Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Right and I can't tell which blacks are out to steal my car. I'm not saying they all are.So she would walk anywhere, at any time of day or night, alone? Dressed however she'd like? Perhaps after a drink or two? Or does she take these precautions so automatically now that she doesn't even think about them?
I do believe my first post in this thread was saying that the "all men" bit was unhelpful. I don't think all men are potential rapists. My point was that I can't know which men the potential rapists are.
Haha, seriously? Did I just get the car keys analogy used on me here?So you leave your car unlocked, and with the keys in the ignition, because it would be bigoted to think someone might steal your car, Gadarene? Or do you recognise that it's a possibility and act accordingly?
Actually you know what, forget it. Men should just treat all women like potential false accusers instead. Only women, mind. Men might do it. But women do it more, so that means it's ok to appeal to stereotype to justify our bigotry and profile women only.So you leave your car unlocked, and with the keys in the ignition, because it would be bigoted to think someone might steal your car, Gadarene? Or do you recognise that it's a possibility and act accordingly?
So what exact behaviour are you finding unreasonable and "antsy"? Refusing to walk alone at night, for example, causes you a problem... how?
I don't believe I'm prejudiced against men. I would not treat a man badly as a classmate, colleague, or church member (etc) because he is a man. So what exactly is it that you're objecting to?
I honestly don't understand what you're objecting to. In what practical way does my outlook affect any man negatively?
You're claiming profiling, but profiling is identifiable because of negative outcomes (higher incarceration rates of certain groups, for example). What negative outcome flows from a woman saying, I can't know which men are rapists? Does it affect someone in his professional life? His worship community? His family life? Something else?
If you could demonstrate, for example, that men were being refused promotions because of that, or receiving inadequate pastoral care from women in ministry, I'd say fair enough, we need to address that. But if all you've got is "I don't like that you said that, but it makes no actual real difference to anyone's life,"then I'm not feeling that that's a real issue, compared to the negative outcomes of actual rape.
Yeah again, that closing statement is gender neutral. Vigilance for abuse among teachers is one thing. Focusing on male teachers simply for being male in a way that isn't done to female teachers "because men rape more" isn't egalitarian. Nor is pointing this out a pretence that people don't rape, goodness me.Why would it lead to false accusations? Or do you mean false accusations are more likely to be taken seriously? (If so, I agree that that's a problem).
And, again, if men avoid teaching because of this, I agree that's a problem. I think there are ways we could work to minimise it; but denying the reality of rape isn't one of them. Maybe teaching needs to be structured with more in-built protections? (Eg. teaching environments that don't allow teachers and students to be isolated together).
I think it's possible to work together to create environments that are safe for everyone. But refusing to acknowledge that some people do the wrong thing isn't the way to get there.
Why is acknowledging that we have no way to tell who will rape, and who will not, bigoted?
So you leave your car unlocked, and with the keys in the ignition, because it would be bigoted to think someone might steal your car, Gadarene? Or do you recognise that it's a possibility and act accordingly?
Yeah again, that closing statement is gender neutral. Vigilance for abuse among teachers is one thing. Focusing on male teachers simply for being male in a way that isn't done to female teachers "because men rape more" isn't egalitarian. Nor is pointing this out a pretence that people don't rape, goodness me.
Following on from your edit - yes I am aware of safeguarding standards in churches having gone through a few myself. But mine at least weren't gendered. I assume yours weren't either. The problem is the gendering as gender is innate and not chosen. Not that certain professions take steps to minimise spurious abuse claims.
So you leave your car unlocked, and with the keys in the ignition, because it would be bigoted to think someone might steal your car, Gadarene? Or do you recognise that it's a possibility and act accordingly?
Now we just need to force you into training to ensure that you won't sexually abuse any children.I'm not insulted at the idea that I might be a child abuser. I know that those of us who aren't child abusers need to work within a system that assumes we are all a risk because some of us are. And so that's just a part of the landscape of "normal" to me, and I'm finding it difficult to get my head around other people objecting to strongly to what just looks like a focus on protecting the vulnerable rather than mollifying the powerful.
No, I'm making that comment because statistically it's women who are more likely to harm children.Are you making that comment because of things like mandatory workplace harassment training, Terrance? Because in my experience, plenty of people actually don't understand what is legally considered harassment.
No, I wouldn't, nor am I fine when people behave that way towards men.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?