Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
That's just the sort of argument that was historically used to keep women out of the police, the military, and jobs like security guards. Women are more vulnerable. We shouldn't expose them to danger.
What Matthews and his pals did was idiotic and obnoxious. It should make anyone question his judgement and his maturity - he's a public figure, not some random frat boy. He's earned enormous wealth and status, and in exchange he has to live his life under more scrutiny and higher standards than other 22 year old jocks. That's the tradeoff.
However, the gender of the security guard should be irrelevant. If she's fragile due to PTSD, then she's in the wrong job. If women really are more vulnerable than men, and if we have a collective duty to protect them, then we need to rethink putting them at risk in jobs where they're liable to find themselves in potentially dangerous situations with bad men. Personally, I give the women who choose to do those jobs more credit than that.
|
For the legality of the act, gender is indeed irrelevant. A male security guard can be beaten or raped too. Both men and women deserve the right to do their job without beating or rape. But to say the fact she's a woman is irrelevant is to say context is irrelevant, which is only something you do if you want to torture facts to for a narrative. And to say "if she's that scared she shouldn't be a rentacop footpad" is to blame the victim for feeling natural human emotions, and precisely thing the that keeps women from working tough jobs because their objectively justifiable concerns are not taken seriously.