LogFAQs > #975233384

Jen0125 posted...

No, don't you see? Women who have an innate distrust for the patriarchy and men are the same as people who want literally everyone to suffer.

How is advocating for keeping men out of an entire field any different from advocating for keeping black people out of a job?

That's the line you don't seem to be recognizing: Any idiot knows it's a good idea for women to be cautious around random men. That's the unfortunate reality of the world, since far too many men are creeps. To go beyond that and say that men shouldn't be hired as babysitters, though, is relying on prejudice when you do have the opportunity to screen people on a more individual basis and negate most or all of the statistical risks associated with men. That's MAGA levels of brainless discrimination, and it causes very real harm no matter who it's directed at.

Whiterun_Guard_ posted...

Yeah, that's technically pretty prejudiced. Who cares.

And sometimes, you don't really have the option not to be prejudiced or otherwise rely on assumptions. It's not always possible or safe to collect enough data to assess things on an individual basis, and in many cases jumping to a prejudiced conclusion yields significantly more benefit than harm overall (such as categorically refusing to be alone with a strange man, which risks unnecessarily hurting a few innocent men's feelings, but can prevent being victimized, which is a worthwhile tradeoff especially when those hurt feelings can be mitigated by a modicum of understand of women's collective experience). Prejudice isn't always bad. Whenever the opportunity is available to not act on prejudice, though, that's when being prejudiced is bad, and that's precisely what I'm taking issue with here.