Blimix

I'm uneasy with this reasoning: Take the same argument, but substitute "black teenagers" and "violence". Then you wind up telling perfectly law-abiding black teenagers who gripe about poor treatment that "they're part of the [explitive] problem". That, to me, sounds cruelly racist, and I'm not sure where the logical difference lies.

I suspect some of this is about messaging: Invoking rape in a critique of creepy behavior escalates things emotionally, and that tends to provoke a defensive response (and maybe alienate someone who might have been receptive to the message). Really, it's OK to object to creepy behavior as being creepy; Implying that it's all morally equivalent to rape is probably unhelpful.

From:

This logic doesn't work there: Last I checked, black teenagers have a lot more to fear from white people than vice versa. Being an oppressed minority, they have as much right to gripe about their poor treatment as women do.

My reasoning, perhaps expressed too briefly, is that members of an oppressive class do not get to silence or dismiss the complaints of the oppressed by declaring that they (we) are not personally responsible for that oppression (or silence them in any other way, for that matter), and that doing so anyway is dickish.

Nobody is implying that all creepy behavior is morally equivalent to rape. However, if a stranger doesn't trust you because, for all she knows, you might be a rapist, that is her prerogative. The fact that you know that you're not a rapist doesn't change the fact that she is *right* to be cautious. Her caution is based on the undisputed fact that way too many men (as

lyonesse says) are in fact rapists. She herself may have been raped. You can't (and shouldn't try to) invalidate her experience and knowledge by getting defensive.

From:

Try reading it like this:

"We live in a culture in which people have learned, quite rightly, to mistrust black teens. Black teems kill people. Black teens rape people. Black teens abuse people.

A black teen who is not abusive or violent may well feel defensive about this mistrust, feeling that he hasn't personally earned it. He might say, 'But not all black teens are like that. I'm a nice guy. I would never do that. I'm not part of the problem.'

But if that's your response, then you're part of the problem."

--Beth

From:

I understood what Jon meant. The premise of the altered version is simply untrue. (Someone who fears black teens probably does so because they live in a racist and classist society. Black teens are no more violent than any other teens; they just get all the media attention and jail time.) There's no point in applying otherwise good reasoning to false premises. (We're talking about endemic problems of "way too many" men here. Obviously, some black teens and some women commit violent crimes, but that has no bearing on the subject of the grossly common patriarchal crimes that justify caution. There are men who are scared of women, but it's not because a quarter of all of their buddies have been raped by them.)

From:

There may be some statistical illusions in play; the claim that black teens are no more violent than other teens mismatches the Bureau of Justice numbers with something like an 8-1 ratio; The interesting questions are "why?", "what else is going on?", and "what can be done to improve the situation?". But pretending the world is different than it is doesn't help.

From:

Sorry; I summed up poorly and incorrectly. What I had in mind should have more properly been expressed as, "Being black doesn't make people violent."

However, I wouldn't call the Bureau of Justice numbers "how the world is". Black people are far more likely to be prosecuted. Among those prosecuted, black people are far more likely to be convicted. Does this account for an 8-1 ratio? Probably not. But I doubt the BoJ numbers are adjusted to account for socioeconomic status (the racial disparity in which is a product of systemic oppression), which influences both violent crime (it's a rare mugger who isn't desperately poor) and the ability to get away with any crime (hiring a good lawyer or not being sought by police in the first place).

From:

Well, there's the question of what it means to "be black", of course -- it's correlated with skin color, likelihood of type B blood, incidence of sickle cell anemia, excellence in professional sports, cultural identification, political affiliation -- lots of things, and the causal relations are pretty tangled up. The assertion that all observed disparities in violence are nonexistent, or due to oppression (by non-blacks), or statistical anomalies is a strong claim, which is undersupported by the evidence at hand. But so what? It tells us next to nothing about any individual black person, and certainly doesn't lead to any moral claim of collective guilt. I see claims of collective male guilt as similarly dubious, and furthermore counterproductive in terms of actually reducing the incidence of rape -- but you clearly disagree, and I'm not sure there's much point in discussing it.

From:

I'm not talking about collective guilt (a concept in which I have never believed). The point isn't that women are right to consider men guilty until proven innocent. It's that women are justified in being cautious around men, because they know that there's a reasonable chance that any man might be guilty. And that dismissing and taking insult at this caution is counterproductive.

From:

"We live in a culture in which people have learned quite rightly to mistrust black teens."

You may validly argue that the "quite rightly" part of the premise is flawed as opposed to when "men" is used and "quite rightly" is correct.

But, if you are asserting that we live in a culture where people don't mistrust black teens, I wonder where you live? Riots in Baltimore and Ferguson plastered on the news did not show largely white crowds causing damage. The sensationalized coverage was meant to show a TV audience that they should fear black teens. Whether or not they statistically "should" I don't know, but the news coverage means we live in a culture that people do. I assert that the altered premise (less "quite rightly") stands.

I also assert that asking any individual "good guy" young black man to admit that he's part of the problem isn't a valid or useful thing to do.

--Beth

From:

"Quite rightly" is exactly the flawed part. I have no illusions that people don't wrongly fear black teens.

I don't know why you think I'd ask a young black man to admit he's "part of the problem," especially when the problem is systemic oppression. Which problem are you talking about here?

I only claim (here) that men become "part of the problem" when they dismiss and derail women's concerns about the behavior of men by making the trivial statement that "not all men" are like that. That in no way implies that all men are (by default) part of the problem.

I am well aware of the media's coverage of the riots. (Also the fact that the Baltimore police went to great lengths to incite the riot after a week of peaceful protests that media failed to report.)

From:

It's an argument against the first initial statement (if this logic doesn't apply to other similar situations, then the logic is not sound), not an argument in favor of treating the other similar situation with the same conclusion.

--Beth

From:

I see. But the failure of the conclusion of your version doesn't show a failure of the logic; it results from a failure of your altered premise.

Meanwhile, I am curious as to whether your attempt to argue against my reasoning indicates that you disagree with my conclusion (that "not all men" is disrespectful and counterproductive).

From:

I guess I've heard it before, so it's not new. Seeing it once is an interesting window on a problem. Seeing it repeatedly with no practical application in my life becomes tedious. I live with a very nice guy who gets defensive about this type of thing, and I can see his point that, applied to other classes of people, it's very offensive/oppressive to ask people to take responsibility for more than themselves.

On the other hand, I don't let poor behavior in others go by silently. This goes for men creeping out women, or old people in my church shush-ing new families with young children and asking them to breastfeed outside. When my African American friend parked in the handicapped spot because it was raining, I let her know I didn't approve.

So some of it is the eye-roll of preaching to the choir, and some of it is wanting to explore why the two situations are different. Or, maybe we should be asking young African-American men to acknowledge that when someone crosses to the other side of the street when they see them coming they should say, "I understand and accept your mistrust."

--Beth

From:

Yes, the two situations are different. Men suffer from blindness to the privilege with which they (often unwittingly) oppress women. Even very nice men who would never knowingly hurt anyone can cause harm through not understanding the impact that gender has on their interactions with men and women. (I would bet that not one of these men (http://the-toast.net/2015/04/01/things-male-tech-colleagues-have-actually-said-annotated/) was actually trying to be mean. And the "not all men" guys, who are behaving problematically, are steeped in the idea that they are "nice guys". If someone as nice as Jon (who is nice!) had the "not all men" reaction, I'd still want to explain to him that, though he didn't intend it, his response was dismissive, derailing, and problematic, and that a sympathetic, respectful response would be a good alternative.)

Black teens are on the oppressed side of the equation, which flips just about every aspect of that sort of interaction. What had been, "I am rightly cautious around men because of overwhelming personal experience, the experiences of most or all of my female friends, and staggeringly frightening statistics" becomes "I am ignorantly cautious of black people because I'm not used to them, my parents are racist, and I can cite legal statistics while ignoring the racism in the legal system and the racist socioeconomics that lead to those statistics." The former mistrust serves to protect the oppressed from potential oppressors. (Hence, "I understand and accept.") The latter mistrust fosters the conditions that sustain and strengthen oppression. The perception of black people as "hoods" or "thugs" is tremendously harmful to everybody, hence I find it unacceptable.

Edited Date: 2015-05-16 03:26 pm (UTC)

From:

The former mistrust serves to protect the oppressed from potential oppressors. (Hence, "I understand and accept.") The latter mistrust fosters the conditions that sustain and strengthen oppression.

I can see that as a difference between the two situations. It took a while to tease it out. I hope you don't mind the discussion, there are so few people with whom I can disagree yet still learn from.

--Beth

From:

Thank you for the compliment. I don't mind at all! My journal is a fine place to respectfully explore disagreement, and we seem to be doing a decent job of that. *HUGS*

From:

Anyone can gripe, even the oppressed! My point is that the way you frame the gripe leads to a defensive reaction. Attacking someone for that defensive reaction is then probably counterproductive.

As an aside, my intuition matches yours that the hypothetical black teenager has more to fear from whites than vice-versa, but a quick search for relevant statistics (I looked at murder rates) wasn't conclusive, other than to imply that he has the most to fear from other black teenagers (which is pretty sad). Could you point me to a source?

And, as you say, I know almost nothing about lyonesse -- but I was reacting to your framing, not hers. I agree with her short comment above...

From:

Attacking someone for that defensive reaction is then probably counterproductive.

I disagree here. I've seen an awful lot of slightly bad situations turn into awfully bad situations because someone reacted defensively to criticism (real or imagined). I think that encouraging people to listen with an open mind instead of reacting defensively is a productive thing. And part of that encouragement is (for me) a clear explanation of why the defensive reaction is bad.

The fact that this particular (and common) defensive reaction causes someone to be part of the problem is critical, because "I'm not part of the problem" is the entire basis of the reaction. I hope to communicate that men's "not all men / not me" reaction pulls the rug out from their own objection, making itself untrue in the very act of claiming it. The desire to behave consistently (in this case, not contradicting their claim to not be an asshat) will, I hope, add its weight to the desire to be a decent person who treats women's concerns with respect because it's the right thing to do.

I have no statistical source off the top of my head. It seems like it would be difficult to measure, since everyone is in the most danger from the people they spend the most time around. ("Family" is at the top of the danger scale.) If black teens spend more time around black teens (which I presume), that will confound efforts to study who actually is the most dangerous to whom, on a person-hour basis. (I have only ever suffered violence from white males of my own age group. Same deal.) Instead, my feelings on the matter draw on observations of systemic racism and white-on-black violence and oppression, as compared to (what appear to me to be) isolated cases of black-on-white violence.

From:

light-in-motion.livejournal.com

I've seen an awful lot of slightly bad situations turn into awfully bad situations because someone reacted defensively to criticism (real or imagined).

I know of two instances where you lost friends due to defensive reactions. Are there many other examples I don't know about, or did recalling intense pain inflate "some" to "an awful lot?"

I think defensive reactions to criticism of a group one's a member of are simultaneously understandable, counterproductive, and tricky as hell to work around. My immediate response to feeling attacked is to defend myself, rather than unpacking *why* I feel that way, even though the latter's always more useful, in my experience. I can figure it out eventually, but have never yet been able to suppress that immediate reaction. This despite knowing it's far less useful than figuring out why I feel like I need to. We're social animals; it wouldn't surprise me if there isn't an instinctive response to interactions that feel like a threat to our social standing. I do not think it's all attributable to protecting one's self-image, although that's likely part of it; certainly it is for me.

"Not all [people like me]" (subtext: dammit!) is a perfectly natural response. It's also terribly seductive. Categorizing and judging people on their categories is both extremely prevalent and horribly unjust. We know this, so when it feels like that's happening to us, it's very easy to get righteously indignant and not look any further than that. I wish I could suggest a surefire work-around, but I don't really know of any. All I can offer is that social critics trying to convince need to keep that likely response in mind, and people feeling like they need to defend themselves, might benefit from stepping back and considering why that is.

Edited Date: 2015-05-16 04:08 pm (UTC)

From: