Our Shared Shelf discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archive
>
Using 'Guys' to Address People: Anyone Else Offended?
date
newest »
newest »
What I'm taking away from this discussion so far is that inequality appears in subjective ways in the most unexpected places. I'm not horribly offended or anything by "guys", but it does make me wonder we should make many more efforts at scratching the surface.Because what Tim suggests, the huge topics, well they are so obvious and so complex and exhausting and saddening and maddening that for the average person it might simply be too much after a long day to tackle all of it, preferably in a single discussion thread at a time. It's great that you do have all the energy and time to spare in everyday life, but many others have lots of other things going on, not just this particular book group. If you were to arrange a poll in regard to how much people in their hearts care, I think you'll find that caring is high. But translating it all into practice is challenging.
Dismissing small discussions like this isn't the right way to go in my opinion, because they still are very much on topic, but can act as places where otherwise slightly less talkative people finally feel like joining in. But letting everyone know that this one isn't as valuable as the one solving world hunger in one fell swoop kills hope and joy and enthusiasm to be part of the movement. If we can't talk about the small stuff, perhaps the big stuff simply is beyond our reach, so we might as well just drop it. Hardly the effect we want, right?
Dismissing this kind of small topics also sends the message that the small drops actually don't count, despite us saying elsewhere that they do count.
Don't underestimate the power of approachability either. To new feminists, or those curious still but not committed, talking about everyday stuff is exactly what is needed. Because we show that feminism indeed concerns us all, in different ways. This very thread is a prime example of feminism being complex, as not even on this one do we have a result where exactly every participant thinks alike. So that means there will be other topics where we might disagree, too, yet still call ourselves feminists.
I do indeed not get to be in charge of people's risk assessments and thank you for clarifying the point, but that fact does not mean I can't vioce my disappointment either. Whether the group can withstand debating it or not, this is an issue that ruins the lives of many women and men, and unlike the all too common complaint of "Why don't you help women in the 2nd and 3rd world? Hypocrites" this is a case of something we actually are capable of doing without having to travel thousands of miles from home.
I just can't find disappointment in me about discussion. Silence would be disappointing to me.I'm still an idealist, you know. Life simply has taught me that I can't change the whole world, so I focus on every single thing that is within my power to change, becomes one more drop. Some days the drop is large, other days tiny, and some days I have no energy left, which is okay, too. Doesn't mean I have forgotten about the cause. Do I cry sometimes at the state of the planet? Obviously, but crying doesn't help anything, so I roll up my sleeves and do microchanges instead.
Oh, sorry Aglaea I was still typing when you posted that last one, hence why I didn't address it. Anyway, I'll have the time for now, but this September I'll be off to university and I'll be on the same boat as you lovely people; sailing on the assembly line that is the alienating capitalist system we all live in... so fear not, soon enough I might not even care anymore. :d
Come on, Tim. The planet houses x billion people, so obviously the 'system' is a huge machinery. Idealism unfortunately often is far from realism and patience, so instead that type of people resort to complaining without doing anything real, tangible, ever. They love to complain, but also are totally absent on grassroot level actions. And they feel sorry for themselves, but hey, at least they have each other to complain to *eyeroll*"Be the change that you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi.
Don't spit superiorly on small achievements. Don't become bitter. Do advocate for things you care about without judgment, as everyone's journey look different.
Learn to show gratitude for also the small efforts, because if nobody bothers about those, crap will prevail.
The system is people and people vote. Respect the vote of the people and learn to work with it rather than against it.
If you believe and burn with passion for your cause, people will follow. But if you keep pointing out what they are doing wrong without offering solutions or ideas at least, you'll push them away. Be humble.
Start discussion threads and see who is interested in talking about it with you. But for the love of god, please drop the drama thingy of your last sentence, it doesn't suit you. We all know that you do care.
Mod
So, Bunny, on this particular point:
The reason that this group sticks primarily to low conflict topics is that this group has demonstrated that it is capable of maintaining respectful dialogue on low conflict topics. It has NOT demonstrated that it is capable of maintaining respectful dialogue on high conflict topics. In fact it has several times demonstrated the opposite. This is not a criticism of the group. Groups don't have to be all things to all people. This is a book club and it didn't ever pretend to be anything else.
While the bolded part is indeed true, I'm not sure I entirely agree on your claim. :) I do think that low conflict threads tend to get more activity here, but delicate threads getting less is not due to the group not being able to handle them appropriately. Not entirely, at least, or so I feel. In some cases, I think it's due to the fact that many of us are lacking the knowledge we would most likely need to tackle a particular discussion and do good to the plight that me might actually adamantly defend. Sometimes, also, people are not as eloquent as many members here are (and you know that you are included in that group, but I have no qualms in wording it straightforward, as I believe that's good), so they might feel uneasy to share their thoughts and maybe even self-conscious when compared to those more gifted writers.
...Last but not least, laziness is sadly inherent to mankind LOL. By this I mean that if, in order to take part in a discussion on a thorny subject, you have to do your mental homework, there are surely lots of people who will rather tend to lighter subjects where their daily experience will help them elaborate on their thoughts.
All of those reasons, to me, are something that we should change, not just in this group, but in our general attitute towards life. We certainly cannot be knowledgeable and sensible on every single issue out there, but we should strive to get as close as possible to said utopia, so that instead of 2 or 3, maybe we will get to talk and think about something 6 out of 10 times with class and maturity.
Personally, I can't entirely discard Tim's criticism, because while maybe I wouldn't have 'accused' (the word being used rather loosely here, I know you were wearing your judgey pants but still just voicing your feelings) the group of going into the mist for actively debating here, I do get his point and I can't say I disagree entirely with him. However! I understand where you are coming from as well, Bunny, and I am sure that what you described totally fits reality for many who would rather avoid triggers or trust misgiving. I am, in fact, amazed at the stuff people sometimes share here. Not in a bad way -the opposite, rather. I value that trust and that braveness, and irregardless of how curated a testimony may still be, I appreciate them nonetheless as these teach me to reevaluate the gravitas of my own stories and feelings, and my own trust issues. :)
BTW, I am now following Black Girl in Maine on Facebook, so your message was also useful.
Tim, I hadn't read your, uh, confession to suffering from autism before. Add autism to the long list of things about which I do not know as much as I should.
Finally, TL;DR: I'm feeling Salomonic today but I still love talking to y'all, you human beans.
When you look at a group of men and call them guys, a group of women and call them ladies and then a mixed group and call them guys there's no way around the fact that you're acknowledging the men and not the women - gnome claire-wishes she was gnome annthis was my original point in bringing this topic to the fore. it may be a little drop, but all these little drops can comprise an ocean. growing up in the 50's and 60's, there seemed to me to be more of a delineation when addressing male and female - to say that a bunch of guys were standing around meant that the bunch identified as male. 'guys' just wasn't used to address or identify a bunch of females or a mixed group.
my concern is with the homogenization, the blending, the erasure of female when the word 'guys' is used in a mixed group. if someone told me 'look at those guys over there', my assumption immediately is that they all identify as male. it seems to me that there has been a lot of struggle over the years by feminists to make sure women aren't erased, aren't ignored, aren't blended into the woodwork. that women are heard, are seen, and are acknowledged for their contributions.
so, while this may be a small drop, i think it is indicative of what is happening to women around the world. in the u.s., roe vs. wade was a landmark decision to uphold a woman's right to own her body. that decision is being threatened as we speak. talk about a controversial topic! i don't know of many that are more controversial than the right to an abortion.
i read the dictionary entries on the word 'guy'. the first entry in every source i looked at had 'guy' to mean a casual way to address a male. it was in the second entry that acquiesced to saying the word was gender neutral.
to my mind, the younger members of this group have grown up hearing 'guy' refer to both male and females; therefore, they are accustomed to it. they are also accustomed to using emojis to express themselves, to taking pictures of themselves doing all kinds of things, legal, illegal, and posting them on social media for the world to see, and to walking through the world with a computer/phone at the constant ready. boundaries are being blurred left and right. information is instant. problems are most likely solved by machines. brains are being bombarded with the rays (x-rays? gamma rays? i don't know what makes wireless technology work!) of their gadgets more often than not during the day.
the use of the word 'guys' as a gender neutral word seems to me to be part of a change that i'm not particularly comfortable with. i'm afraid that a step backward is being taken where women's rights are concerned. looking at the big picture, this may be a small drop. attacking and forcefully closing abortion clinics is a bigger drop, but it's happening nonetheless. there is more controversy about gay rights, gay marriage, transgender bathroom usage, all things that have been fought for that we are now, again, in danger of losing. even more and bigger drops.
i've always said that if we take care of the little things, the big things will take care of themselves. i'm seeing those so-called little things going by the wayside, and the bigger things are now in danger of crumbling as well. all drops are important.
Ana wrote: "Heyyyyy...everybody! ;)So, Bunny, on this particular point:
The reason that this group sticks primarily to low conflict topics is that this group has demonstrated that it is capable of maintaini..."
Thank you for the neutral ground, Ana. Nice to have someone who can give us both a break (since Bunny and I seem hard-pressed to do so for each other lol).
As for autism, if I may share my probably not too reliable thoughts, I think the general spectrum isn't too difficult too understand based on what I've heard: essentially, I think, it's a certain combination of neural (and/or behavioural) discrepancies. Lots of people prefer to call it "neuro-atypical" as I understand it, but I personally don't. Anyway, how this manifests itself can vary, so does the extent of each discrepancy. Asperger's syndrome in particular is a fairly common (or at least well-known) type of autism and tends to entail people having ease developping certain skills because they so fixate upon perfecting them. I'm pretty sure I don't have it, although I will say the English language did take my fancy when I was a child, even though I was about 14 when I figured out things like their, there and they're. Anywhere, Asperger's does also tend to entail having difficulty establishing friendships and relationships, and I think sometimes autistic characteristics can manifest themselves in seriously anti-social actions, including (although unlikely) murder, if a certain trigger is activated. I remember watching an episode of this show based on real crimes where an autistic teenager killed his mother's boyfriend because he simply could not stand the change in his daily life; this was shortly after he was released from an institution he was sent to after stabbing someone in the eye (assuming the writers of the show didn't make that part up). I could give you a more detailed account of the episode but I'm going off topic. To put it differently, I've once heard autism described in a documentary as essentially "having a very masculine brain" though I forgot the argumentation as to why exactly the person made that claim.
Anyway, thanks for your concern but again, I don't think I'd say I personally suffer from it; it's only minor with me so I wouldn't suggest turning to me for guidance, including any that concerns triggers. In case you're wondering though, I brought it up as a side note in the early days of the Shelf (or at least my very early days on the Shelf), on one of the very busy threads at the time, when responding to this guy (I say "guy" because "man" kind of makes him sound old; he was in his twenties) who kept making these personal assumptions about Ms. Watson and I think some other people in the group he was talking to. I believe his name was Ty. Either way, I'd imagine he left or was banned that very same day. And thanks for remembering the "human beans" joke hahaha
I will admit that right now I am having a lot of difficulty not getting upset with Tim because it seems to me that he's making the same kind of assumptions that I have dealt with and seen other women deal with all my life. People assume we aren't trying or we don't care, or some other negative thing rather than considering that maybe there are obstacles in our way that they don't see. Maybe things are a little more difficult or complicated than they understand.Even in what is supposed to be a feminist group, its the same old stereotypes. Women are always being judged for not conforming to someone else's idea of what they should achieve or how they should act and most of the time the someone else clearly has no idea what we are struggling to overcome.
I try to remind myself that we all struggle with some degree of internalized sexism because that's the legacy of the world we live in. So I try to cut other people slack on that as much as I can. Some days are harder than other days.
Bunny I related with you when you brought up how many people (usually women) are cautious about getting really into a discussion without feeling out the opinions of the people around them with lighter subjects first, especially on the internet where there's a lot of harassment to be found against women.As a transman I've lived through most of my life as first a girl and then a woman, before coming out as a man. I do that testing with others offline as well as online and carefully and cautiously feeling out people and only taking tiny little steps forward at each positive sign of inclusion and open-mindedness, or backpedalling at closed-mindedness or a harsher and abrasive viewpoint on certain things. I find it tends to help protect me from a lot of nasty sorts or people who start out really nice but end up revealing their true colors and their often bigoted biases that could've ended up hurting me badly.
I wanted to say that because I KNOW how important it is to be cautious about things like this. I really admitted to a lot of things on the thread about the transgender experience because that's where I really felt like I knew the subject and was happy to share among those who were clearly understanding and supportive. Otherwise, such as the sex worker thread, I proceed cautiously and keep in mind that I have no experience with that and therefore should not be the one talking about it really. I read what's there, visit any linked articles and read them too, look for experiences shared from people who've ACTUALLY done it over those who are just relating second hand or third hand stuff. I don't really talk there but I read, I study, I learn, and I educate myself as needed.
I don't think the threads really show just how many people visit them and read through them. Those who comment are always gonna be a fraction of the total. A small fraction really. Also, arguments or active discussions between people will often up the comment count quickly compared to a careful, calm, and polite discussing where people come and go at their own time. All factors to keep in mind when using the comment tally as "evidence of activity" on the thread. Certainly won't be a good judge at all for how much people care or have interest in it however! Not unless we count how many people who come by to view it.
In any case, I'm of the attitude it's often best to take care of the small things too, the details, because they really affect a lot more than you realize. "A single raindrop raises the sea" as a wonderful book called Dinotopia by James Gurney once said. I'm also quite interested in seeing how such oppressions can manifest in even the tiniest levels and how well entrenched it seems when you really add up all the little things along with the big things. It just gives multiple places in which to attack the established way of thinking, talking, believing, and reacting/responding to things that maintains the whole oppressive system. If we all pick one thing to attack and build up on each other, we can get a lot done! Just like a swarm of ants all attack different places on the bigger creature, but they work together and the combined weight of their efforts are sufficient to bring even the biggest things down - the same huge creatures that a single, solitary ant cannot have any hope against.
At least those are my thoughts. I'm curious to hear what other people think!
Thanks Indigo, eye-opening as ever. I should specify that I wasn't suggesting all the linguistic details are trivial; trans people in particular seem to often have difficulty with this, especially when they've only recently made their transition and sometimes misgender themselves or call themselves by their former name. I don't know if it's been like that to you, but a Facebook of a comic by a trans woman made a post about how people will very often encounter those issues after tranistioning and that they shouldn't be too ahrd on themselves for it.Bunny, I apologise for the assumptions I inadvertently made, but I think you're being jus a wee bit dishonest when you say I'm calling for "conforming to someone else's idea of what they should achieve", because the people I'm talking about are (among) the people who need our solidarity the most if they're to achieve empowerment any time soon, and yet so many of us (us as in feminists in general, not us as in this partiuclar group) fail at providing it and from what I've seen this seems to stem from no other reason than the fact that makes them feel uncomfortable to talk about it. That frustrates these workers and the more I read their grievances about it -about *us*- the more it begins to frustrate me as well.
Mod
Bunny, as I told you before, you've got your points and you've got them often, but I don't see where you were asked to conform to others' demands. Also, I don't particularly enjoy your wording on 'making efforts to cut slack' for some people.
Indigo, interesting view. Now I feel curious about Dinotopia. :)
Ana wrote: "Tim, are you also a fan of Assigned Male? :DBunny, as I told you before, you've got your points and you've got them often, but I don't see where you were asked to conform to others' demands. Also..."
Yes, that's the one I meant; didn't think too many people knew of it :D
Mod
Indigo wrote: "Bunny I related with you when you brought up how many people (usually women) are cautious about getting really into a discussion without feeling out the opinions of the people around them with ligh..."Thanks Indigo I strongly related with your description too, of "taking tiny little steps forward at each positive sign of inclusion and open mindedness, or back pedaling at signs of closed-mindedness or a harsher or more abrasive viewpoint on certain things. I find it helps to protect me from a lot of nasty sorts and people who start out really nice but end up revealing their true colors and their bigoted biases that could've ended up hurting me badly."
That is really well described and is what I was talking about. I think I'm going to do a little backpedalling now myself. Good wishes to all.
Ana wrote: "Oh I love Sophie! Some of her stripes I don't agree with sometimes, but most of the times they're really useful to educate yourself on the topic. Not that this is her main goal, but it's the one th..."I don't know. Judging by the comics I've read of hers, they seem very much aimed at educating people about it. I'm totally fine with that, of course, but I just don't think her primary goal is to amuse the reader. Her drawing style is nice though ^^
I see "you guys" as gender-neutral. I know that many people do not so I try to use it sparingly but it is so much less offensive to me than other options, which tend to be gendered. Women over the age of 20 referring to themselves as "girls" makes me cringe - it sounds like they have a problem with seeing themselves as mature and responsible individuals. "Ladies and gentlemen" is better but enforces the idea of gender binary, which I don't go along with. Now that I've lived in the South for a few years I can say "you all" but a part of me still sees this as grammatically incorrect. "Folks" is an option but sounds so... folksy. I think that we should declare "guys" to be gender neutral now, regardless of its past usage, in the name of efficiency.Edit: Below is a link to the article that motivated me to post. I am a manager and if anyone referred to me as #girlboss I would crush them. "Guys" trumps "girls" hands down, specifically because it does not imply immaturity.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/h...
Ana wrote: "Tim, are you also a fan of Assigned Male? :DIndigo, interesting view. Now I feel curious about Dinotopia. :)
"
I love that comic Assigned Male. :D I relate to so much of it! <3 Just as a transman though, not a transwoman. xD For those of us transgender, it's less educational-focused and more of a "Yes YES that! I noticed that too! ARRRRGH so frustrating ain't it?!" or "Haha HEEEEY someone else gets it! It's not just meee! XD" And things like that. :3 It's a wonderfully validating thing to feel. <3 And I love where it opens up my eyes as to my own trans experience and what I may have missed that is actually a good sign of dysphoria but I never really thought about it because I just assumed everybody else felt like this too even if nobody talked about it, and turns out - it's what the transgender people feel not the cisgender!
I highly recommend the Dinotopia series by James Gurney btw. :3 I grew up on that and it inspired me deeply to become a great artist and writer. :D It's sort of a "what if dinosaurs kept living in a small island and became wise, long-lived giants and had a world made for them with the help of some shipwrecked humans over the centuries?" It's a wonderful guide to learn some more about dinosaurs and see how such a society would look in Gurney's mind.
James Gurney's a retired artist for National Geographic where he used to depict reconstructed cultures from archeological excavations around the world as well as reconstructions from dinosaur bones and he combined both passions together. The writing style is simple and easy to follow along but the illustrations are all that he did by hand in traditional painting styles and are worthy of hours of pouring over it to hunt down the smallest little details he includes and all the thought and heart he put into it.
I do love the society he depicts in Dinotopia, that of a calm, more laid-back, and a nice tradition-focused inclusive model instead of the capitalist progressive-focused at frantic pace that we see in the modern western world. The quote I mentioned of "A single raindrop raises the sea," is part of the "Code of Dinotopia" that people there do their best to live by.
Survival of all or none.
One raindrop raises the sea.
Weapons are enemies, even to their owners.
Give more, take less.
Others first, self last.
Observe, listen and learn.
Do one thing at a time.
Sing every day.
Exercise imagination.
Eat to live, don’t live to eat.
Don’t put out the light.
It all says "SOW GOOD SEED." :3 More on the code here: http://alantait.com/2012/10/04/my-dai...
The first book of the series: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Even today I find it informs a lot of my actions with others. I genuinely find myself a better person for having read it as a kid and still adoring it even today!
IDK if it'd qualify as a book to be read by this group but if it is I would LOOOOOVE to discuss it with you all. :D Like SO love it! <3 I think it has a lot of beautiful themes that could be deconstructed well by people here. <3 And seriously it's not very well known and quite underrated too. :)
What do you think? :D
I was so undecided on the use of "guys" to address people and that I could possibly offend someone that I switched to using "folks" as my go to generalization. It works out better for all parties I believe, in my opinion anyway.
On the topic of why there's an active thread about the word "guys" and the sex worker thread was way less active...I'd like to add to what Bunny said. For me, personally, I read Our Shared Shelf at work, while my equipment is warming up for the day (I'm a scientist and it takes about an hour for things to be humming along). During the wait time, I drink my tea and peruse threads on here. A title about sex workers is just not something I'm comfortable having open on my work computer (that is monitored, I might add).
Sometimes, if I remember, I will go back to that thread in the evening when I'm home. But the majority of my posts and comments are on topics that I'm comfortable having open in case my boss or a colleague walks into my office.
I think there's a lot of reasons why "safe" topics get so much feedback on here. That's not a bad thing. This is a discussion group, we're all free to discuss what we choose.
It's an interesting topic. In Spanish the male form is also used as the generic one which used to bother me. Several years ago I decided it was really unimportant it was like that and by itself it means nothing. the thing is that now that gender equality is turning into something politicians adhere in order to get votes (or not to appear too Middle Age-y) they have started using the male AND the female form which ends up being tremendously annoying. Every speach or formal communication has turned into a tedious exageration of what should be addressing to a diverse group of people in an inclusive way. And, in my opinion at least, it feels more sexist than just addressing to the people in the generic male form. Instead of being treated as a single group of, let's say, human beings, they accentuate the difference. Besides, it really is annoying listening or reading things like that because we have male and female forms for many words (like friend, partner, etc) which ends up making the speach twice as longitud saying the same.To sum up, I think that male forms used as generic like in Spanish, or like "guys" in English, are as offensive as we make them be. If instead of seeing them as the male form we trully start adding the generic meaning to it, people will stop feeling offended by it. After all, words do have several meanings, sometimes even quite opposit meanings. Without going too far, the RAE (Real Academia Española - Royal Spanish Academy) defines in its dictonary "feminism" as the movement for gender equality and also as the female version of machism, which is quite contradictory but it also explains why so many people has these missconceptions about feminism.
Mariana wrote: " If instead of seeing them as the male form we trully start adding the generic meaning to it, people will stop feeling offended by it. After all, words do have several meanings, sometimes even quite opposit meanings. "I believe this is sort of what Tim was trying to get at initially. Never the less, at least it wasnt me bringing down the wrath of other posters for having an unpopular opinion this time. Tim, pass the popcorn. lol
James wrote: "Mariana wrote: " If instead of seeing them as the male form we trully start adding the generic meaning to it, people will stop feeling offended by it. After all, words do have several meanings, som..."Sorry, James, I f*cken love popcorn. Not sharing that. ;)
Anyway, as much as my disappointment may have angered some people here, the point remians the same: sex work is something people (women especially, of course *eye roll*) get arrested for, even -or should I say, especially?- in the U.S. (except for some counties in Nevada because... Vegas, I guess). In fact, it actually happens that when a woman is accused of prostitution and she had a condom with her at the time of her arrest, it is used as evidence against her. It's a smart way to tell whether or not someone might be a prostitute, I'll admit that much, but it sickens me to think that if you are a woman, carrying a condom with you can be used as a legal weapon against you. Surely, that's worth at least getting out of our bubble... although I do understand why you wouldn't want to talk about it on a work PC. I mean, why else would we have such a term as "NSFW"? lol
As for the word "guys", I'm not sure what my initial statement on that was, but I do remember, last time, saying I use the word "guy(s)" to refer specifically to men, so I logically shouldn't use it in mixed-sex groups. I also recall saying cuss words tend to be great for addressing mixed-sex groups... and I don't know why but that still fascinates me.
PS: I don't mean to bring the former topic into this discussion again, as this isn't the thread for it. I just wanted to point out the condom thing.
I use the term Guys to refer to mixed groups and even sometimes just girls. Every time I do I then have an internal dialog with myself saying "well that was kind of dumb of you to say" the point is I'm programed to do it, like it just comes out. I do try and catch it and replace with something more appropriate though. just thought I would share that :)
While I do not live in an English speaking country nor born in one, I do use English on my daily life. I'd never given it much thought, but I do use "guys" to adress mixed-gender groups from time to time. Same thing in Spanish. One of the terms I use is "chicos", meaning "boys" or "guys", even if there are women on the group. I personally do not feel offended by it, since the generic term is masculine. If anything I'd feel offended by the fact that it is generally accepted to use generic terms that only reference men (the age of man, for instance). Same thing happens in Spanish (using "el hombre" to refer to humanity in general). It is not the term that upsets me or those who use it. It is the system, in this case linguistic, that upsets me, the fact that generic terms are masculine, neglecting women.
P.D. I really hope that the message I was trying to convey was clear and understandable. As I said, English ain't my mother tongue.
In Denmark, a lot of people use "friends" when adressing a group(of friends, that is) of mixed genders or even as just girls or just boys. And "everyone" when adressing a group that's not your friends. But even so, there are still a tendency to say "guys" or "dudes", depending on how you translate the Danish word, and never the female version, when adressing a group of mixed gender.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
The reason that this group sticks primarily to low conflict topics is that this group has demonstrated that it is capable of maintaining respectful dialogue on low conflict topics. It has NOT demonstrated that it is capable of maintaining respectful dialogue on high conflict topics. In fact it has several times demonstrated the opposite. This is not a criticism of the group. Groups don't have to be all things to all people. This is a book club and it didn't ever pretend to be anything else.
You are entirely at liberty to find it disappointing that other people are choosing not to expose themselves to more risk than they are comfortable with in order to do things you would like to do. But you are not at liberty to judge them for it. You don't get to be in charge of other people's risk assessments.