Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:
Quote

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.

According to the common definition of the word, something is prejudicial when it harms another person or is detrimental to them in some way. 

Well, no:

Quote
1preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
"prejudice against people from different backgrounds"
 
2LAW 
cause harm to (a state of affairs).
"delay is likely to prejudice the child's welfare"

I am using the word for its first definition.

If you approach a black man and tell him "All you black men are potential rapists," this may or may not harm him or hurt his feelings.  That does not mean it is not a prejudicial statement, though.  It is still a "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience" which you are applying to all black men.

The foregoing paragraph still holds if you remove the word "black" from it.

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I also question the claim that her views are not based on any behavior or circumstance. 

There is no "behavior or circumstance" referenced in the proposition that "All men are potential rapists."

In fact, there cannot be such a reference, since as soon as the statement is qualified/modified in this way, it ceases to be prejudicial.

"All men are potential rapists."  This is per se a prejudiced statement.

"If a woman encounters a man who is behaving aberrantly or inappropriately around her, and/or she encounters a man she does not know in vulnerable circumstances, it is not unreasonable for the woman to view him as a potential threat."  This is an eminently reasonable perspective, but not one that is synonymous with "All men are potential rapists."

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

If a particular woman previously had a traumatic experience where a black man was the aggressor, is she justified in asserting that "All black men are potential rapists"?  Can she justify that statement by pointing to her past experience with one other black man she encountered, with his "behavior" and the "circumstances" in which the traumatic experience occurred?  Is a woman with such an experience thereafter forever justified in declaring that all black men are "potential rapists?"  Or would that remain a prejudicial statement?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

Never

Then perhaps you need to extract yourself from a conversation that you know nothing about.

Quit board nannying.

38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are the textbook definition of cis-hetero-white privilege. 

Out comes the pop culture nonsense.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

What if I said I view all others (both men and women) potentially capable of doing me harm in some way? Do you see that as being different? Or am I being prejudicial against everyone?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

And because you won’t listen to them and will keep explaining away why they can’t actually feel that way there will be no growth or change.

Link to comment

I guess there's a potentiality for anyone doing any kind of harm to another whether the potential victim knows the other or not. But of course that seems to stretch the definition of potential. I've always thought of potential as suggesting there were a real possibility of a person being able to do whatever action is being discussed. But then again, we always hear people say to kids - "All of you have the potential of becoming President some day" though we recognize that 99.999999...% of them never will. In that case, does potential mean possible? If so, then everyone is a potential child molester even though some demographics suggest a higher incident of said action.

And where does that leave us?

Edited to add: I'm also thinking of the belief that all police officers have the potential of harming me. For someone who believes that, are they being prejudicial against all officers?

Edited by Vanguard
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

It's only patently prejudicial if it harms the man (and I'm not counting hurting his feelings as harm). You haven't demonstrated that the presence of that thought is always harmful though. 

On the bolded point, it's great that you are able to think that and not risk anything if you end up being wrong.  If we are wrong though, then we get groped, raped, harassed, beaten, or killed.  

Link to comment
Just now, Vanguard said:

I guess there's a potentiality for anyone doing any kind of harm to another whether the potential victim knows the other or not. But of course that seems to stretch the definition of potential. I've always thought of potential as suggesting there were a real possibility of a person being able to do whatever action is being discussed. But then again, we always hear people say to kids - "All of you have the potential for becoming President some day" though we recognize that 99.999999...% of them never will. In that case, does potential mean possible? If so, then everyone is a potential child molester even though some demographics suggest a higher incident of said action. And where does that leave us?

Depending on which statistics you look at, between 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 women have been raped or sexually assaulted in this country. That's what the word "potential" means in this discussion.  It means between a 25% and 15% chance that I as a woman, or a female that you love and care about, will go through one of the most traumatic, painful, emotionally scarring, and horrific events any person can go through, short of attempted murder (which sometimes goes along with the rape anyway of course).  And that's if they don't report it.  The damage to themselves emotionally and mentally will increase if they report the assault and try to get "justice".

If 1 in 4 kids became president then the comparison of those two situations with the use of the word "potential" would work.  But they don't and that's why potential doesn't really mean possible when you are talking about sexual violence against women.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

Yet people with a lived experience are telling you differently. Lots of people. Maybe instead of reflexively explaining it away you should listen.

Fragile Masculinity Bingo:

male-fragility-bingo.png

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

I know, and that is sad. Funny too.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It was his mustache. 

It is a pretty rapey mustache. It was basically asking to be thought of as such.

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

And where does that leave us?

It means we should never be so convinced it can never happen with anyone we close our eyes to possible warning signs.  And it means we are aware that sometimes there are no warning signs until the danger hits us in the face (sometimes literally), so we need to prepare ourselves to act in those cases somehow as well…while accepting the possibility we won’t be able to stop ourselves from freezing. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours 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

How is it harming the men?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

@pogi said it well. All women are potential rapists too. That's why we must be on guard in precarious situations. That's all.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.

Why ignore it?  Why someone who is protesting so insistently that labeling all men as potential rapists is prejudicial and wrong feels perfectly at ease apparently to make a character analysis of any woman based solely on one position she holds without regard to how she applies it, allowing him to dismiss her as irrational and indecent without regard to why she might hold that position is something worth exploring imo. 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

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

This is mind reading

No.  It's reading text published to the world.

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

(as you believe you can tell which women think this way and which women don’t and what that means about women’s character) and arrogant dictating to women what they have a right to think so as to be thought of as rational and decent without regard to what they have experienced and learned about dangers in their lives and instead based on how you feel about something you admit you have never experienced. 

There is nothing arrogant about reading the statement "All men are potential rapists" and responding to it.

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am indecent and irrational by your evaluation of me based solely on this one position I hold.  Good to know.

That is so much more of a reasonable position than me accepting the idea that all men are potential rapists. :fool:

Without more, the characterization of "all men" as "potential rapists" is per se prejudicial.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

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.

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

The arrogance dripping from that statement…

The prejudice dripping from the statement "All men are potential rapists"...

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's only patently prejudicial if it harms the man (and I'm not counting hurting his feelings as harm).

Nope.  A statement is prejudicial if it states "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."

"All men are potential rapists" fits the bill.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:
Quote

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

And because you won’t listen to them and will keep explaining away why they can’t actually feel that way there will be no growth or change.

I get that you may equate "listen{ing}" with acquiescence.  I don't.  I am listening.  What I am not doing is agreeing.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

@teddyaware This post is case in point. SMAC here removes the context (provided in parenthesis) to respond to a point he wishes Calm made, instead of the point she actually made with the removed context. 

"All black men are potential rapists."

Please provide the "context" which converts this from a prejudicial statement to a non-prejudicial one.

Go ahead.  I'll listen to what you have to say.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

All black men are potential rapists."

Please provide the "context" which converts this from a prejudicial statement to a non-prejudicial one.

All men are potential rapists. All men? Yes, all men. All black men are potential rapists. All white men are potential rapists. All brown men are potential rapists. All religious men. All secular men. All men. 
 

It’s not complicated. I feel like when you are calling every single woman in this thread unreasonable, irrational, and indecent that would give most people pause. Your tenacity in holding onto your naive beliefs is remarkable. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Depending on which statistics you look at, between 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 women have been raped or sexually assaulted in this country. That's what the word "potential" means in this discussion.  It means between a 25% and 15% chance that I as a woman, or a female that you love and care about, will go through one of the most traumatic, painful, emotionally scarring, and horrific events any person can go through, short of attempted murder (which sometimes goes along with the rape anyway of course).  And that's if they don't report it.  The damage to themselves emotionally and mentally will increase if they report the assault and try to get "justice".

If 1 in 4 kids became president then the comparison of those two situations with the use of the word "potential" would work.  But they don't and that's why potential doesn't really mean possible when you are talking about sexual violence against women.

Would you make the same claim about all men being potential sexual molesters if the statistics indicated 1 our of 20? 50?. It seems it would be best to say we're all potentially ("insert descriptor here") except that some demographics (i.e, men in this case) have a much higher incidence of perpetrating said acts. Even if the stats were 1 in 10000, as a woman I would imagine myself to still be somewhat wary if I were by myself in the presence of an unknown man. For that matter, I know I would be such even though I am a man. And of course, my wariness would increase exponentially if the stats were closer to what you have reported. : )   

Edited by Vanguard
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I get that you may equate "listen{ing}" with acquiescence.  I don't.  I am listening.  What I am not doing is agreeing.  

No, you’re not.

People have told you their stories. You tell them they are irrational for reacting to experiences in a way you disapprove of. You imply that it would be an exhausting way to live (which they will tell you it is). The triggering experience you admit you have never had. You are upset about someone’s mental state in reaction to trauma or other people’s trauma might make them wary around you.

Instead of asking how we could make it so that this doesn’t happen and women don’t have to think this way you are blaming the victims and suggesting they aren’t reacting to their trauma correctly because *checks notes* it hurts your feelings that someone might think things about you. Do you realize how irrational and messed up and EMOTIONAL your mindset is?

 

Let’s take another approach then. Let’s say a U.S. soldier is engaged in a counterinsurgency operation in the fictional nation of Nehoria. The enemy is hiding amongst the civilians. The opposition forces are 99% women. Also many of the civilian women are sympathetic to these forces. Publicly they will denounce them but if they can minimize the chance of one of the opposition being exposed or caught they will and they will explain away opposition attacks as accidents or that the attackers were misunderstood. You would expect soldiers on patrol to be wary and evaluate every woman they encounter as a potential threat. You would probably consider this wise. What are the odds of those soldiers being wounded or killed? Relatively low but still worth considering.

Okay, now women have around a 50% chance of being sexual assaulted some time in their life and somewhere around the 15-25% range chance of being raped. They are more likely to be hurt than the soldiers.

What is the difference between the two scenarios that makes the women’s wariness prejudicial?

That is rape culture. A group of men who hide amongst us who will assault women if they can get away with it and a bunch of other men who will condemn the criminals but will attempt to explain away or minimize attacks suggesting the victims are overreacting or seeing threats that aren’t there.

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...