When you’ve been hurt enough times by a particular type of person, it's not a huge surprise when you start to become wary around them, or begin to fear and dislike them...even if it’s just subconsciously. Someone who's been bitten by multiple dogs isn't going to just go up to one and pet it, even if they might have done so in the past.
When you’ve been hurt enough times by a particular type of person, it's not a huge surprise when you start to become wary around them, or begin to fear and dislike them...even if it’s just subconsciously. Someone who's been bitten by multiple dogs isn't going to just go up to one and pet it, even if they might have done so in the past.
Yes, it's not only acceptable, it's logical and rational to be suspicious of the sex that has repeatedly harmed you. As a wife to a decent man and the mother of another, I know neither one of them would be remotely perturbed by being avoided by a woman. Every woman, and man, has the right to avoid danger as they see it.
And only an abuser or a person with no understanding at all would ever tell you to let you that it's your job to unlearn the defences your brain has in place to avoid being raped and murdered. Do whatever you must to stay safe.
Never forget, you are the only person in the whole world who you know for a certainty is not lying to you and has your best intentions in mind.
"it's logical and rational to be suspicious of the sex that has repeatedly harmed you. As a wife to a decent man and the mother of another, I know neither one of them would be remotely perturbed by being avoided by a woman."
Hmm, I don't think the second statement follows from the first. Yes, no decent man is gong to be perturbed by a woman avoiding him (depending on how she does it I guess). But it's neither logical nor rational to treat a category of humans that has billions of people in it as dangerous because a handful of them mistreated you.
There's are obvious analogies I could make to racism or homophobia or any other form of bigotry here.
To be clear, I obviously recognise that a female prejudice against males is different to a white person's prejudice against black people, say. But that doesn't mean it's logical. It's emotional and kind of short-sighted and that's because humans are emotional, short-sighted creatures.
That's why I wouldn't have any problem understanding if a woman saw me on a dark night and crossed the street, for example. I absolutely wouldn't discourage her from doing this or tell her to rationalise her fear. In fact, if I were on the same side of the street as a woman walking alone at night, I'd probably cross first. But this is a fear-based reaction. Not a rational one.
No, it's logical. And it's not prejudice. (Edited to add -"Prejudice - preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.")
When men as a sex commit around 98 percent of all violent crime (and they do) and when 99 percent of the people who have harmed you across three different continents were men (and they were) and when the sex of men are documented throughout history across every culture, ethnicity and creed as being dangerous and predatory (and they are) it's not remotely prejudicial to avoid men in an effort to stay safe. It is irrational to call a learned response based on facts and reality prejudicial when it comes to making decisions that affect my own body and safety.
And to be clear, I work with men and spend time around men regularly, but will always choose a woman over a man to sit beside, talk to, as a server, definitely for intimate medical care. In any and all interactions when there's a choice I will unhesitatingly pick a woman I don't know over a man I don't know. Because, statistically, provably and irrefutably they're far (far) safer on every level.
Yes, that's logical. I am absolutely allowed ethically and pragmatically to choose the safest option that makes me comfortable where possible.
Recently, at work, I was given a sweet little certificate for making the most positive impact on everyone. A bit daft, but it was meant well. The men I spend time with during any part of my day are given the same respect and politeness as the women. They do not know that I have a perfectly rational aversion to dealing with men, and avoid them when possible. When it's not possible, I am an adult about it.
You can choose to believe that picking the safest and most comfortable option is prejudice if that makes it easier to understand. But I prefer reality.
What a shame 9 year old, 18 year old and 30 year old me didn't know what 55 year old me knows.
You can't tell the safe men from the unsafe men. Avoid where possible.
Steve, you wrote "I obviously recognise that a female prejudice against males is different to a white person's prejudice against black people."
Is it, though? How is it different?
This question was dramatised well in an episode of "Rosanne". A black man comes to her door and she reacts (rudely) in fear. I think she slams the door in his face. Then later she encounters him in another situation and apologizes, explaining herself thus: "I wasn't scared of you because you're black, I was scared of you because you're a man."
Sorry but that is part of the "work" that we all have to do. If you've been bitten by numerous dogs in the past but know through your "work" that 99.9% of dogs don't bite, then you need to be rational and restrain your emotions and not be worried about the next dog you see. It's not ok to go around this world infected with the accumulated prejudices of your past experiences or those of others.
Unfortunately, the freeze response (like fight or flight) has no rational moment. It's all mediated by the reptilian cortex of the brain and when that's triggered all higher functioning (such as rational thought and deliberated action) ceases. We are animals, after all. The more danger you've been confronted with, the more these automatic responses are triggered and the less likely rationality can be brought into the picture. The "work" you are talking about (getting rational about trauma) can take a lifetime to chip away at.
Instinctive and emotional responses can't be controlled; by nature they bypass the thinking, 'rational' mind. Human beings aren't emotionless robots, Jedi, or Vulcans, and we can't just logic away our fears any more than we can logic away who we are or aren't attracted to...because the roots of all these things are in the body, not the conscious mind.
Firstly, I disagree that the mind/brain cannot root out emotional turmoil. We are not passive emotionalists either and acquiescing to this condemns one to a miserable life. We certainly can logic away our fears when they are not supported by a rational basis. Regularly overindulging one's emotions does make it more difficult to effect this however.
Also, people are allowed to have all of the irrational fears they like and can even have all the instinctive and emotional responses they like based on these irrational fears, provided they keep these to themselves. If their irrational emotional responses are for public consumption, then it seems only fair that the public should respond appropriately. And if these irrational emotional responses are designed to effect public policy, then we should push back and let the person know their fears are irrational.
It is not society's job to play the role of therapist.
People can control their emotional responses to a degree, but some forms of trauma (for example, PTSD in a soldier who saw his buddy killed by an IED) are better worked through with psychological counseling. Unfortunately, many people with problems like these can't afford therapy.
"Also, people are allowed to have all of the irrational fears they like and can even have all the instinctive and emotional responses they like based on these irrational fears, provided they keep these to themselves"
Well, that's the thing isn't it? People cannot keep these things to themselves. Hurt people hurt people. It's just a fact. And is why we have intergenerational trauma and so many people struggling with poor mental health and life negative outcomes. If you could reason with irrational thoughts they wouldn't be irrational thoughts. I mean do you think we could sit the Israelis and Palestinians down and say, "Look, you're both incredibly traumatised from generations of fighting and mass loss of lives of loved ones, and we understand you have emotional responses to that, and feel irrational about people who personally haven't hurt you, or are no longer alive, but it would be best for the rest of us if you didn't indulge these feelings and just keep them to yourself. 'Kay?" I mean seriously. If people could just keep trauma to themselves world history would have looked very different. You're almost saying "Don't be human". The answer is developing more effective technologies to treat trauma (such as EMDR), not insisting traumatised people hide their trauma. I mean you can keep insisting that, but it would be a pointless.
I think it's not "just a fact" and it's not OK to give people a pass for behaviour that they can either control or are otherwise responsible for. That is the social contract - there is a reasonability standard for our behaviours and not for our thoughts. If someone steps outside of that for any reason then they are accountable. The rules are clear and they apply to everyone equally, broken and traumatized and everyone else. Hurt people who hurt people are accountable for their actions and if they know that and most of them do, then they will hurt people less. It cannot be otherwise. Equal treatment under the law for everyone.
I agree, they are accountable, everyone should be and equally so. But if you want to reduce that kind of behaviour (the goal, surely), you wont get anywhere ignoring the reality of how trauma functions. If the traumatic memory resides in the amygdala, forget about rational behaviour. Finding ways to process those memories, from traumatic ones that always feel immediate and hair triggered, into the long term memory where rationality can come into play and the person can begin to rationally observe their behaviour, is the only way forward and we are yet to find a guarenteed way of doing this.
When you’ve been hurt enough times by a particular type of person, it's not a huge surprise when you start to become wary around them, or begin to fear and dislike them...even if it’s just subconsciously. Someone who's been bitten by multiple dogs isn't going to just go up to one and pet it, even if they might have done so in the past.
Yes, it's not only acceptable, it's logical and rational to be suspicious of the sex that has repeatedly harmed you. As a wife to a decent man and the mother of another, I know neither one of them would be remotely perturbed by being avoided by a woman. Every woman, and man, has the right to avoid danger as they see it.
And only an abuser or a person with no understanding at all would ever tell you to let you that it's your job to unlearn the defences your brain has in place to avoid being raped and murdered. Do whatever you must to stay safe.
Never forget, you are the only person in the whole world who you know for a certainty is not lying to you and has your best intentions in mind.
"it's logical and rational to be suspicious of the sex that has repeatedly harmed you. As a wife to a decent man and the mother of another, I know neither one of them would be remotely perturbed by being avoided by a woman."
Hmm, I don't think the second statement follows from the first. Yes, no decent man is gong to be perturbed by a woman avoiding him (depending on how she does it I guess). But it's neither logical nor rational to treat a category of humans that has billions of people in it as dangerous because a handful of them mistreated you.
There's are obvious analogies I could make to racism or homophobia or any other form of bigotry here.
To be clear, I obviously recognise that a female prejudice against males is different to a white person's prejudice against black people, say. But that doesn't mean it's logical. It's emotional and kind of short-sighted and that's because humans are emotional, short-sighted creatures.
That's why I wouldn't have any problem understanding if a woman saw me on a dark night and crossed the street, for example. I absolutely wouldn't discourage her from doing this or tell her to rationalise her fear. In fact, if I were on the same side of the street as a woman walking alone at night, I'd probably cross first. But this is a fear-based reaction. Not a rational one.
No, it's logical. And it's not prejudice. (Edited to add -"Prejudice - preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.")
When men as a sex commit around 98 percent of all violent crime (and they do) and when 99 percent of the people who have harmed you across three different continents were men (and they were) and when the sex of men are documented throughout history across every culture, ethnicity and creed as being dangerous and predatory (and they are) it's not remotely prejudicial to avoid men in an effort to stay safe. It is irrational to call a learned response based on facts and reality prejudicial when it comes to making decisions that affect my own body and safety.
And to be clear, I work with men and spend time around men regularly, but will always choose a woman over a man to sit beside, talk to, as a server, definitely for intimate medical care. In any and all interactions when there's a choice I will unhesitatingly pick a woman I don't know over a man I don't know. Because, statistically, provably and irrefutably they're far (far) safer on every level.
Yes, that's logical. I am absolutely allowed ethically and pragmatically to choose the safest option that makes me comfortable where possible.
Recently, at work, I was given a sweet little certificate for making the most positive impact on everyone. A bit daft, but it was meant well. The men I spend time with during any part of my day are given the same respect and politeness as the women. They do not know that I have a perfectly rational aversion to dealing with men, and avoid them when possible. When it's not possible, I am an adult about it.
You can choose to believe that picking the safest and most comfortable option is prejudice if that makes it easier to understand. But I prefer reality.
What a shame 9 year old, 18 year old and 30 year old me didn't know what 55 year old me knows.
You can't tell the safe men from the unsafe men. Avoid where possible.
https://celticchameleon.medium.com/please-stop-saying-people-when-you-really-mean-men-tk-a335a50031e0
https://celticchameleon.medium.com/ogled-in-the-park-and-other-stories-2c3237de8c08
(Edited for typos and to join the two comments I made together).
Steve, you wrote "I obviously recognise that a female prejudice against males is different to a white person's prejudice against black people."
Is it, though? How is it different?
This question was dramatised well in an episode of "Rosanne". A black man comes to her door and she reacts (rudely) in fear. I think she slams the door in his face. Then later she encounters him in another situation and apologizes, explaining herself thus: "I wasn't scared of you because you're black, I was scared of you because you're a man."
So - how is it different?
I wish I could upvote this a hundred times.
Sorry but that is part of the "work" that we all have to do. If you've been bitten by numerous dogs in the past but know through your "work" that 99.9% of dogs don't bite, then you need to be rational and restrain your emotions and not be worried about the next dog you see. It's not ok to go around this world infected with the accumulated prejudices of your past experiences or those of others.
Unfortunately, the freeze response (like fight or flight) has no rational moment. It's all mediated by the reptilian cortex of the brain and when that's triggered all higher functioning (such as rational thought and deliberated action) ceases. We are animals, after all. The more danger you've been confronted with, the more these automatic responses are triggered and the less likely rationality can be brought into the picture. The "work" you are talking about (getting rational about trauma) can take a lifetime to chip away at.
But that's no reason for us to accept behaviour predicated on that.
Instinctive and emotional responses can't be controlled; by nature they bypass the thinking, 'rational' mind. Human beings aren't emotionless robots, Jedi, or Vulcans, and we can't just logic away our fears any more than we can logic away who we are or aren't attracted to...because the roots of all these things are in the body, not the conscious mind.
Firstly, I disagree that the mind/brain cannot root out emotional turmoil. We are not passive emotionalists either and acquiescing to this condemns one to a miserable life. We certainly can logic away our fears when they are not supported by a rational basis. Regularly overindulging one's emotions does make it more difficult to effect this however.
Also, people are allowed to have all of the irrational fears they like and can even have all the instinctive and emotional responses they like based on these irrational fears, provided they keep these to themselves. If their irrational emotional responses are for public consumption, then it seems only fair that the public should respond appropriately. And if these irrational emotional responses are designed to effect public policy, then we should push back and let the person know their fears are irrational.
It is not society's job to play the role of therapist.
People can control their emotional responses to a degree, but some forms of trauma (for example, PTSD in a soldier who saw his buddy killed by an IED) are better worked through with psychological counseling. Unfortunately, many people with problems like these can't afford therapy.
"Also, people are allowed to have all of the irrational fears they like and can even have all the instinctive and emotional responses they like based on these irrational fears, provided they keep these to themselves"
Well, that's the thing isn't it? People cannot keep these things to themselves. Hurt people hurt people. It's just a fact. And is why we have intergenerational trauma and so many people struggling with poor mental health and life negative outcomes. If you could reason with irrational thoughts they wouldn't be irrational thoughts. I mean do you think we could sit the Israelis and Palestinians down and say, "Look, you're both incredibly traumatised from generations of fighting and mass loss of lives of loved ones, and we understand you have emotional responses to that, and feel irrational about people who personally haven't hurt you, or are no longer alive, but it would be best for the rest of us if you didn't indulge these feelings and just keep them to yourself. 'Kay?" I mean seriously. If people could just keep trauma to themselves world history would have looked very different. You're almost saying "Don't be human". The answer is developing more effective technologies to treat trauma (such as EMDR), not insisting traumatised people hide their trauma. I mean you can keep insisting that, but it would be a pointless.
I think it's not "just a fact" and it's not OK to give people a pass for behaviour that they can either control or are otherwise responsible for. That is the social contract - there is a reasonability standard for our behaviours and not for our thoughts. If someone steps outside of that for any reason then they are accountable. The rules are clear and they apply to everyone equally, broken and traumatized and everyone else. Hurt people who hurt people are accountable for their actions and if they know that and most of them do, then they will hurt people less. It cannot be otherwise. Equal treatment under the law for everyone.
I agree, they are accountable, everyone should be and equally so. But if you want to reduce that kind of behaviour (the goal, surely), you wont get anywhere ignoring the reality of how trauma functions. If the traumatic memory resides in the amygdala, forget about rational behaviour. Finding ways to process those memories, from traumatic ones that always feel immediate and hair triggered, into the long term memory where rationality can come into play and the person can begin to rationally observe their behaviour, is the only way forward and we are yet to find a guarenteed way of doing this.
Ah yes...the old "reframe your trauma" and "just be kind" command, lest you be labeled "phobic."
trauma schmauma