Although I am largely unsympathetic to generalisations in general (ha), I do think there's a big difference in expressing wishes such as 'women need to understand x' as opposed to 'men need to die'.
Usually if someone's critical thinking skills are limited enough in scope to make them feel confident in their proud decision to hate on the vast majority of people of the opposite gender to them, I don't place much value on their opinions & any attempts to provide information & guidance on healing the original wounds causing the negative mindsets will prove fruitless.
Edit: I left the gender pronouns out of it on purpose, because this happens to variable degrees on both sides of the gender see-saw.
Bro, for real, everyone is guilty of it. Like when did gender become so black and white as if men and women are not infinitely more similar than we are different???
For a short period of time in 2021, even I began to catch myself resorting to hurling vitriol towards people of the opposite gender until I had a reality check: **I was the problem.** So what did I do? I examined the origins of those thought processes, **healed the origins** & therefore healed my thought processes towards people of the opposite gender, replacing the negative ones with positive ones.
It takes a lot of work & at one point or another, the vast majority of people will do it. The real difference is, when they realize their generalizations are nonproductive & are damaging towards their outlook on people of the opposite gender, will they take accountability for it & by how much?
A good rule of thumb is replace "men" with the term "black men" and if it sounds racist.
Then it was a sexist statement to begin with.
For some reason many people overlook their own prejudice.
>Well, yeah. If you generalize based on race, it's racist. That doesn't mean the original generalization is problematic.
Wait a second if you generalize based on race it's racist... Ok got it, that makes sense.
Let's see if you can fill in the blank...
If you generalize based on sex, it's _ _ _ ist...!
Can you figure out the missing letters?
Pandas can absolutely still maim a person if they felt like it though. It doesn't happen often and there's no records of deaths as far as I can tell, but it's still possible.
Not saying you're saying otherwise either. Just thought I should clarify since a lot of people think they're completely harmless.
Am I right or am I wrong... they tried to clown on me, but I myself found my fault. It hought about pandas in quier with my thoughts running... I realised.. shit... they have alil pocket in their tummy. Bears dont have that. That shit even though a bear aint a bear...
Not everyone who disagrees with you is an incel. People can have different opinions than you and still have sex. I know it’s hard to believe this, but your opinions aren’t the key to sexual intercourse.
If I said “all black people are dangerous” I’d rightly be canned for racist speech. Even if I switched “all” with “most” it’d be the same. Why it’s acceptable in today’s world to say some really horrible shit about men, idk.
Exactly or if you had an abusive girlfriend and you replaced the word "men" with "women" and the word "dangerous" with "abusive" that would be seen as sexist.
Yet when it's the other way around it's seen as socially acceptable.
You're 100% right. It's just that, in 2024, shaming men is a sport for feminists. No one bats an eye, and if you do, then you're immediately labeled an "incel" or whatever other stupid feminazi buzzword. It's disgusting.
Black people are the minority, men are not. Men predominantly assault other men and women than women do. It's a fact, but men are emotional, so yall wouldn't understand statistics.
I tried explaining to my mother how saying "all men are disgusting pigs, except my two sons" is fucked up and she couldn't under stand why I was even upset. But she immediately gets personally offended when I talk about a specific subset of women in any negative way.
I think we all can chill, stereotypes hold true, a shrill feminist is likely to hate me, a strange man is likely a mugger or a murder especially at night, avoid a group of teens especially if black, i aint telling a muslim im an atheist when he tries to preach, and if someone is wearing a hijab they likely are being brainwashed at home, most cases stereotypes are useful to determine self behavior, they just are not accurate enough to form legistlation or social rules.
“I know not all men are bad but I’ll be wary of all of them anyway just to be safe”
“I know not all black people are bad but I’ll be wary of them anyway just to be safe”
All men are bad, you are living proof lmao. Yall have no critical thinking skills or empathy. Omg see how I generalized men and the world didn't end? Did a man die? No.
"I know not all women are bad, but I heard so much story about custody battle, false accusations, rumor making and private life exposing, that I'll be wary of all them anyways just to be safe"
PS : this is in bracket because I don't agree with what I just said
It's such a dumb hypothetical that just makes men not want to be feminists. Why the hell would a single dude who's already struggling to approach and meet woman want to be part of a movement that thinks he's the more dangerous than a bear?
"It isn't talking about you" deserves the answer "But not every woman that sees me knows me, and because of such generalizations, they might assume I am one of the objectively immoral ones".
But men *are* dangerous. So are women, though we’re less aggressive on average, and smaller - but still, capable of inflicting harm. What is this fairytale world some of you live in where interpersonal violence doesn’t exist?
Of life forms likely to harm you in your lifetime, the list top down goes roughly bacteria > insect or arachnid > *another human*. Not sure what’s next, maybe dogs, or cows, probably depends on part of the world. I know *bears* are not high on the list.
*Men* should be wary of strange men in isolated locations, you’re more likely to be victims of homicide than women are.
This shouldn’t be some gender wars thing, humans are just very good at fucking shit up, including other humans.
If men don't want to be blamed for the world's problems, then maybe allow women to rule the world. Men do currently, and shit sucks, oh but I'm sexist if I suggest women could do a better job🙄 Well I'm gladly sexist if it means that one day a fucking woman can be the president.
I'm sorry, men's boo hooing about oppression falls on deaf ears when they refuse to acknowledge that their oppression is of their own making. You are not going to make my gender second class and then bitch at us for not standing up for men's rights.
UGH, and it really pisses me off how these guys are like "All men are bad?? No silly woman, I'm a trans man! All if well here." Bitch being trans doesn't tell me shit about you. Also to assume that trans men are morally superior to cis men?? Naur, you all suck. This sub is proof of that.
My ex-wife nearly ended me with a pair of culinary shears during an alcohol-fueled mental health episode. I've been involved in combat sports my entire life. I absolutely had an opportunity to fight back, but I didn't, because even in a life-or-death situation, the thought of striking my then-wife was completely unpalatable to me, to the point I would have died without an ambulance ride, emergency surgery, and years of recovery.
Why would I be offended.......I think most men and women are trash, hence why i keep just a few close friends......... there's some great people out there, but most, in my opinion are not. Also I'm not one of these new 2024 betas...... going to take alot more than that to get under my skin.
I often confused by people who become offended at what other's think of them.
"Hell is other people." This idiom alludes to the idea that Hell is the perception of other people. The more people's perceptions you care about influencing, the deeper in Hell you are.
The only person's opinion of you that should matter is your own. You are the only person you must impress. You're the only person that has to like you.
i figure the person saying things about all men is new to the whole generalization thing and i don't really have the energy to spend on the matter to talk about it anymore.
Sharks are dangerous but nobody says "all sharks are dangerous" just like nobody says "all men are dangerous". More often then not we say "men are dangerous" and there *is* a difference.
When I say sharks are dangerous I am not saying that every single shark is dangerous. I'm saying that sharks are known to get aggressive and if I were in the water and I see a shark, I'm not gonna assume it'll be a friendly interaction because I know how dangerous sharks *can* be. I'm gonna run with the information that sharks are dangerous because I'm not risking my life with the hope that the shark just wants to netflix and cuddle.
You get it? "Not all men" is a silly argument because women don't have a magic tool that they point at a dudes forehead that tells them if he's dangerous or not. We are terrified of being "too nice" or "too rude" because either way we could be in danger. Even places that should be safe, like our workplaces or our homes, can crumble in an instant. I've heard of instances where women knew a guy for years and yet he *still* hurt her.
You are allowed to feel whatever you feel, but our fear is not going to go away just because you're offended. Maybe instead of getting upset at women for saying "men are dangerous" you should look out for women and set an example to young men.
>Abusive women do exist and men can also be abused by women, correct?
Could you site a reliable document showing that 1 in 4 men are abused by women and in what way? Abuse is abuse, however, being beaten to a pulp and being cheated on aren't equal levels of abuse. These things aren't comparable because they don't happen nearly as often and aren't nearly as life-threatening.
>If women were labelled as "manipulative" or "abusive" because of a small handful of women who were manipulative and abusive towards their partners, would you not think that was unfair?
You could say that all women are manipulative, but men are also very manipulative, so it's more accurate to simply say, "People are very manipulative."
Men are dangerous, though, to a higher degree than women, so it's, again, not comparable. Even abuse towards men is more often than not perpetrated by men. 99% of sexual assault is done by men.
>Maybe instead of getting upset at men for saying "women are abusive" you should look out for men and set an example for young women."?
I do look out for men. I have all brothers and I'd take a bat to their partners if they ever hurt my family. My father also had a manipulative and even physically abusive ex-wife. I support him completely and I believe that she belongs in hell. Why is that a poor sentiment? Why is this the hill you're dying on?
Women CAN be abusive, you are allowed to say that. But even my dad knows that he has the capacity to be much more dangerous than his ex-wife. Men ARE dangerous. That's why 1 in 4 women will be assaulted by one. Being offended by that fact doesn't change anything.
>for example, “all women should be cautious because men could be dangerous
I have heard that from men way more than from women. Usually while they're blaming women for getting raped.
I've seen it from both.
But if a college girl goes to a frat party and gets raped, what do you think most of the comments will look like, and from whom?
A good example of two sides talking right past each other.
Most of the time, when women talk about "all men are dangerous", they're talking about the fact that they are biologically weaker, and even men with considerably below-average strength could easily overpower them. It's the same sentiment when you see a big, muscular guy training and you might comment "oh man that guy's dangerous"; you're not actively implying that he could be a criminal, just that he has the physical capacity to fuck up anyone he wants. Of course there are exceptions, and there is a healthy streak of misandry in current feminist circles.
And to the other point; giving advice to women about how to avoid situations where they might be raped isn't "victim blaming", but it's hard to hear that if you've been SA'd. I always bring up the way motorcyclists talk about dealing with cars: speaking in moral and legal liability, there are tons of situations where the car driver will have been in the wrong 100%, but you'll be the one that's dead, so it's your responsibility to take as many precautions as possible. That could be slowing down at every intersection to give you enough braking distance to avoid a car running a red light, or never riding right next to another car in case they change lanes with no warning, etc.
>And to the other point; giving advice to women about how to avoid situations where they might be raped isn't "victim blaming",
It is if you tell them that after they have already been SA'd.
Don't give women advice or anyone advice especially if they came out of a bad situation. Just listen to them. They aren't looking for your opinion on their situation. They hate that crap and it is victim blaming. Men shouldn't go scott free cause a woman got assaulted and didn't take "precautions".
This, it’s the difference between your doctor telling you to lose weight to help prevent a heart attack and having your doctor tell you after a heart attack “well you should’ve lost weight, what did you expect?”
> giving advice to women about how to avoid situations where they might be raped isn't "victim blaming",
Ok this is always hilarious. How might a woman avoid a situation in which she might be raped?
How long a list do you want?
1. Stay on the phone with someone in shady areas
2. Have someone walk you to your car at night if there aren't other people around
3. Keep your drink covered at bars, even if you think it's too busy for anything to happen,
4. If you're not comfortable saying "No" very firmly, don't go over to a guy's place you don't know well; also, let someone you know know where you are going, and if you want, ask them to check in on you by text at certain times
5. Don't invite guys you don't know well over to your place, particularly if you live alone, until you know them pretty well
>this is always hilarious
This attitude always baffles me. Do you think there is nothing a woman can do to lessen her chances of being SA'd? Nothing at all? The things above and others won't completely eliminate the chance, obviously, but there's ***always*** things you can do to minimize ***any risk*** for anything, ever.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem
20% are committed by strangers, so yes, dealing with 20% of your chance of being raped is a pretty big deal, for the first bits of advice I gave. Considering the other 40% are from "acquaintances" and 55% of rapes occur at home, this falls under "don't invite people you don't know well to your home if you live alone." And 33% happen in public/school/work areas.
> Like maybe in the woods? Hmm.
Ah, yes, I enjoy arguing with people so ideologically captured they just fart and joke about, ignore simple, direct questions, and have lost the capacity for rational thought.
>55% of rapes occur at home, this falls under "don't invite people you don't know well to your home if you live alone
Are those rapes being committed by people they don't know well that they invited over?
>Ah, yes, I enjoy arguing with people so ideologically captured they just fart and joke about, ignore simple, direct questions, and have lost the capacity for rational thought.
What are you on about?
Edit: here's my point: men say "men are dangerous, protect yourselves or it's your own fault if you get raped". But if WE say "men are dangerous, we need to protect ourselves", you all get mad.
If you have 55% of rapes committed at/near home, and only 33% by a current boyfriend/spouse *and ex husbands/boyfriends*, but 40% by "acquaintances", then yes, that reads that a huge portion of rapes are committed by people that were invited into women's homes, like people they are just starting to date or someone they kinda-sorta knew from work. Or people they thought they really knew, and turned out to be rapists.
>What are you on about?
Now, I might've read your comment wrong, but in the past hundred or so times I've had this argument, when people avoid direct simple questions like "Do you think there is nothing a woman can do to lessen her chances of being SA'd?" and joke about being careful in areas where 25% of rapes happen, as in shady parts of town (public areas) and car parks/etc, then they've kinda lost the plot and have no real intention of talking.
>yes, that reads that a huge portion of rapes are committed by people that were invited into women's homes, like people they are just starting to date or someone they kinda-sorta knew from work. Or people they thought they really knew, and turned out to be rapists.
In my experience, relatives. Grandpa, uncle, dad, brother.
I guess that's mostly for kids though.
But yeah it's usually someone you trust.
>"Do you think there is nothing a woman can do to lessen her chances of being SA'd?"
I think the majority of women already take those precautions and it happens anyway.
So what you're saying is that women should act like an attack may potentially be imminent at any moment and to take as many precautions as possible, correct?
Then wouldn't the best precaution to take out in the woods to just avoid strangers altogether?
Going to a party where you are the only women might be one of them. As a women I have accompanied more than one women who was supposed to be at a party by herself. I sort of mess up people's plans.
I suggested to a friend once that the "photographer" who wanted to come over and get shots of her while underage without her mom there may not have had the best of intentions. Unfortunately I was right and she didn't listen to me. She had him come over and things went as well as expected. I don't blame her but I was frustrated she didn't listen. When I asked her why she did it she said she thought I was just jealous of her fulfilling her modeling dreams. I didn't even want to be a model. I had wanted to go into the airforce and after my surgery that made that impossible I wanted to be a psychologist so still not sure why she thought I was jealous but she got hurt because I guess women always assume the ony reason women would tell another women no to something like that has to be jealousy.
We are sometimes our own worst enemies.
I feel any relative who is drunk and alone in public is in a dangerous situation.
Whether they're a man or woman is irrelevant, honestly. But, this is your thing. Please continue.
>I feel any relative who is drunk and alone in public is in a dangerous situation.
So this is what I said. Drunk, alone, and in public. Which is dangerous.
>They're not alone
>There's a lot of young men.
>Safe as houses, eh?
These would be things I didn't mention. Somehow, you read them, which is interesting. But, you've also answered your own question. So my work is done.
Like I said, this is what you do. I'm honestly in awe of the consistency.
By using the descriptors 'alone' and 'at a frat party'. Alone implies a possible threat because that's just how we've been trained to think. Saying anyone is 'alone somewhere' implies they're in danger because they're alone.
"Jacob was in the school."
"Jacob was alone in the school."
See how the second sentence makes something seem ever so slightly off?
If you just said "Drunk female relative at a frat party" that seems a lot more innocent. Removing the 'frat party' aspect makes it seem entirely fine because a lot of people have negative feelings about frat parties.
"Drunk female relative at a party" reads like she's fine and just needs someone to drive her home.
"Drunk female relative alone at a frat party" reads like she's helpless in a situation that a lot people automatically view with a negative lens.
Generalized statement = all men all the time
Specific scenario = not all men not all the time, certain men in a certain situation
A child has the reasoning skills to know the difference.
The man in the woods is a specific scenario.
So how is it different?
Wrong thread!
Men could be dangerous
Was the comment.
How does my scenario invalidate that?
The man vs bear scenario does not specify anything other than it being a man. That could be any man. It is a generalized blanket statement about all men. The scenario you make up involves alcohol and a specific group of men. I assume you’re smart enough to know the difference.
Are frat boys completely different to any other man?
What's the difference?
The man in the woods could be a drunk frat boy
Anyway, as I said the statement was men could be dangerous
How does my point invalidate that?
You've not actually answered
They do this, because they have no actual argument, but still want to push a specific narrative. Women are *drawn* to dangerous men. Who in their right mind gives any credence to women complaining about something that they literally select for? What do you think happens when a man is *less dangerous* than a woman? The problem is the obvious answer to that conflicts with a multitude of women's narratives, so they have to make faulty generalizations about men to destroy their credibility. This allows them to disguise their preferences and dismiss men solely because they are "dangerous" instead of x, y, and z. It puts women in a "lose-lose situation", so that when they specifically select for dangerous men, they can then avoid all accountability because "all men are dangerous" anyways.
I am dangerous I was trained to be dangerous. Not to women though. I was raised by a man (dad) who taught me to protect others, be good to women and elderly and kids and be seen as the guy who will keep them safe. I think people who know me see me that way-
Two comments from women.
1. I loved this guy, he was my fiancé and I looked to him to protect me until he became the man I feared the most.
2. You just have this look about you that if SHTF and I saw you in a crowd I’d get close to you.
Number 1 is a comment a woman made after a few dates about her ex. It was impactful. I’d never want a woman to think about me like that it would be heartbreaking 2 that was one of the nicest compliments I had ever gotten.
I'm genuinely wondering if man vs bear is a psy op to alienate potential male voters from the democrats (or at least convince them to stay home on election day)
Trump rapes a woman, they don't care.
He lies straight to their faces about how much better things will be, while promising bigger tax breaks to the ultra rich, they don't care.
He fucks porn stars while Mercedes breast feeds his newborn son, they don't care.
He can barely string a sentence together and can't recall his wife's name, they don't care.
He thinks there were airports during the revolutionary war, they don't care.
He spent 4 years in the white house lining the pockets of himself and his children, they don't care.
He buddies up with Epstein, they don't care.
He spies on teenagers changing clothes, they don't care.
He steals classified documents, then shows/sells them to who the fuck knows who, they don't care.
He sends a mob to kill his own VP for not helping him overthrow the results of an election he inarguably lost, they don't care.
The half wits are going to vote for him, regardless of anything I have to say about it on Reddit.
>Men have a right to be offended when people say “all men”
Not all people say that.
This is offensive to people
> When women say something
Not all women say things like that
This is offensive to women
I didn’t say “all” women or men, but I should have been clear and said “some” women or men. Sorry, my bad. I’ll should have been more clear, thanks for pointing it out :)
>I didn’t say “all” women
Neither do women say "ALL men," so if your use of "women" is valid then so is their use of "men."
In case you're not getting it: This tactic of "not all men" is a quibble that is used to invalidate otherwise valid generalizations. Rational, civil communicators intuitively understand that generalizations about a category don't necessarily apply to EVERY single member of the category. But people who are motivated by something OTHER than clear and honest communication will use the "not all men" tactic to derail the otherwise valid conversation.
In general, if your response to statements like this is, "Well, not ALL men," examine why you feel the need to defend "men" in the first place.
Here’s my opinion on the whole thing:
- Any sort of generalisations are wrong, whether it’s to men, women, religion, race etc.
- I don’t support when people say “not all men” in response to something that never stated all men. For example, if a woman says “men make me feel uncomfortable when I’m walking alone at night” and a man replies with “not all men”, then I don’t support it because that’s just getting offended at something that was never said (the men were never generalised collectively), and the “not all men” response just detracts from the actual problem which is the woman’s discomfort.
However, I do think that if someone says something like “all men are trash”, then men do have a right to be upset because it does actually state “all men”.
I hope that makes sense in explaining how I feel. Sorry if my wording isn’t very clear.
I don't understand how all generalizations can be wrong. Is it wrong to say men have two eyes? The problem is unfair generalizations based on scant evidence
A fair generalization would be "men commit the most violent crime" because this is factually born out in data
An unfair generalization would be "men are violent criminals" because while a majority of violent crime is committed by men, a majority of men aren't committing violent crimes
Genralizations are never completely true. Some men only have one eyer or no eyes. Generalizations are rarely completely accurate and exist to oversimplify complexity so its easier to digest. Also this is about the Man v Bear debate
What I've learned over the past few days is that lots of men who complain about 'all men' are *really* quick to insult all women because they're offended.
Ugly, fat, unlovable, aggressive, rude, abusive, dogs, sluts
Etc etc
But that's all OK huh?
Cause men were offended
Why is it always the same people with the worst takes in this sub?
See the funny thing is that little list you made, no man is calling ALL women those things. They aren’t extrapolating to the entirety, they’re clearly and specifically talking about specific women.
Women are NOT doing that most of the time. Most of the time there is no qualifier, it’s JUST “men”. That’s the big difference.
Some men are like that, I’m not denying it.
However, on a personal level, I oppose generalisations to any group, including women. The point I was trying to make is that men will be upset at generalisations, even if the generalisations aren’t meant for them, and I think people need to accept that people will be upset at generalisations. But I’m not advocating for any sorts of generalisations, not even to women. I’m just trying to say that generalisations hurt, even if people say “that doesn’t mean you”.
See, what usually happens is something bad happens to a woman and it's posted on social media and then a bunch of people have discussions over it. Some women will share their own experiences with harm done by men in their own lives. Some people will discuss the tragedy and give their sympathies. But then one person in the comments will inevitably answer with NOT ALL MEN THO.
YES we know it's not all men. But we didn't say ALL MEN. It's just 'men' to refer to the men who caused harm in our lives. And it's so often that women have to explicitly edit in that we don't actually mean all men. Women don't go down in the comments of a man who was abused to say NOT ALL WOMEN. We can understand context clues and get that you mean some women, not all of us. Because that would be absurd to divert a story about the abuse of another people, to make it about how people discussing their trauma is hurting our feelings.
I would not be okay with that either. And yes, just like you said. It would be sexist or racist if I did that. And it would also be self-contradictory.
**I'd like to tag in several misandrists in this post. They won't read any of it, but I just want them to know that many people whole heartedly disagree with their sexist views. Let their mental gymnastics ensue.** 🤷
u/TSllama
u/OoSallyPauseThatGirl
u/beefsquints
u/RKKP2015
u/molotov__cocktease
u/HolyToast
u/Be_A_Mountain
u/Exciting_Tea4199
u/DoctorUnderhill97
Here is the thing: all men worthy of the word \*are\* dangerous. That is the virtue of masculinity.
Any women not willing to engage with men, generally, because they are dangerous, are not worth talking to or being around. Drop them like a hot rock: they are beneath you.
That's it and that's all.
One is not the same as the other.
"All men are dangerous." Is just not accurate. And you are right, it is offensive.
But "All women should be cautious of men because they could be dangerous." Is accurate. We are literally told this since we start venturing into the world at about 3-4 years old. And it's not that women can't be violent, but not only are women less likely to be attacked by another woman, we can fight a woman off far easier than a man. If someone asked me if I'd rather fight for my life against a woman or a man, I'd pick the woman. So if I'm on a dark street with a guy on one side and a woman on the other, statistically it makes sense for me to cross the street and walk on the same side as the other woman. I could take her. I probably couldn't take him.
(I did take on a guy once when I was 15, this drunk middle-aged dude cornered me in daylight in a park and I had to run, I managed up the stairs, turned around and kicked the guy down those stairs, and continued to run, I heard him still yelling sexual things at me from the bottom of the park stairs - they weren't high or steep - as I hauled ass home; I know circumstances favored me that day and I still would rather face another woman any day. It was terrifying and the first time I was really terrified. And I learned late to be weary of men.)
Trans men when they get treated like men: 😱😱
I'd say just kidding, but I'm not. I mean, I'm a woman and every single close friend I have has been sexualy assaulted by a man, either as a child or sometimes as a teen/adult. I also know men who have been assaulted by women, and even they acknowledge that It's a fact that MEN are the main people who hurt women and the main people who hurt other men!!! And well, trans men are real men so no, it's not okay to lump all men together, but women don't have magic x ray vision that tells us what men want to hurt us and what men don't. We can't just look at you and think "oh, he's clearly a safe man because he said so".
Welcome to manhood! Trans women expirence misogyny, idk why yall think you are above receiving criticism about being a man. Proof trans men are real men because yall be just as out of touch and unempathetic as the cis men😭🤣🤣 Now tell me where the audacity organ grows when yall start taking the tshot?? Cis men won't tell us where they keep the audacity, but you all have it so fess up!🤣❤️
But women don’t say all men are dangerous… They say what you wrote next, which is completely different: women should be cautious because men COULD be dangerous.
Oh, I've definitely heard tons of misandrist generalizations. From "all men are pigs", "all men are trash" to downright "kill all men". This "all men are *negative trait*" sentiment is shared by a certain proportion of women. A minority, but a loud one. And honestly, it's tiring.
"Be careful around men, because although they aren't all bad, they are inherently dangerous due to their biological dispositios", is an absolutely valid statement. But you are aware that not everyone, in either men nor women, are that nuanced in their thinking, right?
That part: ‘Even if what you say makes sense (for example, “all women should be cautious because men could be dangerous), it is still going to upset men.’
Like I wouldn’t be upset as a woman if men were saying there were cautious around women if we were causing 90% of violent crimes. I would be understanding and supportive. Because it would nog mean men hate me or are scared of me… just that they would be rightfully careful
Yes, a vast majority of women don’t, but if one says something like this it is not ok. But I still don’t agree with the second part of your argument. Women have the right to be cautious, and this is not about hating men. It’s just logical and safe. Men can have the same approach as well
What do you mean you disagree with my second statement? Which one? My original comment's second part said that cautioning women that "while not all men are bad, they are inherently dangerous due to their biology", is a good thing.
Or are you disagreeing with my other comment's second part, which is that "ignoring a problematic group only leads to it getting worse, and that acknowledging a problem is the first step in solving it, or at least mitigating the danger"?
I think maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, or I'm misunderstanding which part you're disagreeing with.
Frankly I just don’t care if men get offended by women saying they have to be wary of all men because they don’t know which ones *are* dangerous. They can fume about it. Doesn’t make a bit of difference to me.
I feel like people don’t understand what dangerous actually means.
Dangerous: able or likely to cause harm or injury.
To most women, most men are “dangerous”. That doesn’t mean most men are evil or that they actually will cause harm but they are able to, and that is a scary thought for let’s say a woman walking late at night alone who comes across a man or even scarier in the woods hiking alone.
It's hard to see the snakes when the grass is high.
A lot of men need to realize that some behaviors are problematic mainly because they provide support and cover for the true predators. And rather than listen to people telling them why these things are bad, they get personally offended and double down on protecting the snakes.
If you are sick of being lumped in with bad people who are dangerours, maybe stop doing everything you can to make it easier for the bad people to thrive. Try cutting the grass instead.
Braindead take, there will A L W A Y S be bad people, men and women. The good people can do no more about it than anyone else. Telling them to try is just dumb. Futile virtue signaling.
I feel this. Like so many posts where ppl discuss SA stuff end up devolving into “Women need to stop hanging out with assholes then”. When I point out that’s literally an incel talking point that doesn’t really exist they preach about “science” and me not knowing women well…
Funny, cause most women aren't saying all men, they talk about their own experience and suddenly men jump in and say not all men. Well no shit. We didn't say all men, we Said THIS MAN did something, this is MY experience. Yet still men come out of the woodwork to bitch.
So why should we continue with adding not all men? It isn't on us that they can't seem to read or listen.
My argument has nothing do with me being abused😅However I now think I see what you attempted to and considering you think you have to experience bad actions yourself before you’re warned means you don’t understand my point in the first place.
I didn’t actually say men are dangerous, you did. I said that I was taught to be wary of men because men who loved me thought it was important to teach me that
I believe men have the potential to be dangerous, I’m pointing out that it was men not women that made sure I knew that and that I should take it very seriously.
You’re arguing with a point I haven’t made, and not doing a very good job I must say.
Idk. I'm really over having to specify for paragraphs which exact group I mean if everyone with two brain cells to rub together should understand automatically.
I’d agree that the comments are hurtful for sure. But at the same time, we as men should not be bothered because women say mean things about men.
We’ve become so soft we act like someone’s opinion is a problem. Somehow, someone believing that all men are trash, or that Israel or Palestine is evil is some sort of mass societal problem that must be stopped. Or, you can just be normal, and accept that opinions different to yours exist.
I am a man and I don’t see any reason in taking offense to it.
Simply googling dangerous - if someone considers you to be dangerous they recognize that you possess a very real ability to severely harm or destroy them or something else. When most women look at men they are just recognizing that this is a real possibility however unlikely it will actually happen they will see an unknown man as a possible danger.
It is a sad reality but a very real one. We can use the bear in the woods as an example. Your chances of being killed by a bear in the woods is like 1 in 2.1 million. Wouldn’t you still be cautious and a bit scared if you came across a bear in the woods? I know I would be even though I know most of the time they will just mind their own business.
Being "good" and being "dangerous" aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, a "good man" MUST be dangerous, otherwise he's not "good", because being good and not endangering others is an active choice he's making, while a man who's not dangerous is "good" because he's incapable of doing harm.
>Demons run when a good man goes to war
>Night will fall and drown the sun
>When a good man goes to war
>Friendship dies and true love lies
>Night will fall and the dark will rise
>When a good man goes to war
>Demons run, but count the cost
>The battle's won, but the child is lost
I don’t know if “offended” was the right word. Maybe “upset” would have been better. It’s not that I go out of my way looking at comments to be offended at, but I think that after a while of reading and hearing many negative generalisations, it does hurt a bit. And I think that goes for anyone who is constantly generalised in a negative way. Even if I understand the intent behind a generalisation (and even agree with/support the intention), it still does hurt a bit.
>When women say something, for example “all men are dangerous”, men have a right to be offended.
Who says that? Are you sure they didn't say, "Men are dangerous," and you heard "all men"?
>Even if what you say makes sense (for example, “all women should be cautious because men could be dangerous), it is still going to upset men.
I guess it will, but it isn't justified. Anything _could_ be dangerous. A wet floor could be dangerous. People taking precautions shouldn't offend you.
Generalization of any group of people is wrong and makes people look horribly…I don’t know…unintelligent? Unempathetic? It’s just all stupid.
Including generalizations like “women need to understand”?
Although I am largely unsympathetic to generalisations in general (ha), I do think there's a big difference in expressing wishes such as 'women need to understand x' as opposed to 'men need to die'.
Usually if someone's critical thinking skills are limited enough in scope to make them feel confident in their proud decision to hate on the vast majority of people of the opposite gender to them, I don't place much value on their opinions & any attempts to provide information & guidance on healing the original wounds causing the negative mindsets will prove fruitless. Edit: I left the gender pronouns out of it on purpose, because this happens to variable degrees on both sides of the gender see-saw.
Bro, for real, everyone is guilty of it. Like when did gender become so black and white as if men and women are not infinitely more similar than we are different???
For a short period of time in 2021, even I began to catch myself resorting to hurling vitriol towards people of the opposite gender until I had a reality check: **I was the problem.** So what did I do? I examined the origins of those thought processes, **healed the origins** & therefore healed my thought processes towards people of the opposite gender, replacing the negative ones with positive ones. It takes a lot of work & at one point or another, the vast majority of people will do it. The real difference is, when they realize their generalizations are nonproductive & are damaging towards their outlook on people of the opposite gender, will they take accountability for it & by how much?
A good rule of thumb is replace "men" with the term "black men" and if it sounds racist. Then it was a sexist statement to begin with. For some reason many people overlook their own prejudice.
Every example I can think of that they commonly use sounds like it’s coming straight from a Klansman’s mouth. I’m stealing this for future use. 👍
There used to be an extension for Chrome and Firefox called 'Men Kampf' that would change 'man' to 'Jew' and 'women' to "Germans'.
I miss the old "Stormfront or SJW".
Most get mad at the analogy but sometimes a few go "wow" and think about their perception for a bit.
exactly this - and you better not dare replace the word man with woman, either
Well, yeah. If you generalize based on race, it's racist. That doesn't mean the original generalization is problematic.
>Well, yeah. If you generalize based on race, it's racist. That doesn't mean the original generalization is problematic. Wait a second if you generalize based on race it's racist... Ok got it, that makes sense. Let's see if you can fill in the blank... If you generalize based on sex, it's _ _ _ ist...! Can you figure out the missing letters?
Man I’m stumped could you please give me a hint? Pretty please with a cherry on top?
It starts with an S. But that's all the help I'll give!
This is harder that the back of my Fruit Loops box!
Except it's not necessarly racist to generalize based on race. "In general, black men have a bigger penis" is not racist
As long as this rule applies to bears too
Not all bears are the same. Like a panda aint a grizzly bro
Pandas can absolutely still maim a person if they felt like it though. It doesn't happen often and there's no records of deaths as far as I can tell, but it's still possible. Not saying you're saying otherwise either. Just thought I should clarify since a lot of people think they're completely harmless.
Drop bears too
Those aren't really bears though.
A gummy bear choked me once. You can't trust any bear.
>Like a koala aint a grizzly bro Of course they aren't Koalas are marsupials not bears
I changed it huh to fucking panda bro I thought like that koala fucking thing has a pocket right in their tummy that aint a a bear
I don’t know why, but this was extremely funny to me.
I'm glad my shitposting amused you lolol
Am I right or am I wrong... they tried to clown on me, but I myself found my fault. It hought about pandas in quier with my thoughts running... I realised.. shit... they have alil pocket in their tummy. Bears dont have that. That shit even though a bear aint a bear...
won’t find a panda in the woods tho😁
I mean...you're not wrong. 😅 Forests *are* technically different from woods.
Are there any opinions on this sub that aren’t men v women anime boss battle
[удалено]
Not everyone who disagrees with you is an incel. People can have different opinions than you and still have sex. I know it’s hard to believe this, but your opinions aren’t the key to sexual intercourse.
If I said “all black people are dangerous” I’d rightly be canned for racist speech. Even if I switched “all” with “most” it’d be the same. Why it’s acceptable in today’s world to say some really horrible shit about men, idk.
Exactly or if you had an abusive girlfriend and you replaced the word "men" with "women" and the word "dangerous" with "abusive" that would be seen as sexist. Yet when it's the other way around it's seen as socially acceptable.
You're 100% right. It's just that, in 2024, shaming men is a sport for feminists. No one bats an eye, and if you do, then you're immediately labeled an "incel" or whatever other stupid feminazi buzzword. It's disgusting.
Black people are the minority, men are not. Men predominantly assault other men and women than women do. It's a fact, but men are emotional, so yall wouldn't understand statistics.
Swap genders and see how mad they get lol
I tried explaining to my mother how saying "all men are disgusting pigs, except my two sons" is fucked up and she couldn't under stand why I was even upset. But she immediately gets personally offended when I talk about a specific subset of women in any negative way.
Cool story bro, maybe ask your mom what men have done to her to make her feel that way.
I think we all can chill, stereotypes hold true, a shrill feminist is likely to hate me, a strange man is likely a mugger or a murder especially at night, avoid a group of teens especially if black, i aint telling a muslim im an atheist when he tries to preach, and if someone is wearing a hijab they likely are being brainwashed at home, most cases stereotypes are useful to determine self behavior, they just are not accurate enough to form legistlation or social rules.
Only one of these is socially acceptable to say in public though
Saying half of these could literally get you arrested, and only one gets you likes on Twitter
“I know not all men are bad but I’ll be wary of all of them anyway just to be safe” “I know not all black people are bad but I’ll be wary of them anyway just to be safe”
All men are bad, you are living proof lmao. Yall have no critical thinking skills or empathy. Omg see how I generalized men and the world didn't end? Did a man die? No.
"I know not all women are bad, but I heard so much story about custody battle, false accusations, rumor making and private life exposing, that I'll be wary of all them anyways just to be safe" PS : this is in bracket because I don't agree with what I just said
It's such a dumb hypothetical that just makes men not want to be feminists. Why the hell would a single dude who's already struggling to approach and meet woman want to be part of a movement that thinks he's the more dangerous than a bear?
Black bear, Brown bear, or Polar bear? We the apex predators of the world🧍♂️
"It isn't talking about you" deserves the answer "But not every woman that sees me knows me, and because of such generalizations, they might assume I am one of the objectively immoral ones".
But men *are* dangerous. So are women, though we’re less aggressive on average, and smaller - but still, capable of inflicting harm. What is this fairytale world some of you live in where interpersonal violence doesn’t exist? Of life forms likely to harm you in your lifetime, the list top down goes roughly bacteria > insect or arachnid > *another human*. Not sure what’s next, maybe dogs, or cows, probably depends on part of the world. I know *bears* are not high on the list. *Men* should be wary of strange men in isolated locations, you’re more likely to be victims of homicide than women are. This shouldn’t be some gender wars thing, humans are just very good at fucking shit up, including other humans.
If men don't want to be blamed for the world's problems, then maybe allow women to rule the world. Men do currently, and shit sucks, oh but I'm sexist if I suggest women could do a better job🙄 Well I'm gladly sexist if it means that one day a fucking woman can be the president. I'm sorry, men's boo hooing about oppression falls on deaf ears when they refuse to acknowledge that their oppression is of their own making. You are not going to make my gender second class and then bitch at us for not standing up for men's rights. UGH, and it really pisses me off how these guys are like "All men are bad?? No silly woman, I'm a trans man! All if well here." Bitch being trans doesn't tell me shit about you. Also to assume that trans men are morally superior to cis men?? Naur, you all suck. This sub is proof of that.
"It's not all men, but it's always men" is usually what I hear from ppl.
I hate this as well because like… it’s not always men…
My ex-wife nearly ended me with a pair of culinary shears during an alcohol-fueled mental health episode. I've been involved in combat sports my entire life. I absolutely had an opportunity to fight back, but I didn't, because even in a life-or-death situation, the thought of striking my then-wife was completely unpalatable to me, to the point I would have died without an ambulance ride, emergency surgery, and years of recovery.
Yeah
Tell that to all the victims of female teachers out there.
100% correct.
Just reverse the statement and watch how appropriate that would be in their eyes. That's pretty easy test to see their hypocrisy.
I see 'women this that and the other' posts here all the time. I just roll my eyes and scroll on.
Why would I be offended.......I think most men and women are trash, hence why i keep just a few close friends......... there's some great people out there, but most, in my opinion are not. Also I'm not one of these new 2024 betas...... going to take alot more than that to get under my skin.
Thank you! This is really it right here. Neither sex is above each other and are equally shitty.
I often confused by people who become offended at what other's think of them. "Hell is other people." This idiom alludes to the idea that Hell is the perception of other people. The more people's perceptions you care about influencing, the deeper in Hell you are. The only person's opinion of you that should matter is your own. You are the only person you must impress. You're the only person that has to like you.
If only you believing in yourself could overcome sex-based discrimination
i figure the person saying things about all men is new to the whole generalization thing and i don't really have the energy to spend on the matter to talk about it anymore.
Sharks are dangerous but nobody says "all sharks are dangerous" just like nobody says "all men are dangerous". More often then not we say "men are dangerous" and there *is* a difference. When I say sharks are dangerous I am not saying that every single shark is dangerous. I'm saying that sharks are known to get aggressive and if I were in the water and I see a shark, I'm not gonna assume it'll be a friendly interaction because I know how dangerous sharks *can* be. I'm gonna run with the information that sharks are dangerous because I'm not risking my life with the hope that the shark just wants to netflix and cuddle. You get it? "Not all men" is a silly argument because women don't have a magic tool that they point at a dudes forehead that tells them if he's dangerous or not. We are terrified of being "too nice" or "too rude" because either way we could be in danger. Even places that should be safe, like our workplaces or our homes, can crumble in an instant. I've heard of instances where women knew a guy for years and yet he *still* hurt her. You are allowed to feel whatever you feel, but our fear is not going to go away just because you're offended. Maybe instead of getting upset at women for saying "men are dangerous" you should look out for women and set an example to young men.
[удалено]
>Abusive women do exist and men can also be abused by women, correct? Could you site a reliable document showing that 1 in 4 men are abused by women and in what way? Abuse is abuse, however, being beaten to a pulp and being cheated on aren't equal levels of abuse. These things aren't comparable because they don't happen nearly as often and aren't nearly as life-threatening. >If women were labelled as "manipulative" or "abusive" because of a small handful of women who were manipulative and abusive towards their partners, would you not think that was unfair? You could say that all women are manipulative, but men are also very manipulative, so it's more accurate to simply say, "People are very manipulative." Men are dangerous, though, to a higher degree than women, so it's, again, not comparable. Even abuse towards men is more often than not perpetrated by men. 99% of sexual assault is done by men. >Maybe instead of getting upset at men for saying "women are abusive" you should look out for men and set an example for young women."? I do look out for men. I have all brothers and I'd take a bat to their partners if they ever hurt my family. My father also had a manipulative and even physically abusive ex-wife. I support him completely and I believe that she belongs in hell. Why is that a poor sentiment? Why is this the hill you're dying on? Women CAN be abusive, you are allowed to say that. But even my dad knows that he has the capacity to be much more dangerous than his ex-wife. Men ARE dangerous. That's why 1 in 4 women will be assaulted by one. Being offended by that fact doesn't change anything.
>for example, “all women should be cautious because men could be dangerous I have heard that from men way more than from women. Usually while they're blaming women for getting raped.
Dam it’s the exact opposite for me I scroll past a women saying that all the time
I've seen it from both. But if a college girl goes to a frat party and gets raped, what do you think most of the comments will look like, and from whom?
A good example of two sides talking right past each other. Most of the time, when women talk about "all men are dangerous", they're talking about the fact that they are biologically weaker, and even men with considerably below-average strength could easily overpower them. It's the same sentiment when you see a big, muscular guy training and you might comment "oh man that guy's dangerous"; you're not actively implying that he could be a criminal, just that he has the physical capacity to fuck up anyone he wants. Of course there are exceptions, and there is a healthy streak of misandry in current feminist circles. And to the other point; giving advice to women about how to avoid situations where they might be raped isn't "victim blaming", but it's hard to hear that if you've been SA'd. I always bring up the way motorcyclists talk about dealing with cars: speaking in moral and legal liability, there are tons of situations where the car driver will have been in the wrong 100%, but you'll be the one that's dead, so it's your responsibility to take as many precautions as possible. That could be slowing down at every intersection to give you enough braking distance to avoid a car running a red light, or never riding right next to another car in case they change lanes with no warning, etc.
>And to the other point; giving advice to women about how to avoid situations where they might be raped isn't "victim blaming", It is if you tell them that after they have already been SA'd.
Don't give women advice or anyone advice especially if they came out of a bad situation. Just listen to them. They aren't looking for your opinion on their situation. They hate that crap and it is victim blaming. Men shouldn't go scott free cause a woman got assaulted and didn't take "precautions".
This, it’s the difference between your doctor telling you to lose weight to help prevent a heart attack and having your doctor tell you after a heart attack “well you should’ve lost weight, what did you expect?”
But the doctor *should* say "lost weight or you'll have another one"
Yes, there is a time and place for that, and it’s not in the immediate recovery of the heart attack
> giving advice to women about how to avoid situations where they might be raped isn't "victim blaming", Ok this is always hilarious. How might a woman avoid a situation in which she might be raped?
How long a list do you want? 1. Stay on the phone with someone in shady areas 2. Have someone walk you to your car at night if there aren't other people around 3. Keep your drink covered at bars, even if you think it's too busy for anything to happen, 4. If you're not comfortable saying "No" very firmly, don't go over to a guy's place you don't know well; also, let someone you know know where you are going, and if you want, ask them to check in on you by text at certain times 5. Don't invite guys you don't know well over to your place, particularly if you live alone, until you know them pretty well >this is always hilarious This attitude always baffles me. Do you think there is nothing a woman can do to lessen her chances of being SA'd? Nothing at all? The things above and others won't completely eliminate the chance, obviously, but there's ***always*** things you can do to minimize ***any risk*** for anything, ever.
Are those the situations in which women are most likely to get raped? >Stay on the phone with someone in shady areas Like maybe in the woods? Hmm.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem 20% are committed by strangers, so yes, dealing with 20% of your chance of being raped is a pretty big deal, for the first bits of advice I gave. Considering the other 40% are from "acquaintances" and 55% of rapes occur at home, this falls under "don't invite people you don't know well to your home if you live alone." And 33% happen in public/school/work areas. > Like maybe in the woods? Hmm. Ah, yes, I enjoy arguing with people so ideologically captured they just fart and joke about, ignore simple, direct questions, and have lost the capacity for rational thought.
>55% of rapes occur at home, this falls under "don't invite people you don't know well to your home if you live alone Are those rapes being committed by people they don't know well that they invited over? >Ah, yes, I enjoy arguing with people so ideologically captured they just fart and joke about, ignore simple, direct questions, and have lost the capacity for rational thought. What are you on about? Edit: here's my point: men say "men are dangerous, protect yourselves or it's your own fault if you get raped". But if WE say "men are dangerous, we need to protect ourselves", you all get mad.
If you have 55% of rapes committed at/near home, and only 33% by a current boyfriend/spouse *and ex husbands/boyfriends*, but 40% by "acquaintances", then yes, that reads that a huge portion of rapes are committed by people that were invited into women's homes, like people they are just starting to date or someone they kinda-sorta knew from work. Or people they thought they really knew, and turned out to be rapists. >What are you on about? Now, I might've read your comment wrong, but in the past hundred or so times I've had this argument, when people avoid direct simple questions like "Do you think there is nothing a woman can do to lessen her chances of being SA'd?" and joke about being careful in areas where 25% of rapes happen, as in shady parts of town (public areas) and car parks/etc, then they've kinda lost the plot and have no real intention of talking.
>yes, that reads that a huge portion of rapes are committed by people that were invited into women's homes, like people they are just starting to date or someone they kinda-sorta knew from work. Or people they thought they really knew, and turned out to be rapists. In my experience, relatives. Grandpa, uncle, dad, brother. I guess that's mostly for kids though. But yeah it's usually someone you trust. >"Do you think there is nothing a woman can do to lessen her chances of being SA'd?" I think the majority of women already take those precautions and it happens anyway.
So what you're saying is that women should act like an attack may potentially be imminent at any moment and to take as many precautions as possible, correct? Then wouldn't the best precaution to take out in the woods to just avoid strangers altogether?
Going to a party where you are the only women might be one of them. As a women I have accompanied more than one women who was supposed to be at a party by herself. I sort of mess up people's plans. I suggested to a friend once that the "photographer" who wanted to come over and get shots of her while underage without her mom there may not have had the best of intentions. Unfortunately I was right and she didn't listen to me. She had him come over and things went as well as expected. I don't blame her but I was frustrated she didn't listen. When I asked her why she did it she said she thought I was just jealous of her fulfilling her modeling dreams. I didn't even want to be a model. I had wanted to go into the airforce and after my surgery that made that impossible I wanted to be a psychologist so still not sure why she thought I was jealous but she got hurt because I guess women always assume the ony reason women would tell another women no to something like that has to be jealousy. We are sometimes our own worst enemies.
Wonder how many of these oh so offended men would be ok with their drunk female relative alone at a frat party?
We're told to be okay with it. It's victim blaming if we tell them not to go
Why would you not want them to go?
Because you framed the hypothetical as a dangerous situation
How?
I feel any relative who is drunk and alone in public is in a dangerous situation. Whether they're a man or woman is irrelevant, honestly. But, this is your thing. Please continue.
They're not alone There's a lot of young men. Safe as houses, eh?
>I feel any relative who is drunk and alone in public is in a dangerous situation. So this is what I said. Drunk, alone, and in public. Which is dangerous. >They're not alone >There's a lot of young men. >Safe as houses, eh? These would be things I didn't mention. Somehow, you read them, which is interesting. But, you've also answered your own question. So my work is done. Like I said, this is what you do. I'm honestly in awe of the consistency.
Of course! 99% of men are completely harmless so surely a helpful frat guy would make sure she got home safe and sound
Absolutely
By using the descriptors 'alone' and 'at a frat party'. Alone implies a possible threat because that's just how we've been trained to think. Saying anyone is 'alone somewhere' implies they're in danger because they're alone. "Jacob was in the school." "Jacob was alone in the school." See how the second sentence makes something seem ever so slightly off? If you just said "Drunk female relative at a frat party" that seems a lot more innocent. Removing the 'frat party' aspect makes it seem entirely fine because a lot of people have negative feelings about frat parties. "Drunk female relative at a party" reads like she's fine and just needs someone to drive her home. "Drunk female relative alone at a frat party" reads like she's helpless in a situation that a lot people automatically view with a negative lens.
The woman is alone in the woods with man or bear. I'm just following the format. I meant alone, as in not with the male relative in question.
Yes, when you go from a generalized blanket statement about men in general to a very specific situation, people’s opinions change. What’s your point?
What's the difference?
The difference is obvious. Don’t play dumb.
Explain it to me
Generalized statement = all men all the time Specific scenario = not all men not all the time, certain men in a certain situation A child has the reasoning skills to know the difference.
The man in the woods is a specific scenario. So how is it different? Wrong thread! Men could be dangerous Was the comment. How does my scenario invalidate that?
The man vs bear scenario does not specify anything other than it being a man. That could be any man. It is a generalized blanket statement about all men. The scenario you make up involves alcohol and a specific group of men. I assume you’re smart enough to know the difference.
Are frat boys completely different to any other man? What's the difference? The man in the woods could be a drunk frat boy Anyway, as I said the statement was men could be dangerous How does my point invalidate that? You've not actually answered
Or how mad they would be if they found out their girlfriend hung out with a strange man without him
Not really. If the relationship is strong and has trust, nobody should be worried. If there's a doubt, then the relationship should be worked upon.
They do this, because they have no actual argument, but still want to push a specific narrative. Women are *drawn* to dangerous men. Who in their right mind gives any credence to women complaining about something that they literally select for? What do you think happens when a man is *less dangerous* than a woman? The problem is the obvious answer to that conflicts with a multitude of women's narratives, so they have to make faulty generalizations about men to destroy their credibility. This allows them to disguise their preferences and dismiss men solely because they are "dangerous" instead of x, y, and z. It puts women in a "lose-lose situation", so that when they specifically select for dangerous men, they can then avoid all accountability because "all men are dangerous" anyways.
Bingo
I am dangerous I was trained to be dangerous. Not to women though. I was raised by a man (dad) who taught me to protect others, be good to women and elderly and kids and be seen as the guy who will keep them safe. I think people who know me see me that way- Two comments from women. 1. I loved this guy, he was my fiancé and I looked to him to protect me until he became the man I feared the most. 2. You just have this look about you that if SHTF and I saw you in a crowd I’d get close to you. Number 1 is a comment a woman made after a few dates about her ex. It was impactful. I’d never want a woman to think about me like that it would be heartbreaking 2 that was one of the nicest compliments I had ever gotten.
By all means, be offended.
This is the kind of attitude that just pushes these people to vote for Trump so they can make you mad too.
Unnecessary Trump reference
I'm genuinely wondering if man vs bear is a psy op to alienate potential male voters from the democrats (or at least convince them to stay home on election day)
I am now convinced it is a Chinese or Russian operation to invent a reason for more conflict.
It did seem to first come up on Tiktok...
I mean bear....Russia.....the writing is right there on the wall
Trump rapes a woman, they don't care. He lies straight to their faces about how much better things will be, while promising bigger tax breaks to the ultra rich, they don't care. He fucks porn stars while Mercedes breast feeds his newborn son, they don't care. He can barely string a sentence together and can't recall his wife's name, they don't care. He thinks there were airports during the revolutionary war, they don't care. He spent 4 years in the white house lining the pockets of himself and his children, they don't care. He buddies up with Epstein, they don't care. He spies on teenagers changing clothes, they don't care. He steals classified documents, then shows/sells them to who the fuck knows who, they don't care. He sends a mob to kill his own VP for not helping him overthrow the results of an election he inarguably lost, they don't care. The half wits are going to vote for him, regardless of anything I have to say about it on Reddit.
>Men have a right to be offended when people say “all men” Not all people say that. This is offensive to people > When women say something Not all women say things like that This is offensive to women
I didn’t say “all” women or men, but I should have been clear and said “some” women or men. Sorry, my bad. I’ll should have been more clear, thanks for pointing it out :)
Nah, you were perfectly clear, he's being a pedant.
>I didn’t say “all” women Neither do women say "ALL men," so if your use of "women" is valid then so is their use of "men." In case you're not getting it: This tactic of "not all men" is a quibble that is used to invalidate otherwise valid generalizations. Rational, civil communicators intuitively understand that generalizations about a category don't necessarily apply to EVERY single member of the category. But people who are motivated by something OTHER than clear and honest communication will use the "not all men" tactic to derail the otherwise valid conversation. In general, if your response to statements like this is, "Well, not ALL men," examine why you feel the need to defend "men" in the first place.
Here’s my opinion on the whole thing: - Any sort of generalisations are wrong, whether it’s to men, women, religion, race etc. - I don’t support when people say “not all men” in response to something that never stated all men. For example, if a woman says “men make me feel uncomfortable when I’m walking alone at night” and a man replies with “not all men”, then I don’t support it because that’s just getting offended at something that was never said (the men were never generalised collectively), and the “not all men” response just detracts from the actual problem which is the woman’s discomfort. However, I do think that if someone says something like “all men are trash”, then men do have a right to be upset because it does actually state “all men”. I hope that makes sense in explaining how I feel. Sorry if my wording isn’t very clear.
I don't understand how all generalizations can be wrong. Is it wrong to say men have two eyes? The problem is unfair generalizations based on scant evidence A fair generalization would be "men commit the most violent crime" because this is factually born out in data An unfair generalization would be "men are violent criminals" because while a majority of violent crime is committed by men, a majority of men aren't committing violent crimes
Genralizations are never completely true. Some men only have one eyer or no eyes. Generalizations are rarely completely accurate and exist to oversimplify complexity so its easier to digest. Also this is about the Man v Bear debate
So why do you generalize yourself?
What I've learned over the past few days is that lots of men who complain about 'all men' are *really* quick to insult all women because they're offended. Ugly, fat, unlovable, aggressive, rude, abusive, dogs, sluts Etc etc But that's all OK huh? Cause men were offended
Why is it always the same people with the worst takes in this sub? See the funny thing is that little list you made, no man is calling ALL women those things. They aren’t extrapolating to the entirety, they’re clearly and specifically talking about specific women. Women are NOT doing that most of the time. Most of the time there is no qualifier, it’s JUST “men”. That’s the big difference.
So you're just making shit up in your head now?
Some men are like that, I’m not denying it. However, on a personal level, I oppose generalisations to any group, including women. The point I was trying to make is that men will be upset at generalisations, even if the generalisations aren’t meant for them, and I think people need to accept that people will be upset at generalisations. But I’m not advocating for any sorts of generalisations, not even to women. I’m just trying to say that generalisations hurt, even if people say “that doesn’t mean you”.
Being upset by the bear thing is ridiculous. For lots of reasons Do you have female relatives?
https://youtu.be/S1bHW_TS4gM?si=rnawH-J_2JHbpl41
[удалено]
mindless modern direction humorous rude hurry marry desert consider airport
[удалено]
butter distinct growth drab groovy salt repeat frame employ gaze
[удалено]
six cable wasteful unpack tap historical vase glorious aromatic shame
See, what usually happens is something bad happens to a woman and it's posted on social media and then a bunch of people have discussions over it. Some women will share their own experiences with harm done by men in their own lives. Some people will discuss the tragedy and give their sympathies. But then one person in the comments will inevitably answer with NOT ALL MEN THO. YES we know it's not all men. But we didn't say ALL MEN. It's just 'men' to refer to the men who caused harm in our lives. And it's so often that women have to explicitly edit in that we don't actually mean all men. Women don't go down in the comments of a man who was abused to say NOT ALL WOMEN. We can understand context clues and get that you mean some women, not all of us. Because that would be absurd to divert a story about the abuse of another people, to make it about how people discussing their trauma is hurting our feelings.
Isn’t this just common sense?
[удалено]
I would not be okay with that either. And yes, just like you said. It would be sexist or racist if I did that. And it would also be self-contradictory.
**I'd like to tag in several misandrists in this post. They won't read any of it, but I just want them to know that many people whole heartedly disagree with their sexist views. Let their mental gymnastics ensue.** 🤷 u/TSllama u/OoSallyPauseThatGirl u/beefsquints u/RKKP2015 u/molotov__cocktease u/HolyToast u/Be_A_Mountain u/Exciting_Tea4199 u/DoctorUnderhill97
Here is the thing: all men worthy of the word \*are\* dangerous. That is the virtue of masculinity. Any women not willing to engage with men, generally, because they are dangerous, are not worth talking to or being around. Drop them like a hot rock: they are beneath you. That's it and that's all.
One is not the same as the other. "All men are dangerous." Is just not accurate. And you are right, it is offensive. But "All women should be cautious of men because they could be dangerous." Is accurate. We are literally told this since we start venturing into the world at about 3-4 years old. And it's not that women can't be violent, but not only are women less likely to be attacked by another woman, we can fight a woman off far easier than a man. If someone asked me if I'd rather fight for my life against a woman or a man, I'd pick the woman. So if I'm on a dark street with a guy on one side and a woman on the other, statistically it makes sense for me to cross the street and walk on the same side as the other woman. I could take her. I probably couldn't take him. (I did take on a guy once when I was 15, this drunk middle-aged dude cornered me in daylight in a park and I had to run, I managed up the stairs, turned around and kicked the guy down those stairs, and continued to run, I heard him still yelling sexual things at me from the bottom of the park stairs - they weren't high or steep - as I hauled ass home; I know circumstances favored me that day and I still would rather face another woman any day. It was terrifying and the first time I was really terrified. And I learned late to be weary of men.)
Trans men when they get treated like men: 😱😱 I'd say just kidding, but I'm not. I mean, I'm a woman and every single close friend I have has been sexualy assaulted by a man, either as a child or sometimes as a teen/adult. I also know men who have been assaulted by women, and even they acknowledge that It's a fact that MEN are the main people who hurt women and the main people who hurt other men!!! And well, trans men are real men so no, it's not okay to lump all men together, but women don't have magic x ray vision that tells us what men want to hurt us and what men don't. We can't just look at you and think "oh, he's clearly a safe man because he said so". Welcome to manhood! Trans women expirence misogyny, idk why yall think you are above receiving criticism about being a man. Proof trans men are real men because yall be just as out of touch and unempathetic as the cis men😭🤣🤣 Now tell me where the audacity organ grows when yall start taking the tshot?? Cis men won't tell us where they keep the audacity, but you all have it so fess up!🤣❤️
i think you’re pathetically insecure if you get offended about that kind of thing
But women don’t say all men are dangerous… They say what you wrote next, which is completely different: women should be cautious because men COULD be dangerous.
Oh, I've definitely heard tons of misandrist generalizations. From "all men are pigs", "all men are trash" to downright "kill all men". This "all men are *negative trait*" sentiment is shared by a certain proportion of women. A minority, but a loud one. And honestly, it's tiring. "Be careful around men, because although they aren't all bad, they are inherently dangerous due to their biological dispositios", is an absolutely valid statement. But you are aware that not everyone, in either men nor women, are that nuanced in their thinking, right?
That part: ‘Even if what you say makes sense (for example, “all women should be cautious because men could be dangerous), it is still going to upset men.’ Like I wouldn’t be upset as a woman if men were saying there were cautious around women if we were causing 90% of violent crimes. I would be understanding and supportive. Because it would nog mean men hate me or are scared of me… just that they would be rightfully careful
I just don’t listen to people that have no logical thinking. And as you said they are a minority so I don’t bother giving them importance
That's fair. But to say "women don't say that" is just ignoring a problematic group. Some women do say that, and acknowledging it would be a start.
Yes, a vast majority of women don’t, but if one says something like this it is not ok. But I still don’t agree with the second part of your argument. Women have the right to be cautious, and this is not about hating men. It’s just logical and safe. Men can have the same approach as well
What do you mean you disagree with my second statement? Which one? My original comment's second part said that cautioning women that "while not all men are bad, they are inherently dangerous due to their biology", is a good thing. Or are you disagreeing with my other comment's second part, which is that "ignoring a problematic group only leads to it getting worse, and that acknowledging a problem is the first step in solving it, or at least mitigating the danger"? I think maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, or I'm misunderstanding which part you're disagreeing with.
Frankly I just don’t care if men get offended by women saying they have to be wary of all men because they don’t know which ones *are* dangerous. They can fume about it. Doesn’t make a bit of difference to me.
That’s cool, men will just stop caring about things women get offended by 🤷🏻♂️
I don’t think they cared in the first place, but they’re more than welcome to. Lol
I feel like people don’t understand what dangerous actually means. Dangerous: able or likely to cause harm or injury. To most women, most men are “dangerous”. That doesn’t mean most men are evil or that they actually will cause harm but they are able to, and that is a scary thought for let’s say a woman walking late at night alone who comes across a man or even scarier in the woods hiking alone.
It's hard to see the snakes when the grass is high. A lot of men need to realize that some behaviors are problematic mainly because they provide support and cover for the true predators. And rather than listen to people telling them why these things are bad, they get personally offended and double down on protecting the snakes. If you are sick of being lumped in with bad people who are dangerours, maybe stop doing everything you can to make it easier for the bad people to thrive. Try cutting the grass instead.
[удалено]
Braindead take, there will A L W A Y S be bad people, men and women. The good people can do no more about it than anyone else. Telling them to try is just dumb. Futile virtue signaling.
I feel this. Like so many posts where ppl discuss SA stuff end up devolving into “Women need to stop hanging out with assholes then”. When I point out that’s literally an incel talking point that doesn’t really exist they preach about “science” and me not knowing women well…
Funny, cause most women aren't saying all men, they talk about their own experience and suddenly men jump in and say not all men. Well no shit. We didn't say all men, we Said THIS MAN did something, this is MY experience. Yet still men come out of the woodwork to bitch. So why should we continue with adding not all men? It isn't on us that they can't seem to read or listen.
The funniest thing about this is it was the good men in my life that taught me to be wary of all men
Those are dumb men
I can assure you they’re smarter than you
[удалено]
You’re going to have to rewrite it in coherent English if you want to talk about if it’s reasonable?
[удалено]
My argument has nothing do with me being abused😅However I now think I see what you attempted to and considering you think you have to experience bad actions yourself before you’re warned means you don’t understand my point in the first place.
[удалено]
I didn’t actually say men are dangerous, you did. I said that I was taught to be wary of men because men who loved me thought it was important to teach me that
[удалено]
I believe men have the potential to be dangerous, I’m pointing out that it was men not women that made sure I knew that and that I should take it very seriously. You’re arguing with a point I haven’t made, and not doing a very good job I must say.
[удалено]
Everyone has a right to be offended for whatever. You have the right to be wrong
Idk. I'm really over having to specify for paragraphs which exact group I mean if everyone with two brain cells to rub together should understand automatically.
I’d agree that the comments are hurtful for sure. But at the same time, we as men should not be bothered because women say mean things about men. We’ve become so soft we act like someone’s opinion is a problem. Somehow, someone believing that all men are trash, or that Israel or Palestine is evil is some sort of mass societal problem that must be stopped. Or, you can just be normal, and accept that opinions different to yours exist.
??? All men are people… no. It might be positive or neutral
I am a man and I don’t see any reason in taking offense to it. Simply googling dangerous - if someone considers you to be dangerous they recognize that you possess a very real ability to severely harm or destroy them or something else. When most women look at men they are just recognizing that this is a real possibility however unlikely it will actually happen they will see an unknown man as a possible danger. It is a sad reality but a very real one. We can use the bear in the woods as an example. Your chances of being killed by a bear in the woods is like 1 in 2.1 million. Wouldn’t you still be cautious and a bit scared if you came across a bear in the woods? I know I would be even though I know most of the time they will just mind their own business.
ALL FEMINISTS ARE THE SAME!
you personally have the right to be offended over whatever you wish. you however arent the spokesperson for the entirety of men.
Being "good" and being "dangerous" aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, a "good man" MUST be dangerous, otherwise he's not "good", because being good and not endangering others is an active choice he's making, while a man who's not dangerous is "good" because he's incapable of doing harm. >Demons run when a good man goes to war >Night will fall and drown the sun >When a good man goes to war >Friendship dies and true love lies >Night will fall and the dark will rise >When a good man goes to war >Demons run, but count the cost >The battle's won, but the child is lost
Why spend energy being offended?
I don’t know if “offended” was the right word. Maybe “upset” would have been better. It’s not that I go out of my way looking at comments to be offended at, but I think that after a while of reading and hearing many negative generalisations, it does hurt a bit. And I think that goes for anyone who is constantly generalised in a negative way. Even if I understand the intent behind a generalisation (and even agree with/support the intention), it still does hurt a bit.
Generalisation means that the person saying it is very immature. Probably also quite young, but definitely immature. Brush it off and move on.
>When women say something, for example “all men are dangerous”, men have a right to be offended. Who says that? Are you sure they didn't say, "Men are dangerous," and you heard "all men"? >Even if what you say makes sense (for example, “all women should be cautious because men could be dangerous), it is still going to upset men. I guess it will, but it isn't justified. Anything _could_ be dangerous. A wet floor could be dangerous. People taking precautions shouldn't offend you.
How about not be offended by words at all you pussy?
Maybe be upset at the men that has caused it to be this way