Depends on what I happen to be wearing.
What if you had the choice between 5 black doctors and 5 white high school dropouts?
That’s sort of what I’m thinking; or, say, 5 black guys dressed normally and five white guys dressed in gang outfits or like skinheads. Or in the other direction, five black guys with bats and knives during some race driven riot situation.
Race by itself isn’t very informative.
I’d much rather run into 5 minority males. I live in a white-majority country, state, county, and city. Those minority guys aren’t going to get away with anything. 5 white kids, though, they might be dangerous punks, their families might be important.
Really, though, race is not a major cue here. 5 churchy kids, black or white, won’t scare me; I was raised a churchy kid. 5 stoners I might just ignore. 5 tweakers, I’m not sure. 5 thuggish looking guys, probably aren’t really thugs, but I won’t exactly veer into them.
5 Jews FTW.
The false premise of the OP is that if fear exists, there must be a basis for it.
Suppose you find out that ninety percent of Americans are more scared of black men than they are of white men. What does that prove? That black men are more frightening than white men? No, it only proves that Americans are more scared of black men.
If a woman walks down the street in fear that every man she sees is thinking about raping her, her fear doesn’t mean that every man is a potential rapist.
Why “aimed towards white people”? Are you claiming that not only are black people more violent but more racist as well?
This. I’m not racist, but I’m also not stupid. I’m crossing the street and pre-dialing 911 on my cell phone, JIC.
Five black guys, because I’d be all like, “what up, my niggas?” and we’d have a good laugh and spark up a joint.
I am more concerned about their age than race. Unfortunately, I discriminate against young men.
Yeah, same here. As a woman, walking toward a group of five men, their racial make up is not what worries me.
So scamartistry, as a thought experiment, would you prefer to meet a group of men in that alley or a group of women? Statistically speaking - the men are more likely to attack you than the women are. It’s simple math, right?
Assuming this isn’t a false analogy, this would reinforce scamartistry’s point, such as it is, wouldn’t it? AFAIK it’s a statistical and biological fact that men are indeed more likely to attack someone, as opposed to women in the same position. And women are justified in being wary around groups of strange men at night. Are white people justified in being wary around groups of strange black people?
Race really isn’t the question here. Culture is. Due to the history of black life in this country over the last few hundred years, black people have suffered economically and socially. Crime is almost always higher in socially and economically deprived areas. Plus, crime is considered “cool” by a larger percentage of people in underprivileged areas. Thus, a culture more prone to crime results, and, given that the largest areas of underprivilige in America tend to be the black communities, the result is that black people are more likely to be involved in criminal behavior than their white counterparts. So it’s the criminality common in black culture that creates fear and apprehension when coming upon a group of black youths, and not their race in and of itself. For example, I feel certain that few people would feel apprehension coming upon a group of black guys who look like this, whereas they would likely feel considerable apprehension if they were to happen upon a group of black guys who look like this. So the problem really isn’t one of race, or people would be just as fearful of the first group as they would be of the second.
I really wish people would stop using the term “race” to describe problems and behaviors that are cultural instead.
Where the heck do you guys live? I live in DC and if I crossed the street every time I saw men in an alley, I’d only be setting myself up to get hit by a car within a week. Ae we really this scared of everything?
Baddies are looking for an easy mark, someone who will submit easily and be too scared to call the police. The foundation of women’s self-defence is walking with easy confidence and not looking out of place, responding calmly and assertively to inappropriate comments, and making easy normal eye contact with people on th street.
This, more than the race of whoever happens to be around, is my main concern in sketchy places.
I don’t think it’s a false analogy - both cases involve generalizing about people based on inherited traits. If anything, sexual chromosomes are more likely predictors of violence than mere skin color, since they also affect things like hormones, musculature, and so on.
So Koxinga, is it fair for women to just assume you’re dangerous until you prove otherwise?
Are you willing to accept certain assumptions being made about yourself, based on statistical notions? Should a woman assume that you’re violent until you convince her otherwise?
Or the contrary - is it safe to assume that group of women won’t hurt you, since statistically, that’s pretty unlikely?
The real question here is - are general stereotypes useful in predicting behavior from individuals? Should we treat the individual as if the stereotype is true until the individual demonstrates contrary behavior?
Statistics tell us that women, in general, are harmless and men, in general, are dangerous. Is it useful to assume that’s true if you’re dealing with an individual (or even several individuals). I don’t think it is, regardless of the light level in any given alley.
If they encounter me in a dark alley, as posited by the OP, then yes
If they encounter me in a dark alley, as posited by the OP, then yes
Do you realize that’s a tautology?
In certain circumstances, why not? Stereotypically, a person who has never graduated from high school will not know how to design a rocket engine. Unless he or she brings me overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I feel safe in assuming that I shouldn’t hire that person to be my personal rocket engineer.
I don’t know why this is directed at whites. Blacks can be prejudiced too. And we all know about black-on-black crime (can’t get enough of it, in fact!)
I would be more afraid of the black guys hitting on me than hitting me. Actually, the more of them, the safer I would feel.
I would be more afraid of the white guys asking dumb-ass questions (“Where can we get some weed!”) than them beating me up.
This assumes both groups are not doing anything menacing (brandishing weapons, growling) and looking for trouble.
Even if both groups are dressed thuggishly, I would probably be equally wary of them, but in different ways.
It would make more sense for the black guys to beat up another black guy than them to beat up a white guy. If caught, their prison sentences will likely be shorter if you’re black, and if they kill you, they have a lower chance of getting the death penalty. Also, if the black folk rape you, people will be more likely to believe you than if they are white (regardless of your race). If white guys rape you and you’re black, you will be called a lying whore and inspire two trainwreck threads on the StraightDope.
I live in an “exclusively” white village. To suggest there is no crime here would be incorrect. All right we don’t have violent crimes here, but it’s not crime free.
The lack of crime isn’t down to the skin colour of the residents, but more because everyone knows everyone else and it’s near impossible to get away with so much as stalling your car in the street, much less mugging someone
I wouldn’t be particularly bothered about which group of men the OP has posited that I meet.
No, they say that men and women are dangerous in different ways under different circumstances. Women are much less likely to attack a stranger, both genders are equally likely to engage in domestic violence, women are more likely to poison people or torture (as opposed to molest) children.
yes very easy,group of women of course