I don’t know her motivation. I do not assume. I just know that two men brutally murdered a child for racist motives and you are trying to make that into women being a systemic problem (because that is what the bear discussion is about. Systemic, socially normalised violence). Wrong turn.
Another edit after your edit: nobody says all men were the same though. You are just trying to imply I would.
The Man or Bear scenario a. is not a narrative, it is a thought experiment and b. does not “paint all men with a broad brush”. It points out how normalised violence against women is in our society. It does not say “all men are violent against women”, that’s just what people who did not (often did not want to) understand the construct read into it.
It does not matter much how you conditionalise your statement when you use a metaphor that is about systemic issues you are implying a similar systemic issue. By choosing the bear you imply she did it because of gendered violence, not racist violence.
Trying to twist a racist lynch murderof a 14 year old boy into “muh, women bad” is a choice. A disgusting, despicable choice, but a choice.
Who initiated the racist lunch murder? Was it a woman?
Two grown men according to your article. Encouraged by the Jim Crow-Era social conduct.
Do not try to stir up some misogynist bullshit here. Do not try to relativize racism here. That shit won’t fly here.
The violence still came from men. They killed a 14 year old boy. Do you think that’s excusable or what?
Of course not. Do you think her intention was a stern talking to?
The idea of painting all men with this brush is plain mysandry btw.
I don’t know her motivation. I do not assume. I just know that two men brutally murdered a child for racist motives and you are trying to make that into women being a systemic problem (because that is what the bear discussion is about. Systemic, socially normalised violence). Wrong turn.
Another edit after your edit: nobody says all men were the same though. You are just trying to imply I would.
I don’t know how clearly I can conditionalize something beyond saying sometimes.
Something you obviously had no issue omitting from your own statement.
The Man or Bear scenario a. is not a narrative, it is a thought experiment and b. does not “paint all men with a broad brush”. It points out how normalised violence against women is in our society. It does not say “all men are violent against women”, that’s just what people who did not (often did not want to) understand the construct read into it.
It does not matter much how you conditionalise your statement when you use a metaphor that is about systemic issues you are implying a similar systemic issue. By choosing the bear you imply she did it because of gendered violence, not racist violence.