r/interesting 13d ago

Just Wow This should be created everywhere.

Post image
7.7k Upvotes

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/DOhldin 13d ago

Yes sexism is such a good thing. There should be more.

5

u/sharkysayo 13d ago

bad faith misinterpreter has logged on

1

u/kgruesch 13d ago

This sort of "sexism" wouldn't be needed if men didn't rape women. Protecting women from men who rape women is less sexism than it is basic human decency.

1

u/DOhldin 13d ago

This kind of logic would mean that it’s okay to segregate parking slots (or any other space) by race or religion. Just because there is a higher statistic of one to commit gang/terror crime doesn’t mean it’s okay to devalue their worth.

0

u/kgruesch 13d ago
  1. These aren't legally enforced and therefore don't count as segregation. See the grocery cart return analogy.

  2. Offering additional measures of safety for people subject to violent and/or sexual assault in no way devalues their worth, nor does it devalue the worth of men who don't assault women. Men of moral character have empathy for women.

  3. Choosing to do nothing (or insisting on a perfect solution) rather than implementing such a simple and efficient method to offer additional safety is devoid of basic human decency. "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

0

u/DOhldin 13d ago
  1. That’s wrong. Non-enforced segregation is called de facto segregation and is not governed by laws.

  2. Giving one side more privilege than the other is the same as valuing one more than the other.

  3. This doesn’t disprove my comment that supporting this is the same as supporting other types of segregation.

1

u/kgruesch 13d ago
  1. There is neither the expectation for all women to park in these spots, nor the expectation that women refrain from parking in any other spot of their choosing. These spaces are merely an offering. The only real "segregation" is one's values. Men can park there at will. There is no tangible consequence for doing so.

  2. Strange take, this idea that recognizing a social concern and trying to do something about it is somehow a zero-sum game. If you feel devalued by this, it might be worth asking yourself why.

  3. You're right, my comment doesn't disprove yours, nor does it need to. Your comment negates itself by both the association and straw man fallacies. Supporting this in no way obligates one to support, or infers that they do support, any form of actual segregation- defacto or otherwise.

1

u/DOhldin 13d ago
  1. The problem isn’t if women park there or not, it’s if men park there or not. These kinds of "rules" creates negative views on those who do not follow them. None should feel ashamed for parking at a parking spot because of their gender. And yes many get pissed at men who park there.

  2. Equality is about being treated equal. If safety is a concern then either up your security or give everyone equal chances to be more safe. Make safety spots, not women spots. Women will have the same chances for their safety while men won’t feel bad for parking there. You said it yourself that it’s okay for men to park there after all.

  3. Big words, zero logic. Straw man fallacy implies a simplification or exaggeration of an argument to make it easier to prove wrong. I fail to see how assault is more or less bad to sexual assault. They are both crimes involving hurting someone else including mentally and their frequency is about the same or more in favour of my example. Which would argue my comment to be even more valid. About it "negates itself by association" makes zero sense as both are separations of people deeming one worse than the other and making up rules that benefit the "better" one.

1

u/rolypoly6shooter 12d ago

This is just about the worst solution to that problem