Those are just two ways to describe the same thing. It is impossible to grant equal privilege to everyone else without dismantling the systems of white privilege which are designed to prevent that from happening, and doing so would by definition remove privilege from white people.
You can dismantle privilege by tearing down existing systems or by building greater inclusivity into them. "Dismantling the systems of white privilege" is too vague to disambiguate this semantic dispute.
By analogy, you can force male-only clubs to close and you can force male-only clubs to be inviting to women. Either action would dismantle the systems of male privilege.
Ironically we've already been doing this for so long that at this point there are way more female only clubs/universities/organizations than there are male only.
Even Boy Scouts is now just Scouts and accepts everyone, but Girl Scouts is still girls only.
Indeed, though in some instances that’s as it should be. There are objectively rational reasons why women should have optional access to male-free spaces. There no objectively rational reasons for the converse.
(That said, I’m all for making all such restricted spaces as rare as possible. Any structural division, no matter how well intended, has a cost to society.)
I’d be interested in hearing more elaboration on the points about the double standard, particularly in the context of a society that values individual rights
Men are, as a statistical average, physically stronger. Men are statistically far more likely to rape a woman than the other way around. Setting aside any legal/criminal consequences, rape has substantially higher risk of long term, life altering consequences for the woman than for the man.
Now of course the better solution for this disparity would be to empower women with physical defence skills, e.g. Brazilian jiu-jitsu. And to somehow exorcise the male erotic fantasy out of mainstream female fashion/culture. But as desirable as those solutions are, we can't rely upon top-down social engineering being effective.
It's also important to point out that men being (on average) physically stronger doesn't equate to women being "weak". And having objectively more at risk does not make one "need protecting" in any special way. Such twisting of language is political gamesplaying—and not healthy discourse.
Since you seem to like statically facts, here is one. Here in Sweden, being Muslim and an immigrant is a higher statistical risk of becoming a rapist than being male. To put it in mathematical terms, the portion of all Muslim immigrants that was found guilty of rape was higher than the portion of all males for the same period.
The question that statistician and researchers have been asking if such statistics is at all meaningful in order to reduce crime.
>It's also important to point out that men being (on average) physically stronger doesn't equate to women being "weak".
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your overall point, but when you say “weak” are you still speaking in the physical sense? If so I can’t follow the above statement. Weak/strong are relative terms. If you’re willing to say one is statistically stronger than the other, you are implying the other is statistically weaker. To not seems to be the type of wordsmithing used to avoid precise use of language. The reason I specifically put the “individual rights” piece in my previous comment was because I was hoping there was a basis outside the aggregate “average” argument that seems oblivious to individual rights.
I think the BJJ argument can actually be dangerous. Yes, it’s good for anyone to know self defense. But the vast majority of women won’t become skillful enough to overcome the (statistical) innate size/strength disadvantage, particularly any man with training. They can if dedicated enough, but if they don’t it can lead to false confidence.
I think the real issue with the argument is that it only plays well because it’s using terms that are currently socially en vogue. Consider how it would come across instead of saying “men are statistically more likely to rape” you instead advocated for a double standard based on “people of X race are more likely to commit Y crime”. It can be statistically correct and still morally wrong to advocate for such policy because it lacks a nuanced view of the problem.
> I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your overall point, but when you say “weak” are you still speaking in the physical sense?
Obviously I was not—otherwise I would have been entertaining a direct logical contradiction.
I am speaking in the terms offered by the user klipt earlier in this conversation tree. This is how dangerous rhetoric is formed. To call someone "weak", no matter how much you qualify its meaning, inevitably leads to many other subjective connotations that I do not agree with.
> To not seems to be the type of wordsmithing used to avoid precise use of language.
On the contrary, it's the type of wordsmithing used to avoid intentional misapplication of language.
> I think the BJJ argument can actually be dangerous. Yes, it’s good for anyone to know self defense. But the vast majority of women won’t become skillful enough to overcome the (statistical) innate size/strength disadvantage, particularly any man with training. They can if dedicated enough, but if they don’t it can lead to false confidence.
I think it's borderline offensive to assume that the "vast majority of women" won't become "skillful enough".
I think it's borderline offensive to suggest that building up confidence is a dangerous idea. Even "false confidence" can increase one's actual physical power. And to say that a policy is dangerous because it won't be effective in all encounters is ridiculous.
It seems you misunderstand the purpose of having broad BJJ training. It's not just about increasing skill. It's not just about increasing confidence (which for many women might be itself sufficient to stop an attack). Rather it's about the culture that would arise among MEN in response to a society where women have more confidence—whether objectively justified or not.
> you instead advocated for a double standard...
I did no such thing and I consider it highly offensive for you to imply that I did.
>I think it's borderline offensive to assume that the "vast majority of women" won't become "skillful enough"
I think there’s some miscommunication here. The qualifier is that most wouldn’t become skilled enough to overcome the strength disadvantage. To be fair, the same would apply to men with the same strength disadvantage although that would be less likely due to the lower likelihood for the same strength disparity. Most people won’t spend enough time developing that skill. If I had to speak in broad terms, it would probably take a purple belt (maybe a strong blue belt) to overcome a large strength disadvantage with even a moderate amount of athletic ability. Most people won’t put in that time, irrespective of gender. If you disagree, join an mma/boxing gym (that actually spars) and see what percentage of people stick with it for 4-5 years. I would venture a guess that most people who flippantly advocate BJJ as a solution probably haven’t been in a real physical altercation and don’t know how it would go down. And no, sparring/rolling in the gym doesn’t generally equate to this type of altercation. I never claimed its not effective because it can’t handle every situation (because nothing can). BJJ is not worthless, it’s just pragmatically a low percentage solution.
I’m not quite sure why you’re taking so much as borderline/highly offensive but it rarely leads to providing clarity in discourse. Again, there is real danger with instilling false confidence (I.e. when confidence outstrips one’s abilities) whether you are offended or not. I’m not interested in placating someone at the expense of putting them at higher risk.
Your opinion makes a lot of sense now that you've analogised rape situations to a lucid, rules-based sparring competition. If I were to grant that rather weird analogy as valid, you would be completely right and I would most certainly be wrong.
Again, you have the wrong takeaway. I’m saying the opposite. Your logic seems to be jumping all over the place; on one hand you say BJJ will help, on the other you say it makes no sense because it’s not a good analogue.
BJJ is heavily ruled based and that’s why it doesn’t necessarily simulate real world altercations. Many people dabble in martial arts, never spar, and develop the false sense confidence im talking about: There’s a saying in BJJ, “punch a black belt in the face, they become a brown belt, punch them again they become a brown belt, punch them again...”
Sparring in a gym is absolutely not stimulating a real life scenario which is why is can easily lead to false confidence. But it can show you your skill level without endangering yourself too much.
The point of the sparring comment was to illustrate how much work it is to get competent at a martial art. Advocating that BJJ will prevent rape is ignoring how few people will spend the necessary time to get skillful as well as ignoring all the blind spots that rule-based martial arts introduce.
Advocating BJJ is fine. Making someone think it’s going to save them without also pointing out that it will take years to be effective isn’t. People who miss that second part have probably never trained or been in a real fight or are trying to drum up business for their martial arts school. Honestly, it comes across as the you regurgitated the comment about BJJ because you heard it somewhere and ran with it. Anyone who’s trained in BJJ knows the first year or so you become acutely aware of how helpless you actually are on the ground.
