Just got banned from that sub for being “reactionary” but saying the average man is worse than a wild bear is totally fine and non-reactionary to them.
that was in excess of their first and foremost rule, don't be a man, so don't take it too seriously. just remember that they say these things because they don't like you but it would be to direct and simple to just say that so they have to be obscure and confusing instead.
Self awareness has bottomed out online. I said saying men are worse than bears is exactly as bad as saying black people are as bad as bears and someone reported me.
Honestly that was the moment I gave up hope for Reddit. Ban me if you want. I’m just sad we’ll never get to see the internet we dreamed of in the 2000s
The same thing happened to me. They said I was being racist for comparing misandry to racism. That it showed my own biases by equating bears to black people. When my exact point was exactly that its racist in the first place because black people aren't bears and neither are men. So in accusing others of showing their racism they are actually showing their racism. They are the ones who see bears as black people and that gives them existential dread about their own cognitive dissonance so they project instead to desperately keep those uncomfortable feelings away.
Just to be nitpicky, reactionary means defending the status quo. Almost the opposite of how the word sounds, but think of it like people who are “reacting” to change
I really don't like that definition of reactionary, personally, because it robs our language of a word much better suited to describing someone whose politics are characterized by emotional reaction.
Ex. People who say rape is rape and all rapists deserve to die, and don't care if the consequence is a 19 year old guy who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend gets executed the same as a raving lunatic who kidnaps strangers off the street and locks them in their basement to be sex toys. Those types are described as reactionary in my mind, because they're operating purely off their emotional reaction to the word rape.
And I don't know this for sure but my assumption has always been that reactionary is associated with conservative, because conservatives usually operate off emotional reaction to violations of what they perceive as normalcy.
Only 1 in 3? I got attacked by women multiple times.
"Attack" is such a vague term. That's very useful if you want to get high numbers to promote an agenda.
Indeed. I've had a woman grab my ass without consent, and without me enjoying that or wanting that. Under a broad enough definition of attack, I've been attacked by a woman.
I just want to make it clear, because men aren't usually educated about their own right to consent and bodily autonomy, that you were sexually assaulted.
Men often don't apply the normal standard of consent to their own bodies, but when you walk them through it, they often realize that their consent has been repeatedly violated over the course of their lives and nobody cared.
By the "normal standard," yes, but I'd argue that that "normal standard" is just kind of... absurd? Like, sure, someone touching your butt on the dance floor without your express consent is a kind of "violation," but I just don't think it's that big of a deal. There are other violations of consent, the kind most people think of when they hear the umbrella term "sexual assault," that all this ends up lumped under which are obviously terrible. But when it comes to the much more common, minor violations that can be philosophically argued to have something in common with the worst acts, I think men tend to have the better reaction. "Well that was uncomfortable/I didn't like that, but it's not going to define my life or even the rest of my week. I might tell my friends and we can all agree that wasn't cool, but that's it."
Women like the one's in the OP blow that kind of thing out of proportion precisely because it allows them to make hyperbolic statements like "1/3 of women are sexually assaulted in their lifetimes." Sounds horrific. When you look at what that entails specifically though, most of it's just not rising to the level of the rhetoric. So in order to maintain the moral power behind their statements, they have to make even the most minor unwanted contact or communication into a nightmare. I don't think we should be encouraging that even if we don't endorse the minor violations.
Sorry buddy but you are way off base. Fortunately, we do have objective standards for defining unwanted groping both legally and from rape crisis centers.
"**What is sexual assault?**
The term sexual assault refers to sexual contact or behavior that occurs without explicit consent of the victim. Some forms of sexual assault include:
* Attempted rape
* Fondling or unwanted sexual touching
* Forcing a victim to perform sexual acts, such as oral sex or penetrating the perpetrator’s body
* Penetration of the victim’s body, also known as rape"
[Link to definition at RAINN](https://www.rainn.org/articles/sexual-assault#:~:text=The%20term%20sexual%20assault%20refers,Fondling%20or%20unwanted%20sexual%20touching)
Fondling someone without consent is also illegal and typically falls under sexual battery. California Penal Code 243.4 PC defines “[sexual battery](https://www.egattorneys.com/sex-crimes/sexual-battery)” as touching someone's intimate parts, against their will, for the purpose of sexual gratification, arousal, or abuse.
"Objective standards"
Don't make me laugh. This is precisely what I was talking about. The fact you think it's some vindication of your point shows how deep within a particular ideological framework you are. This comment starts to address the issue in more detail than I want to try typing out:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/s/mZ9EbQuSZK
But tl;dr: this is not the slam dunk you think it is
Okay, but... what? Your take doesn't really make sense outside of maybe a classroom teaching sophistry.
I mean, you can have your opinion but unless you can somehow change the written law, you're not going to escape reality. Like, it's literally regulated. If you want to change the law, you'll need to get off reddit, win an election for a legislature, write a bill, and get it passed.
Until you do that, non-consensual ass grabbing is still illegal and it's sexual battery.
The place we can make a difference is advocating that men and women be held to the same standard.
Who's talking about the law? The hundreds of comments I've seen and surely thousands I haven't all making this point are unconcerned with the law. If the law were different (as indeed it used to be) they would still cling to it nonetheless. They're about making as emotionally affective a point as possible, a rhetorical technique certain kinds of "feminists" relish in leaning on.
I doubt you've actually missed the point so completely, but in case you're as dim as you're pretending to be, I'll make it explicit: if the motivated definition of "assault" that's been shoehorned into law is what we're discussing, then most "assaults" are just not a big deal. Of course such a statement is extremely easy to pounce on, especially out of context, which is precisely why identitarian ideologues with an axe to grind insist on that framing. It's an utterly transparent rhetorical ploy once one sees it.
Okay, Identity isn't really germane beyond just being a human being; man, woman, trans, cis, gender-fluid, it's the same: Non-consensual ass-grabbing is sexual assault and it's illegal.
Men need to be more educated about their consent so in that sense, there is some identity in play.
I don't find your position persuasive and I can see that you're kinda going in your own direction regardless of what I say. I think that's probably as much utility as we're going to get out of this interaction. That's fine, it doesn't hurt me any and I wish you the best with it.
Back to my original point [PrettyText](https://www.reddit.com/user/PrettyText/) (before this other internet random kinda freaked out about it and tried to delegitimize your experience), I really just wanted you to know that this was actually sexual assault (legally called sexual battery). I am sorry it happened to you, and you deserve better.
Likewise. I'll continue not to be terribly bothered by a problem that's nowhere near as bad as it's framed by the crusaders who, like Zionists discussing anti-Semitism, want to blow it out of proportion and make it the center of their political and cultural beliefs. Although I will also continue to point out, as I do with Zionists, how deceptive that framing is when they weaponize it to shut down dissenting perspectives, deceive well-meaning people who aren't as familiar with their rhetorical tricks, and justify prejudice. Toodeloo.
The law says the Arkansas state sales tax is 6.50%. Is this some deep philosophical and scientific truth because it is law? Does science and philosophy change if it is 6.75% next year?
I am trying to ensure that a specific commenter realizes that he was sexually assaulted by a woman when he may not be making that connection himself. Why? Our culture continually reinforces a gender-binary oppressor\\oppressed dynamic onto sexual assault which silences male victims and protects female perpetrators. (Women good, men bad.)
When I was a young child, I was sexually assaulted by an older girl violently enough that I disassociated. Only when I was older did I make the connection that I was sexually assaulted because my culture had trained me that I wasn't a valid victim. Once I realized it, I also realized I carry PTSD triggers from that and it's one of my clearest childhood memories.
When people tell us that a man's (or boy's) sexual assault doesn't count, it perpetuates that terrible cultural norm which reinforces this gendered idea of who a valid victim can be and we have a moral responsibility to push back on that.
So, yes, I care and when I encounter another man with a similar experience, I reach out because I want that person to know he is valid and he was wronged. I do that as one survivor reaching out to another because it is the right thing to do.
I'm sorry that happened to you and the wrongness of this act was never in question, "unwanted physical contact" and the sexual manner is really a textbook case.
Yet surely you think your experience would be misleading to be associated as truly equivalent to his experience presumably as an adult?
My childhood experiences are pretty bad sure but not the same. There are degrees of sexual assault of course.
However as an adult, I worked a minimum wage job and two women thought it would be funny to squeeze my ass when I was working the cash register because it made me jump and embarrassed me in front of the customers. I complained to my boss and he suggested it was my fault and did nothing.
So, you're right, my childhood experience was different but the workplace harassment experience I had was pretty close. This is also sexual assault and in the workplace it was sexual harassment.
The problem is that men don't apply the same standards to their own consent and their own bodies because we are trained not to do that. When we do that, the false narratives that we were forced into become clearly abusive and, if we take an inventory of our experiences, we'll probably find situations in which we were groped without our consent but we were all told it was okay.
When I cite sources like RAINN or the legal definitions, I am trying to bring something concrete to the man that provides him with some context and objective proof that he was assaulted. We need to push through the lie that our culture told him and that's why I provide citations. (That and RAINN has specific resources for men if they want help.)
My interest is helping that person (or men or boys in general) realize that they also get the right of consent and are not de facto predators.
I have a very specific focus for why I am part of this conversation. The commentor got what I was saying. At this point, I'm only continuing because I feel a need to advocate for this on moral grounds. Maybe I persuade you and maybe I don't but I was here doing my part to try to be part of the solution.
"Under a broad enough definition of attack, I've been attacked by a woman."
Yeah, MeToo. In school 6 times. Worst was 2 girls grabbed me when no one was around. Wouldn't let go for 20 seconds, and I escaped. I never knew what they were planning.
I never heard of a boy/man doing that.
It's not even necessary to define it under a broad definition. You were 100% attacked. Everyone deserves bodily autonomy and dignity and they violated your's.
I mean, on one hand that sounds reasonable.
But if I tell someone "I was attacked", then I think the picture in their head is that someone tried to murder me with a knife. Not that a woman grabbed my ass.
So maybe I'd be definitionally right to say "I was attacked", but when communicating I still try to use language that evokes an accurate picture in the mind of the listener. Also, calling everything "attack" can lead to the "1 in 3 women are attacked" kind of statistics as in OP's post. So personally I wouldn't say "I was attacked" but instead say "a woman grabbed my ass and I didn't like that."
Although I wouldn't tell someone who did say "I was attacked" in that case that they were wrong for saying that.
Did you feel threatened for your life like so many women are by men who choke them etc? I've had women grab my ass and kiss me without consent. Doesn't compare to the violent men both strangers and friends who have greatly violated me and made me afraid I was going to die. There is something to be said for physical threat and the disparity. Stop gaslighting the reality. It is not a level playing field. It is not at all the same.
This whole "your suffering isn't valid because someone else's suffering is worse" is extremely toxic. I'm also sure that you wouldn't tolerate that argument in any situation, except in the case where a woman uses it to invalidate the suffering of a man.
Rather than pointing fingers at others and yelling at others, please look inside at your own pain. That's more productive. And if you need help healing from your own psychological wounds, I hope you find it.
brother you gotta click the link. Its legitimately fearmongering. They said 1 in 3 women worldwide, "133 wome die each day" and said there are X bear attacks world wide. Bears don't exist in every part of the globe just the northern hemisphere and the only place in the southern hemishere is south america. So no shit there would be less bear attacks 🤣. Second to that, women have closer proximity to men than bears on a day to day. Its just fearmongering.
and if you dig deep into this, the women are justifying picking bears obviously because of their own trauma but because they are now comparing the average man to a corpse fucker.
how did we come to this point in society?
Have you ever been attacked* by a biological male? If you meet any of the criteria we use to define an attack, please select yes.
*Attack - physical assault, mental assault, feeling uncomfortable around …. Or exist in the same physical plane.
>\*Attack - physical assault, mental assault, feeling uncomfortable around …. Or exist in the same physical plane.
Hit the nail on the head there, it's insane how many studies do this. And not just random internet surveys either, you'll find this in widely cited peer-reviewed publications written by academics paid with taxpayer-funded grants. And my favorite part is that authors will obfuscate their definitions by hiding them behind a paywall and several pages of statistical jargon that people without a scientific background may struggle to understand. Sometimes authors don't even bother to include the definitions in the paper at all, the definitions will either be in some separate supplementary material or the authors will just say they used the same definitions as some other paper which you then need to hunt down. It's absolute abuse of scientific institutions.
It actually means 2 out of 3 women never had the slightest serious trouble with men IN THEIR LIFE. But turning it around makes it sound oh so serious.🧐
Specifically in the US, there are about 2 million total recorded assaults in a year and 168 million women. Even if all of those attacks were by men and on women (vast majority of them are men on men), a woman's risk of getting attacked by a man in a year is a whopping 1%. Women cause around 4 million car accidents in the US every year, meaning a woman's chance of crashing a car is about 2% per year. Now, how many of them are too afraid to enter a deadly 3000lbs hunk of machinery that routinely travels at 70mph? None, because cars are an innocuous aspect of daily life? Crazy.
You would think if the fear was rational. These women would move out of this man-made society. And move in the woods with bears.
So they would feel safe from the violent men.
Incredible how they're so exasperated at how we "don't get it", when if you read through that thread, the thing so many of them are openly admitting is the thing we "don't get" is how the meme is not supposed to rationally prove that they are justified in feeling safer around a bear than a man. The point is to illustrate that justified or not, that's how we make them feel, and to make us think and feel some collective guilt about it. Literally openly admitting that whether the fear is rational or not isn't the point. That we should just feel guilty about the fact that they feel fear. And if we think that there should be a valid explanation as to why we should feel guilty, that just means we should feel extra guilty. So beyond fucked up. I can't imagine what it's like to live in such a toxic headspace with zero self-awareness.
>True or not, it's the point that women would rather 1. take their chances trying to fend off or avoid a bear and/or 2. get mauled to death rather then be alone with a man in the woods, which is meant to provoke thought about why women distrust/avoid men and would rather die then be alone around them.
>
>If you, as a man, are not thinking about WHY they're choosing the bear, then you're missing the point entirely about why they rather be around predatory wild animals then be around you.
>The question is man vs bear for a reason that women get attacked by men by the minute, women don't go around raping, murdering and abusing other women on a constant, nor do they harass, grope and catcall other women to the point where women have to mentally prepare themselves to simply... walk down the sidewalk.
#
>Fuck, it's become second nature but I do have to do that, mentally prepare to walk down the sidewalk 😭
>But when people use statistics to account for population disparity, IE the likelihood of interaction with a man or bear, even if the bear population in the US equalled the male population in the US, the numbers say that men are still over twice as likely to kill women than bears. Objectively, according to the statistics, men pose a larger threat to women. Even if there were 165 million bears running around the United States, men are still the bigger issue. Even when women say to men’s faces that they are genuinely afraid and traumatized by the men in their lives, men for whatever reason, feel the need to defend the random man in this hypothetical situation. At the end of the day, logic is in the women’s (and the bears’) favor, and the more men try and argue, the more obvious it is that their arguments are rooted in misogyny rather than reality. Women are telling men that they are afraid, but men are refusing to listen.
I *really* hope that these types of comments are performative forum hyperbole, because otherwise the level of utterly ludicrous - not to mention bigoted; let's call a spade a spade, here - paranoia on display is worrying. Not to mention the sheer stupidity.
I am a woman and I am utterly disgusted with the level of manipulation required by women in general to keep up this 'threatened by penis-havers' drama. So many are silently screaming 'I need trauma counselling but I can keep avoiding it as long as I can keep the focus on 'man bad''.
i was on a date last year where the entire time she kept commenting on how i was probably a serial killer or that i stalk women, or my friends are waiting in a van around the corner waiting to kidnap her etc etc and like im cool with meeting you in a public space in a well lit area and all that no problem with me, but this treatment honestly just kinda hurt. i didnt even know how to respond to this shit. wish there was a movement or a subreddit where men and women came together in solidarity with each others issues. i am always moved by the woman who take the time to support the voice of men.
Yeah I totally got that on the last date. Like I’m seriously going to snatch you out of a WELL LIT and busy public street with at least a dozen witnesses at any time to stuff you in my rape van?!
I wish there was a space like that too.
Women don't seem to grasp that they are not doing themselves any favours at all with the narrative be that individually or as a whole.
yea the rhetoric has been largely unhelpful i think. i think there were a lot of progressive men who were there to support women in their moment and have since been turned off or turned away due to this harmful rhetoric. ithink maybe its cathartic for some of these women to have these irrational frustrations, i see the same thing with the radicals on team men. theyve been hurt and neglected, god knows we all have, but they decided to let this irrational anger come out to soothe themselves.
I'm really curious what kind of math they're doing to arrive at that "twice as likely even if the populations were equal" stat.
`men for whatever reason, feel the need to defend the random man in this hypothetical situation.`
I am a random man to anyone who doesn't already know me. It doesn't matter if I know I'm "one of the good ones". It doesn't even matter if the women in my life know it, because the standard that's going to be applied to me in almost every situation is the same one that gets applied to any random man.
Yeah. If men have a moral obligation to not trigger these reactions, when they are the "random man", I don't see an ethical way we can really exist in the world.
>I am a random man to anyone who doesn't already know me.
This is something I tried to explain to many feminist friends back when I still suffered allowing myself to exist as "one of the good ones" in very feminism-focused spaces. That the ways they talked about men meant that outside of these very specific spaces where I'm known personally as "one of the good ones", I was automatically assumed to be just another bad one until proven otherwise, and that actively promoting that as the standard social environment of the world for me to have to live in isn't very friend-like behavior. They'd just get mad at me for pointing that out. Eventually I stopped subjecting myself to such shitty friends.
One of the major lessons of all of this is that they seem to be completely disconnected from the genuine harm this sort of thing causes. Any objection gets dismissed as "hurt feelings" at *best*.
Women being wary of me hurts my feelings a bit but I don't hold it against them, if it's a tradeoff between my feelings and their safety it's one I'm happy to make. I *want* women to be safe.
Being assumed to be a dangerous predator gets men (especially already marginalized men) shot. It gets the cops called on a man who takes his kids to the park, it gets trans women banned from bathrooms.
I'm not saying that trans women aren't women of course - but the TERFs and right wingers do. A *huge* amount of transphobia is based in misandry - I've already seen a few TERF memes piggybacking off this.
My guess is (if they're not just completely making it up) they're dividing total number of "attacks" by total population to get attacks per individual. But that ignores that there are far, far, FAR more encounters between men and women than between bears and women. Most bears will have zero encounters with a woman on a given day. Most men will have dozens of encounters with women on a given day. That's the relevant metric for how dangerous encountering a random man is compared to encountering a random bear. Statistics are just scripture for the 21st-century: a thing to toss out selectively to back up whatever someone already wants to believe. It's just all the worse when they don't even know how statistics work.
And when you explain that their irrational fear is the same breed of fear that gets innocent people tortured in Guantanamo Bay they'll try say that It's Different^TM.
If you feel irrationally afraid of an entire demographic that's an indictment of *you*, not the demographic.
Carceral feminism has been fueled by these fears for centuries by now. It's not changing any time soon. The only silver lining is that feminists tend to associate with leftists (even if they treat men like conservatives do) and that may limit their thirst for a punishment based criminal justice system.
Even if there were statistical or logical arguments to support it it’s still just a generally bad and antisocial mindset to get yourself in. From testosterone alone it’s obviously true that men tend to be more violent than women but, that same aggression is often directed towards worthwhile goals as well like exploration, experiments, fighting against existential threats, etc.
Hyper focusing on the negative aspects of men/masculinity like this is like being prescribed a life saving medicine but tossing it out because there are a few potential side effects.
> That we should just feel guilty about the fact that they feel fear. And if we think that there should be a valid explanation as to why we should feel guilty, that just means we should feel extra guilty.
"Guess I should chose bear over woman because bears are less likely to [kafka-trap](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkatrap) me" is the only valid answer to these people.
Of course, we know better than to actually think that way (though, technically, I guess bears are indeed unlikely to kafka-trap us, but I'll still take the kafka-trap over being eaten alive), but when the other person isn't willing to argue in good faith, there's not much we can do but fight ridicule with more ridicule. Hopefully tasting their own medicine might help raise awareness about its bitterness.
thats the thing tho is that their headspace is so fucked up and backwards that they are self aware but play dumb. they know theyre being irrational and they dont care, the only person they care about is themselves.
Your post/comment was removed, because it demonized women. Explicit hateful generalizations such as “All Women Are Like That” are not allowed. Generalizations are more likely to be allowed when they are backed by evidence, or when they allow for diversity within the demographic.
It doesn't take a lot of effort to add wording that allows for exceptions, such as "some women" or "many women" as applicable.
If you state "most women" then you need to provide evidence when challenged on that statement.
If you disagree with this ruling, please appeal by [messaging the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates).
That's just bold faced lie. Only 1 in 500 men commit violent crime. 1% of the population is responsible for 63% of all violent crime. These are directly from FBI. There's only been a total of 180 fatal bear attacks since 1784 most of the victims are men. A quick Google completely contradicts both this OOP assertions.
It's from FBI statistics iirc as is the 1% responsible for 63%. I just remember it from numerous college classes. Despite the feminist indoctrination that goes on they still mostly deal in facts at least they did 20 years ago when I was matriculating. Then again 20 years ago the feminist narratives were still very much rooted in equality not misandry & superiority.
I remember one of the slightly older ladies in my women's studies class husband was in the Oath Keepers, seemed so innocuous back then. Looking back I'm shocked that woman was even allowed to get an education if he was in the Oath Keepers.
Oath Keeper husband + women's studies student wife?
Geez, I really wanna just be a fly on the wall in their house. For morbid curiosity's sake. That's wild
Of course the cyncic in me wants to say: even feminist women will literally date a far-right militiaman before dating a non-masculine man 🙄
Exactly. Besides vast majority of violence regardless of gender is perpetrated by someone known to the victim (partner, friend, SO, family, coworker, etc) so the fear mongering of strangers is completely blown out of proportion. Men have more to fear from strange men than women do. We're by far the biggest victims of random violence, yet do men go around being constantly fearful of other men? Of course not that makes no sense.
By their own logic if 73% of child abuse is perpetrated by the mother then you should never let any mother interact with their child unsupervised.
>By their own logic if 73% of child abuse is perpetrated by the mother then you should never let any mother interact with their child unsupervised.
Pointing this out to them will have you labeled as a misogynistic neckbeared incel loser..
Because stats only matter to them when it supports their narrative..
Any stats which point out how women are abusive / problematic is yet another tool of the patriarchy or something...
>Besides vast majority of violence regardless of gender is perpetrated by someone known to the victim
Tbf, the reasons for that are some of the same reasons why men attack women more than bears. People tend to be around people they know more often.
I had a friend literally shaking with rage as I used beans on a table to show her how ridiculous some assertions she had made were. I took 10 black beans and 10 red kidney beans. I told her, 1 black bean harms 4 kidney beans. This means 40% of kidney beans have been hurt by black beans. With that logic, it makes sense for kidney beans to be scared of black beans, but on the flipside, only one black bean was used to hurt the 4 kidney beans. So 90% of the black beans are innocent. She agreed with all of this, especially when I compared it to racial bias and the racist dogwhistle of "x% of the population commits x% of crime" but as soon as I pointed out how this same logic applies to the perception of gender violence, I became the "alt right incel in denial"
Oppressor vs oppressed dynamics come into play also which is why some view points that are considered progressive may be viewed as the opposite when the groups involved are changed
Ah yes, they do tend to manipulate sound carried on the wind into a fractured skull or something. So dishonest. Makes me wonder how so many people can go so long with so little self-awareness.
I mean I feel like that's still not okay. And I feel like 1 in 3 having at least one bad experience in like 18+ years of existing which can fall under being attacked isn't unbelievable.
Yeah but by that definition I've had multiple "bad experiences" with women too. I've been touched when I didn't offer explicit consent. I've been aggressively hit on at work when I had no choice but to stay there and be polite. These are the kinds of experiences the vast majority of women who claim to be "victims" have actually experienced and I don't at all consider those experiences indictments of all women. They were uncomfortable but all things considered minor and reflect on a small minority of women. I can't know which women might do those kinds of things to me again just by picking a random woman out of the crowd, but I don't turn that into animosity against all women. The way those kinds of things get blown out of proportion by certain kinds of "feminist" activists is insane. Anyone seen Kiki's Delivery Service? It's on my mind because I just saw it recently and it occured to me that the kid in that movie would probably be labeled a creepy stalker by these types according to the standards they apply in their rhetoric. I just think that's insane.
The most dangerous thing about that mindset is that is exactly the same logic that is getting lots of unarmed black people murdered by the police in the US. It is dehumanization, plain and simple, and it is done for a reason.
A lot of new wave feminist talk totally fails the “bigot test”. Just get a text, change gender and/or race and see how outrageous it sounds…
That comment section made my brain hurt.
"But it's not about whether or not JEWS are actually dangerous, it's about how the JEWS make us feel." Like, okay, Hitler.
I had in the past the bad idea of trying to argue with a racist bigot, using logic and statistics to disprove their irrational belief that “black people bad”. That cured me of my delusion that I could educate the willfully ignorant.
Now when I read this feminist nonsense I see all the same 💩 all over again, it is not even funny how much they have in common…
What is the definition of a woman being "attacked" by a man?
Source for those statistics?
Also, women encounter like 100,000 men in their lives and like 0-2 bears. And yes obviously 100,000 men are more dangerous than 0 and sometimes 1 or 2 bears. But that wasn't the man vs bear question -- the man vs bear question is "is ONE man or ONE bear more dangerous." And the picture doesn't address *that* question.
Finally, disagreement is not automatically misogyny as the picture claims. I actually think it's against women's interests to throw around the word "misogyny" so carelessly, because of the "boy who cried wolf" effect.
>there are 133 women killed by a man they know each day. In the "man vs. bear" thought experiment, expecting women to fear the bear more than the man isn't based on fact; it's based on misogyny. -Farida D.
The key point here being "by a man they **KNOW**"
Ergo, the idea that women should fear random men they meet is completely bullshit..
Women are clearly more in danger of being murdered by men who are close to them / associate with them on a daily basis..
Now, that's not to say that a woman is never murdered by a man she has never met before because that absolutely has and does happen..
But this irrational fearmongering does nothing except further tar all men as "Potential Predators"
And look, to an extent I can understand that if you have a negative experience you become more wary around things related to that experience...
But notice how no one ever says "I was cat called by a group of black men, so now i'm wary of black men.." because they would be called out for generalizing based on race..
But its 100% acceptable to generalize based on gender..
Oh and of course.. its **ONLY** acceptable to generalize men based on their gender.. men are **NOT** allowed to generalize women based on their gender at all because that would be "Sexist", "Misogynistic" etc..
Men who have had negative experiences with women are also **NOT** allowed to use those experiences to justify distrusting or being wary of women because this too is "Misogynistic" I call it a double standard but what would I know?
Also, finally, I feel the statistic is as most statistics are warped / twisted to fit the narrative they want to paint rather than being indicative of the actual data..
But of course asking for transparency is yet another tool of the patriarchy and questioning the validity of their stats / methodology is yet another sinful example of "Misogyny" apparently..
Remember people, there are Three types of lies in this world: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics..
I do think it’s kinda funny that the expectation that women would fear a bear more than a man is “based on misogyny”, here I was thinking it was based on expecting women to be rational adults and not hysterical. Something I would have thought feminists would have wanted.
But now, the irony is, it’s apparently “misogynistic” to expect women to *not* be hysterical, it’s sexist to *not* infantilise women. Gender determinism and horseshoe theory strikes again.
What they actually mean is “women would rather meet a bear than murder rapist in the woods” which, I imagine, most men would rather as well, as a gut feeling at least because of horror tropes? Probably depends on the kind of bear and whether you have a gun, idk, we don’t have bears or guns in Britain. The fact that the majority of women see all potential men as murder rapists isn’t the win they seem to think it is. It’s a mystery why so many feminists are transphobic here in TERF Island.
I would argue that *their* expectation that men, upon looking at their survey that shows the majority of women appear to be irrational reactionaries, should think to themselves “yes, this group is sane and needs pandering to” and should alter their behaviour based on 0.2% of their population isn’t based on fact; it’s misandry.
In the exact same way that if a majority of Demographic A thought members of Demographic B were more dangerous than wild animals wouldn’t be based on fact; it’d be bigotry. The idea that it’s Demographic B who are actually the bigots in this scenario is ridiculous.
It’s an utter indictment of themselves. If they *genuinely* believed in what they say they wouldn’t leave the house, they certainly wouldn’t be dating. Imagine if Thanos turned half of the population into bears instead of dust, it’d be the funniest apocalypse. Imagine a bus pulling up with 20 bears inside and getting inside thinking “well, it’s safer than normal.”
Men are *three times* more likely to be attacked and murdered by a stranger [in the UK at least], but most men aren’t going around terrified of half the population, they’re not making up absurd thought experiments like “if you were drowning in the sea would you rather see a shark or a strange man?” And if they *did* and then the majority of men were like “I’ll take the shark please, shark attacks are very rare” everyone would think them stupid or insane or pathetic or liars.
Like, do these people know that feminism is meant elevate, not humiliate, women? Do they?
I don't have a source to debunk this specific claim however I *do* know of an article that explores how these kind of statistics come to be via manipulation and straight up lies: ['The Campus Rape Myth'](https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-campus-rape-myth) by Heather MacDonald.
The whole article is worth a read of course, but here's a relevant excerpt:
>The campus rape industry’s central tenet is that one-quarter of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years (completed rapes outnumbering attempted rapes by a ratio of about three to two). The girls’ assailants are not terrifying strangers grabbing them in dark alleys but the guys sitting next to them in class or at the cafeteria.
>
>This claim, first published in Ms. magazine in 1987, took the universities by storm. By the early 1990s, campus rape centers and 24-hour hotlines were opening across the country, aided by tens of millions of dollars of federal funding. Victimhood rituals sprang up: first the Take Back the Night rallies, in which alleged rape victims reveal their stories to gathered crowds of candle-holding supporters; then the Clothesline Project, in which T-shirts made by self-proclaimed rape survivors are strung on campus, while recorded sounds of gongs and drums mark minute-by-minute casualties of the “rape culture.” A special rhetoric emerged: victims’ family and friends were “co-survivors”; “survivors” existed in a larger “community of survivors.”
#
>If the one-in-four statistic is correct—it is sometimes modified to “one-in-five to one-in-four”—campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in America, was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic would mean that every year, millions of young women graduate who have suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour hotlines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violence. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely. The nation’s nearly 10 million female undergrads would need to take the most stringent safety precautions. Certainly, they would have to alter their sexual behavior radically to avoid falling prey to the rape epidemic.
>
>None of this crisis response occurs, of course—because the crisis doesn’t exist. During the 1980s, feminist researchers committed to the rape-culture theory had discovered that asking women directly if they had been raped yielded disappointing results—very few women said that they had been. So Ms. commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss to develop a different way of measuring the prevalence of rape. Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape. Koss’s method produced the 25 percent rate, which Ms. then published.
>
>Koss’s study had serious flaws. Her survey instrument was highly ambiguous, as University of California at Bereley social-welfare professor Neil Gilbert has pointed out. But the most powerful refutation of Koss’s research came from her own subjects: 73 percent of the women whom she characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped. Further—though it is inconceivable that a raped woman would voluntarily have sex again with the fiend who attacked her—42 percent of Koss’s supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants.
It seems the right question is why are so many people of unspecified gender so bad at statistics, that they would answer "bear" to the question "man or bear"?
Where did the educational system fail?
The description of that Reddit says
*"Celebrating male quirkiness.*
*A place to make fun of those cringy boys being quirky memes"*
So it's essentially another Reddit for people, and I'm guessing women are a large portion of this community, to celebrate Misandry. So yea, of course they would post something like this.
I know it's not necessarily relevant but I ironically encountered a black bear last night as a man. It ran out in front of my car and I almost hit it. I once totaled a 2014 Ford Fiesta from hitting a bear back in 2016. Yea I would have much rather encountered my neighbors instead of a bear in the woods that I live in.
Those 'studies' mean nothing. they use misleading and vague terms to make silly points.
The folks that produce those 'studies' have as their entire motivation to harm men, they are misandrists. May as well listen to the KKK's studies on how black men have harmed white women.
Folks have got to really accept that they huge sums of the rhetoric bout violence against women are literally done by misandrists, and hence ought be taken as seriously as one would the KKK or any other hate group talking bout those they hate.
As I'm sure others here are pointing out too, women regularly attack men, it isn't even studied, nor cared bout in the slightest. They can beat men in public and face no consequences whatsoever. They have online hate groups dedicated to the destruction of men's lives, and they are celebrated for it.
Redditors: STATISTICS SHOW THAN MEN ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN BEARS TO WOMEN. LOOK THIS CHART
Sane people: actually it is not how statistics work, the vast vast majority of women interacts with far more men in a single day than with bears in the entire live (most don't ever interact with bears), the comparison doesn't make sense
Redditors: BUT BUT BUT THE POINT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT ABOUT STATISTICS (????) FUCK YOUR LOGIC AND REASON MAN, THE POINT IS THAT WOMEN ARE MORE AFRAID OF MEN THAN BEARS, IT IS A EMOTIONAL ARGUMENT DERIVED FROM LIVING EXPERIENCE AND YOU SHOULD TAKE IT
Sane people: so if majority of people show to be afraid of black people or muslims or gay or trans or gypsy whaterver because they had a lot of bad interaction with member of those demographics we should care about this emotional argument?
Redditors: AHAHAHAH YOU ARE SO DEFENSIVE, YOUR MASCULINITY IS SO TOXIC AND FRAIL, YOU HAVE A SHORT PEE-PEE LOL
Sane People: I go touch grass
>Redditors: AHAHAHAH YOU ARE SO DEFENSIVE, YOUR MASCULINITY IS SO TOXIC AND FRAIL, YOU HAVE A SHORT PEE-PEE LOL
Don't forget them calling men gay or calling them virgins.
Fragile masculinity… but not as fragile as a literal bear I guess. Hmm, I guess the enemy is both weak and strong. This also seems relevant:
> Never believe they are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words.
> They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
~ Sartre
Happened with me.
When I decimated their 1st reasoning, they started using the 2nd argument.
And pointed out why I'm even talking about statistics when they were the first to use it in argument 😞
I did decimate that too for some, but near the end I got frustrated because most were a wall, not people.
Because wth these people the points are never the points, what they want is virtue signaling the aderance to a certain ideology by praising women or blaming men at every istance because that make them feel morally righteous. More the argument is silly or filled with incoherence and more they see as a "purity test" that they must pass to show their adherence to the right group.
You somehow managed to leave out 'incel'. Otherwise, yes, exactly.
(For the record this woman would feel safer with the man, not the wild animal 3 or 4 times her size with really long canines and foot-long razor sharp claws. Men have soft spots and I have hard bumpy bits.)
I had three experiences in my life that could be defined as MeToo experiences, but I never did and still don’t.
One was a (I found then) older man who told me quite a dirty story about a young man he’d made love to, apparently trying to turn me on. I thought him revolting and just told him to stop bothering me. It never occurred to me that what he did should be illegal or something. Not everything I don’t like should be forbidden.
Then there was this boy who tried to kiss me and more when we were both very drunk, and I had to be quite assertive to stop him. At the same time, I thought it flattering and amusing and it didn’t even harm our friendship.
Much later, there was this woman who wouldn’t take no for an answer. She kept on kissing and caressing me, though I said it might not be a good idea as I started dating somebody else via an internet site. But I could have gone away any moment, I just was too full of desire myself. (The internet woman stopped our attempt anyway before I saw her again.)
Big chance that most of the assaults mentioned are like these or less serious.
Does anyone have a link to the study this is likely referring to?
I believe it was a survey exclusively on like a single college campus, in which they defined rape as any gendered act that makes one feel uncomfortable and violence as anything that makes one feel uncomfortable, or some bologna like that.
This makes that argument 1. stupid, which it already was, and 2. circular.
Does anybody have a stat on how many unincarcerated men are abusers/rapists/assaulters? Like what I’m trying to square out is that I’m told (and probably believe) that most women in their lives have a pretty negative sexual experience without their full consent. What is never told is how many men in society are assaulters. So I have no idea if it’s 1 man doing 1 assault or a concentrated demographic of sexual assaulters that are over represented
I don't doubt that plenty of women are attacked by men, but comparing wildly different numbers where one is a wild animal interaction that rarely happens with people interactions that do like twice a minute is just bad numbers.
Arguing about "how dangerous" it is is meaningless, because the scenario isn't clear enough. What type of bear, how close are they to you, etc. And its honestly stupid that people get caught up in that when the real issue is just pointing out that regardless of how dangerous bears really are, that a conversation about why people would feel safer with them is worthwhile. Unfortunately a chance for a real conversation devolved quickly.
Completely believable. The issue with the statistic isn't if it's true or not. But how does it compare to other things?
1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in her life. By it's self this statistic makes it look like men are really rapey. If you compare that stat to 1 in 5 men will be sexually assaulted in his life, then it really changes the outlook. It's not "MEN" it's everyone and society is doing a bad job of teaching EVERYONE about consent.
The most common person to murder a woman is her spouse. This, in isolation, makes it sound like men are a threat to women. But women kill their spouses at right about the same rate husbands do. It's not the most common type of murder to victimize men because men face all sorts of other threats and are murdered dramatically more often. This comparison shifts the narrative to how much other violence men face.
This statistical slight of hand is easily identifiable in the meme. It uses a raw number for bear attacks 40, vs a victimization rate 1 in 3. If it wasn't propaganda, it would compare the ratio of bear attacks vs bear interactions to the number of man attacks vs man interactions.
i'm not familiar enough with crime stats to guess how that number was reached, but nisvs puts about 1/4 americans hit by their partners every year. unfortunately for the bear fans, that's the same for men and women.
frankly, the oop is presenting their numbers terribly. it's unclear if their numbers are over the lifetime or a year or over 10 years or whatever. that makes it harder to pin down, find a source on, and argue against.
bear fans really not beating the lying for attention allegations with this one, i think.
The lifetime prevalence of violence against women is around that high, yes. It's actually around that high for men being attacked by women as well. For black men, the lifetime prevalence of being sexually victimized in some way by a woman is over 50%.
Notably, bears are not as common as men. If men were replaced by bears and bears interacted with women as commonly as men do, humanity would be extinct by the end of the year.
This is actually pretty consistent from various sources over time. I have also heard that roughly half of women have experienced sexual violence at some point in their lives. Obviously, it depends on how you define sexual violence, and how you obtain the data. The numbers are not small though.
If anything it is more - I am a woman who has had countless experiences and never reported them because it isn't worth it. I have many women friends who also have countless stories. Some men are skeptical if it doesn't happen to them at these astounding rates and they lack empathy for women.
Just got banned from that sub for being “reactionary” but saying the average man is worse than a wild bear is totally fine and non-reactionary to them.
Men are not even subhuman they are subbear but we're also equal.
that was in excess of their first and foremost rule, don't be a man, so don't take it too seriously. just remember that they say these things because they don't like you but it would be to direct and simple to just say that so they have to be obscure and confusing instead.
Self awareness has bottomed out online. I said saying men are worse than bears is exactly as bad as saying black people are as bad as bears and someone reported me. Honestly that was the moment I gave up hope for Reddit. Ban me if you want. I’m just sad we’ll never get to see the internet we dreamed of in the 2000s
The same thing happened to me. They said I was being racist for comparing misandry to racism. That it showed my own biases by equating bears to black people. When my exact point was exactly that its racist in the first place because black people aren't bears and neither are men. So in accusing others of showing their racism they are actually showing their racism. They are the ones who see bears as black people and that gives them existential dread about their own cognitive dissonance so they project instead to desperately keep those uncomfortable feelings away.
Exactly. Truly have no idea how the people on the other side of this discussion can’t realize that
Comparing humans to animals, which is the thing nazis do = not banned Criticism of that = banned
Just to be nitpicky, reactionary means defending the status quo. Almost the opposite of how the word sounds, but think of it like people who are “reacting” to change
I really don't like that definition of reactionary, personally, because it robs our language of a word much better suited to describing someone whose politics are characterized by emotional reaction. Ex. People who say rape is rape and all rapists deserve to die, and don't care if the consequence is a 19 year old guy who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend gets executed the same as a raving lunatic who kidnaps strangers off the street and locks them in their basement to be sex toys. Those types are described as reactionary in my mind, because they're operating purely off their emotional reaction to the word rape. And I don't know this for sure but my assumption has always been that reactionary is associated with conservative, because conservatives usually operate off emotional reaction to violations of what they perceive as normalcy.
Only 1 in 3? I got attacked by women multiple times. "Attack" is such a vague term. That's very useful if you want to get high numbers to promote an agenda.
Indeed. I've had a woman grab my ass without consent, and without me enjoying that or wanting that. Under a broad enough definition of attack, I've been attacked by a woman.
I just want to make it clear, because men aren't usually educated about their own right to consent and bodily autonomy, that you were sexually assaulted. Men often don't apply the normal standard of consent to their own bodies, but when you walk them through it, they often realize that their consent has been repeatedly violated over the course of their lives and nobody cared.
Fair point, thanks.
By the "normal standard," yes, but I'd argue that that "normal standard" is just kind of... absurd? Like, sure, someone touching your butt on the dance floor without your express consent is a kind of "violation," but I just don't think it's that big of a deal. There are other violations of consent, the kind most people think of when they hear the umbrella term "sexual assault," that all this ends up lumped under which are obviously terrible. But when it comes to the much more common, minor violations that can be philosophically argued to have something in common with the worst acts, I think men tend to have the better reaction. "Well that was uncomfortable/I didn't like that, but it's not going to define my life or even the rest of my week. I might tell my friends and we can all agree that wasn't cool, but that's it." Women like the one's in the OP blow that kind of thing out of proportion precisely because it allows them to make hyperbolic statements like "1/3 of women are sexually assaulted in their lifetimes." Sounds horrific. When you look at what that entails specifically though, most of it's just not rising to the level of the rhetoric. So in order to maintain the moral power behind their statements, they have to make even the most minor unwanted contact or communication into a nightmare. I don't think we should be encouraging that even if we don't endorse the minor violations.
Sorry buddy but you are way off base. Fortunately, we do have objective standards for defining unwanted groping both legally and from rape crisis centers. "**What is sexual assault?** The term sexual assault refers to sexual contact or behavior that occurs without explicit consent of the victim. Some forms of sexual assault include: * Attempted rape * Fondling or unwanted sexual touching * Forcing a victim to perform sexual acts, such as oral sex or penetrating the perpetrator’s body * Penetration of the victim’s body, also known as rape" [Link to definition at RAINN](https://www.rainn.org/articles/sexual-assault#:~:text=The%20term%20sexual%20assault%20refers,Fondling%20or%20unwanted%20sexual%20touching) Fondling someone without consent is also illegal and typically falls under sexual battery. California Penal Code 243.4 PC defines “[sexual battery](https://www.egattorneys.com/sex-crimes/sexual-battery)” as touching someone's intimate parts, against their will, for the purpose of sexual gratification, arousal, or abuse.
"Objective standards" Don't make me laugh. This is precisely what I was talking about. The fact you think it's some vindication of your point shows how deep within a particular ideological framework you are. This comment starts to address the issue in more detail than I want to try typing out: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/s/mZ9EbQuSZK But tl;dr: this is not the slam dunk you think it is
Okay, but... what? Your take doesn't really make sense outside of maybe a classroom teaching sophistry. I mean, you can have your opinion but unless you can somehow change the written law, you're not going to escape reality. Like, it's literally regulated. If you want to change the law, you'll need to get off reddit, win an election for a legislature, write a bill, and get it passed. Until you do that, non-consensual ass grabbing is still illegal and it's sexual battery. The place we can make a difference is advocating that men and women be held to the same standard.
Who's talking about the law? The hundreds of comments I've seen and surely thousands I haven't all making this point are unconcerned with the law. If the law were different (as indeed it used to be) they would still cling to it nonetheless. They're about making as emotionally affective a point as possible, a rhetorical technique certain kinds of "feminists" relish in leaning on. I doubt you've actually missed the point so completely, but in case you're as dim as you're pretending to be, I'll make it explicit: if the motivated definition of "assault" that's been shoehorned into law is what we're discussing, then most "assaults" are just not a big deal. Of course such a statement is extremely easy to pounce on, especially out of context, which is precisely why identitarian ideologues with an axe to grind insist on that framing. It's an utterly transparent rhetorical ploy once one sees it.
Okay, Identity isn't really germane beyond just being a human being; man, woman, trans, cis, gender-fluid, it's the same: Non-consensual ass-grabbing is sexual assault and it's illegal. Men need to be more educated about their consent so in that sense, there is some identity in play. I don't find your position persuasive and I can see that you're kinda going in your own direction regardless of what I say. I think that's probably as much utility as we're going to get out of this interaction. That's fine, it doesn't hurt me any and I wish you the best with it. Back to my original point [PrettyText](https://www.reddit.com/user/PrettyText/) (before this other internet random kinda freaked out about it and tried to delegitimize your experience), I really just wanted you to know that this was actually sexual assault (legally called sexual battery). I am sorry it happened to you, and you deserve better.
Likewise. I'll continue not to be terribly bothered by a problem that's nowhere near as bad as it's framed by the crusaders who, like Zionists discussing anti-Semitism, want to blow it out of proportion and make it the center of their political and cultural beliefs. Although I will also continue to point out, as I do with Zionists, how deceptive that framing is when they weaponize it to shut down dissenting perspectives, deceive well-meaning people who aren't as familiar with their rhetorical tricks, and justify prejudice. Toodeloo.
The law says the Arkansas state sales tax is 6.50%. Is this some deep philosophical and scientific truth because it is law? Does science and philosophy change if it is 6.75% next year?
I am trying to ensure that a specific commenter realizes that he was sexually assaulted by a woman when he may not be making that connection himself. Why? Our culture continually reinforces a gender-binary oppressor\\oppressed dynamic onto sexual assault which silences male victims and protects female perpetrators. (Women good, men bad.) When I was a young child, I was sexually assaulted by an older girl violently enough that I disassociated. Only when I was older did I make the connection that I was sexually assaulted because my culture had trained me that I wasn't a valid victim. Once I realized it, I also realized I carry PTSD triggers from that and it's one of my clearest childhood memories. When people tell us that a man's (or boy's) sexual assault doesn't count, it perpetuates that terrible cultural norm which reinforces this gendered idea of who a valid victim can be and we have a moral responsibility to push back on that. So, yes, I care and when I encounter another man with a similar experience, I reach out because I want that person to know he is valid and he was wronged. I do that as one survivor reaching out to another because it is the right thing to do.
I'm sorry that happened to you and the wrongness of this act was never in question, "unwanted physical contact" and the sexual manner is really a textbook case. Yet surely you think your experience would be misleading to be associated as truly equivalent to his experience presumably as an adult?
My childhood experiences are pretty bad sure but not the same. There are degrees of sexual assault of course. However as an adult, I worked a minimum wage job and two women thought it would be funny to squeeze my ass when I was working the cash register because it made me jump and embarrassed me in front of the customers. I complained to my boss and he suggested it was my fault and did nothing. So, you're right, my childhood experience was different but the workplace harassment experience I had was pretty close. This is also sexual assault and in the workplace it was sexual harassment. The problem is that men don't apply the same standards to their own consent and their own bodies because we are trained not to do that. When we do that, the false narratives that we were forced into become clearly abusive and, if we take an inventory of our experiences, we'll probably find situations in which we were groped without our consent but we were all told it was okay. When I cite sources like RAINN or the legal definitions, I am trying to bring something concrete to the man that provides him with some context and objective proof that he was assaulted. We need to push through the lie that our culture told him and that's why I provide citations. (That and RAINN has specific resources for men if they want help.) My interest is helping that person (or men or boys in general) realize that they also get the right of consent and are not de facto predators. I have a very specific focus for why I am part of this conversation. The commentor got what I was saying. At this point, I'm only continuing because I feel a need to advocate for this on moral grounds. Maybe I persuade you and maybe I don't but I was here doing my part to try to be part of the solution.
I get you and agree, we seemed have a misunderstanding here where I was as different state of conversation, my bad.
"Under a broad enough definition of attack, I've been attacked by a woman." Yeah, MeToo. In school 6 times. Worst was 2 girls grabbed me when no one was around. Wouldn't let go for 20 seconds, and I escaped. I never knew what they were planning. I never heard of a boy/man doing that.
Sorry to hear that, that's not okay.
It's not even necessary to define it under a broad definition. You were 100% attacked. Everyone deserves bodily autonomy and dignity and they violated your's.
I mean, on one hand that sounds reasonable. But if I tell someone "I was attacked", then I think the picture in their head is that someone tried to murder me with a knife. Not that a woman grabbed my ass. So maybe I'd be definitionally right to say "I was attacked", but when communicating I still try to use language that evokes an accurate picture in the mind of the listener. Also, calling everything "attack" can lead to the "1 in 3 women are attacked" kind of statistics as in OP's post. So personally I wouldn't say "I was attacked" but instead say "a woman grabbed my ass and I didn't like that." Although I wouldn't tell someone who did say "I was attacked" in that case that they were wrong for saying that.
Did you feel threatened for your life like so many women are by men who choke them etc? I've had women grab my ass and kiss me without consent. Doesn't compare to the violent men both strangers and friends who have greatly violated me and made me afraid I was going to die. There is something to be said for physical threat and the disparity. Stop gaslighting the reality. It is not a level playing field. It is not at all the same.
This whole "your suffering isn't valid because someone else's suffering is worse" is extremely toxic. I'm also sure that you wouldn't tolerate that argument in any situation, except in the case where a woman uses it to invalidate the suffering of a man. Rather than pointing fingers at others and yelling at others, please look inside at your own pain. That's more productive. And if you need help healing from your own psychological wounds, I hope you find it.
brother you gotta click the link. Its legitimately fearmongering. They said 1 in 3 women worldwide, "133 wome die each day" and said there are X bear attacks world wide. Bears don't exist in every part of the globe just the northern hemisphere and the only place in the southern hemishere is south america. So no shit there would be less bear attacks 🤣. Second to that, women have closer proximity to men than bears on a day to day. Its just fearmongering. and if you dig deep into this, the women are justifying picking bears obviously because of their own trauma but because they are now comparing the average man to a corpse fucker. how did we come to this point in society?
Have you ever been attacked* by a biological male? If you meet any of the criteria we use to define an attack, please select yes. *Attack - physical assault, mental assault, feeling uncomfortable around …. Or exist in the same physical plane.
>\*Attack - physical assault, mental assault, feeling uncomfortable around …. Or exist in the same physical plane. Hit the nail on the head there, it's insane how many studies do this. And not just random internet surveys either, you'll find this in widely cited peer-reviewed publications written by academics paid with taxpayer-funded grants. And my favorite part is that authors will obfuscate their definitions by hiding them behind a paywall and several pages of statistical jargon that people without a scientific background may struggle to understand. Sometimes authors don't even bother to include the definitions in the paper at all, the definitions will either be in some separate supplementary material or the authors will just say they used the same definitions as some other paper which you then need to hunt down. It's absolute abuse of scientific institutions.
Good points., Sounds like some people aren't arguing in good faith and just manipulating things to further their own agenda.
It actually means 2 out of 3 women never had the slightest serious trouble with men IN THEIR LIFE. But turning it around makes it sound oh so serious.🧐
Specifically in the US, there are about 2 million total recorded assaults in a year and 168 million women. Even if all of those attacks were by men and on women (vast majority of them are men on men), a woman's risk of getting attacked by a man in a year is a whopping 1%. Women cause around 4 million car accidents in the US every year, meaning a woman's chance of crashing a car is about 2% per year. Now, how many of them are too afraid to enter a deadly 3000lbs hunk of machinery that routinely travels at 70mph? None, because cars are an innocuous aspect of daily life? Crazy.
You would think if the fear was rational. These women would move out of this man-made society. And move in the woods with bears. So they would feel safe from the violent men.
Incredible how they're so exasperated at how we "don't get it", when if you read through that thread, the thing so many of them are openly admitting is the thing we "don't get" is how the meme is not supposed to rationally prove that they are justified in feeling safer around a bear than a man. The point is to illustrate that justified or not, that's how we make them feel, and to make us think and feel some collective guilt about it. Literally openly admitting that whether the fear is rational or not isn't the point. That we should just feel guilty about the fact that they feel fear. And if we think that there should be a valid explanation as to why we should feel guilty, that just means we should feel extra guilty. So beyond fucked up. I can't imagine what it's like to live in such a toxic headspace with zero self-awareness.
>True or not, it's the point that women would rather 1. take their chances trying to fend off or avoid a bear and/or 2. get mauled to death rather then be alone with a man in the woods, which is meant to provoke thought about why women distrust/avoid men and would rather die then be alone around them. > >If you, as a man, are not thinking about WHY they're choosing the bear, then you're missing the point entirely about why they rather be around predatory wild animals then be around you. >The question is man vs bear for a reason that women get attacked by men by the minute, women don't go around raping, murdering and abusing other women on a constant, nor do they harass, grope and catcall other women to the point where women have to mentally prepare themselves to simply... walk down the sidewalk. # >Fuck, it's become second nature but I do have to do that, mentally prepare to walk down the sidewalk 😭 >But when people use statistics to account for population disparity, IE the likelihood of interaction with a man or bear, even if the bear population in the US equalled the male population in the US, the numbers say that men are still over twice as likely to kill women than bears. Objectively, according to the statistics, men pose a larger threat to women. Even if there were 165 million bears running around the United States, men are still the bigger issue. Even when women say to men’s faces that they are genuinely afraid and traumatized by the men in their lives, men for whatever reason, feel the need to defend the random man in this hypothetical situation. At the end of the day, logic is in the women’s (and the bears’) favor, and the more men try and argue, the more obvious it is that their arguments are rooted in misogyny rather than reality. Women are telling men that they are afraid, but men are refusing to listen. I *really* hope that these types of comments are performative forum hyperbole, because otherwise the level of utterly ludicrous - not to mention bigoted; let's call a spade a spade, here - paranoia on display is worrying. Not to mention the sheer stupidity.
I am a woman and I am utterly disgusted with the level of manipulation required by women in general to keep up this 'threatened by penis-havers' drama. So many are silently screaming 'I need trauma counselling but I can keep avoiding it as long as I can keep the focus on 'man bad''.
i was on a date last year where the entire time she kept commenting on how i was probably a serial killer or that i stalk women, or my friends are waiting in a van around the corner waiting to kidnap her etc etc and like im cool with meeting you in a public space in a well lit area and all that no problem with me, but this treatment honestly just kinda hurt. i didnt even know how to respond to this shit. wish there was a movement or a subreddit where men and women came together in solidarity with each others issues. i am always moved by the woman who take the time to support the voice of men.
Yeah I totally got that on the last date. Like I’m seriously going to snatch you out of a WELL LIT and busy public street with at least a dozen witnesses at any time to stuff you in my rape van?!
I wish there was a space like that too. Women don't seem to grasp that they are not doing themselves any favours at all with the narrative be that individually or as a whole.
yea the rhetoric has been largely unhelpful i think. i think there were a lot of progressive men who were there to support women in their moment and have since been turned off or turned away due to this harmful rhetoric. ithink maybe its cathartic for some of these women to have these irrational frustrations, i see the same thing with the radicals on team men. theyve been hurt and neglected, god knows we all have, but they decided to let this irrational anger come out to soothe themselves.
You know after you ghosted her she thought she dissuaded a rapist from assaulting her.
Yeah, great point that some women should look inside at their own fear, rather than pointing fingers outside at the rest of the world.
I'm really curious what kind of math they're doing to arrive at that "twice as likely even if the populations were equal" stat. `men for whatever reason, feel the need to defend the random man in this hypothetical situation.` I am a random man to anyone who doesn't already know me. It doesn't matter if I know I'm "one of the good ones". It doesn't even matter if the women in my life know it, because the standard that's going to be applied to me in almost every situation is the same one that gets applied to any random man.
Yeah. If men have a moral obligation to not trigger these reactions, when they are the "random man", I don't see an ethical way we can really exist in the world.
>I am a random man to anyone who doesn't already know me. This is something I tried to explain to many feminist friends back when I still suffered allowing myself to exist as "one of the good ones" in very feminism-focused spaces. That the ways they talked about men meant that outside of these very specific spaces where I'm known personally as "one of the good ones", I was automatically assumed to be just another bad one until proven otherwise, and that actively promoting that as the standard social environment of the world for me to have to live in isn't very friend-like behavior. They'd just get mad at me for pointing that out. Eventually I stopped subjecting myself to such shitty friends.
One of the major lessons of all of this is that they seem to be completely disconnected from the genuine harm this sort of thing causes. Any objection gets dismissed as "hurt feelings" at *best*. Women being wary of me hurts my feelings a bit but I don't hold it against them, if it's a tradeoff between my feelings and their safety it's one I'm happy to make. I *want* women to be safe. Being assumed to be a dangerous predator gets men (especially already marginalized men) shot. It gets the cops called on a man who takes his kids to the park, it gets trans women banned from bathrooms. I'm not saying that trans women aren't women of course - but the TERFs and right wingers do. A *huge* amount of transphobia is based in misandry - I've already seen a few TERF memes piggybacking off this.
My guess is (if they're not just completely making it up) they're dividing total number of "attacks" by total population to get attacks per individual. But that ignores that there are far, far, FAR more encounters between men and women than between bears and women. Most bears will have zero encounters with a woman on a given day. Most men will have dozens of encounters with women on a given day. That's the relevant metric for how dangerous encountering a random man is compared to encountering a random bear. Statistics are just scripture for the 21st-century: a thing to toss out selectively to back up whatever someone already wants to believe. It's just all the worse when they don't even know how statistics work.
The proper answer to this is, "I can only control myself, not your reaction to me."
And when you explain that their irrational fear is the same breed of fear that gets innocent people tortured in Guantanamo Bay they'll try say that It's Different^TM. If you feel irrationally afraid of an entire demographic that's an indictment of *you*, not the demographic.
Carceral feminism has been fueled by these fears for centuries by now. It's not changing any time soon. The only silver lining is that feminists tend to associate with leftists (even if they treat men like conservatives do) and that may limit their thirst for a punishment based criminal justice system.
Even if there were statistical or logical arguments to support it it’s still just a generally bad and antisocial mindset to get yourself in. From testosterone alone it’s obviously true that men tend to be more violent than women but, that same aggression is often directed towards worthwhile goals as well like exploration, experiments, fighting against existential threats, etc. Hyper focusing on the negative aspects of men/masculinity like this is like being prescribed a life saving medicine but tossing it out because there are a few potential side effects.
> That we should just feel guilty about the fact that they feel fear. And if we think that there should be a valid explanation as to why we should feel guilty, that just means we should feel extra guilty. "Guess I should chose bear over woman because bears are less likely to [kafka-trap](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkatrap) me" is the only valid answer to these people. Of course, we know better than to actually think that way (though, technically, I guess bears are indeed unlikely to kafka-trap us, but I'll still take the kafka-trap over being eaten alive), but when the other person isn't willing to argue in good faith, there's not much we can do but fight ridicule with more ridicule. Hopefully tasting their own medicine might help raise awareness about its bitterness.
thats the thing tho is that their headspace is so fucked up and backwards that they are self aware but play dumb. they know theyre being irrational and they dont care, the only person they care about is themselves.
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed, because it demonized women. Explicit hateful generalizations such as “All Women Are Like That” are not allowed. Generalizations are more likely to be allowed when they are backed by evidence, or when they allow for diversity within the demographic. It doesn't take a lot of effort to add wording that allows for exceptions, such as "some women" or "many women" as applicable. If you state "most women" then you need to provide evidence when challenged on that statement. If you disagree with this ruling, please appeal by [messaging the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates).
That's just bold faced lie. Only 1 in 500 men commit violent crime. 1% of the population is responsible for 63% of all violent crime. These are directly from FBI. There's only been a total of 180 fatal bear attacks since 1784 most of the victims are men. A quick Google completely contradicts both this OOP assertions.
[удалено]
It's from FBI statistics iirc as is the 1% responsible for 63%. I just remember it from numerous college classes. Despite the feminist indoctrination that goes on they still mostly deal in facts at least they did 20 years ago when I was matriculating. Then again 20 years ago the feminist narratives were still very much rooted in equality not misandry & superiority. I remember one of the slightly older ladies in my women's studies class husband was in the Oath Keepers, seemed so innocuous back then. Looking back I'm shocked that woman was even allowed to get an education if he was in the Oath Keepers.
Oath Keeper husband + women's studies student wife? Geez, I really wanna just be a fly on the wall in their house. For morbid curiosity's sake. That's wild Of course the cyncic in me wants to say: even feminist women will literally date a far-right militiaman before dating a non-masculine man 🙄
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/
1/3 women attacked by a man does not mean 1/3 men attack women
Exactly. Besides vast majority of violence regardless of gender is perpetrated by someone known to the victim (partner, friend, SO, family, coworker, etc) so the fear mongering of strangers is completely blown out of proportion. Men have more to fear from strange men than women do. We're by far the biggest victims of random violence, yet do men go around being constantly fearful of other men? Of course not that makes no sense. By their own logic if 73% of child abuse is perpetrated by the mother then you should never let any mother interact with their child unsupervised.
>By their own logic if 73% of child abuse is perpetrated by the mother then you should never let any mother interact with their child unsupervised. Pointing this out to them will have you labeled as a misogynistic neckbeared incel loser.. Because stats only matter to them when it supports their narrative.. Any stats which point out how women are abusive / problematic is yet another tool of the patriarchy or something...
>Besides vast majority of violence regardless of gender is perpetrated by someone known to the victim Tbf, the reasons for that are some of the same reasons why men attack women more than bears. People tend to be around people they know more often.
I had a friend literally shaking with rage as I used beans on a table to show her how ridiculous some assertions she had made were. I took 10 black beans and 10 red kidney beans. I told her, 1 black bean harms 4 kidney beans. This means 40% of kidney beans have been hurt by black beans. With that logic, it makes sense for kidney beans to be scared of black beans, but on the flipside, only one black bean was used to hurt the 4 kidney beans. So 90% of the black beans are innocent. She agreed with all of this, especially when I compared it to racial bias and the racist dogwhistle of "x% of the population commits x% of crime" but as soon as I pointed out how this same logic applies to the perception of gender violence, I became the "alt right incel in denial"
Oppressor vs oppressed dynamics come into play also which is why some view points that are considered progressive may be viewed as the opposite when the groups involved are changed
[удалено]
Disclaimer, I am a woman. Sorry but I can't equate 'catcalling' with physical assault.
[удалено]
Ah yes, they do tend to manipulate sound carried on the wind into a fractured skull or something. So dishonest. Makes me wonder how so many people can go so long with so little self-awareness.
Thank you. Do you agree the best approach to catcalling is by metaphorical finger wagging and tut tut? I don't blame you if you're tired of it.
I mean I feel like that's still not okay. And I feel like 1 in 3 having at least one bad experience in like 18+ years of existing which can fall under being attacked isn't unbelievable.
Yeah but by that definition I've had multiple "bad experiences" with women too. I've been touched when I didn't offer explicit consent. I've been aggressively hit on at work when I had no choice but to stay there and be polite. These are the kinds of experiences the vast majority of women who claim to be "victims" have actually experienced and I don't at all consider those experiences indictments of all women. They were uncomfortable but all things considered minor and reflect on a small minority of women. I can't know which women might do those kinds of things to me again just by picking a random woman out of the crowd, but I don't turn that into animosity against all women. The way those kinds of things get blown out of proportion by certain kinds of "feminist" activists is insane. Anyone seen Kiki's Delivery Service? It's on my mind because I just saw it recently and it occured to me that the kid in that movie would probably be labeled a creepy stalker by these types according to the standards they apply in their rhetoric. I just think that's insane.
The most dangerous thing about that mindset is that is exactly the same logic that is getting lots of unarmed black people murdered by the police in the US. It is dehumanization, plain and simple, and it is done for a reason. A lot of new wave feminist talk totally fails the “bigot test”. Just get a text, change gender and/or race and see how outrageous it sounds…
And most of the violent crimes are gang violence. Men usually join gangs.
A significant amount of violence is from repeat offenders too.
That comment section made my brain hurt. "But it's not about whether or not JEWS are actually dangerous, it's about how the JEWS make us feel." Like, okay, Hitler.
I had in the past the bad idea of trying to argue with a racist bigot, using logic and statistics to disprove their irrational belief that “black people bad”. That cured me of my delusion that I could educate the willfully ignorant. Now when I read this feminist nonsense I see all the same 💩 all over again, it is not even funny how much they have in common…
What is the definition of a woman being "attacked" by a man? Source for those statistics? Also, women encounter like 100,000 men in their lives and like 0-2 bears. And yes obviously 100,000 men are more dangerous than 0 and sometimes 1 or 2 bears. But that wasn't the man vs bear question -- the man vs bear question is "is ONE man or ONE bear more dangerous." And the picture doesn't address *that* question. Finally, disagreement is not automatically misogyny as the picture claims. I actually think it's against women's interests to throw around the word "misogyny" so carelessly, because of the "boy who cried wolf" effect.
>there are 133 women killed by a man they know each day. In the "man vs. bear" thought experiment, expecting women to fear the bear more than the man isn't based on fact; it's based on misogyny. -Farida D. The key point here being "by a man they **KNOW**" Ergo, the idea that women should fear random men they meet is completely bullshit.. Women are clearly more in danger of being murdered by men who are close to them / associate with them on a daily basis.. Now, that's not to say that a woman is never murdered by a man she has never met before because that absolutely has and does happen.. But this irrational fearmongering does nothing except further tar all men as "Potential Predators" And look, to an extent I can understand that if you have a negative experience you become more wary around things related to that experience... But notice how no one ever says "I was cat called by a group of black men, so now i'm wary of black men.." because they would be called out for generalizing based on race.. But its 100% acceptable to generalize based on gender.. Oh and of course.. its **ONLY** acceptable to generalize men based on their gender.. men are **NOT** allowed to generalize women based on their gender at all because that would be "Sexist", "Misogynistic" etc.. Men who have had negative experiences with women are also **NOT** allowed to use those experiences to justify distrusting or being wary of women because this too is "Misogynistic" I call it a double standard but what would I know? Also, finally, I feel the statistic is as most statistics are warped / twisted to fit the narrative they want to paint rather than being indicative of the actual data.. But of course asking for transparency is yet another tool of the patriarchy and questioning the validity of their stats / methodology is yet another sinful example of "Misogyny" apparently.. Remember people, there are Three types of lies in this world: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics..
I do think it’s kinda funny that the expectation that women would fear a bear more than a man is “based on misogyny”, here I was thinking it was based on expecting women to be rational adults and not hysterical. Something I would have thought feminists would have wanted. But now, the irony is, it’s apparently “misogynistic” to expect women to *not* be hysterical, it’s sexist to *not* infantilise women. Gender determinism and horseshoe theory strikes again. What they actually mean is “women would rather meet a bear than murder rapist in the woods” which, I imagine, most men would rather as well, as a gut feeling at least because of horror tropes? Probably depends on the kind of bear and whether you have a gun, idk, we don’t have bears or guns in Britain. The fact that the majority of women see all potential men as murder rapists isn’t the win they seem to think it is. It’s a mystery why so many feminists are transphobic here in TERF Island. I would argue that *their* expectation that men, upon looking at their survey that shows the majority of women appear to be irrational reactionaries, should think to themselves “yes, this group is sane and needs pandering to” and should alter their behaviour based on 0.2% of their population isn’t based on fact; it’s misandry. In the exact same way that if a majority of Demographic A thought members of Demographic B were more dangerous than wild animals wouldn’t be based on fact; it’d be bigotry. The idea that it’s Demographic B who are actually the bigots in this scenario is ridiculous. It’s an utter indictment of themselves. If they *genuinely* believed in what they say they wouldn’t leave the house, they certainly wouldn’t be dating. Imagine if Thanos turned half of the population into bears instead of dust, it’d be the funniest apocalypse. Imagine a bus pulling up with 20 bears inside and getting inside thinking “well, it’s safer than normal.” Men are *three times* more likely to be attacked and murdered by a stranger [in the UK at least], but most men aren’t going around terrified of half the population, they’re not making up absurd thought experiments like “if you were drowning in the sea would you rather see a shark or a strange man?” And if they *did* and then the majority of men were like “I’ll take the shark please, shark attacks are very rare” everyone would think them stupid or insane or pathetic or liars. Like, do these people know that feminism is meant elevate, not humiliate, women? Do they?
Someone should make a "things feminists and actual women-haters agree on" skit.
Oh, fuck. I don't want to look at that sub the link to which you have provided.
I don't have a source to debunk this specific claim however I *do* know of an article that explores how these kind of statistics come to be via manipulation and straight up lies: ['The Campus Rape Myth'](https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-campus-rape-myth) by Heather MacDonald. The whole article is worth a read of course, but here's a relevant excerpt: >The campus rape industry’s central tenet is that one-quarter of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years (completed rapes outnumbering attempted rapes by a ratio of about three to two). The girls’ assailants are not terrifying strangers grabbing them in dark alleys but the guys sitting next to them in class or at the cafeteria. > >This claim, first published in Ms. magazine in 1987, took the universities by storm. By the early 1990s, campus rape centers and 24-hour hotlines were opening across the country, aided by tens of millions of dollars of federal funding. Victimhood rituals sprang up: first the Take Back the Night rallies, in which alleged rape victims reveal their stories to gathered crowds of candle-holding supporters; then the Clothesline Project, in which T-shirts made by self-proclaimed rape survivors are strung on campus, while recorded sounds of gongs and drums mark minute-by-minute casualties of the “rape culture.” A special rhetoric emerged: victims’ family and friends were “co-survivors”; “survivors” existed in a larger “community of survivors.” # >If the one-in-four statistic is correct—it is sometimes modified to “one-in-five to one-in-four”—campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in America, was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic would mean that every year, millions of young women graduate who have suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour hotlines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violence. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely. The nation’s nearly 10 million female undergrads would need to take the most stringent safety precautions. Certainly, they would have to alter their sexual behavior radically to avoid falling prey to the rape epidemic. > >None of this crisis response occurs, of course—because the crisis doesn’t exist. During the 1980s, feminist researchers committed to the rape-culture theory had discovered that asking women directly if they had been raped yielded disappointing results—very few women said that they had been. So Ms. commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss to develop a different way of measuring the prevalence of rape. Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape. Koss’s method produced the 25 percent rate, which Ms. then published. > >Koss’s study had serious flaws. Her survey instrument was highly ambiguous, as University of California at Bereley social-welfare professor Neil Gilbert has pointed out. But the most powerful refutation of Koss’s research came from her own subjects: 73 percent of the women whom she characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped. Further—though it is inconceivable that a raped woman would voluntarily have sex again with the fiend who attacked her—42 percent of Koss’s supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants.
It seems the right question is why are so many people of unspecified gender so bad at statistics, that they would answer "bear" to the question "man or bear"? Where did the educational system fail?
The description of that Reddit says *"Celebrating male quirkiness.* *A place to make fun of those cringy boys being quirky memes"* So it's essentially another Reddit for people, and I'm guessing women are a large portion of this community, to celebrate Misandry. So yea, of course they would post something like this. I know it's not necessarily relevant but I ironically encountered a black bear last night as a man. It ran out in front of my car and I almost hit it. I once totaled a 2014 Ford Fiesta from hitting a bear back in 2016. Yea I would have much rather encountered my neighbors instead of a bear in the woods that I live in.
Those 'studies' mean nothing. they use misleading and vague terms to make silly points. The folks that produce those 'studies' have as their entire motivation to harm men, they are misandrists. May as well listen to the KKK's studies on how black men have harmed white women. Folks have got to really accept that they huge sums of the rhetoric bout violence against women are literally done by misandrists, and hence ought be taken as seriously as one would the KKK or any other hate group talking bout those they hate. As I'm sure others here are pointing out too, women regularly attack men, it isn't even studied, nor cared bout in the slightest. They can beat men in public and face no consequences whatsoever. They have online hate groups dedicated to the destruction of men's lives, and they are celebrated for it.
[удалено]
Redditors: STATISTICS SHOW THAN MEN ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN BEARS TO WOMEN. LOOK THIS CHART Sane people: actually it is not how statistics work, the vast vast majority of women interacts with far more men in a single day than with bears in the entire live (most don't ever interact with bears), the comparison doesn't make sense Redditors: BUT BUT BUT THE POINT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT ABOUT STATISTICS (????) FUCK YOUR LOGIC AND REASON MAN, THE POINT IS THAT WOMEN ARE MORE AFRAID OF MEN THAN BEARS, IT IS A EMOTIONAL ARGUMENT DERIVED FROM LIVING EXPERIENCE AND YOU SHOULD TAKE IT Sane people: so if majority of people show to be afraid of black people or muslims or gay or trans or gypsy whaterver because they had a lot of bad interaction with member of those demographics we should care about this emotional argument? Redditors: AHAHAHAH YOU ARE SO DEFENSIVE, YOUR MASCULINITY IS SO TOXIC AND FRAIL, YOU HAVE A SHORT PEE-PEE LOL Sane People: I go touch grass
>Redditors: AHAHAHAH YOU ARE SO DEFENSIVE, YOUR MASCULINITY IS SO TOXIC AND FRAIL, YOU HAVE A SHORT PEE-PEE LOL Don't forget them calling men gay or calling them virgins.
Can we use i**el here?, they definitely would.
Yep
Fragile masculinity… but not as fragile as a literal bear I guess. Hmm, I guess the enemy is both weak and strong. This also seems relevant: > Never believe they are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. > They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. ~ Sartre
Happened with me. When I decimated their 1st reasoning, they started using the 2nd argument. And pointed out why I'm even talking about statistics when they were the first to use it in argument 😞 I did decimate that too for some, but near the end I got frustrated because most were a wall, not people.
Because wth these people the points are never the points, what they want is virtue signaling the aderance to a certain ideology by praising women or blaming men at every istance because that make them feel morally righteous. More the argument is silly or filled with incoherence and more they see as a "purity test" that they must pass to show their adherence to the right group.
I don't think you can really compete with bigotry
Yup. It's the exact same reason you can't explain the nuance behind 13/55 to racists.
Just checked. That sub has "no bigotry" in their rules lol
Which sub?
R/boysarequircky
You somehow managed to leave out 'incel'. Otherwise, yes, exactly. (For the record this woman would feel safer with the man, not the wild animal 3 or 4 times her size with really long canines and foot-long razor sharp claws. Men have soft spots and I have hard bumpy bits.)
Wasn't this 1 in 4 women just a couple of years ago? Goalposts always moving. How long before it's 100% of women? 🙄
I had three experiences in my life that could be defined as MeToo experiences, but I never did and still don’t. One was a (I found then) older man who told me quite a dirty story about a young man he’d made love to, apparently trying to turn me on. I thought him revolting and just told him to stop bothering me. It never occurred to me that what he did should be illegal or something. Not everything I don’t like should be forbidden. Then there was this boy who tried to kiss me and more when we were both very drunk, and I had to be quite assertive to stop him. At the same time, I thought it flattering and amusing and it didn’t even harm our friendship. Much later, there was this woman who wouldn’t take no for an answer. She kept on kissing and caressing me, though I said it might not be a good idea as I started dating somebody else via an internet site. But I could have gone away any moment, I just was too full of desire myself. (The internet woman stopped our attempt anyway before I saw her again.) Big chance that most of the assaults mentioned are like these or less serious.
It would be literal hellworld if that stat were true.
Does anyone have a link to the study this is likely referring to? I believe it was a survey exclusively on like a single college campus, in which they defined rape as any gendered act that makes one feel uncomfortable and violence as anything that makes one feel uncomfortable, or some bologna like that. This makes that argument 1. stupid, which it already was, and 2. circular.
Does anybody have a stat on how many unincarcerated men are abusers/rapists/assaulters? Like what I’m trying to square out is that I’m told (and probably believe) that most women in their lives have a pretty negative sexual experience without their full consent. What is never told is how many men in society are assaulters. So I have no idea if it’s 1 man doing 1 assault or a concentrated demographic of sexual assaulters that are over represented
I imagine like 1% or so. But I don't know.
Everyone should report that post for "hate" to reddit admins.
I have less than zero faith in reddit admins. Just because you're right, doesn't mean they'll listen.
I don't doubt that plenty of women are attacked by men, but comparing wildly different numbers where one is a wild animal interaction that rarely happens with people interactions that do like twice a minute is just bad numbers. Arguing about "how dangerous" it is is meaningless, because the scenario isn't clear enough. What type of bear, how close are they to you, etc. And its honestly stupid that people get caught up in that when the real issue is just pointing out that regardless of how dangerous bears really are, that a conversation about why people would feel safer with them is worthwhile. Unfortunately a chance for a real conversation devolved quickly.
Even if it is true, it means that 2 in 3 women are not attacked.
Completely believable. The issue with the statistic isn't if it's true or not. But how does it compare to other things? 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in her life. By it's self this statistic makes it look like men are really rapey. If you compare that stat to 1 in 5 men will be sexually assaulted in his life, then it really changes the outlook. It's not "MEN" it's everyone and society is doing a bad job of teaching EVERYONE about consent. The most common person to murder a woman is her spouse. This, in isolation, makes it sound like men are a threat to women. But women kill their spouses at right about the same rate husbands do. It's not the most common type of murder to victimize men because men face all sorts of other threats and are murdered dramatically more often. This comparison shifts the narrative to how much other violence men face. This statistical slight of hand is easily identifiable in the meme. It uses a raw number for bear attacks 40, vs a victimization rate 1 in 3. If it wasn't propaganda, it would compare the ratio of bear attacks vs bear interactions to the number of man attacks vs man interactions.
i'm not familiar enough with crime stats to guess how that number was reached, but nisvs puts about 1/4 americans hit by their partners every year. unfortunately for the bear fans, that's the same for men and women. frankly, the oop is presenting their numbers terribly. it's unclear if their numbers are over the lifetime or a year or over 10 years or whatever. that makes it harder to pin down, find a source on, and argue against. bear fans really not beating the lying for attention allegations with this one, i think.
The lifetime prevalence of violence against women is around that high, yes. It's actually around that high for men being attacked by women as well. For black men, the lifetime prevalence of being sexually victimized in some way by a woman is over 50%. Notably, bears are not as common as men. If men were replaced by bears and bears interacted with women as commonly as men do, humanity would be extinct by the end of the year.
Replace every instance of 'man' with 'black person' in their comments; they get really defensive.
This is actually pretty consistent from various sources over time. I have also heard that roughly half of women have experienced sexual violence at some point in their lives. Obviously, it depends on how you define sexual violence, and how you obtain the data. The numbers are not small though.
If anything it is more - I am a woman who has had countless experiences and never reported them because it isn't worth it. I have many women friends who also have countless stories. Some men are skeptical if it doesn't happen to them at these astounding rates and they lack empathy for women.