3

The question is this one: how do I thank someone who went through a traumatic experience

removing condescending parts that, in their essence, silently assume that men - including the question's author - are potential sexual abusers, and imply that something was inherently wrong about being male. This is quite rude to half of the world's population.

This is the comment from the suggested edit. No matter how I read it, I can't understand how it can be condescending.

  • Bear in mind they might not want to be touched or even approached. Stay a few feet away.
  • be seen as a dad, not as a man, if you think it can help her.

These are the sentences to be removed, according to the comment.

My sentences imply that raped women often see men (all men) as potential abusers because that's what they say in many many testimonials. And it's backed up by health professionals helping women after the assault. I've linked to some reading but didn't think we should have extended the answer to all details of PTSD trauma.

Besides that point, the fact that abused women apply the old saying "once burned, twice shy" doesn't mean I must feel like a horrible man. I don't. But I can understand why they feel and think that way. And I respect that, it doesn't mean I think or say we're all predators. Isn't "better safe than sorry" an explicit/implicit idea that speaks for itself?

What do you think we should do?

I'm rejecting the edit, but does the answer need another paragraph explaining with more depth what's discussed here? Or just ignored? (bad idea IMO) Or a comment? (might be too long to be posted)

4

What do you think we should do?

Reject the edit as 'No improvement' or if you want to go a step further 'Conflicts with the author's intent'.

That's it. If people can't be bothered to read the current question and answer even enough to understand that this is about a rape victim that may indeed not want to even see a strange man for a while, there's probably nothing you can write that they will read and suddenly understand.

And that's the best-case scenario... In the worst-case one, a troll is now having the time of their life by seeing this meta post.

6
  • That's what I thought. Except for the troll.... Jeeeezzzz!!!! How could people be that stupid?...
    – OldPadawan
    Aug 15 at 7:18
  • 2
    @OldPadawan effective trolling actually isn't done by people that are stupid... It takes a lot to be able to effectively act ignorant :)
    – Tinkeringbell Mod
    Aug 15 at 7:19
  • LMFAO !!! Thanks for making my morning^^
    – OldPadawan
    Aug 15 at 7:31
  • @OldPadawan I just rejected another, similar suggested edit for you. Both seem to have come from a single source. If you (or anyone else) sees any more, feel free to reject any such edits as spam/vandalism from here on: that'll hopefully carry some consequences like rate-limiting.
    – Tinkeringbell Mod
    Aug 23 at 9:29
  • Tink : thanks, saw it yesterday, left it for you (hoping to be more efficient if done by a mod)
    – OldPadawan
    Aug 23 at 10:58
  • @OldPadawan late reply but no, there's no 'extra efficiency' if it's done by a mod... As long as they're anonymous it's not like there's someone to suspend for it. Just decline as vandalism :)
    – Tinkeringbell Mod
    Aug 27 at 12:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .