Yes, it bothers me because its taking a negative attitude/act that some men have done and expanding to all men through guilt by association.
Personally I find most gender-based stereotypes ludicrous in the extreme. We should take each person as they come.
You might want to look up legal definitions of brandishing. If you allow someone to see you have a weapon, in many jurisdictions you’ll be guilty of it.
Don’t get your pepper spray, or any other weapon, out unless someone actually threatens you, else you’re the one doing the threatening.
So, once more: who has actually had a weapon brandished at him?
Except there’s no “guilt by association,” I don’t think. The use of the word “potential” is to differentiate from “actual.” I’m not guilty of rape, since I’m not an actual rapist. However, a strange woman doesn’t know that, so she might treat me as a potential threat until such time as she gets to know me well enough to discount that possibility. Why would this bother me?
Because its placing a ‘potential’ negative act on about 3.5 billion people who have nothing more in common than sharing an XY chromosome?
“Placing” in what sense?
WHen I drive on the interstate, I watch out for other cars around me. Every driver in my lane is a potential bad driver who might kill me if I’m not watching out. Drivers going the opposite direction, not so much. I’m not placing a potential negative act on these other drivers; I don’t know them. It’s precisely because I don’t know them that I stay on high alert to the potential danger, the unknown, that they represent.
I really can’t understand why I’d get worried about a woman making a similar calculation about me.
I run and hike with pepper spray strapped to my wrist. Everywhere I go I see people wearing holstered guns. In what areas would these carry methods count as “brandishing”?
Thankfully? Sadly. A real man protects the weak regardless of gender so you might want to revise that. One might save you from a gang of women with knives or clubs but he’s going to snicker that you can’t take it that a fearful woman has pepperspray. But it’s useless to try to explain manhood to anyone whose only experience with it is message boards and the pc groupthink which automaticly discounts previous generations understanding of where sympathy should lie in favor of pathetic whining by grown men.
The world needs more real men. Strong women too. I respect hell out of a woman who protects the weak.
Any where open carry of weapons is illegal, which is most of the civilised world apart from a few American states. It may well depend if it’s obvious your pepper spray is a weapon.
You aren’t changing your behaviour based on whether those other drivers are male or black (for example) are you?
I can assure you I don’t need any lessons on masculinity from the likes of you.
Although for other peoples benefit who may be reading this reply I will say that I disagree with the person who stated he wouldn’t help a child falling from a pram (if that was the example) though I do understand why someone might hesitate.
So, not in this country, then.
Pepper spray is a defensive weapon. It is legal to possess and use in a defensive capacity in all 50 states, in case you don’t want to click on the link.
Yes. Stereotyping any group – gender, race, religion, age et al, for the actions of some is wrong. It* certainly may be higher in some groups than others, but to ascribe it to the gender, race, religion, age et al, rather than culture, environment, individual genetics et al, is illustrative of what is racism, to use the most obvious ism.
*The particular negative characteristic
How is taking a different stance towards men re children based on statistics any different than doing so with Arabs or Muslims re terrorism or African Americans re crime? Do the same people who support treating men differently also support racial or religious profiling, based on the available statistics? Or is one kind of discrimination better than the other?
**Dorkness **- I just think your analogy of cards overstates how likely someone is to be harmed by an unknown - upwards of 13 times per hour.
**April **- Not to diminish the experiences of the females of your lineage but your experiences outline exactly what a lot of men in this thread are trying to vocalize. People who are waiting for the bus, in an elevator, in the park, or on an airplane are complete strangers. They are not babysitters, or family friends, or even classmates. They just want to sit in their seat, and get on with their lives. The most they want out of an experience is friendly banter. The fact that family friends, babysitters, and classmates are both more trusted and more likely to perpetrate sexual crimes but the strangers take the brunt of the paranoia warrants at least an IMHO. We’re not exactly calling for a sexual revolution on behalf of lonesome strangers the world over.
Dorkness again Things like this might not bother you. However, are you incapable of acknowledging that it may bother others? I have to reiterate, in 100% of the anecdotes, nobody freaked out. Nobody confronted the woman/child, and nobody is outraged. It just made them feel sad. Is that not allowed? Is there nobody out there the least bit empathetic to the situation?
Troppus Wearing it on your wrist jogging is a bit different than running with it in hand, finger on the trigger, extending your arms pointing it at every threatening thing you past. Same thing with gun-in-holster vs gun-in-hand, safety off, locked, loaded, and eyes down the sight pointed at every shady person the gunman sees. Let’s not dilute this argument down to semantics.
Scratch I hesitate to respond because it seems hardly worth it. I’ll dice it down to bite sized sentences for you. As a man, you want to protect women. You take your daughter to a park where other parents take their kids, but it’s mostly moms. You stand guard over your daughter to protect her from the dangers of this world. Your daughter finishes playing and you start to leave. One of the other moms - a strong mom - wants to protect your daughter. She thinks she needs to protect your daughter from you because she thinks you’re a molester. Is that a good feeling? Is that fair? Is that nice?
Chitwood - Not I. I’ve never been threatened by pepper spray. It’s just the idea that there’s a woman out there that would that makes me treat all women as potential pepper sprayers.
No: I’m basing it on whether they’re in the group that’s likelier to hurt me, i.e., people behind the wheel in the same lane as me. I don’t worry about passengers, pedestrians (well, not in the same way), people in other lanes, etc., because statistically speaking, if there’s an accident, they’re vanishingly unlikely to cause it. Passengers and pedestrians aren’t potential accident causes [and to the extent that they are, it’s a failure of the analogy; don’t obsess on that point]. Drivers, however, are.
In the same way, I wouldn’t expect women who are worried about being raped to keep a close eye out on other women or on small children, because statistically speaking, if they’re assaulted by a stranger, it’s not going to be by another woman or a child. Women and children aren’t potential assaulters, in other words. Men, however, are.
Sure, but it also understates the damaged caused by that harm. I wasn’t trying to get either the frequency or the amplitude of harm covered by the analogy. Also, men weigh a lot more than cards do. I was trying to illustrate the fact that considering something (or someone) a potential harm doesn’t say anything about the actual guilt of that something (or someone). It’s just playing a game with imperfect information, a game where you’ll be wrong most of the time. As long as you don’t cause any actual harm when you’re wrong–as long as you don’t actually mace random guys, for example–I fail to see a problem.
Sure, feeling sad? I totally get that. I’d feel sad, too. I feel sad when I’m setting up the desks next to the door so that I’m ostentatiously visible to anyone walking by; it’s annoying that that’s our reality.
I don’t object to the sadness. I object to the outrage, to the cries of bigotry, to the cries of oppression. That shit’s ridiculous.
Chimera’s description was “clutching it fearfully” not aiming it or threatening him with it. I am not the poster/s who insist that she should have been charged with brandishing.
Unless she pulls a gun then yes. My feelings aren’t that tender. She is looking out for those who can’t for themselves. I have no problem introducing myself. I’m glad she is protective. Is that bite-sized enough for you or should I denigrate your intelligence?
Only if she pulls a gun? What if she calls the cops like in this link from page 1:
http://www.news-journal.com/opinion/letters/letters-on-having-nothing-to-say-trashy-roads-mistaken-identity/article_13fe229f-d657-5627-b453-be9b71a311dd.html
The argument has definitely has snowballed but the original point of contention was whether she was in the wrong or not for bringing out the pepper spray. She may have been acting in her own self interest, but it was still an overreaction that led to some mild psychological trauma which places her at least a smidge in the wrong if not wholesale.
The spray wasn’t on a bracelet, or just dangling off her keys. She but it in her hand and it was ready for use. That is a much more threatening act than Chimera merely existing.
Annoyance may be the most appropriate word to use. I think the outrage and vitriol comes as a reaction to the refusal of certain “pro-woman” arguers (for lack of a better term) to yield, declaring that these actions aren’t even faux pas and that the woman’s actions aren’t even merely negligible but completely justified.
It’s not completely justified. It’s an overreaction. No, no “real” consequences come from any of these anecdotes but at least concede that every time a woman get into her company elevator or a stranger chats her up at the bus stop she reaches for the mace or the keys is an overreaction.
Yes, men should compensate for the bad apples and the adage of better safe than sorry does apply, but it’s annoying. I’m sure that’s what a lot of guys in here are looking for. A pat on the back for being a good compensating soldier.