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

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

This reminds me of arguments for plain reading of scripture, which ignores the context with which those words were written/translated, treating each word as if they exist independently in the world unaffected by anything not included in the sentence.

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

It is not a different proposition, it is just one that is not fully qualified.   The statement itself is true and the unspoken "other factors" make it no less true. 

It is kind of like if I stated that "I like to climb trees".  The statement is true, but there are unspoken qualifying factors.  I don't like to climb all trees.  I don't like to climb palm trees, for example, I don't know how.  I don't like to climb trees when it is raining or when there is a lightning storm.  There are many types of trees that I might not like to climb, but the statement is still true, despite the unspoken qualifying factors.  This whole discussion is like you protesting that my statement that I like to climb trees is untrue, because there are certain scenarios that I might not like to climb a tree.

[webbles]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Probably less.  

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

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.

But not the sole factor.

Thanks,

-Smac

If the only difference in a heightened suspicion is the fact that you were a man and not a women, then it is the "sole factor" in the increase in suspicion.

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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."

It depends. Were you asking to be identified as a potential rapist by what you were wearing? By how you walked? By the expression on your face? Was anything you were doing basically just asking to be identified as a potential rapist?

[sheilauk]

It’s not that all men, or any man maybe a rapist,  it’s that women need to be alert to the threat of all kinds of abusive behaviour from any man - known or unknown in any and all situations.  You’re being obtuse Smac or wilfully misunderstanding.  You’re hyper focused on one scenario, women are focused on every scenario, every interaction with a man.  Even in a crowded area, women need to be alert, of course they don’t expect rape but there might be a comment or a wolf whistle or non consensual touching.  Did that man who bumped into you do it on purpose?  Will he follow you?  Is he watching?  I have been travelling on a crowded underground train and men have taken advantage of the proximity to touch my backside or rub against me.  How do I know it wasn’t accidental?  Because I’m not very tall and they had to reach down or around or they’ve moved closer.  I went to view a property to rent, the only person there was the landlord’s son.  I was alert to the situation, but, I was young and less confident and didn’t immediately walk away.  I went in, he offered me the room if I slept with him!  When I said no, he shut me in the kitchen and tried to grab me.  I threatened him then and managed to get away, fortunately he didn’t follow me, probably because I made it clear I would hurt him.  Even men you know can’t be trusted.  Most women are killed by a man they know.  I was friends with a man.  I went with him in the car, just the two of us, on excursions. to me he was just a friend.  he wanted to be more than a friend and when I turned him down, he became abusive.  One time he came to my home, forced his way in and wouldn’t leave until our dog threatened him.  I moved to another town for work, and didn’t give him my address.  He tricked it out of a mutual acquaintance and came to the house. He wouldn’t leave until another man told him to.   These are just a few of the instances of abuse from men. Now,I keep a physical distance as much as possible in most situations.  It takes a long time and a lot of interactions before I stop thinking,in the back of my mind, how I may need to defend myself against a man I know.  If I don’t know them, day or night, inside or outside, crowded or not, at the back of my mind is how to avoid abuse.  I’m not frightened, I don’t avoid situations but I am wary.  I shouldn’t have to be.  So yes, Smac, if you walked past me in a crowded corridor, part of my mind would be assessing you and the risk you pose. I’d be amazed if most of the women you walk past, even the ones you know, who cheerily acknowledge you, don’t, on a sub conscious level, assess the risk you pose to them.  It becomes ingrained,second nature, as automatic as breathing.   Until men acknowledge that there is a problem with how men interact with women, women will continue to have to be wary and will continue to face abuse, violence and death at the hands of men.  It’s not discrimination or prejudice, it’s a fact, its survival. None of the women I’ve interacted with have been a threat.  Claiming its prejudice to say all men are potential threats, claiming its dependent on the situation, is condescending and mansplaining at its finest.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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." 

Are you saying no future or current rapist ever is in a crowd standing behind a woman?

[Saint Bonaventure]

I've been so immersed in work the last several months that I've hardly been around, but nevertheless, I have a few thoughts on this topic.

For the sake of context, I'll share that my skills and position have me often working with HR as a mediator and toward conflict resolution. I have a pretty good sense of what's happening out there in the wild, at least in terms of workplace issues in this area.

And I'm throwing a penalty flag on both teams (on team "p" and team on "v").

When women tell men about problems of sexual harassment, and worse, of assault, men often respond with a sentiment of "I don't do that. I'm not that guy." And that's often true. It's also incomplete. Men can be pretty clueless about how other men can act when the opportunity arises, and whether it's when the party is winding down or when no one else is in the conference room, women can be in harm's way. Women have responded with #MeToo, and by encouraging one another to speak up where and when they can. Some men have recognized the problems and have joined in, but not very many have done so.

When men tell women about the sexism they experience and the prevalence of false accusations against men, women often respond with a sentiment of, "I don't do that. I'm not that woman." And that's often true. It's also incomplete. Women can be pretty clueless and dismissive about the prevalence of false accusations and man-shaming, can underestimate the damage that women do to men, and frequently don't admit how women today will sometimes take advantage of cultural biases against men. Men have responded by not participating in activities where they could be accused, whether it's coaching the little league team or volunteering at the library. And men are avoiding women all together. For every man who lingers after a meeting to leer, harass, or worse, a whole group of men are headed for the door because they don't want to be alone in a room with a woman because who knows what she'll say, and no one will believe the guy. 

We're in a situation where there are both persons who have been horribly harmed by harassment and accusations and who are incredibly sensitive to even benign interactions, and where other, lonely people would like to meet someone, would like to be asked for an after-work drink, and it isn't happening. 

HR is ground zero for this stuff, and it doesn't have the resources to solve it. I've seen both very legitimate cases of sexual harassment and also egregious false accusations of such. It's an HR secret that men almost never go to HR over issues with other men, and that the vast majority of HR interventions are women-women and men-women. This may just be a difference in how conflict is conducted and resolved, but then it's difficult to discern when very few men work in HR.

In many churches, the thermostat has been set in a manner that discourages men's growth. And it's mostly older men in leadership and women who have been harmed by men who are setting the thermostat. The older men often are engaging in putting women on pedestals, and can be trying to insist on a rule book that is decades out of date. I know of a Knights of Columbus group that struggled because it was reduced to shaming men about how they weren't worthy of women. I've also heard stories of women's groups where they belittled men and were instructed, sometimes by men, that women were superior and needed to motivate men. This has contributed to a resurgence of very masculine churches, including of the Reformed (Calvinist) variety, where men go out on the sidewalk and debate and enjoy the company of other men without the floofy chairs and politically correct sermons. 

So, I'm throwing a penalty flag on both teams. And I'm headed for the exit before someone lines me up for a personal foul. 

 

  

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I've been so immersed in work the last several months that I've hardly been around, but nevertheless, I have a few thoughts on this topic.

For the sake of context, I'll share that my skills and position have me often working with HR as a mediator and toward conflict resolution. I have a pretty good sense of what's happening out there in the wild, at least in terms of workplace issues in this area.

And I'm throwing a penalty flag on both teams (on team "p" and team on "v").

When women tell men about problems of sexual harassment, and worse, of assault, men often respond with a sentiment of "I don't do that. I'm not that guy." And that's often true. It's also incomplete. Men can be pretty clueless about how other men can act when the opportunity arises, and whether it's when the party is winding down or when no one else is in the conference room, women can be in harm's way. Women have responded with #MeToo, and by encouraging one another to speak up where and when they can. Some men have recognized the problems and have joined in, but not very many have done so.

When men tell women about the sexism they experience and the prevalence of false accusations against men, women often respond with a sentiment of, "I don't do that. I'm not that woman." And that's often true. It's also incomplete. Women can be pretty clueless and dismissive about the prevalence of false accusations and man-shaming, can underestimate the damage that women do to men, and frequently don't admit how women today will sometimes take advantage of cultural biases against men. Men have responded by not participating in activities where they could be accused, whether it's coaching the little league team or volunteering at the library. And men are avoiding women all together. For every man who lingers after a meeting to leer, harass, or worse, a whole group of men are headed for the door because they don't want to be alone in a room with a woman because who knows what she'll say, and no one will believe the guy. 

We're in a situation where there are both persons who have been horribly harmed by harassment and accusations and who are incredibly sensitive to even benign interactions, and where other, lonely people would like to meet someone, would like to be asked for an after-work drink, and it isn't happening. 

HR is ground zero for this stuff, and it doesn't have the resources to solve it. I've seen both very legitimate cases of sexual harassment and also egregious false accusations of such. It's an HR secret that men almost never go to HR over issues with other men, and that the vast majority of HR interventions are women-women and men-women. This may just be a difference in how conflict is conducted and resolved, but then it's difficult to discern when very few men work in HR.

In many churches, the thermostat has been set in a manner that discourages men's growth. And it's mostly older men in leadership and women who have been harmed by men who are setting the thermostat. The older men often are engaging in putting women on pedestals, and can be trying to insist on a rule book that is decades out of date. I know of a Knights of Columbus group that struggled because it was reduced to shaming men about how they weren't worthy of women. I've also heard stories of women's groups where they belittled men and were instructed, sometimes by men, that women were superior and needed to motivate men. This has contributed to a resurgence of very masculine churches, including of the Reformed (Calvinist) variety, where men go out on the sidewalk and debate and enjoy the company of other men without the floofy chairs and politically correct sermons. 

So, I'm throwing a penalty flag on both teams. And I'm headed for the exit before someone lines me up for a personal foul. 

 

  

 

Thanks for your thoughts. I think they have a lot of value.

Can you elaborate on your statement of the many false accusations that men have to deal with?  Where is that statement coming from?  A while ago a researcher wrote a book or an article or publish a paper (I can’t remember which) claiming that there were a high number of false rape accusations, but his work has since been debunked. He did a great disservice to women, especially rape victims, and sadly law-enforcement and the justice system haven’t yet caught up with the real numbers.

Is that what you’re referring to or are you referring to some other research?

Sometimes I think this issue is a lot like that old proverb about the rabbit and the fox. I don’t remember the exact wording, but it says something to the effect of how the fox runs for his dinner, but the rabbit runs for his life.

Both are in the same conflict but they each have something different at stake, and one has much more at stake than the other.  This is why I don’t think a valid comparison can be made between men and women on this topic.

They both may be in the same conflict, but only one is fighting for their actual lives.  It seems like a lot of men don’t grasp that.

[MustardSeed]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

For me, due to real experiences and actual trauma, life itself has become a daily situation requiring awareness. You will never have to understand this, so I won’t ask you to anymore.
 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Agreed, unfortunately it is reality for me. 

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

irrational

I actually take offense to this because it’s personal to me, and my life was in danger over the reality. I acknowledge that you take offense to the idea that I see your gender as threatening.

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

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."

I agree. I have a prejudice. I hope your daughter never experiences  like I did, and is able to leave her young adulthood, unscathed, and without prejudice. 
 

I don’t think I will respond further if you don’t mind. I will be happy to read any final words you may want to share with me on this topic.

Edited February 13 by MustardSeed

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

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." 

Are you saying no future or current rapist ever is in a crowd standing behind a woman?

No.  I am saying that viewing the hundreds of men around her as all being "potential rapists," based solely on gender and age, and not based on any behavior or circumstance, is per se prejudicial.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

Quote

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."

It depends.

Such a notion is unreasonable and irrational, regardless of what "it depends" on.

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Were you asking to be identified as a potential rapist by what you were wearing? By how you walked? By the expression on your face? Was anything you were doing basically just asking to be identified as a potential rapist?

I don't know what you are talking about here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It depends. Were you asking to be identified as a potential rapist by what you were wearing? By how you walked? By the expression on your face? Was anything you were doing basically just asking to be identified as a potential rapist?

It was his mustache. 

[smac97]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

This reminds me of arguments for plain reading of scripture, which ignores the context with which those words were written/translated, treating each word as if they exist independently in the world unaffected by anything not included in the sentence.

Context does not remove the inherent prejudice in the unadorned assertion that "All men are potential rapists."

If you want to qualify this by saying that you don't really mean "all men," then say so.  Otherwise...

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

lol. Go on continue to make a victim of yourself. Poor Smac the victim or women’s prejudice.

Ridicule in lieu of substantive comment.  

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When was the last time that you were scared of being raped?

Never.  There is no privilege in such an experience that justifies per se prejudice of whole categories of people with no regard to behavior, circumstance, etc.

"All black men are potential rapists" is per se prejudicial.  It doesn't become less so just because someone has had the experience of being "scared of being raped."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Because the woman in my story was not operating in an "All men are potential rapists" context

How do you know?

Because I reject the premise that reasonable and rational and decent women harbor such patently prejudicial views of "all men."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

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!?

Your indignant ridicule schtick doesn't do much to advance the discussion.

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you explain to me what “Muslim” or “black” do here?

Categorical statements about "all" black or Muslim men, with no regard to behavior or circumstance, are per se prejudicial.

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Men are potential rapists. Yes. Clearly.

"{Black and Muslim} men are potential rapists.  Yes.  Clearly."

Without more, this is patently prejudicial.

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What do Muslim or black do as modifiers here? Other than reveal bigotry? 

The reveal prejudice.  If a person were to categorically state that "all" black or Muslim men are "potential rapists," that statement would be justifiably construed as prejudicial.

The same goes for "all men are potential rapists."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

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

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

And that is the problem.  

I have my flaws, but being incapable of reading and understanding the foregoing five-word statement is not one of them.

19 hours ago, Calm said:

You are think you know what it means,

There's not much room for ambiguity about "what it means."

19 hours ago, Calm said:

but are focused on what is being said and how it makes you feel, etc.

I'm spending very little time on how it makes me "feel" personally.  It is objectively prejudicial to categorically state that "all men are potential rapists."  It is also irrational and unreasonable.

19 hours ago, Calm said:

and not why women say it….

Not so.  I am listening.

19 hours ago, Calm said:

which is why I guess you think repeating the phrase over and over is engaging what is being said instead of ignoring it.

Prejudice needs to be rooted out of our discourse, not retroactively justified and rehabilitated and excused.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Never

Then perhaps you need to extract yourself from a conversation that you know nothing about. You are the textbook definition of cis-hetero-white privilege. 

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  I am saying that viewing the hundreds of men around her as all being "potential rapists," based solely on gender and age, and not based on any behavior or circumstance, is per se prejudicial.

Thanks,

-Smac

According to the common definition of the word, something is prejudicial when it harms another person or is detrimental to them in some way.  How is viewing the hundreds of men around her as a potential threat to her safety and well being harming the men?

I also question the claim that her views are not based on any behavior or circumstance.  Women have been saying repeatedly that the reason that we view men as a potential threats is completely based on behavior and circumstances that we've experienced in the past and/or the behavior and circumstances that other women have experienced as well.

 

 

 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Prejudice needs to be rooted out of our discourse, not retroactively justified and rehabilitated and excused.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why does women viewing all men as potential threats based on their past experiences need to be rooted out of our discourse?

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because I reject the premise that reasonable and rational and decent women harbor such patently prejudicial views of "all men."

Thanks,

-Smac

I'll ignore your claim that the women posters on this thread are not "reasonable and rational and decent women" because we view this differently than you do, though I don't believe you would do the same if any one of us said something similar about you for your disagreement of our views.

Instead I'll just say that you don't get it Smac.  It's dangerous for us not to harbor such views of all men.

Edited February 13 by bluebell

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Because I reject the premise that reasonable and rational and decent women harbor such patently prejudicial views of "all men."

I'll ignore your claim that the women posters on this thread are not "reasonable and rational and decent women" because we view this differently than you do, though I don't believe you would do the same if any one of us said something similar about you for your disagreement of our views.

Instead I'll just say that you don't get it Smac. 

Again, the point under discussion is a five-worst statement: "All men are potential rapists."

There's not a lot of ambiguity here.  It is a patently prejudicial statement.

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's dangerous for us not to harbor such views of all men.

Without more, no, I don't think it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No.  I am saying that viewing the hundreds of men around her as all being "potential rapists," based solely on gender and age, and not based on any behavior or circumstance, is per se prejudicial.

Thanks,

-Smac

I genuinely don't understand your logic.  All men are potential saints and potential sinners.   Women are too.  We are all potentially capable of committing the most egregious sins.   No prejudice in the statement whatsoever.  If the phrase was "all men are rapists", then we have a problem.  

Singling men out in the statement doesn't mean that all women are not potential rapists too.  It is simply emphasizing the greater risk based on statistics and general biology.  Viewing all men as potential rapists doesn't mean that they don't also view them as potential friends, saints, God's in the making, or perhaps even potential future spouse.   It is simply a defensive position against the greater natural (not prejudicial) threat that will likely save lives and/or severe trauma.  The phrase emphasizes moving forward  with caution.  Are you suggesting that women should not generally use greater caution around men than women?  That is just dangerous stupidity that goes against common sense.  Men are a generally a greater risk to women when it comes to rape.  Period.  That is a fact.  How could a woman know that a man is not a potential threat?  She can’t.

Edited February 13 by pogi

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Prejudice needs to be rooted out of our discourse, not retroactively justified and rehabilitated and excused.

Why does women viewing all men as potential threats based on their past experiences need to be rooted out of our discourse?

Because it is prejudicial to view all men in this way solely because they are men.

"Women are justified in viewing all black men as potential threats based on their past experiences."  This is a patently prejudicial statement, with or without the "black."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

n.  Are you suggesting that women should not generally use greater caution around men then women?  That is just dangerous stupidity that goes against common sense.  Men are a generally a greater risk to women when it comes to rape.  Period.  That is a fact.     

It is about choosing where to put limited resources in order to maximize safety.  Awareness is limited, we can’t be aware of everything in our environment no matter how hard we try (reference back to the BYU study on how women’s eyes scan the environment for potential threats).  Spending less time on evaluating women and children and more time on evaluating men is a wise choice.  Shutting down evaluation for any individual thinking a particular person will always be safe so we can freely ignore any warning signs coming from them is not wise.

Edited February 13 by Calm