No. My point is that the “all men” phenomenon is a symptom of the bigger problem which is that one demographic is being victimized by a subset of a second demographic and that second demographic as a whole recognizes that there is a problem and doesn’t do anything to change that status quo in a meaningful way but won’t acknowledge that their continued lack of action may be the reason they are collectively being blamed.
Bigger problem -> overgeneralization -> backlash over the over-generalization while maintaining status quo. Wash, rinse, repeat.
If your point we’re just that “gender bias and the resultant discrimination are bad” you could literally have done that with “Men saying all women are whores/golddiggers are doing the same thing and that is also wrong.”
Instead, what you did was took an entirely unrelated analogy to a bad conclusion in what I’m sure you think is good faith, ignoring the circumstances and particulars of that situation so that you can try to make a point in the most clumsy way possible and when people give you pushback about it and add clarity of their own views in response it’s “moving goal posts”.
You made a hamfisted attempt to relate sexual assault and the over-reaction to it to racism and got called out. Let’s not forget what you were initially responding to which wasn’t ops post but a comment at the beginning of the thread which is context for literally just about everything else I’ve said in subsequent comments which plants the goal posts very much where they started out.
"In the US, of 100 rapes against girls and women reported to the police, 18 will be prosecuted.
Jeffery Epstein and his cohort abused hundreds of girls, and all anybody cares about is what powerful man might be embarrassed. Has anyone proposed or suggested anything to protect girls from rich perverts?
From the founding till 1951, raping your wife was legal in all 48 states. And that protection extended in several states beyond the federal change. Some states even made common-law husbands immune.
The Christian Bible considers rape to be a property crime. in conservative circles, girls as young as 12 are regularly married off to their rapist."
You are the one who acknowledged that the statistic for African American crime has more nuance but also didn’t not speak at all to the point of using it for the purposes of subjugation (something you conveniently ignored in order to try to validate your point).
You don’t stop over generalization by ignoring the root cause. Stop playing games with me. The root cause of the African Americans are criminals BS is literally that to continue to subjugate them and feed the prison population the institution has to make the general populace believe they deserve to be there. The general cause of “all men are predators” is literally that the patriarchy condoned sexual abuse so ardently for so long and continues to do so that the only way we even have conversations about sexual assault and abuse is in forums like this on topics like this one where the topic isnt even about sexual abuse but is absolutely about blaming women for overgeneralizing about it.
You are the one who once again argued poorly that as you spend more time around a bear the likelihood that the bear will attack you will go up, ignoring how that’s exactly what happens to women. The more time they spend around men the more likely they are to be attacked. The men the spend the most time around are very often the ones who end their lives or commit sexual assault against them.
And if you feel like I’m putting words in your mouth, maybe stop and think about what you mean and just say that. Don’t use analogies about subjects your clearly poorly understand. Don’t try to quote me to refute something I said that you take issue with when you didn’t understand it and your response bears that out. The questions I asked about what you were doing? Rhetorical. They were intended to make you think about the root cause of the situation. And also why more men don’t report sexual assault. You sure took them as an accusation though.
orclev@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
You didn’t understand a single thing I said and keep trying to change the subject. You entirely missed the point of the analogy which was to demonstrate that using statistics to try to justify discrimination is wrong and does not in fact in any way justify discrimination but that sailed right past you and instead you’re hyper focused on the fact that the two analogous situations are not perfectly identical.
Then you went on and picked a different analogous situation but one which differs in a very critical way that undermines the entire analogy. You missed a critical point which was for a bear, not a population of bears, the longer you stay around and in close proximity to that bear the greater the chance you will be attacked. Bears, all bears, are dangerous. Not all men are dangerous. It doesn’t matter how long you spend around a man, your odds of being attacked don’t increase. Sure if you spend time around an ever increasing number of men your odds go up, but that applies to any interaction with anyone. The more time men spend around an ever increasing number of women the more the odds of the man being attacked go up. For a large enough population, no matter how small the likelyhood, the probability will always converge towards certainty.
Ultimately though it’s entirely a side tangent as the only reason the analogy was brought up was to illustrate why trying to use statistics to excuse discrimination is wrong.
That’s because making overgeneralizations doesn’t actually do anything to address the problem and only undermines otherwise legitimate complaints. Instead of wasting all this time trying to defend the overgeneralization, maybe instead focus on trying to solve the problem, because attacking everyone in the majority group regardless of their guilt or innocence just discourages any of them from wanting anything to do with you or even listening to your complaints.