This may have lawn chair and popcorn potential.
There are many people who will apply one standard to race, and the exact opposite to gender.
When it comes to race, they will forcefully rebut people who say, for instance, “Minority Group X commits a higher statistical rate of violent crime per capita than white people.”
But when it comes to gender, they will immediately cite lots of math facts and stats: “Statistically, men commit a higher rate of crimes than women, etc.”
In both instances, it’s factually true that Group X commits a higher rate of crime per capita than Group Y" - demonstrated through abundant stats and data. But somehow, in the first instance, they will firmly reject the statistical-evidence approach, whereas in the second instance, they will fully embrace that approach. What gives?
And when it comes to Islam - “Not all Muslims are terrorists” - which is, of course, 100% true - but somehow they will push back hard against anyone who says, “Not all men”.
This is so true. It’s like:
Jill: “Men are scum.”
Jack: “So <ethnic group XYZ[sup]*[/sup]> men are scum”
Jill: “WHAT?!? How could you possibly say that?”
Jack: “Well…you said men are scum. <ethnic group XYZ> men are men. Therefore <ethnic group XYZ> men are scum.”
Jill: “That’s racist”.
[sup]*[/sup][sub]The exception, of course, is if the ethnic group in question is white. [/sub]
When oh when will the persecution of the White Race end? I feel like such victim. Every day I wake up with the knowledge that I will be judged by my white skin, and not by the content of my character. (And I thank the Lord above for letting me skate like that!!! 
)
It’s not the generalisations per se that annoy me, it’s the flagrant hypocrisy. Whether you (or I) are personally offended by the generalisations isn’t relevant. Either bigoted generalisations are bad, or they aren’t. We, as a society, should just pick one and stick with it.
[ul]
[/ul]I have some nieces in their early twenties who veer toward the view that all men are potential rapists (posted on FBook, naturally).
I absolutely don’t believe this and think it’s hurtful to all the great guys in our lives and counterproductive in terms of rational dialogue.
I was somewhat coerced into a sexual relationship with my HS basketball coach/counselor* I say “somewhat” because I was in love with her ( I was 16, she 27). I’ve never felt really tramautized about it, but I’m disgusted with the predatory behavior. A good outcome is that I am absolutely scrupulous in behavior with my college students and very aware of power paradigms.
*She was fired/asked to move on a year later when some of her activities were discovered.She went to another school. It was 1983; I’d like to think in today’s world she’d lose her credentials and be in legal trouble. She’s now living with one of my former b-ball teammates.
The cynic is me says your macho co-workers cared only because your stalker was an outsider from their pack. If he’d been one of the gang, would his behavior have triggered them to go into protector mode to the extent that it? Or would they have been inclined to brush it off as no big deal?
I think that’s the dynamic more often than not.
When dicks are outlawed, only outlaws will have (or be) dicks.
This is vacuous, superficial equivalence for equivalence’s sake. That’s what fucking gives.
Racists, historically, want to deport, enslave and murder the people they’re being racist towards. Women want to… not be nice to people on the subway when they’re busy.
Not all things have to be the same. Another way of saying “all men are potential rapists,” in the sense in which it is almost always used genuinely, would be “I take precautions to avoid being assaulted.”
Another way of saying “blacks commit more crimes,” in the sense in which it’s often invoked, is “let’s go back to Jim Crow.”
This raises the bar too high for racism, even though I’m not someone who thinks everyone is a racist. I’d say that in the Civil War and Recontruction period there were quite a few white Northerners (and some white Southerners) who had attitudes that would be considered quite racist today, bordering on or even full-on white supremacy, yet they still did not want to enslave or murder black people.
Yes, not all racists. That’s true. From where I’m sitting that doesn’t change the point, which is that endorsing a racist belief about black people or Muslims being intrinsically prone to violence, and endorsing the belief that an unknown man has a chance of being a threat, are not comparable.
OK, but the reason you gave doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Do you have a new reason to back up that claim?
The reason I gave has not yet been subjected to scrutiny.
Racism is dangerous. Thinking a man might be a predator is not only not dangerous, it’s the fucking “advice” women are given, in retrospect, when they don’t do it. It’s only when they say it out loud before something bad happens that it’s evil of them.
Oh, you got raped? Fuck you, should’ve expected it. Don’t take risks.
Oh, you consider men a risk? Fuck you. You’re making the world a sad world for men.
“Racists, historically, want to deport, enslave and murder the people they’re being racist towards.”
A small percentage of people who have racist feelings or thought want to do those things today. That’s not a good reason to tar everyone with racist tendencies with that extreme viewpoint. More typical today is the shop keeper who keeps an extra eye on black people, concerned that they are more likely to rob them. Not seeing that as being all that different from a woman looking at some random guy in a bar or restaurant (with whom they may not have had any interaction at all) and thinking: He is a potential rapist.
I think it is unfair to liken feeling a certain kind of way around men to feeling a certain kind of way around, say, white people. I don’t have a problem exchanging pleasantries with random people on the street, no matter what their color. But I don’t exchange the same kind of pleasantries with guys as I do women, not unless I want to send out the wrong signals.
For instance, if I’m riding the bus and a rando guy compliments my outfit, I’m probably not going to think, “Oh, he’s just being friendly.” My mind isn’t going to leap to “OMG HE’S A RAPIST!!!”, but I probably will be more measured in my response than I would if he were a woman. I’d probably say “Thank you” rather than “Thanks so much!! And you look good too!” I probably would turn away from him to let him know I’m not interested in furthering the conversation, which I probably wouldn’t do if he were a woman.
Is this discriminatory? Of course. But is it sexist? No. It’s simply acknowledging that sex/gender adds another dimension to social interactions. If I thought the guy was attractive, I would be receptive to his potential flirtations and the dance would be totally different.
Not that long ago, the secretary at my workplace let me know she thought that a male coworker had a crush on me. Since then I’ve made sure to keep things purely professional with him. Is it wrong for me to treat him that way, but not the married male coworkers that I chitchat freely with all the time? I don’t think so. As a single female, it would be pretty stupid of me not to consider that a single hetero male may develop feelings for me and thus I need to tread carefully. That doesn’t mean I’m scared by single hetero guys or anything. It just means I don’t talk to them as casually as I would someone else. The last time I didn’t use this kind of common sense, I ended up with a workplace harasser.
In contrast, I can’t think of any good reason why I need to cater my behavior based on a person’s race.
Hey, Jim, did you see the new guy?
Yeah, his name’s Tyrone.
He’s a potential felon. I read that 1 in 20 black men are felons.
Oh shit. Numbers don’t lie. Best we assume the worst.
Throw down when you’re in the mood for a spanking, champ.
It’s not about that. If you’re coming at it from an emotional standpoint, “Why am I so oppressed for my whiteness!” that’s one thing. But if you’re analyzing something logically, like, “It’s okay to generalize about white men but not about black men” then you’re just stating a truism.
Personally, I think that’s not a bad thing for us, it’s actually more privilege for us. We, and others, can talk straight about our pathologies. Minorities don’t get that benefit.
Perfunctory apologies that parallel construction offends thy sensibilities.
Parklife!