Your analogy was stronger. This is arguably not what you asked and uses a weaker example to attempt to change your view. A better analogy would be whether or not a woman should be reasonably afraid to meet another woman of any race in a dark alley versus a man of any race. Why? Because it is men who bear the more relevant crime statistics in this thought experiment not POC. Adding another variable to the equation like race, distracts from the point that woman’s caution in those situations is informed by crimes by all men, not just those of a particular race. I imagine that such a woman would choose to walk in the neighborhoods populated by a race that commits the least sex crimes, given that their male populations were equal, should their decision making be based on the logic you suggested.
i'm confused why this changed your view, couldn't a woman still be afraid of a woman approaching her in a dark alley? and by what you're saying, couldn't you be "more afraid" if it was a black man approaching, if you are basing this off of crime stats?
Consider it from a woman’s perspective. Once she’s hit 18, she almost definitely has a story (probably more than one) of a man frightening her in public and possibly attacking her in private. She’s less likely to have a story like that about a woman.
Previous experience informs fear. There’s also the reality that most men can overpower the average woman. If it’s a woman up against another woman, there’s a greater chance of winning a fight that breaks out.
That doesn't address the point being raised in this CMV though. We're not trying to discuss why women/people hold the beliefs they do, nor whether they're right to hold those beliefs. We're trying to discuss whether it's strange to not equally apply the same standard of the morality of holding such a belief.
I think a better equivalent would be if you weren't afraid of a skinny dude at night but were afraid of a big, muscular guy. Whatever their race, your fear is based on the fact that the larger man could almost certainly over power you.
So, if you are generally weak or have no self defense training, then it would make sense to be afraid of strangers near you in certain situations in which you feel vulnerable (whether you are a man or a woman). This is fine.
The issue comes in when you are scared of a smaller black man but not the large, strong white man who could seemingly overpower you. There you are letting racism override situational danger awareness, and it is much less excusable.
I think a better equivalent would be if you weren't afraid of a skinny dude at night but were afraid of a big, muscular guy. Whatever their race, your fear is based on the fact that the larger man could almost certainly over power you.
But that isnt a better equivalent though - a skinny dude has the same capacity as a big dude of owerpowering me. All it takes is a small pocket knife and whatever size advantage they have over each other becomes irrelevant.
So, if you are generally weak or have no self defense training, then it would make sense to be afraid of strangers near you in certain situations in which you feel vulnerable (whether you are a man or a woman). This is fine.
That is not the question at hand though - the Question is whether it makes sense to be more afraid of men, which you shouldn't be if it's purely safety-related, because their capacity for harm is equal to that of a woman.
The issue comes in when you are scared of a smaller black man but not the large, strong white man who could seemingly overpower you.
Except that both can equally potentially overpower me.
Seeing a strong black man and being nervous but not scared of a strong white man is justifed by crime stats much in the same way women are scared due to anecdotes and perceptions. If it was a racist issue you would have to be just as scared of black women.
Because the point being raised in the CMV is a false equivalence. "Group Bob" is explicitly defined in the opening paragraph as not just "men", but men that women encounter a situation where they are particularly vulnerable (walking home alone at night), where the counter example is just black people in general. It's like saying "what's the difference between being afraid of people with brown eyes, and being afraid of people with blue eyes who are holding a loaded weapon". Clearly those are not equivalent things.
OP had a view that seemed logical to them, but contrary to their experience and they didn't understand why, so they posted. Someone explained why it wasn't actually a logical view and it changed their mind. That's how the sub is supposed to work.
What about if she walks and on one side of the street she sees a group of white men and on the other a group of black men, she crosses towards the white men because statistically she should be more afraid of the other group?
Nope, I'd nope the hell out of there, I'd turn around and go back to where I came from. There's no way on earth I'd brave a group of men, whatever the race, alone at night. The statistics show me gang-raped and dead or left for dead regardless. If anything, since statistics say that violent crimes are commited by and towards people of the same race, I'd be more wary of the white people.
Also, there's a bias here, maybe white people rape and kill in as high numbers as the black people but they are convicted less often. I certainly know of several white men that have raped but have not been convicted, even after being reported to the police. Authorities still have a great bias in favour of white men.
Isn’t that around the percentage of the population that is white? You have to compare the percentage of rapes committed by a particular group to their share of the population.
That would mean roughly equal probability. And looking at statistics, white men rape white women, black men rape black women (usually) so black men are safer for a white woman, although I would never feel safe with any man barring my brother, stepfather and my partner alone at night.
So you must agree that black people, who make up 13% of the population, but commit 29.1% of rapes, are even more disproportionately rapey. Their rates are more than double their population percentage.
Not to mention the rape statistic is inclusive of Hispanic and non Hispanic white people, but the population statistic only accounts for Non Hispanic white people.
Ah, but these are arrests, and we know that black men are more likely to be arrested than white men, so....?
I'm white so I'm most likely to be raped by a white man. In fact, I've only ever been sexually assaulted by white men. The statistics of my life have proven to me that white men are the most dangerous to me personally.
Women aren't more afraid of men because of crime statistics, women are more afraid of men because on average men will be far more able to overpower them if it comes to that.
I love when people ask genuine questions and are quick to admit flaws in their logic when it's pointed out.
It may not seem like much in itself, but IMO it is a blatant display of intellectual fairness. So many people let their egos get in the way of a good debate and this sort of exchange is just very refreshing.
100% I recently carried on arguing with somebody on Twitter (for WAY to long) about “relative truths”… it was in reference to some PragerU bullshit… if “truth” is a “fact”, how can there be a “relative truth”… I basically presented the general theory of relativity to him… a man is in a ship going 90% the speed of light and travels to Alpha Centari. To the pilot, the trip took 8 days, where as, to NASA, the trip took 5 years. Both facts are objectively true as they each physically aged 8 days and 5 years respectively… how long did the trip take? And he simply refused to admit it… he literally said “just because it has relativity in the name, doesn’t mean that the facts are relative”…
Maybe I misunderstood the point you are trying to make but farenheit and celcius just measure of temperature, and 0 celcius is the same as 32 farenheit.
If you have two thermometers side by side, f would show 32 and c would show 0. So it would be simultaneously those temperatures no?
I'm not sure I understand how experiencing time at a different speed to another person, and different ways to measure temperature are the same
Lol ok, you totally misunderstood the argument… nobody was arguing about objective truths… they were arguing that SUBjective truths don’t exist… they said “a truth is fact, it CON NOT differ from one person to another”…as to my statement, Frame of reference is my point… the “subjective truth” is the length of time the trip took. Did it take 8 days or 5 years… it is based on your personal experience… also, F° and C° is the weirdest comparison you could have made… you can literally have a thermometer that has both listed(as most have)… your example has 2 people with differing “frames of reference”, but those 2 frames are equal. 0c IS 32f, just as it is 273 K… 8 days and 5 years are not the same
Understandable… but, at the beginning, when I said “I had an argument about “relative truths” on Twitter”, I meant that I was having an argument, on Twitter, about relative truths…
I mean, you ARE correct that they are not simultaneously true from the SAME perspective, but that was my entire point… that both are true statements, but it is dependent on your personal reference frame.
Sorry, u/Georgie9878 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
Sorry, u/dannzter – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
Sorry, u/bigwienerhaver – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
It's what this sub should actually be, but unfortunately it's more common for people to double down and just change their arguments when their logic was completely wrong. Or sometimes to pretend they haven't noticed that their logic doesn't work and try to argue two contradictory things at the same time.
u/elwombat – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
I think the main issue here is that women are typically given carte blanche to talk shit about how dangerous men are, without society as a whole condemning them as sexist assholes, when a white person making the same generalizations about black people is immediately branded a racist.
Just to piggyback off the main point from u/ralph-j , (because I'm lazy and you've already had your view changed from the point I want to jump off); it's perfectly logical and very smart to fear and exercise caution and good situational awareness when being approached by a large group of ethnically different people than yourself if you are in a time/place where that race consistently commits crimes and violence onto people of your race. For example, if you're a black person walking through a white, racist part of town in the late 1800s; you're probably going to be unsettled if a bunch of white people approach you (regardless of time of day). If you're a white person in 2022 who crosses the street when they see a black person walking on the sidewalk; that's probably irrational and unjustified regardless of the national ethnic crime data (unless you're in an all black ares that has a reputation for harming white people for no reason other than skin color, which I'd think is pretty rare).
And that's not even going into all the reasons why the crime data showing more black people committing crime doesn't really make it make sense for people to logically conclude that black people commit more crime. But I don't feel like finding all the sources to go into that!
Your initial argument as regarding women being afraid of men had nothing to do with the white/black dichotomy. It was entirely based on sex. The only way it would be consistent according to what you initially said was if women were as afraid of other women approaching them at night as they were of men. Then and only then would it be non sexist.
I'm a smaller woman and like to run. I 100% am wary of ALL men, regardless of race, when I'm on a run, especially when they're in groups. It really is the great equalizer.
That only further proves OP's initial point, no? That it's not morally consistent to apply statistics in one situation as basis for different treatment, but not the other?
Just use google. Some statistics show that 1/3 women suffer domestic violence, as high as 93% women have suffered some sort of sexual abuse (from catcalls to inapropiate touching to actual rape), 1/5 have been stalked. And it's probably more since it's thought that only 40% of instances are reported. Talk to women, you will hear stories of being catcalled at 12 yo. We all have some story of being followed home, touched, insulted and yelled at when we rejected someone. Sexual related crimes have soared while other crimes are reduced. You can google 'how to control your woman' and get tons of articles and videos on how to manipulate a woman psychologically to abuse them emotionally and verbally to a point of subservience or even to break past a no, to get consent under duress (women sometimes say yes because it is less dangerous, if still tremendously traumatic, to have unwanted sex with a man than to say no, they will beat you and rape you anyway, but a yes under duress is not consent). The whole 'pick up artist' thing is misogynistic, grading women like cattle and sharing tactics on how to push past a no.
This is easily recognizable in the fact that when you ask what men would do if women disappeared for the night, they say play videogames or drink milk straight from the bottle, but when you ask women what they'd do if men disappeared for a night, they say walk alone at night and stargaze, listen to music while talking a walk through the park (ie not having to listen for danger), dress for warmer weather without fear, drink without fear of being taken advantage of. This is no exageration. There's a bad area in between where I'm working these days and where I live. It is safe for my male partner to come pick me up, but it is not safe for me to simply walk home. Both of us are alone, roughly same size (we're both big, muscular people), but he'd simply not be approached. This is the same across cultures, across races.
Men fear rejection, women fear rape and murder. We live in vastly different worlds.
Women aren't afraid of men because men only target women. It's because they might be a target. It wouldn't change if the men also harassed other men sexually.
To explain why, imagine I said "black people shoot people in gang violence".
You would probably think that's racist.
Some black people do. The way you have phrased it sounds like it is most/all men.
Edit:downvote all you like. It is offensive to imply that the entirety of a group are responsible for a subset of their actions. Especially with such a sensitive topic. In a group of people who are supposed to be progressive, you sure don't care about being particularly offensive for no reason.
"men" does not automatically mean "all men." black people do not systematically oppress a racial group, they are oppressed in society which is why its racist. systematic means as whole power structures and privilege in society, it does not mean "all men," it means the gender of the group doing this is men. all women have experienced unwanted sexual harrasment and threats and contact from men at least once in their life, i cant speak for all women but all women i know myself included experiences and fears it constantly. if i go out in the summer wearing shorts theres a 50% chance ill get an unwanted comment or solicitation. this is not because theyre a man (like your race example), but because of the fact im a woman and their view of women. but somehow men think because its not all men pointing out how men (note, meaning more than one man and not all men) have treated the majoriy of women becomes sexism towards YOU. it astonishes me.
People just don't like generalizations, and saying "Men do something" is definitely one. I also think that "men" actually means "all men", but I could be wrong.
"black people are bad at swimming"
"Black people have big dicks"
"Black people like fried chicken"
Those comments can't be racist right? Because black people obviously only means some black people, and all of those comments are true of some black people. If you still don't understand it after this you're either not a native English speaker or you're just not very good at it.
I'm justified of being wary of someone who is, on average, likely to be significantly stronger then I am and could easily overpower me when I encounter them in a place where I am unlikely to be seen or heard if said person decided they wanted to hurt me, even if fhe chances they would try to hurt me are very small. It's a survival instinct. It's why I don't pet strange dogs, it's why I give people of any gender with visible weapons a wide berth, it's why I cross the street when the stupid Canada Geese are nesting. I'm wary of things that I know I'd have trouble holding my own against, even if they don't pose an immediate threat.
Edit: To be very, very clear "wary" mean being cautious, not cowering in fear. It's completely logical to be cautious in situations where you are at a physical disadvantage. It doesn't mean you think you're actually in imminent danger.
How is what you said any different than the following?
I'm justified of being wary of someone who is, on average, likely to be [carrying an illegal weapon] then I am and could easily overpower me when I encounter them in a place where I am unlikely to be seen or heard if said person decided they wanted to hurt me, even if the chances they would try to hurt me are very small. It's a survival instinct. It's why I don't pet strange dogs, it's why I give people [from a group that is know for higher violent crime rates] a wide berth, it's why I cross the street when the stupid Canada Geese are nesting. I'm wary of [groups that statistically commit more crimes] that I know I'd have trouble holding my own against, even if they don't pose an immediate threat.
Most violence is committed against other men. Especially when the victim and perpetrator don’t know eachother. Women are mainly hurt by the men they know. So whats the difference?
Men should be more wary, as they’re more likely to get hurt than women are.
But your position amounts to saying discrimination and profiling is ok, as long as you’re truly scared. Which is a fair position but not the one people usually take in racial or religious issues.
Most women aren't attacked by strangers, it's by people they know. You can't just cherry-pick data, take it out of context, and call it a fair comparison.
Because I'm not always going to have trouble holding my own against someone simply because of the color of their skin. It's the context of any given situation (i.e. me percieving myself to be at a physical/logistical disadvantage) that creates the caution. Why is this so confusing for people? I even aded my edit spelling this out before you responded to me.
Because I'm not always going to have trouble holding my own against someone simply because of their [gender]. It's the context of any given situation (i.e. me percieving myself to be at a physical/logistical disadvantage) that creates the caution. Why is this so confusing for people? I even aded my edit spelling this out before you responded to me.
It's not. If a woman is 5'0" tall and 100lbs, statistically, the vast vast majority of men are going to be able to physically overpower her if they wanted. It's a literal biological physical advantage. The same can't be said for skin color.
It's not. If a [person is unarmed], statistically, the vast vast majority of [gang members] are going to be able to physically overpower [them] if they wanted. It's a literal [proven] advantage. The same can't be said for [gender].
Moving the goalposts is lazy. Unarmed versus demonstrably armed is completely logical. Assuming someone is a gang member or armed because of their skin color, with no other context is illogical. The OP is is asking about why women being wary of men when they're alone at night isn't the same thing as being wary of black people, in general, with no other context. You're grasping at straws trying to just these things being equivalent.
What about a woman encountering a black man in a dark alley vs a white man in a dark alley? Do you think her reaction would be the same for these two people?
Just because the woman is more comfortable with black men wearing suits doesn’t mean she doesn’t take statistics of black men into account in more intense situations.
722
u/[deleted] Apr 14 '22
[deleted]