It seems to me that you believe you crossing the street somehow displays empathy for poor women who fear being attacked by strange men passing them on a public road. Does NOT crossing the street display the same amount of empathy, in your opinion? If it doesn’t, then you are saying that NOT crossing the street in that situation shows lack of empathy for poor fearful women. THAT is what I object to.
First thing I thought when you first mentioned that guy and his article was “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, nobody with a clear conscience virtue signals that hard.
I don’t understand how you can object to that. It is pretty factual.
If you take someone else’s feelings into account in your actions, that displays empathy.
If you do not take someone else’s feelings into account in your actions, that displays a lack of empathy.
What I think you are objecting to is actually that you are reading an implication that you should display empathy, and no one is saying that. How you interact with others (within legal bounds) is entirely up to you.
If there’s a woman near or ahead of me in the parking garage where I work (especially at night), I’ll move out to the side and take a longer route to my car if necessary to damp down any potential fear of my large, hulking self (not), even though the garage is well-lit and there are security cameras around. I hardly ever walk city streets, but can’t imagine crossing to avoid female pedestrians.
Somehow I’m reminded by Franklin Ajaye, the comedian who had a routine about nervous white pedestrians who kept looking over their shoulders at him. He was so offended that he went ahead and robbed them. :eek:
No, I am objecting to the opinion that if I don’t cross the street, then I have no empathy. As if NOT crossing the street makes me a bad person or something. And I ask again, would you say the same thing to a black person who didn’t cross the street? What would you say to a woman who held her purse tighter when walking towards a black person? If the black person thought that was racist (which it is), would you say he had no empathy for the woman’s feelings? Doubtful.
I guess you have no empathy for the poor fearful women that are walking on those streets :rolleyes:
Ding ding ding ding!
Sure, I get nervous if I’m alone at night. I’ve been socialized to react that way. That doesn’t mean it’s an accurate reflection of reality, and while I empathize with women who have been victimized by men on deserted streets at night, their inability to trust men, in general, is something that stems from their traumatic experience, not an accurate perception of reality. I’m not sure social norms should be structured around a traumatized minority.
Now if someone is behaving strangely, that’s an entirely different kettle of fish. It makes sense to avoid people who are acting weird when you are alone at night (however you personally define weird.) Nobody’s saying don’t be safe. Just don’t be paranoid (or at least, if you feel the need/can’t help it, recognize it’s some unresolved issue you have, not a problem with the inherent dangerousness of other people. It would be a good idea to seek professional help.)
Why is that so controversial?
My WAG is it’s controversial because it implies that people should tolerate discomfort. We are a society increasingly geared toward avoiding discomfort. Heaven forfend I should have to feel thirty seconds of anxiety as a big man walks past me, I would likely crumble from the sheer emotional exhaustion of the whole thing. Women are not that fucking fragile, but I suspect we’ve got many convinced, at this point, that they are.
I don’t care what thoughts go on in your head. If you treat people poorly, then that’s wrong, but I couldn’t care less what you’re actually thinking about or expecting.
Surprising lack of answers to my questions.
Which one of these is “treating people poorly”:
- A man not crossing the street to avoid scaring a woman
- Holding a bag tighter when walking next to a minority
I’m not sure if either of them are. I haven’t exactly endorsed any particular position on this; I’ve only stated what I do. It’s probably not wrong to not worry about it. I do it just because it seems like a very minor thing to do so another might avoid fear. And I’ve probably done it a grand total of about 5 times in my life.
You seem to be getting all worked up about this, but I put very little concern into it. It’s a very minor thing; I shrug my shoulders and do it… it’s not the end of the world if you choose not to.
I consider myself mostly liberal but I would never have considered crossing the street to avoid contact with a woman before reading this thread. I am a large man (6’ and a skootch, 210 lbs) but I do not believe I present a threatening demeanor.
LOL, I’m not worked up about it. Just conversing about it with people on a message board. However, you seem reluctant to agree that a woman clutching her purse more tightly in the presence of a black person is a clear cut case of treating someone poorly. Which is surprising to me.
But it seems like anytime someone says, ‘‘I do X because Y,’’ someone else gets defensive about not doing X, and I can’t fathom the motive for getting so defensive, other than guilt.
It’s just something I’ve observed in my own interactions. Like (I mentioned this before) I posted something on social media several months ago to the effect of, ‘‘If you voted for Trump, I’d like to sit down and do lunch and better understand your position.’’ The reaction was mostly positive, and I’m sure at some point I mentioned empathy and understanding as positive values I would like to espouse. A couple of liberal friends immediately rushed in to explain why they are not bad people for hating Trump voters.
Well, okay. I didn’t say they were bad people, or that they weren’t allowed to hate Trump voters. I was just talking about my own view of things, and they felt the need to hyper-personalize it, and I can only fathom it was their own internal conflict being taken out on me.
ETA: But you say you’re not that worked up about it, so maybe this is irrelevant.
And I don’t agree that crossing a road (intended for automobile traffic, depending on the conditions a possible risk of your life, depending on your location a possible finable offense if you aren’t in the proper spot) isn’t really “minor”–it is a significant imposition.
The vast majority of the time I’ve crossed a road, I’ve done it entirely safely and without imposition. I would strongly recommend avoiding crossing a road if it’s not safe, whether for concern of others or because that’s your route.
It might be. I suppose it might make some people feel bad. I don’t carry a purse, but if I did I’d probably try and avoid “clutching” it around anyone.
It can also be simply looking at the logical extension of a position. For example, when a Muslim woman (or a woman from any other religious group that requires it) wears a head-covering “for modesty”, that comes with the implicit statement that women who do not cover their heads are immodest. Or anytime anyone survives any type of disease or accident, they (or the relatives) make a statement that God wanted them to live, which comes with the implicit statement that anyone who doesn’t survive those circumstances is someone God wants to die. That may not stated aloud in these or other situations, but it is there when you “unpack” the idea (as kids today say.)
Sorry to interrupt this fascinating discussion of how every single individual member of roughly half the world’s population MUST be presumed dangerous to the other half, but since this is an omnibus thread…
I have a chocolate lab mix. He tries to be a Good Boy and usually succeeds but he’s also dumb as a rock and occasionally doesn’t. I sometimes refer to him as “dingo” to jokingly acknowledge that while sometimes he’s a gracious, well-trained house pet, at other times he behaves like a wild animal.
We were in the vet last weekend, checking out / paying, chatting with the employee at the desk, I called him dingo, another client nearby immediately said “That’s racist.” “Huh?” I replied. Not entirely verbatim, but her response was “’Dingo’ is short for ‘mandingo’ which is a derogatory word used to describe people of color specifically of African descent and the same as ‘nigger’ and since he’s brown you’re calling him a nigger.” She explicitly equated ‘dingo’ = ‘mandingo’ = ‘nigger’.
Yes, I went right the fuck off on the fuck stupid social justice warrior. White, female, 20-something, small white dog (Westie?), smug and condescending. It eventually came to light that she didn’t know what a dingo is or why I would use that word to refer to my dog. But she was smugly assured that the only people who would use that word to describe a brown dog are racists.
She was the perfect example of the SJW crowd who: (1) sees ____-ism where there really isn’t any _____-ism; (2) is ignorant about the topic for which they claim to be advocating; (3) is mostly interested in earning SJW points by calling out something even though they don’t understand what it is they’re calling out. Fucking stupid idiot.
Now, this is just silly. We’re talking about late night, deserted streets. In 99% of cases, there wouldn’t be much traffic at all. But I’m sure men who do this are perfectly capable of using their judgment about whether or not it is safe to cross.
(I’m just curious: If you were walking down a dark road at night, and a woman coming toward you chose to cross the street herself, would it bug you?)
[QUOTE=Darren Garrison]
It can also be simply looking at the logical extension of a position. For example, when a Muslim woman (or a woman from any other religious group that requires it) wears a head-covering “for modesty”, that comes with the implicit statement that women who do not cover their heads are immodest.
[/QUOTE]
I guess, but then that would be true of virtually any other ethical statement about anything. All of our opinions at all times have some implicit uncharitable way they could be interpreted. It really comes down to when, and how, we choose to interpret them uncharitably. Why this thing as opposed to that other thing?
I mean, I do it too.
I see what you are saying here. But to me, there is a difference between:
“I cross the street when a lone woman is approaching because I have empathy”
and
“I cross the street when a lone woman is approaching so she won’t get frightened”
sort of like:
“I don’t eat McDonalds because I care about my body”
and
“I don’t eat McDonalds because it’s really not that healthy”
of course, typing this out, it’s hard for me to describe WHY they are different, but still seems different to me somehow.
And also, to be fair, I actually avoid walking directly behind women when I am walking into work, because I’ve seen some of them look back at me, and one even mentioned to me that she didn’t like someone directly behind her. I wouldn’t cross the street or whatever to avoid a woman though. The expectation that I should is what gets me.