suspicious").  And since it was 5:15 or so in the morning, she was in vulnerable circumstances.  So no, not just because I am "a man."  A man behaving in a particular way and in particular circumstances can be reasonably viewed as a potential threat.  But all men everywhere are always to be viewed as "potential rapists"?  Regardless of their behavior?  Regardless of circumstances?

If I were to say "The woman saw the man as a threat because he was a black man," that would be seen - and rightly so - as a patently prejudicial statement.  I don't think we can say that a black man, who has done nothing except be a black man, who has neither behaved strangely nor said anything untoward nor encountered a woman in vulnerable circumstances, can be reasonably viewed as a "potential rapist."  I think this is simple prejudice.  And the patent prejudice doesn't go away once "black" is removed from the sentence.

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was not following her.  I did not know her, nor did I know where she was going.  

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A few hours later, when if she had been ahead of me in the same hallway, only in the daytime with hundreds of people around her, she should not have seen me as a "potential threat."  I was an adult male both times, but only a subjective "potential threat" when she suspected me of "following" her, and of her being all alone.  It is the circumstance and behavior that can justify viewing someone as a potential threat.  To say that everyone within a category of persons are - simply by belonging to that category, and with no indication or evidence of suspicious behavior or vulnerable circumstances - "potential rapists" is to exhibit prejudice to that category.  Whether the category is "all men" or "all {black} men" or "all {Muslim} men" or "all {Latter-day Saint} men," the prejudice is there.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not just because I was a man.  But some label me and all other men as "potential rapists" on that sole criterion.  But characterizing another category - all black men, for example - and "potential rapists" based on that singular criterion (being a black man) is rightly seen as prejudicial.  

In your example, if you had been a woman, would she have felt less or more suspicious?  If we take all the women's comments on this board, I think it is very likely that she would feel less suspicious.  So, she viewed you as a danger because you were a man.  Yes, there were other factors and they are important in deciding how much risk to take on her behalf, but the fact that you were a man was one of the major factors.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

This just isn’t a typical situation. That is a kind of animalistic and primal fear. It is what men often default to when trying to understand rape and sexual assault because that is a kind of fear they have faced. The random attacker is pretty rare. The more common threat is the guy who asked you out and takes you back to his place and feels entitled to something or the guy at the party who had one drink too many or the friend of the family who is visiting and sees you alone half asleep and acts.

The kind of scenario you describe also plays into the “perfect victim” trope

https://documentwomen.com/addressing-the-myth-of-the-perfect-victim

Quote

Dr Laura Robinson, a Researcher at Duke University, believes that there is the obsession with finding people worthy.  

Robinson says; 

“Caring about and helping someone requires effort.  People are prone to thinking that if we are going to extend effort for someone, it had better be really worth it, they better deserve it and they better be good people. I see this all the time with women who have been abused.” 

She added that people gather information about a person and decide if they are worthy. 

“Our brains immediately go to all the things we know about this person. We ask ourselves, does she really deserve it?” She added.

There is so much misogyny when it comes to treating issues affecting women. Society holds women to much different and higher standards. There is a certain expectation of perfection and virtuousness from women. When these expectations are not met by victims, they are branded as undeserving. 

Go to any story about rape or sexual assault of a woman and find people discussing it and there will almost always be someone looking for some reason she ‘deserved’ what happened or lecturing after the fact about how she could have avoided the situation.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:
Quote

A man who is behaving suspiciously toward a woman in vulnerable circumstances 

What if he’s not behaving suspiciously but just walking behind a woman?

That's pretty much what was happening in the story I related.  I was about 50 feet behind her and walking in the same general direction, and doing so very early in the morning, with nobody else around.  Is that "following" her?  No, but she might see it that way.  Is that suspicious behavior?  No, but she might see it that way.

I reacted in the way I described not because I subscribe to the notion that "all men are potential rapists," but because it was reasonable for the woman to, in exercising situational awareness, have heightened concern about A) being all alone in a an open public space, B) early in the morning, and C) observing a large guy walking 50 feet behind her, but in the same direction as she was going.  The combination of these criteria make heightened awareness a sensible thing.  But always viewing all men everywhere as "potential rapists," solely because they are alive and male, is patently prejudicial.

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

What if a man steps into an elevator with a woman alone? What if a man knocks on a door and the woman in the house is alone? What if a woman walks out into a parking lot and a man walks in her direction? What if I need to stop and pump gas at night. When I look around, and I see one other person standing in the parking lot looking in my direction, if it’s a man versus a woman?  Do you realize that these types of things happen every single day constantly?

I do.  Hence my statement: "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."

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Where is the line to be drawn where a woman doesn’t need to or shouldn’t question her safety with a man? 

I respectfully submit that there is no specific "line."  There is, instead, a balancing test that takes multiple factors/criteria into account.

A "line" that says "He's a man, ergo he's a potential rapist," then that is prejudicial and irrational.

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I had two run-ins with exhibitionists living in Provo. I was a runner and I ran every day for an hour.  Then there was the time that I was walking home at night from a Dancehall, and there was a streaker running down the street towards me.

Again: "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."

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I saw a lot of penis in Provo, but I never broke the law of chastity.

Then the event happened that changed my view of the world.  

Make sure your daughter understands that Provo is not a bubble.  I was extremely naïve as a young adult. 

My older daughter spent her senior year of high school as an exchange student in Sardinia.  She was the only blonde woman, and the only American, living in the entire town.  She had to fend off a few untoward jerks.  

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

let me be clear on some thing. I met a lot of men this weekend. None of these men that I met brought to mind the idea that they would be a potential rapist. 

I think most women would say the same thing about most men in most circumstances.

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

But if anyone of those men, before I met them, stepped into an elevator alone with me already there alone, I’m coming up with self defense plans in my head pretty quick. 

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This just isn’t a typical situation.

I agree.  But it was a situation that justified heightened situational awareness.

Conversely, if I had been in the same hallway in the middle of the day, and walking among hundreds of other people, and not behaving in any untoward or suspicious way, then then I don't think it would be reasonable or rational for women in the hallway to look at me and think "There goes a potential rapist."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, webbles said:

In your example, if you had been a woman, would she have felt less or more suspicious? 

Probably less.  

If hundreds of people had been around us, would she have still viewed me as a potential threat?

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

So, she viewed you as a danger because you were a man. 

Not solely because I am a man.  Hence my objection to "all men are potential rapists."  Without more, designating me a "potential rapist" because I am male is per se prejudicial.

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

Yes, there were other factors and they are important in deciding how much risk to take on her behalf, but the fact that you were a man was one of the major factors.

But not the sole factor.

Thanks,

-Smac

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...