Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Because there is nothing about the adjective “black” that does any work here.  The color of one’s skin has no bearing on one’s danger to women. 

Statistically, that's not so.  Black men commit disproportionate amounts of sexual assault.  If you insist on applying ugly prejudices to entire categories because a subcategory of them commit rape, then "All black men are potential rapists" is statistically more accurate than "All men are rapists."

In any event, though, the categorical prejudice based solely on the category being "men" or "black men" is still immoral, irrational, and unreasonable.

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But you have yet to respond in any meaningful way as to what work the word “black” is doing here. This is in stark contrast to every poster on this thread telling you from their lived experiences what work the word “men” is doing. 

I think I have.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

And again ignoring what I say, removing context and focusing only on what you want to say.  Why I believe you aren’t listening.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, bluebell said:
Quote

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

You're not listening to understand, you are listening to respond though.

So we're in the "imputing motives to the other guy" mode of the discussion now?

It's possible that I understand your position, and yet still disagree with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:
Quote

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.

Only if the bolded part isn't true. 

And it's never true as to "all men."  Nobody here can claim to have "knowledge, thought ,or reason" as to "all men."

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But since women form the feeling based on the bolded part, you've essentially proven that it's not prejudicial at all according to the definition you want to use.

So thank you.

Okay.  I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

"All men are potential rapists" remains, in my view, a patently prejudiced statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

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. : )   

I guess maybe ask yourself, why would you feel the need to qualify the statement by applying it to everyone, if the stats proved you were more in danger in some company than others

What is the purpose of applying a statement that is more true for one group than another, to both groups?  

 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, bluebell said:
Quote

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

What if you view all men that way because of your and thousands of other women's experiences with them?

If someone says "My statement that 'I hate all Jews' is based on my experience and those of thousands of others with Jews," the statement remains patently prejudiced.

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You do get that it's our and other women's personal experiences with men that cause us to view them that way, right?  

Nobody can claim to have had "personal experiences" with "all men."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So we're in the "imputing motives to the other guy" mode of the discussion now?

It's possible that I understand your position, and yet still disagree with it.

If you understood the position I think you would have revealed that by now by actually engaging with it.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
Quote

I've never had an abortion, either, but I can have an opinion about that topic, too.

And I am sure that people will be as excited to hear about them as they are your opinions on period cramps and gay sex.

The merits of an argument are generally not based on how popular the argument is.

And unlike abortion, "All men are potential rapists" has more of a nexus in my life.  I think prejudice against men as a category is an unhealthy and dangerous thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

And again ignoring what I say, removing context and focusing only on what you want to say.  Why I believe you aren’t listening.

As you like.  FWIW, I don't think you are listening, either.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The merits of an argument are generally not based on how popular the argument is.

And unlike abortion, "All men are potential rapists" has more of a nexus in my life.  I think prejudice against men as a category is an unhealthy and dangerous thing.

Yet you refuse to engage with the root cause of this “unhealthy and dangerous thing” and just want people to change their thought patterns to *checks notes* make you feel comfortable.

The irony is that many women have been treating you (and all men) like this your whole life. Why does it suddenly bother you now?

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If you ignore the role that wealth, poverty and race play in the criminal justice system, you might be able to come to that conclusion. But even Dallin Oaks recognizes the role systemic racism plays in today’s society. Certainly you’re not unaware of this?

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
Quote

"All black men are potential rapists" is a prejudiced statement.

Of course the part that you conveniently ignore is that it is a true statement. Of course that would ruin your rhetorical trick.

Well, no.  "Prejudice" is "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."  "All men are potential rapists" is inherently speculative.

But if you want to go there, the statement "All gay men are potential cannibalistic serial killers" is, by your reasoning, technically a "true statement" (or not, depending on whether rank speculation can be characterized as "true"), but that does not negate its patent prejudice.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I guess maybe ask yourself, why would you feel the need to qualify the statement by applying it to everyone, if the stats proved you were more in danger in some company than others

What is the purpose of applying a statement that is more true for one group than another, to both groups?  

 

Your lack of acknowledging my attempt to bridge a gap makes me think we might be talking past each other. I thought we were closer in agreement or am I misreading you? I thought my post was a concession that I understand why women would consider themselves in potential danger.    

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

If you ignore the role that wealth, poverty and race play in the criminal justice system, you might be able to come to that conclusion.

Yes.  "If."  That is rather my point.  

Similarly, "All men are potential rapists" can only be justified by ignoring whole swaths of other factors.  That's why it meets the definition of "prejudice."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So we're in the "imputing motives to the other guy" mode of the discussion now?

It's possible that I understand your position, and yet still disagree with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's possible but the evidence doesn't support it, which is why I said it.  

But come on.  After what you said about women who believe that all men are potentially rapists, how can you talk about "imputing motives to the other guy" with a straight face?  

Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

Well, no.  "Prejudice" is "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."  "All men are potential rapists" is inherently speculative.

But if you want to go there, the statement "All gay men are potential cannibalistic serial killers" is, by your reasoning, technically a "true statement" (or not, depending on whether rank speculation can be characterized as "true"), but that does negate is patent prejudice.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

It is a true statement and it makes no judgment at all. There can be an implied judgment like your unnecessary racial references do. In this context though it is a rational defense mechanism. There is no malice in the statement that all men are potential rapists. It is a caution. You just take an unreasonable amount of offense that women often have to default to that level of defensiveness. Why? How does it impact you? And as women have been doing this around you your whole life how come you never noticed it?

Also “Potential Gay Cannibals” would be an amazing band name.

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  "If."  That is rather my point.  

Similarly, "All men are potential rapists" can only be justified by ignoring whole swaths of other factors.  That's why it meets the definition of "prejudice."

Thanks,

-Smac

No, it is not ignoring those factors. It is acknowledging the existence of such factors like rape culture, patriarchy, and all that fun stuff.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So we're in the "imputing motives to the other guy" mode of the discussion now?

No, we are in describing what we are seeing mode.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's possible but the evidence doesn't support it, which is why I said it.  

But come on.  After what you said about women who believe that all men are potentially rapists, how can you talk about "imputing motives to the other guy" with a straight face?  

Or accuse someone else of character assassination?

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Your lack of acknowledging my attempt to bridge a gap makes me think we might be talking past each other. I thought we were closer in agreement or am I misreading you? I thought my post was a concession that I understand why women would consider themselves in potential danger.    

I am missing the point of that post where you say 1 in 20 and 1 in 50,  I think I was following you up until then.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You've fallen into the self-centered crater that many people fall into, which is the belief that if you can't do something, no one else can. 

No, I have not done this.

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But YES!  Yes, women can credibly claim to have reason and experience that is valid to apply to all men.

I don't think someone who declares "I hate all Jews"  can credibly claim to "have reason and experience" to justify such a prejudiced statement.

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And the reason is this:  Women cannot tell the ones that will hurt and harm and harass from the ones who won't.

If you said this about black men, it would be a prejudiced statement.

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

  You.  All.  Look.  And. Act. The. Same. until it's too late for us to safe ourselves.

Yeesh.  So is this.

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We cannot tell you a part. 

And this.

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Male predators look and act like Ted Bundy! 

And female predators may look and act like Aileen Wuornos (in her good days, anyway).

By your reasoning, men are justified in designating all women as potential hooking serial killers.    You.  All.  Look.  And. Act. The. Same. until it's too late for us to save ourselves.

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They prey on women not wanting to hurt their feelings, they use us not wanting to be prejudice against them to get close enough to kill us!  It's idiocy to ask women to ignore that because you don't think it's fair and don't like how it makes you feel. 

This reasoning, can be deployed to justify every sort of prejudice and bigotry.  Not just against men.  Against Blacks, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, Hispanics.  You name a category and it can be preemptively declared to be "potential predators," and thus prejudice against them is justified.

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...