Putting aside the difference between information and implication for the moment, was it useful to your aunt?
In spite of my aunt's experience, I would still contend that a cyclist who wears a helmet while riding in traffic is exercising necessary prudence, while a pedestrian who wears a helmet while crossing the street is being silly.
Let's decode the implication into "There are more black rapists than white rapists." Even if it's true information, is it useful? I think we've demonstrated pretty well in this country that when we take this "information" to heart and decide that the solution is to treat a group like ("potential", read "likely") criminals, it not only fails to reduce the crime, but feeds the cycle
As cshiley says above, it's not the recognition itself that is the problem; it's the response--in particular, response that reinforces social hierarchies. In the case of race, the problematic social response is generally actions to maintain white privilege using the threat of black-on-white rape as a pretense.
When men's statistically greater likelihood of being raped just leads women to be a little more on their guard when they are alone with men, well, it makes me sad that not everyone can read my mind well enough to perceive my impeccable virtue and trustworthiness, but I wouldn't call it unjust.
When it leads to women being restricted (by law or social pressure) from doing certain activities that men are free to do, because "if you do X and Y and Z you will be all alone with a bunch of men and one of them might rape you" (examples have been given in other people's comments here), that's a problem, because that restriction is perpetuating male privilege.
I assume there are a few cases where a man was turned down for a job as a nurse or some other conventionally female job because everyone else in that work place was female and having him as a co-worker would lead to a woman alone with a man in the break room, or whatever, and they were concerned about the threat of rape. I would also consider that to be illegitimate discrimination. (If the job in question was working at a battered women's shelter or some such, and the justification for not hiring him was that it would be triggery for the clients... I'm not sure where I stand on that one.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2009-08-19 03:11 am (UTC)In spite of my aunt's experience, I would still contend that a cyclist who wears a helmet while riding in traffic is exercising necessary prudence, while a pedestrian who wears a helmet while crossing the street is being silly.
Let's decode the implication into "There are more black rapists than white rapists." Even if it's true information, is it useful? I think we've demonstrated pretty well in this country that when we take this "information" to heart and decide that the solution is to treat a group like ("potential", read "likely") criminals, it not only fails to reduce the crime, but feeds the cycle
As
When men's statistically greater likelihood of being raped just leads women to be a little more on their guard when they are alone with men, well, it makes me sad that not everyone can read my mind well enough to perceive my impeccable virtue and trustworthiness, but I wouldn't call it unjust.
When it leads to women being restricted (by law or social pressure) from doing certain activities that men are free to do, because "if you do X and Y and Z you will be all alone with a bunch of men and one of them might rape you" (examples have been given in other people's comments here), that's a problem, because that restriction is perpetuating male privilege.
I assume there are a few cases where a man was turned down for a job as a nurse or some other conventionally female job because everyone else in that work place was female and having him as a co-worker would lead to a woman alone with a man in the break room, or whatever, and they were concerned about the threat of rape. I would also consider that to be illegitimate discrimination. (If the job in question was working at a battered women's shelter or some such, and the justification for not hiring him was that it would be triggery for the clients... I'm not sure where I stand on that one.)