4 ms·
This statement is a bit broad and thus debatable in overall accuracy, but it is based on something real. It is probably overly centered on the western and white
by keerthiko 5y ago
This statement is a bit broad and thus debatable in overall accuracy, but it is based on something real. It is probably overly centered on the western and white-centric world, since being white or not doesn't even come into question in many other parts of the world. But in the US/Europe...
Women have been, for valid reasons and patriarchal overprotectiveness, been trained to feel vulnerable and exposed when walking outside. Always half-focused on who may be looking at them or tailing them, it takes away the mental freedom needed for perambulatory reflection.
Black men, brown men, immigrants, similarly, have over time faced a variety of hate crimes and false incarceration, that they must again often pay attention to their perceived "suspiciousness" factor, such as wandering around late at night with a hoodie on, or idly staring into a park where kids may be playing, lest they be mistaken for a latent criminal and get apprehended or worse.
So "walking has been the privilege of white men" is a bit of an extreme, but "justifiably walking thoughts free with impunity" is indeed the privilege of white men in the lands of white men.
- js2 5y ago> Women have been, for valid reasons and patriarchal overprotectiveness, been trained to feel vulnerable and exposed when walking outside. Been trained? “10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- keerthiko 5y agoYep, looks like "getting trained by valid reasons" to me.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago>This statement is a bit broad and thus debatable in overall accuracy the statement is very broad and as such laughable. Basically it implies history is something that has existed in the last few hundred years in the Americas. It's ridiculous enough it could easily fit in a satirical skit. >"justifiably walking thoughts free with impunity" is indeed the privilege of white men in the lands of white men - maybe lose the 'thoughts' there yes, I can agree that was what was meant and it is correct, it was just phrased so badly that it should prompt guffaws of laughter instead of nods of agreement.
- jolux 5y agoYou can choose to laugh at someone for misphrasing something, or you could just apply charity and move on…
- bryanrasmussen 5y agoit's a sentence in an article, not a typo and not a quick comment on HN, I have to assume a good amount of thought went into it.
- mackrevinack 5y agoim fairly certain white men can't do the "idly staring into a park where kids may be playing" thing either
- telside 5y agoCan't believe there are people that believe utter nonsense like this. I walk 60 minutes a day. 90% of the women walking at any park in the US are women. Downvote away. Don't let reality get in your way.