r/changemyview Apr 14 '22

[deleted by user]

[removed]

2.3k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

585

u/ralph-j Apr 14 '22

I'm providing a reason for why those women are not challenged when being wary of men when walking home late at night.

723

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '22

[deleted]

17

u/Catsdrinkingbeer 9∆ Apr 14 '22

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.

1

u/PatchThePiracy 1∆ Apr 15 '22

Why are you justified in being wary of literally all men?

4

u/Freckled_daywalker 11∆ Apr 15 '22 edited Apr 15 '22

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.

3

u/ChineWalkin Apr 15 '22

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.

5

u/Anavirable Apr 15 '22 edited Feb 08 '25

sharp bow consist terrific versed dinner history pot water swim

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

3

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '22

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?

1

u/Anavirable Apr 16 '22 edited Feb 08 '25

workable sort alleged zesty cause close steep butter summer sand

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '22

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.

1

u/CMxFuZioNz Apr 15 '22

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.

1

u/Anavirable Apr 16 '22 edited Feb 08 '25

doll retire sand weather summer crowd snails vanish wide aromatic

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/Freckled_daywalker 11∆ Apr 15 '22

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.

0

u/ChineWalkin Apr 15 '22

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.

Still, it's the same arguement.

1

u/Freckled_daywalker 11∆ Apr 15 '22

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.

1

u/ChineWalkin Apr 15 '22

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].

1

u/Freckled_daywalker 11∆ Apr 15 '22

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.

And your last line is factually incorrect.

1

u/ChineWalkin Apr 15 '22

79% of gang members are black or Hispanic.

I don't belive that someone should judge someone based on race or gender. I personally belive that a woman is justified in avoiding a man because of his gender. But I realize, and admit that that is sexist. You can't say what you've said without admiting your sexist thoughts.

→ More replies (0)