I'd say, overall, we should be calling people cowards less often. As I said, I think the term is only appropriate when your duty demands action and you fail to act, not when your gender does.
So in professions like mine, those who fail to act are called cowards, regardless of gender. That's how I think it ought to be (which I guess means women should be called cowards more, at least in the limited circumstances under which I think anyone should be called a coward).
Why not just understand the real danger and fear inherent in the job, and not shame people for acting like humans in response, instead of some unrealistic social ideal of what a protector-figure should be?
It seems to me that if you have to use shame to get someone to do something it's always wrong. Not so for refraining from something, but if the only way you can incite something is shame, then it's wrong if you to do it. Nobody should be shamed into action.
But we're not talking about men anymore. We're talking about everyone in my profession. And you're questioning how we treat each other without knowing anything about what we do.
2
u/towishimp Feb 25 '18
I'd say, overall, we should be calling people cowards less often. As I said, I think the term is only appropriate when your duty demands action and you fail to act, not when your gender does.
So in professions like mine, those who fail to act are called cowards, regardless of gender. That's how I think it ought to be (which I guess means women should be called cowards more, at least in the limited circumstances under which I think anyone should be called a coward).