Class analysis...

Let's imagine I'm in the US and I'm in a high crime area (i.e a situation where crime is more likely) I am approached by a black person. Am I justified in treating them differently than if they were white because black people statistically commit more crime?
*
Why not? I have now introduced a situational root into the scenario as you requested.
*
It's still intuitively unfair and wrong to do so.

So if it's 5:30am and I've gone out for a run (alone, obviously), and I see a man walking towards me...

Is it 'intuitively unfair' of me to cross the road, and run faster? When I wouldn't do that if it was a woman walking towards me?

"White males kill, torture, and abuse, more than any other demographic."

What utter nonsense and typical of the nonsense spouted on this thread.

We live in the West, which is predominantly white. Our news media mainly reports on news stories which happen in our Western first world predominantly white society.

You have very little to no idea what is taking place on a daily basis in non white cultures/societies/regions

It sounds like you are asking them to take responsibility for and prevent acts of violence they have nothing to do with.

I don’t think that’s what’s being asked. What’s being asked is that men acknowledge the issue, and are open to talking about the issues that spring from it. Such as how every power structure is set up to benefit men. And they acknowledge that even non violent men benefit from it.

Back to the racism analogy - I don’t think I’m racist. I acknowledge racism exists. I acknowledge that I’m probably unaware of a huge number of issues connected to it because it’s not my lived experience. I acknowledge that power structures in the West are set up to favour white people over people of colour. I call it out when I see it and I’m open to people of colour telling me what is and what is not an issue because they are the ones who live with the consequences day to day. I wouldn’t dream of telling a black woman how to feel about racism - she gets to tell me, and I get to listen and understand more and asses my actions and experience in the light of that.

Right now men are just saying namalt. Refusing to engage. Denying. Derailing.

bertrand

I also find the fact tht many men won't accept that "as a class men are more violent than women as a class" (AACMAMVTWAAC) Incredibly frustrating because it means they can wash their hands and carry on, rather than doing what they can to change it. Men have the power to make society so much better yet they (as a class) choose not to

Well you are talking about an individuals take on your class analysis (which isn’t about individuals). So you can see why the class analysis gets misinterpreted at the individual level.

It sounds like you are asking them to take responsibility for and prevent acts of violence they have nothing to do with.

Like some people blaming the Muslim faith for a terror attack. Why didn’t Muslims do more to stop extremism etc. Well most of the 2 million Muslims in this country don’t know anyone linked with extremism.
You can ask people to stop violent acts that they have nothing to do with.

Your example is an individual situation.

Bathrooms are a class situation

Babel

I don't think introducing situation helps your argument.

Let's imagine I'm in the US and I'm in a high crime area (i.e a situation where crime is more likely) I am approached by a black person. Am I justified in treating them differently than if they were white because black people statistically commit more crime?

Why not? I have now introduced a situational root into the scenario as you requested.

It's still intuitively unfair and wrong to do so.

...or told THAT no benefit to women as a class...

Not "them"

I was only conflating with racism in response to a pp who used the example of black crime in the US.

It is absolutely reasonable for women to treat strange men as potential rapists or abusers given the context.

It is reasonable for individual women to treat strange men as potential rapists or abusers.

But is it the best thing for women as a class?

And actually, women are far more likely to experience sexual and physical abuse from intimate partners than strangers of acquaintances; we're less likely than men^ to experience it from strangers and acquaintances; shouldn't we only be treating intimate partners as potential rapists and assaulters?

What i'm saying though is the individual woman may feel she is benefitting sufficiently from acting a certain way that it outweighs the negatives for her. But is it beneficial for women as a class to live that way? Do the benefits outweigh the negatives?

The problem is, if you ask that question you get accused of not caring about the individuals, or told them no benefit to women as a class is worth the assault of one single woman. And I do understand that - it's hard - but you can't hold up class analysis on the one hand and then ignore it on the other.

RatRolyPoly 1 in 5 women have been raped or sexually assaulted since they were 16. If you take into account rape and sexual abuse from when they were underage, the figure is much higher.

This does not include women simply being made to feel uncomfortable or intimidated by inappropriate behaviour from men.

It is absolutely reasonable for women to treat strange men as potential rapists or abusers given the context. That is why we are aware of who us around us at night, why we don't accept lifts from strangers, why we meet first dates in public, why we have single-sex spaces where women are vulnerable (eg hospital wards and prisons) and need privacy (toilets, changing rooms).

Are you saying women should not take the precautions?

To conflate with racism is a nonsense.

If I decided that my life experience and crime statistics meant black people were more likely to be criminals, i would be entitled to put in place whatever boundaries i wanted to, to protect myself.

Class plus situation equals response.

But this is the thing; class analysis can lead individuals to a certain action or response.

But then we have to extrapolate that action or response out to a class level to see its effects to see whether or not it is a valuable response. It can't just be that "this is how people are going to be because of the results of class analysis".

If you want to make things better you have to extrapolate the action taken to see if it will help or hinder things at a class level. If you stop at simply justifying it on the basis of class analysis you fail at appreciating the effects of those actions at class level!

IMO the best action and the ones tat should be promoted are the ones that have the greatest class benefits, although that obviously doesn't always work for the individual.

Its a small minority of men that commit the vast majority of violent crimes and rape.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a tiny minority (and I’m not actually sure it is tiny)

Where there are no female specific loos, rape and sexual assaults rise hugely.

Thus in the situation of women’s bathroom and toilet facilities, sex segregation is proportionate and justified.

When men as a class stop raping entirely we can reopen negotiations on the bathrooms.

Meanwhile women are dealing with the risk of violence. Come up with a better way to manage that risk, instead of just sweeping away what is already in place by complaining its not fair on men who are not violent.

The issue comes after that, where we have to decide what we are going to do about it. I have seen on these threads many comments along the lines of 'men are responsible for most violence, therefore its reasonable to treat all men as potential attackers/rapists'

If you look at it from the perspective of a woman who is concerned about being raped it is a reasonable response. There is no way to identify a rapist from a non-rapist

It might be an understandable response in the individual, but that doesn't make it either a useful or desirable response in the group.

You have to look at what that response would achieve, in what way it would potentially benefit or protect the person experiencing it, in what way it would potentially disadvantage them, and what other impacts it would have if it were adopted by that group on a large scale.

So people treat all black people as potential criminal; results in potentially their group x% less likely to experience crime from black people, BUT they're all xxx% more anxious in day to day life, more prejudiced with knock-on effects on other dynamics in society, and ultimately they probably won't be any less likely to experience crime as individuals than if they didn't act that way. So is it the right response to the class analysis? On balance.... no.

The argument that someone being black is a good indicator of criminality is totally flawed and oversimplistic

I agree, but surely that the point. The argument that someone being a man is a good indicator of violence is also flawed and oversimplistic.

Its a small minority of black people that commit the vast majority of crimes within the black community.

Its a small minority of men that commit the vast majority of violent crimes and rape.

It's not a false equivalence. It's a fair comparison.

Because it's horrible to think that you're in the most powerful class, you have every advantage it is possible to have, and you're STILL an abject failure.

In a nutshell it’s why the incels and alt right exist. That failure and sense of entitlement breeds some serious rage.

Patriarchy..yes having made some discoveries about class behaviour, one shouldn't jump to actions. Effect sizes also need to be considered. True causality needs to be considered ( I think in America if you control for poverty, the race association with crime is gone) weapons of math destruction was a good read.

I think that's where the equality act does well. I recall it highlights that responses need to be proportionate . So {men} are more violent. This doesn't mean we lock all men up or make them use different busses. Not only would that be unfair on the majority of men, it could also make things worse by telling men that we expect them to behave violently. So the impact on both men and not men would be worse by those interventions

It gets harder for AWS when the act of promoting a women would reduce opportunity for a man...even if that man would not have had that opportunity if we were in a total meritocracy. People find that reasoning very hard

However it is not true that in all cases action would be Innappropriate. My suspicion is that women who had had a harder time at the hands of men are more likely to take more extreme position {classes } . And that's a very large subgroup of women . the acts committed against those women have a lasting negative mental impact. From distrust to PTSD. Which is why sometimes discrimination against {men} is justified. As both physical protection and mental reassurance. And is usually expressed in society as a mutual respect for each other. So when a man uses the gents, he is being a gentleman.

Because it has no situational root.

Treating people like criminals - what does that mean? You think a black person might comit an act against you so you’re wary in public? Well no one can stop you I guess if that’s your thought.
Or does it mean you actively discriminate against them in a way such as not hiring because they’re black? Now you’re committing an illegal act. The situation is different.

In the case of women’s toilets it IS relevant because the situation is defined.

Should a woman treat all men as potential rapists in the context of being alone in a bathroom? This is allowed under law and it’s the reason why we have women’s bathrooms toilets and change areas.

Ifva woman was treating all men as rapists to the point she wasn’t hiring one to work in the same office she would run into discrimination law. Just as she would if she refused to hire someone who was black.

So there’s the logical difference. Class plus situation equals response.

Women’s toilets exist solely for the safety, dignity and privacy of women. What other reasons exist?

Because it's horrible to think that you're in the most powerful class, you have every advantage it is possible to have, and you're STILL an abject failure.

It is the people who aren't doing great who scream the loudest about positive discrimination, affirmative action, equality of rights, parity of income.

If I decided that my life experience and crime statistics meant black people were more likely to be criminals, i would be entitled to put in place whatever boundaries i wanted to, to protect myself.

I don't, because the argument that someone being black is a good indicator that they might be a criminal is totally flawed and oversimplistic.

Read the blog i linked. If you can respond in good faith then we can continue the conversation. But false equivalence isn't going to help.

PatriarchyPersonified

The issue comes after that, where we have to decide what we are going to do about it. I have seen on these threads many comments along the lines of 'men are responsible for most violence, therefore its reasonable to treat all men as potential attackers/rapists'

This is what I'm talking about earlier about taking a characteristic of a collective and applying it to an individual. Its fundamentally flawed.

Thats not a flaw or an attempt at causing offence, its a risk assessment.
If that offends men then they need to devise a different way for women to assess and manage risk. It has to be realistic, and it has to work for us.

There is a huge logical difference

What is it then?

Derailing me into discussion of women's toilets (which exist for a lot of different reasons) doesn't answer the question.

Oh good I'm glad some people still believe in class analysis! I'm writing an essay atm and shaking my head at some of the postmodern priviledged white theorists.

Off to read the rest of the thread.