AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
so these people are all lumped together in your head based on how they were born, and you're ok with that.
I'm more afraid of a rottweiler than I am a chihuahua and yes, I'm perfectly fine with the application of common sense when it comes to my own personal safety at night. Just as I'm more likely to bring my full guard up against a rottweiler, I'm going to pay more attention to potential threats at night based entirely on my subjective view of the people I encounter. This is common sense.
The reason race was brought into it is because judging people based on their sex is just as... is bigoted the right word?
I'll remember that next time I don't cross the street and get the shit beaten out of me by drunken assholes again.
cool man. believe me. I wouldn't judge, we all do it.
protip:
be especially wary of black males.
It's ok, I was stabbed by a white guy and in the case I got the shit beat out of me it was 5 white dudes. Especially considering that people who are non-white in the South Island of New Zealand where I live aren't actually very common at all, especially around the University.
Zonkytonk - by your reasoning, someone who pays regard to their own personal safety is inherently more enlightened/less bigoted than someone who does not? Should we all aspire to martyrdom?
Zsetrek on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Zonkytonk - by your reasoning, someone who pays regard to their own personal safety is inherently more enlightened/less bigoted than someone who does not? Should we all aspire to martyrdom?
I should totally not look when crossing the street.
I might be profiling the cars drivers.
Edit: I should point out, in all hilarity here, that just on my way home from my lab (a mere 5 minute walk) I saw a fight outside one of the student pubs (did I mention that living on campus means I'm close to all the student pubs, where much of the assaults where I live take place?). Police having some fun and they were all white guys.
cool man. believe me. I wouldn't judge, we all do it.
protip:
be especially wary of black males.
It's ok, I was stabbed by a white guy and in the case I got the shit beat out of me it was 5 white dudes. Especially considering that people who are non-white in the South Island of New Zealand where I live aren't actually very common at all, especially around the University.
Funny how that works.
i actually don't have any problem with your profiling. I'm starting to have a problem with your "woe is me" posting.. I'm sorry you were hurt. Please don't assume that you are the only one who has been.
Edit: in response to your above. The plural of anecdote is "data".
Zonkytonkman on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
Common sense should trump stupid ideology to make people feel good every time. It is common sense that if you're by yourself at night and a car full of doods pulls up next to you, you may be in shit. There does not need to be any racism or any other nonsense involved, common sense should dictate what you do in a certain situation because believe it or not, other people can be dangerous. In the case of human beings, drunk young men are by far the most dangerous group I can think of.
Zonkytonk - by your reasoning, someone who pays regard to their own personal safety is inherently more enlightened/less bigoted than someone who does not? Should we all aspire to martyrdom?
of course not. Which reasoning are you referring to? I'm not sure that any of my reasoning implies that personal safety => being a bigot. I'm also not sure that there are only two choices here, either paranoid suspicion of every person in the street that isn't your exact "safe" demographic (latino elderly women, i'm guessing?) and martyrdom. I mean. There has to be a middle in there somewhere, even if your post seems to imply that there may not be.
My point is mostly that it's interesting to consider that we see one action as moral and just, and another action (that seems to have identical rationale) as immoral and bigotted. It's also interesting to see how defensive people get over it.
That's entirely my point. Martyrdom is extra credit, or something.
Common sense should trump stupid ideology to make people feel good every time. It is common sense that if you're by yourself at night and a car full of doods pulls up next to you, you may be in shit. There does not need to be any racism or any other nonsense involved, common sense should dictate what you do in a certain situation because believe it or not, other people can be dangerous. In the case of human beings, drunk young men are by far the most dangerous group I can think of.
This is common sense.
No, there doesn't need to be racism, but it'd be safer if there was. It seems that some minorities are much more likely to commit violence than white people. In order to be safe, you should keep this in mind. If you are walking down the street, and the sidewalk ahead of you is drunk white young men, you might think to cross the street, to avoid confrontation. But supposing across the street is a similarly sized group of young male drunk minorities. Suppose you started on their side of the street? It'd be safest to cross to the white person side.
My point is mostly that it's interesting to consider that we see one action as moral and just, and another action (that seems to have identical rationale) as immoral and bigotted. It's also interesting to see how defensive people get over it.
Morals depend on circumstance. I do not understand why you feel this is a controversial statement.
Zsetrek on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
It'd be safest to cross to the white person side.
That's completely idiotic. The smartest thing to do is to immediately find another route that doesn't involve going past either group, such as taking a slightly different route or just taking a different street altogether. I can (where I live) walk down Cumberland st unmolested, but walking down George st is going right past all the pubs.
Common sense dictates that the better route is Cumberland st: You avoid all of them, it's still a main route so there is good traffic even at night and it's well lit. Plus the police and campus watch routinely patrol it.
That's completely idiotic. The smartest thing to do is to immediately find another route that doesn't involve going past either group, such as taking a slightly different route or just taking a different street altogether. I can (where I live) walk down Cumberland st unmolested, but walking down George st is going right past all the pubs.
Common sense dictates that the better route is Cumberland st: You avoid all of them, it's still a main route so there is good traffic even at night and it's well lit. Plus the police and campus watch routinely patrol it.
sigh yes
or call a cab
or duck into a shop
or bust out your urban camo kit
yes, in the real world there are a million things you could do besides pick a side of the street
i don't care if you don't care. It's still profiling. I don't even care that it's profiling. I do it all the time. Everyone does. What's interesting is that we seem to allow this type, and that we seem to get really defensive when it is brought up.
I find it weird that we're okay with restaurants that sell healthy food, but we're not okay with restaurants that sell tainted/expired/poisoned food. I mean, either way, they're still selling food. What's interesting is that we seem to allow them to sell some types of food, while not allowing them to sell others.
My point is mostly that it's interesting to consider that we see one action as moral and just, and another action (that seems to have identical rationale) as immoral and bigotted. It's also interesting to see how defensive people get over it.
You're ignoring the fact that women in general tend to have a vastly better chance of being assaulted/raped than they do of being murdered. You'll notice how when they refer to things like rape and assault, they use numbers like "1 in 4," but when they refer to things like murder, they have to use numbers like "parts per 100,000." It's much more rationale to fact in a 25% problem than it is to factor in a 0.001% problem.
You're also ignoring the fact that murderers tend to murder people in the same social circles as themselves. IOW, poor black male murders tend to murder poor black male victims. For instance, I had a professor who told us that 25% of murder victims have a criminal record, and then polled the class of 400 to see how many of us had a criminal record. The reason is because murderers often have a criminal record, and therefore, the people they tend to associate with usually have one as well. OTOH, I can't say that most douchbag male rapists will go for douchebag male victims. The OP isn't referring to an incident about males wanting to group the genitals of other males.
And you're ignoring the fact that factoring in socio-economic status tends to make race irrelevant, while the same can't be done for gender, since men make more money than women do.
Most importantly, you're ignoring the fact that racial profiling isn't simply "profiling." At the very least, you're providing a major inconvenience for the person in question. In more serious situations, you have the ability to hold them in prison against their will, deny them a job, etc. Greater authority/power requires greater scrutiny, period.
to be a tad more on the original topic, we should make a push for the Open Source Cock Project, wherein social rebels (like us rad and bodacious chaps) frequent congregations of lonely, insecure people and receive free handjobs.
I know this sounds like church, but there's a difference.
METAzraeL on
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
As far as your later point, how exactly is avoiding only guys at night any more logically justified than stopping certain minorities for searches ? Yes I am pretty sure statistics show that males more often assault females that other females, but using that as a justification is just as much bullcrap as using ones that say "african-americans commit a disproportionate number of rapes/homicides", or insert some other minority doing something bad more often than others.
No, it isn't. Blacks aren't proportionately more likely to commit crimes. Men are.
mmmm what
Oh no, please don't ask for something so easily googleable. The vast, vast majority of public and private assaults are committed by blokes. Yes, other blokes are also the most likely victims, and that means you'd be far more justified in looking askance at other people as you walked home at night than me, but the point stands.
well, look, i know you're down under and all, but in America at least the majority of violent crime is done by blacks.
not that people should automatically assume that because they're in a black neighborhood that they're gonna get mugged or raped or whatever, and the reason that they commit these crimes is obviously related to the disporportionate poor and other social problems that blacks have rather than than their race per se, but yeah, they commit much more violent crime in America.
So what you're saying, whether you realize it or not, is that it makes more sense to be afraid of poor people than black people. Yeah well I'm going to keep regarding drunken frat-guys I encounter while walking alone with caution just the same, even though they are white and have BMWs and Lexus SUVs in their drive-ways.
edit: and i'm not trying to dismiss the idea or concern that women might be sexually assaulted while alone, at night, in a bad neighborhood, etc but i'm pretty sure most rapes are done by someone the victim knows
I'm not sure what relevance this has to, well anything at all, but the "alone" part is vastly more important than the part of town or whether the encountered stranger "looks creepy" or "is huge".
Common sense should trump stupid ideology to make people feel good every time. It is common sense that if you're by yourself at night and a car full of doods pulls up next to you, you may be in shit. There does not need to be any racism or any other nonsense involved, common sense should dictate what you do in a certain situation because believe it or not, other people can be dangerous. In the case of human beings, drunk young men are by far the most dangerous group I can think of.
This is common sense.
No, there doesn't need to be racism, but it'd be safer if there was. It seems that some minorities are much more likely to commit violence than white people. In order to be safe, you should keep this in mind. If you are walking down the street, and the sidewalk ahead of you is drunk white young men, you might think to cross the street, to avoid confrontation. But supposing across the street is a similarly sized group of young male drunk minorities. Suppose you started on their side of the street? It'd be safest to cross to the white person side.
If by "minorities" you mean "poor people" and by "white people" you mean "middle-class and up". And yeah, your example throws alcohol into the mix, meaning they no longer have to be desperate in order to fuck your shit up so much as bored and making both groups roughly equivalent in potential-threat.
Edit: And the "safe" demographic could only rationally be defined as "people you already know and trust". Yes, I'm less likely to regard my buddies the way I regard drunken fratards if I run into them in an alley. Obviously I'm bigoted against everyone who's not my friend.
No, I'm poiting out that it varies with region. The american studies showed no penalty for males in america. The european studies showed a minor penalty for males in europe. You're from america. I could easily have decided just not to post that article lest some choad like you attempt to use it to discredit every other article I post, but I decided honesty was more important than my blood pressure. More fool me!
All I'm asking you to do is back up something you said. You said there was no penalty for males. Then you linked a study that didn't discuss males at all, not even to say that there was no penalty noticed, a second link goes directly to a search page with zero results (guess I should have mentioned that earlier, maybe you mislinked, maybe it's a subscription thing) and a third article that says there is a penalty for males.
If you're specifically referring to males in America, then say it. Don't make a broad statment and expect us to pull teeth. It's at best lazy and at worse disingenuous.
And the point is still backed up by the second and third articles. I like that you're ignoring the article I posted that does disagree with you in order to play the splitting hairs game. that's super of you!
The second article doesn't come up for me. The third absolutely disagrees with you. Which am I ignoring?
Currently, they don't for you. You will not be held back in life in any measurable sense by not living up to the appearance standards a woman has to, and there are plenty more articles than those three pointing this out.
Then link them because the ones that you linked don't say that. Could I go searching for them? Sure, but YOU'RE the one attempting to make the point. Bring some evidence. You very well may have it, but I haven't seen it. Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but I'd like for you to prove your assertions.
I tried to find that argument and stopped when I got to the point where you announced that everything people do is about sex. Go ahead and pretend you have to wear make up to job-interviews if it makes you feel better.
I tried to find that argument and stopped when I got to the point where you announced that everything people do is about sex. Go ahead and pretend you have to wear make up to job-interviews if it makes you feel better.
Edited, as I may have misinterpreted what you meant...
I didn't say everything people do is about sex. I believe that when men and women peers pay attention between the two of them, it's predicated on sexuality, whether overt and expressed or not. That's not the same as everything people do being about sex.
And whereas I don't wear makeup for job interviews (although I have had to wear it for a job), I do have to make sure I'm as presentable as possible. I have to have a fresh haircut, and something as "mainstream" as possible. The same goes with facial hair and clothing. I can't just walk in there reeking of booze and with my clothes in disarray. Being in shape helps a lot.
I tried to find that argument and stopped when I got to the point where you announced that everything people do is about sex. Go ahead and pretend you have to wear make up to job-interviews if it makes you feel better.
What I said was that most of the time, attention given is predicated on sexuality.
I'm sure it is. You're totally not just projecting.
Edit: by the way I'm flattered but I'm not gay, so you can stop paying attention to me now.
I tried to find that argument and stopped when I got to the point where you announced that everything people do is about sex. Go ahead and pretend you have to wear make up to job-interviews if it makes you feel better.
What I said was that most of the time, attention given is predicated on sexuality.
I'm sure it is. You're totally not just projecting.
Maybe I am, as I consider my own motivations when considering other peoples. Hmmm.... this person is doing X. I do X when Y, thus that person is probably Y. Is that really crazy?
I already told you I'm not gay, Raggaholic. Back off.
I see what you did there, but I'm not attracted to men.
The fact that you're paying attention to me speaks to the contrary. It's okay to be yourself here, man. D&D isn't going to jump you for <3ing the cock. I'm just not into it, so you'll need to find someone else to pay attention to.
The fact that you're paying attention to me speaks to the contrary. It's okay to be yourself here, man. D&D isn't going to jump you for <3ing the cock. I'm just not into it, so you'll need to find someone else to pay attention to.
Good thing my statement didn't speak in absolutes, huh?
False. You are attempting to defend the claim that you're supposed to ogle women who wear sexy things on the grounds that they're doing it for attention and then failing to draw a distinction between sexual attention and any other form of attention, throwing "most" in and then conceding that there is a meaningful distinction between sexual attention and other attention breaks your original argument. And now I'm going to stop paying attention to you because I boobies.
Impoverished: deprived of natural richness or strength; limited or depleted; an impoverished vocabulary. It is entirely possible to speak of an impoverished skill set, and I'm surprised you never encountered this usage. Apparently I stressed your vocabulary with this, for which I apologize. I will try to choose words that make me look dumber in the future.
You're not deprived, you don't care to employ precision. They're not the same thing by any stretch.
My use of "impoverished" was an example of what we commonly call "sarcasm." It was a response to you saying
Then you should learn English before conducting discourse in it.
thereby implying that my English skills were lacking strength, limited, or impoverished. My response was sarcastic because the implication was stupid; there's nothing at all about the definition of "unfair" that requires you to be deprived of something belonging to you by right. If you need me to walk you through this in any greater detail, please let me know.
That aside, they would have to treat you in violation of the rules or standards, illegitimately, or unjustly or inappropriately in the circumstances. They would have to somehow violate your rights. What are you entitled to when you meet a stranger walking alone at night?
Respect. Impartial consideration. Suspension of judgment. The sorts of things a woman in public wearing only a bikini is entitled to.
You think you're entitled to respect from strangers you encounter walking alone at night? That's hilarious. It's also very incorrect. What you are entitled to is your personal safety. You are entitled to act to decrease risk to your personal safety without initiating conflict. You are entitled to try to say hi and strike up a conversation if you want, but if someone does that to you you're entitled to rush past them and hurry away. You have entitlement-issues, and are a cry-baby. Oh boo-hoo, some strange girl walking alone at night regarded you with suspicion upon encountering you. Did she try to mug you? Did she start calling you names as you walked past? Did she run up and pre-emptively mace you? No. Suck it up, you are not a unique and beautiful snowflake and even if you were no one can be expected to know that without meeting you. Grow up.
Edit: And how you think a girl wearing attractive clothes is analogous to a potential-threat to someone's safety and/or life is simply boggling.
1) Strangers are entitled to respect. This is obviously true, you know it to be true, and being caustic or dismissive about it doesn't actually help your case. If you really don't think that it's true, then yes, you can't complain about how people react to clothing. And it's true that they aren't quite analogous, since wearing a particular kind of clothing is a choice and being male generally isn't. So looking suspiciously at a man because he's a man is probably even less appropriate than leering at a girl because she looks like she's wearing body paint.
2) Possibly safety concerns override this requirement. But we don't accept that they do in examples already given. And as already mentioned, glowering at someone does not improve your safety anyway.
3) Caring about how someone looks at you is a pretty minor concern in general, I agree. But it's apparently deeply important to TheCat and others that women not be looked at lustfully in public, so I thought the issue was worth discussing. How people react to each other nonverbally does a lot to shape self-image, and having women react to you fearfully often enough is going to distort your idea of yourself.
4) Whether people are poor is not nearly as obvious as whether they are black, and it's entirely irrelevant anyway; reacting with fear and loathing to poor people is not much less objectionable than reacting that way to black people.
Also, I admire how you managed to really tard up this thread. Calling someone gay and taunting them for it? Really? That's awesome. Original and sophisticated.
1) Strangers are entitled to respect. This is obviously true, you know it to be true, and being caustic or dismissive about it doesn't actually help your case. If you really don't think that it's true, then yes, you can't complain about how people react to clothing. And it's true that they aren't quite analogous, since wearing a particular kind of clothing is a choice and being male generally isn't. So looking suspiciously at a man because he's a man is probably even less appropriate than leering at a girl because she looks like she's wearing body paint.
No, it is obviously not true. Respect is earned. You're conflating respecting a person with respecting their rights and that's ridiculous.
2) Possibly safety concerns override this requirement. But we don't accept that they do in examples already given. And as already mentioned, glowering at someone does not improve your safety anyway.
If you don't accept that encountering a stranger walking alone at night or in any other context conducive to violent-crime constitutes a possible safety concern I hope you don't carry much in your wallet. And it sounds like you don't know what a glower looks like either, but regardless things like maintaining their distance from you and watching you carefully (in other words, regarding you with suspicion) do improve your safety.
3) Caring about how someone looks at you is a pretty minor concern in general, I agree. But it's apparently deeply important to TheCat and others that women not be looked at lustfully in public, so I thought the issue was worth discussing. How people react to each other nonverbally does a lot to shape self-image, and having women react to you fearfully often enough is going to distort your idea of yourself.
The Cat's issue is with people making specific assumptions about a person's character based on the fact that they dress themselves to look attractive and then acting on them or using them to justify the actions of others. I'm sure The Cat doesn't really give a shit if you think she's a total slut as long as you don't take that assumption as implied consent on her part or start making cat-calls or lewd whistling/gesturing type shit, or use it as grounds to criticize unrelated things such as the quality of her work.
How people react to each other nonverbally does a lot to shape self-image, and having women react to you fearfully often enough is going to distort your idea of yourself.
Only if you let your own self-issues override your brain on a consistent basis. Random women you've never met are not obligated to design their interaction with you around the assumption that you're a hypersensitive crybaby. What you're describing isn't something they're doing wrong, what you are describing is something wrong with you.
4) Whether people are poor is not nearly as obvious as whether they are black, and it's entirely irrelevant anyway; reacting with fear and loathing to poor people is not much less objectionable than reacting that way to black people.
Okay? I gather you missed the part about how spoiled frat-kids are also exceedingly reasonable to avoid when walking alone in a dark alley.
Also, I admire how you managed to really tard up this thread. Calling someone gay and taunting them for it? Really? That's awesome. Original and sophisticated.
Yeah, I'm the one who tarded up the thread. Right. And I was actually calling him gay and taunting him for it, not making a mockery of his claims. Sure. Whatever you say, creepy.
Do you really equate drooling over some woman that you've never met before's body and crossing the street to avoid someone in an unsafe neighborhood because you feel just that -- unsafe? Do you really?
I don't equate these two situations, unlike you, but I can't really parse why it's so utterly wrong for you to. I feel like it is, but I just sort of get blinded with rage. Can you try and elaborate again on why they're equitable?
Oh yeah, she is also likely not a fan of being eyed up like a piece of meat. If someone you didn't want anything to do with gave you a look that says they don't care whether you want anything to do with them I'm sure you wouldn't like it either, especially if common knowledge dictates that they are not all that unlikely to act on said disregard for your say in the matter, though I wouldn't be surprised to find you can't relate.
No, it is obviously not true. Respect is earned. You're conflating respecting a person with respecting their rights and that's ridiculous
The Cat's issue is with people making specific assumptions about a person's character based on the fact that they dress themselves to look attractive and then acting on them or using them to justify the actions of others. I'm sure The Cat doesn't really give a shit if you think she's a total slut as long as you don't take that assumption as implied consent on her part or start making cat-calls or lewd whistling/gesturing type shit, or use it as grounds to criticize unrelated things such as the quality of her work.
If respect isn't owed to strangers, I have no obligation not to leer or make catcalls and don't need your consent, implied or otherwise. You can't have it both ways.
If you don't accept that encountering a stranger walking alone at night or in any other context conducive to violent-crime constitutes a possible safety concern I hope you don't carry much in your wallet. And it sounds like you don't know what a glower looks like either, but regardless things like maintaining their distance from you and watching you carefully (in other words, regarding you with suspicion) do improve your safety.
You misread the point. Of course there are safety concerns. There are equal safety concerns with minorities. So either bite the bullet and say that it's appropriate to avoid black people in America or come up with a valid discriminator between gender and ethnic stereotyping. Either answer would be interesting and productive, as opposed to what you're doing right now.
Only if you let your own self-issues override your brain on a consistent basis. Random women you've never met are not obligated to design their interaction with you around the assumption that you're a hypersensitive crybaby. What you're describing isn't something they're doing wrong, what you are describing is something wrong with you.
You keep saying this, and you keep refusing to accept the natural extension to either race or catcalling. Why is it that finding fear and suspicion unpleasant is evidence of hypersensitivity, but finding wolf whistles unpleasant isn't? And again, do you feel the same way about race-based fear? If not, what's the difference?
Okay? I gather you missed the part about how spoiled frat-kids are also exceedingly reasonable to avoid when walking alone in a dark alley.
Spoiled frat kids can stop being spoiled frat kids. It's like showing signs of gang membership - no one will argue that you shouldn't avoid gangbangers. Someone who walks into an airport and shouts "Death to America" is going to garner some extra security attention. All cases where you judge someone according to their individual choices, which is unobjectionable to just about anyone.
Yeah, I'm the one who tarded up the thread. Right. And I was actually calling him gay and taunting him for it, not making a mockery of his claims. Sure. Whatever you say, creepy.
This is just how you roll, huh? Well, I'll try to ignore the stupid, then.
Do you really equate drooling over some woman that you've never met before's body and crossing the street to avoid someone in an unsafe neighborhood because you feel just that -- unsafe? Do you really?
I don't equate these two situations, unlike you, but I can't really parse why it's so utterly wrong for you to. I feel like it is, but I just sort of get blinded with rage. Can you try and elaborate again on why they're equitable?
Well, it's hard for me to respond to an inarticulate feeling, but let me take a stab at it. What bothers you about equating the two is that in both cases you feel the woman is the one vulnerable or at risk, and therefore my comparison is perverse (hence, rage). And this is true. But the question isn't about vulnerability, it's about respect, suspending judgment, etc. And it is not true that in both cases the woman is the victim of prejudice or prejudgment.
Now, you may not think that a woman staring suspiciously and hurrying away from a man is a reflection of those qualities - it's just reasonable caution. That's the commonsense understanding of the situation. But what makes the case interesting to me is that our commonsense understanding of someone who hurries away from black people (but not white people) isn't that they're exercising reasonable caution; it's that they're racist, and their actions are prejudiced and disrespectful. There are three possible responses to the comparison: 1) It doesn't hold because the racial case isn't rational 2) Both are appropriate responses, and our commonsense understanding of the racial case is wrong 3) Both are disrespectful and prejudiced, and our commonsense understanding of the gender case is wrong. Thus far, attempts at arguing 1 haven't done much to persuade me - the data show pretty clearly that it is quite rational in many places to be more afraid of black people than white people. So we have a case where one of our intuitions is wrong. And that's why I'm interested.
For the record, I am perfectly fine with people being 'racist' or 'sexist' in terms of not wanting to walk shoulder-to-shoulder with someone on a dark night. If to you that constitutes a grievous logical inconsistency by my being not fine with people disrespecting a woman by giving unwarranted cat-calls, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
I refuse to take your absolutist, objectivist stance on the matter. I am going to hold onto the context and defend or attack actions based on those contexts.
For the record, I am perfectly fine with people being 'racist' or 'sexist' in terms of not wanting to walk shoulder-to-shoulder with someone on a dark night. If to you that constitutes a grievous logical inconsistency by my being not fine with people disrespecting a woman by giving unwarranted cat-calls, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
I refuse to take your absolutist, objectivist stance on the matter. I am going to hold onto the context and defend or attack actions based on those contexts.
First, you're not using either of those words appropriately. Second, the question isn't about walking shoulder-to-shoulder; it's about someone who is perfectly comfortable with strangers that belong to one group, and not another. Would you really be fine with someone who could comfortably walk shoulder-to-shoulder with a strange white man, but not a strange black man? That's where the dilemma lies.
Yeah, I'm fine with that. Regardless of the fact it's racist, I'm not going to force someone to perform the alternative option of putting themselves in dangerous situations. At best, you can ask those people to cross the street no matter who is approaching --
Yeah, I'm fine with that. Regardless of the fact it's racist, I'm not going to force someone to perform the alternative option of putting themselves in dangerous situations. At best, you can ask those people to cross the street no matter who is approaching --
which the vast majority do.
Okay, then you take option 2. That's really all you had to say. Though I think that last claim is dubious at best, preposterous at worst.
I think "a woman staring suspiciously and hurrying away from a man" is a terrible and biased description of what happens. "Hurrying" away from anyone is not just disrespectful, but a rather blatant way of broadcasting that you are completely vulnerable and afraid. I live in NY. When someone wants to be on the opposite side of the street you are at night, they cross at least half a block in advance. There's no hurrying, and certainly no opportunity for anyone to stare at anyone else at a distance where the other person can see.
I also still don't understand why you find it reprehensible that people seek to make themselves more comfortable, without any cost to anyone else.
Posts
I'm more afraid of a rottweiler than I am a chihuahua and yes, I'm perfectly fine with the application of common sense when it comes to my own personal safety at night. Just as I'm more likely to bring my full guard up against a rottweiler, I'm going to pay more attention to potential threats at night based entirely on my subjective view of the people I encounter. This is common sense.
I'll remember that next time I don't cross the street and get the shit beaten out of me by drunken assholes again.
Oh wait.
protip:
be especially wary of black males.
It's ok, I was stabbed by a white guy and in the case I got the shit beat out of me it was 5 white dudes. Especially considering that people who are non-white in the South Island of New Zealand where I live aren't actually very common at all, especially around the University.
Funny how that works.
I should totally not look when crossing the street.
I might be profiling the cars drivers.
Edit: I should point out, in all hilarity here, that just on my way home from my lab (a mere 5 minute walk) I saw a fight outside one of the student pubs (did I mention that living on campus means I'm close to all the student pubs, where much of the assaults where I live take place?). Police having some fun and they were all white guys.
Just so you know.
i actually don't have any problem with your profiling. I'm starting to have a problem with your "woe is me" posting.. I'm sorry you were hurt. Please don't assume that you are the only one who has been.
Edit: in response to your above. The plural of anecdote is "data".
This is common sense.
of course not. Which reasoning are you referring to? I'm not sure that any of my reasoning implies that personal safety => being a bigot. I'm also not sure that there are only two choices here, either paranoid suspicion of every person in the street that isn't your exact "safe" demographic (latino elderly women, i'm guessing?) and martyrdom. I mean. There has to be a middle in there somewhere, even if your post seems to imply that there may not be.
My point is mostly that it's interesting to consider that we see one action as moral and just, and another action (that seems to have identical rationale) as immoral and bigotted. It's also interesting to see how defensive people get over it.
That's entirely my point. Martyrdom is extra credit, or something.
No, there doesn't need to be racism, but it'd be safer if there was. It seems that some minorities are much more likely to commit violence than white people. In order to be safe, you should keep this in mind. If you are walking down the street, and the sidewalk ahead of you is drunk white young men, you might think to cross the street, to avoid confrontation. But supposing across the street is a similarly sized group of young male drunk minorities. Suppose you started on their side of the street? It'd be safest to cross to the white person side.
Morals depend on circumstance. I do not understand why you feel this is a controversial statement.
That's completely idiotic. The smartest thing to do is to immediately find another route that doesn't involve going past either group, such as taking a slightly different route or just taking a different street altogether. I can (where I live) walk down Cumberland st unmolested, but walking down George st is going right past all the pubs.
Common sense dictates that the better route is Cumberland st: You avoid all of them, it's still a main route so there is good traffic even at night and it's well lit. Plus the police and campus watch routinely patrol it.
sigh yes
or call a cab
or duck into a shop
or bust out your urban camo kit
yes, in the real world there are a million things you could do besides pick a side of the street
it was an example
I find it weird that we're okay with restaurants that sell healthy food, but we're not okay with restaurants that sell tainted/expired/poisoned food. I mean, either way, they're still selling food. What's interesting is that we seem to allow them to sell some types of food, while not allowing them to sell others.
You're ignoring the fact that women in general tend to have a vastly better chance of being assaulted/raped than they do of being murdered. You'll notice how when they refer to things like rape and assault, they use numbers like "1 in 4," but when they refer to things like murder, they have to use numbers like "parts per 100,000." It's much more rationale to fact in a 25% problem than it is to factor in a 0.001% problem.
You're also ignoring the fact that murderers tend to murder people in the same social circles as themselves. IOW, poor black male murders tend to murder poor black male victims. For instance, I had a professor who told us that 25% of murder victims have a criminal record, and then polled the class of 400 to see how many of us had a criminal record. The reason is because murderers often have a criminal record, and therefore, the people they tend to associate with usually have one as well. OTOH, I can't say that most douchbag male rapists will go for douchebag male victims. The OP isn't referring to an incident about males wanting to group the genitals of other males.
And you're ignoring the fact that factoring in socio-economic status tends to make race irrelevant, while the same can't be done for gender, since men make more money than women do.
Most importantly, you're ignoring the fact that racial profiling isn't simply "profiling." At the very least, you're providing a major inconvenience for the person in question. In more serious situations, you have the ability to hold them in prison against their will, deny them a job, etc. Greater authority/power requires greater scrutiny, period.
I know this sounds like church, but there's a difference.
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
I also completely agree with his post, congrats to him for wording it far better than me.
So what you're saying, whether you realize it or not, is that it makes more sense to be afraid of poor people than black people. Yeah well I'm going to keep regarding drunken frat-guys I encounter while walking alone with caution just the same, even though they are white and have BMWs and Lexus SUVs in their drive-ways.
I'm not sure what relevance this has to, well anything at all, but the "alone" part is vastly more important than the part of town or whether the encountered stranger "looks creepy" or "is huge".
If by "minorities" you mean "poor people" and by "white people" you mean "middle-class and up". And yeah, your example throws alcohol into the mix, meaning they no longer have to be desperate in order to fuck your shit up so much as bored and making both groups roughly equivalent in potential-threat.
Edit: And the "safe" demographic could only rationally be defined as "people you already know and trust". Yes, I'm less likely to regard my buddies the way I regard drunken fratards if I run into them in an alley. Obviously I'm bigoted against everyone who's not my friend.
If you're specifically referring to males in America, then say it. Don't make a broad statment and expect us to pull teeth. It's at best lazy and at worse disingenuous.
The second article doesn't come up for me. The third absolutely disagrees with you. Which am I ignoring?
Then link them because the ones that you linked don't say that. Could I go searching for them? Sure, but YOU'RE the one attempting to make the point. Bring some evidence. You very well may have it, but I haven't seen it. Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but I'd like for you to prove your assertions.
Again, sorry for being late to the party.
I didn't say everything people do is about sex. I believe that when men and women peers pay attention between the two of them, it's predicated on sexuality, whether overt and expressed or not. That's not the same as everything people do being about sex.
And whereas I don't wear makeup for job interviews (although I have had to wear it for a job), I do have to make sure I'm as presentable as possible. I have to have a fresh haircut, and something as "mainstream" as possible. The same goes with facial hair and clothing. I can't just walk in there reeking of booze and with my clothes in disarray. Being in shape helps a lot.
I'm sure it is. You're totally not just projecting.
Edit: by the way I'm flattered but I'm not gay, so you can stop paying attention to me now.
The fact that you're paying attention to me speaks to the contrary. It's okay to be yourself here, man. D&D isn't going to jump you for <3ing the cock. I'm just not into it, so you'll need to find someone else to pay attention to.
1) Strangers are entitled to respect. This is obviously true, you know it to be true, and being caustic or dismissive about it doesn't actually help your case. If you really don't think that it's true, then yes, you can't complain about how people react to clothing. And it's true that they aren't quite analogous, since wearing a particular kind of clothing is a choice and being male generally isn't. So looking suspiciously at a man because he's a man is probably even less appropriate than leering at a girl because she looks like she's wearing body paint.
2) Possibly safety concerns override this requirement. But we don't accept that they do in examples already given. And as already mentioned, glowering at someone does not improve your safety anyway.
3) Caring about how someone looks at you is a pretty minor concern in general, I agree. But it's apparently deeply important to TheCat and others that women not be looked at lustfully in public, so I thought the issue was worth discussing. How people react to each other nonverbally does a lot to shape self-image, and having women react to you fearfully often enough is going to distort your idea of yourself.
4) Whether people are poor is not nearly as obvious as whether they are black, and it's entirely irrelevant anyway; reacting with fear and loathing to poor people is not much less objectionable than reacting that way to black people.
Also, I admire how you managed to really tard up this thread. Calling someone gay and taunting them for it? Really? That's awesome. Original and sophisticated.
No, it is obviously not true. Respect is earned. You're conflating respecting a person with respecting their rights and that's ridiculous.
If you don't accept that encountering a stranger walking alone at night or in any other context conducive to violent-crime constitutes a possible safety concern I hope you don't carry much in your wallet. And it sounds like you don't know what a glower looks like either, but regardless things like maintaining their distance from you and watching you carefully (in other words, regarding you with suspicion) do improve your safety.
The Cat's issue is with people making specific assumptions about a person's character based on the fact that they dress themselves to look attractive and then acting on them or using them to justify the actions of others. I'm sure The Cat doesn't really give a shit if you think she's a total slut as long as you don't take that assumption as implied consent on her part or start making cat-calls or lewd whistling/gesturing type shit, or use it as grounds to criticize unrelated things such as the quality of her work.
Only if you let your own self-issues override your brain on a consistent basis. Random women you've never met are not obligated to design their interaction with you around the assumption that you're a hypersensitive crybaby. What you're describing isn't something they're doing wrong, what you are describing is something wrong with you.
Okay? I gather you missed the part about how spoiled frat-kids are also exceedingly reasonable to avoid when walking alone in a dark alley.
Yeah, I'm the one who tarded up the thread. Right. And I was actually calling him gay and taunting him for it, not making a mockery of his claims. Sure. Whatever you say, creepy.
I don't equate these two situations, unlike you, but I can't really parse why it's so utterly wrong for you to. I feel like it is, but I just sort of get blinded with rage. Can you try and elaborate again on why they're equitable?
You misread the point. Of course there are safety concerns. There are equal safety concerns with minorities. So either bite the bullet and say that it's appropriate to avoid black people in America or come up with a valid discriminator between gender and ethnic stereotyping. Either answer would be interesting and productive, as opposed to what you're doing right now.
You keep saying this, and you keep refusing to accept the natural extension to either race or catcalling. Why is it that finding fear and suspicion unpleasant is evidence of hypersensitivity, but finding wolf whistles unpleasant isn't? And again, do you feel the same way about race-based fear? If not, what's the difference?
Spoiled frat kids can stop being spoiled frat kids. It's like showing signs of gang membership - no one will argue that you shouldn't avoid gangbangers. Someone who walks into an airport and shouts "Death to America" is going to garner some extra security attention. All cases where you judge someone according to their individual choices, which is unobjectionable to just about anyone.
This is just how you roll, huh? Well, I'll try to ignore the stupid, then.
Well, it's hard for me to respond to an inarticulate feeling, but let me take a stab at it. What bothers you about equating the two is that in both cases you feel the woman is the one vulnerable or at risk, and therefore my comparison is perverse (hence, rage). And this is true. But the question isn't about vulnerability, it's about respect, suspending judgment, etc. And it is not true that in both cases the woman is the victim of prejudice or prejudgment.
Now, you may not think that a woman staring suspiciously and hurrying away from a man is a reflection of those qualities - it's just reasonable caution. That's the commonsense understanding of the situation. But what makes the case interesting to me is that our commonsense understanding of someone who hurries away from black people (but not white people) isn't that they're exercising reasonable caution; it's that they're racist, and their actions are prejudiced and disrespectful. There are three possible responses to the comparison: 1) It doesn't hold because the racial case isn't rational 2) Both are appropriate responses, and our commonsense understanding of the racial case is wrong 3) Both are disrespectful and prejudiced, and our commonsense understanding of the gender case is wrong. Thus far, attempts at arguing 1 haven't done much to persuade me - the data show pretty clearly that it is quite rational in many places to be more afraid of black people than white people. So we have a case where one of our intuitions is wrong. And that's why I'm interested.
I refuse to take your absolutist, objectivist stance on the matter. I am going to hold onto the context and defend or attack actions based on those contexts.
First, you're not using either of those words appropriately. Second, the question isn't about walking shoulder-to-shoulder; it's about someone who is perfectly comfortable with strangers that belong to one group, and not another. Would you really be fine with someone who could comfortably walk shoulder-to-shoulder with a strange white man, but not a strange black man? That's where the dilemma lies.
which the vast majority do.
Okay, then you take option 2. That's really all you had to say. Though I think that last claim is dubious at best, preposterous at worst.
I also still don't understand why you find it reprehensible that people seek to make themselves more comfortable, without any cost to anyone else.