You can’t do anything if you take all the crazy people on the street in consideration
Always keep in mind that you heard about it in the news. So it was a news-worthy event.
Or it was not really news worthy and got inflated by the media untill it was.
It’s interesting to think about how gun violence is so common in the US that it’s become local news. You only get brief national coverage if you mass-murder a large gathering of people. School shootings are now so common that they rise to national news if the death count rises above a dozen or so kids. There were 83 school shootings in the 2000’s. There were 264 shootings in the 2010’s. There have been 181 so far in the 2020’s. We’re well on track to double the 10’s number by the end of the decade. More than 200 kids murdered in schools in the 2010’s. How many did you heard about?
And that’s just school shootings. The national level of people not murdered by police is far higher. There were 21,000 homicides by guns in 2021 alone. We don’t call police-caused deaths “murder,” but the nicely qualified “justifiable homocides,” but in 2019, cops added another 1,000 people shot and killed by police to that number. It’s a lot harder to get at totals when it involves law enforcement.
Anyway, it’s rather incredible to me that murder has become so mundane. Or maybe it always has been, and it requires a Lizzy Borden situation to make national news.
That is argument of popular which is fallacy and doesn’t address the argument at all. Just cuz something isn’t in the news Doesn’t mean it’s a safe world. Just doesn’t mean an event is popular to listen to. Much rape reporting doesn’t get televised because of it being so common. Just cuz something isn’t newsworthy doesn’t mean it’s still not wrong and getting unfairly dismissed
Yes, that’s what I said. It is reported about, meaning it’s news-worthy and probably rare. Like the murders mentioned in the cartoon. Rejected men usually don’t kill people.
Of course that doesn’t work as well for rape because of the many cases that never get reported. It’s much harder to keep a murder out of the statistics though.
This man might be crazy! I better go on a date with him lol
Yeah. Hilarious.
Turn him down and he yells, calls the woman names, maybe attacks her now or later, stalks her, rapes her, murders her, kills a kid, shoots up a mall, or mows down a crowd with a van, or…
Men fear rejection, women fear being killed.
Turn him down and he yells, calls the woman names, maybe attacks her now or later, stalks her, rapes her, murders her, kills a kid, shoots up a mall, or mows down a crowd with a van, or…
Definitely common everyday occurrences and not massively-cherry picked sensationalism.
women fear being killed
A completely irrational fear in the US at least, given that in a country of 340,000,000, less than 5,000 women are murdered a year. And that’s even if you pretended every single murder was by a rejected man.
Stop letting ideological propaganda make you paranoid.
“Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration.
An estimated 13% of women and 6% of men have experienced sexual coercion in their lifetime (i.e., unwanted sexual penetration after being pressured in a nonphysical way); and 27.2% of women and 11.7% of men have experienced unwanted sexual contact.
https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).
In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.
Great, so you understand now that sexual violence is actually a widespread problem & not an irrational fear. Glad to have helped educate.
Holy moving goalposts, batman!
I only described actively fearing getting murdered in your everyday life, as irrational.
Being smug and disingenuous at the same time is a particularly bad combination; educate yourself on how to be honest, and you won’t embarrass yourself nearly as much in public fora.
Being intellectually honest is free. Do better.
Excuse me but what the fuck are you going on about irrational fear? Do you live in unicorn sparkle land? I’m regularly followed by absolute creeps and people will yell and get physically aggravated at me if I turn them down wrong and personally I don’t know a single femme person where this isn’t just a known risk of going outside. I’ve literally had a gun pulled on me in broad daylight in the middle of town and they followed me in their car for several blocks. My partner had someone yell at them while taking out trash “One of these days I’m going to kill one of you fucking c*nts”. I’ve been molested in a parking lot while there were people around. We don’t even live in sketchy neighborhoods. The fear is not irrational and not unfounded and we never know which of these encounters could end in assault or death so we have to assume and act in a way to prep for the worst
Excuse me but what the fuck are you going on about irrational fear?
It is objectively irrational to actively fear something that happens to 0.0014% (that’s 14% of 1% of 1%) of the population (and I was specifically talking about “being killed”, which is what I quoted–you’re not trying to move the goalposts by pretending I was talking about anything else, are you~?), whether you like it or not. You should be dozens of times more terrified to ever step in a car than to reject a man, if things were in proportion. But, because your fear is irrational, you’re not.
Given that you indeed shoved those goalposts a large distance from what I was saying in the rest of your comment, and that I see from your comment history that you believe in the “patriarchy” conspiracy theory, it’s clear to me it would serve no purpose to seriously discuss anything on this topic with you.
336,199,359 people, more or less. And that is both male and female. If we’re talking numbers of women murdered, how about you use the number of women in the USA, not the numbers of both women and men?
And while we’re at it, how about you include the number of women who are doxxed, beaten, and raped too? It isn’t just murder. 1 in 4 women in the US have dealt with harassment from a man, often times serious harassment. That it doesn’t always end in murder doesn’t make it less of a problem.
You’re right that it might not make sense to worry about being killed in particular, but the person you responded to described a series of genuinely scary situations, and it isn’t irrational to be fearful for your safety in those moments. But then you had to go and say,
Given that you indeed shoved those goalposts a large distance from what I was saying in the rest of your comment, and that I see from your comment history that you believe in the “patriarchy” conspiracy theory, it’s clear to me it would serve no purpose to seriously discuss anything on this topic with you.
and oooooh, you really lost me there, not gonna lie. I’m curious of your understanding of “the patriarchy” is different than mine, but surely you recognize that we live in a male-dominated society, no?
the person you responded to described a series of genuinely scary situations, and it isn’t irrational to be fearful for your safety in those moments
Good thing my comment was under a quote only talking about being killed, making it obvious I was only talking about that one thing.
The grand irony in the phrase “women fear being killed”, juxtaposed against men fearing something else, as if they have no reason to fear being killed by comparison, is that the other sex is killed far, far more often. Imagine someone saying “women fear chipped nails, men fear breast cancer”, for an idea of how abhorrent and sexist “men fear rejection, women fear being killed” actually is.
I’m curious of your understanding of “the patriarchy” is different than mine, but surely you recognize that we live in a male-dominated society, no?
What feminists et al call “the patriarchy” is just the collective of social standards and expectations, which do obviously exist, but the ‘conspiracy theory’ part is in the deliberate anti-male name they use for it, attributing all of it to some sort of sinister male plot, within the equally-bullshit ‘males are all predators, females are all victims’ narrative, by giving this collective a name that places all of the agency and blame at the feet of men. This is done plenty of other times by the same group of ideologues; a couple of examples:
- The act of assuming someone lacks knowledge because of a trait of theirs that has no actual relationship to having said knowledge is called “mansplaining”, creating the false narrative that only men do it, they only do it to women, and that being a woman is the only ‘irrelevant trait’. Fact is, both sexes do this, TO both sexes, for many reasons, including but not nearly limited to their sex.
- When a fanny pack is marketed to men by using camouflage or gunmetal color schemes in the packaging, it’s because of “male fragility” (i.e. men are so terrified of possessing a stereotypically-female thing that they won’t buy it otherwise). When a set of tools is marketed to women by using floral or pink color schemes, it’s magically no longer ‘fragility’, but an oppressive misogynist plot by the evil corporation.
The fact is that all of the commonly-complained about harmful elements of “the patriarchy” (e.g. the imposition of harmful sex stereotypes on individuals of both sexes), are things both put into place, and maintained perpetuated, by men AND women. Even topics like abortion are falsely characterized as being a strictly male (pro-life) vs. female (pro-choice) issue, when the fact is that the percentage of women who are pro-life, and of men who are pro-choice, are both in the 40s!
All of this “patriarchy” and adjacent crap is just bigoted ideologues creating division where it doesn’t exist, down to giving things that do exist deliberately misleading names that absolve and remove all agency from the in group, in order to blame it all on the out group.
Radical idea, how about you don’t try and pull this on someone who has stated that they are in the cohort of people who has experienced this type of violence repeatedly with examples?
It is incredibly invalidating to have someone try and use percentages to tell you what you should and shouldn’t be afraid of when you have already had legitimate cause to fear for your safety in the past. This person is not the audience for that and you are only going to make them more afraid because you have demonstrated that you place objective percentages based on wider population demographics over their personal lived experience… Which is a jerk thing to do because what it ACTUALLY does is make a previously victimized person relive experiences of other invalidations they experienced following the traumatic events and deepens their overall distrust of people to care and take what happened to them seriously.
You are trying to score points to prove you’re right at the expense of someone’s overall well being when you do this. Even if you are right it’s a shitty thing to do to a person.
Rare bad things have happened to me, too. But recognizing that they are indeed rare is important, arguably even more so because I have faced it.
Fearing that something bad that’s happened to you will happen again, is natural and understandable, it’s how the human brain works.
Doesn’t make it not irrational, though. Don’t take as a personal insult the stating of that fact. It’s also not “invalidation” to state that fact, as the fact is literally not a direct comment on anything you actually experienced in your actual individual life.
This is coming from someone who was molested by an older girl as a child. Should I fear and suspect all older women? Racists also use this logic to try and justify being ‘wary’ of all members of a race after having some bad experience with one or a few individuals of that race.
The irony of all this is that you’re interpreting my words as a personal attack on you, when it’s literally healthier to get yourself out of the mindset that ‘bad men are everywhere and the next trauma is around every corner waiting to strike’. That’s no way to live.
I want to see people not swallowed whole by their traumas.
I think people don’t realize that because we are fearful, we take a lot of extra precaution to avoid being put into situations that could spiral out of control. It’s almost like a survivorship bias.
Hey, you missed this part:
he yells, calls the woman names
Talk about how this part doesn’t happen because you’ve never personally seen it.
That’s not at all what gaslighting means lol
I know it’s the trendy new word among children but please take the time to read the article you yourself linked.
Both sexes yell and call people names. Arguably, women are more likely to do it when rejected, on average (being called a f-slur (I wouldn’t censor it but I don’t know if I’m allowed to frankly use words like that here) by a woman you just turned down is a popular play, I’ve noticed, over the years), simply because they’re more likely to be less exposed to rejection (since they approach, and therefore put themselves in a position where they can be rejected, much less often), and exposure to rejection is generally how someone learns how to handle it maturely.
Also, you clearly have no idea what gaslighting is.
Post hoc fallacy.
Does a healthy balanced male do all of those things because a woman rejected his advances?
Or is it actually a person likely to end up doing those things who made inappropriate advances in the course of their escapade.
Men don’t generally turn into rampaging gorillas when you decline their advances.
deleted by creator
When men hear “What’s the worst that could happen?” they focus on the “could” and think about probable results and rank them by awfulness. This makes sense because the gender of “man” is sociologically defined in no small part by expendability,
When women hear “What’s the worst that could happen?” they focus on the “worst” and think about awful results and rank them by probability. This makes sense because the gender of “woman” is sociologically defined in no small part by preciousness.
This is completely garbage. The reason women have this attitude towards men is because of all the sexual assault that happens, more than 80% of the victims are women and more than 95% of the perpetrators are men.
This line of reasoning doesn’t have anything to do with the lofty ideals of what a gender role is in society or women thinking themselves “precious” or focusing on “could” vs “worst” or whatever you call that. It has to do with the fact that, statistically, women are in more danger than men. Full stop.
of all the sexual assault that happens, more than 80% of the victims are women and more than 95% of the perpetrators are men.
This is demonstrably false. I followed your link and found that the original citation is “U.S. Dept. of Justice, Violence Against Women Report, 2002.” I wasn’t able to find this specific report to check the data, but the reference I usually use is the often-cited 2011 CDC Sexual Violence report, which is 10 years more recent, and which is also the origin of the “99% of rapists are men” myth (but more on that later), so I don’t think you’d object to it too much.
Here are the statistics for sexual violence in the year 2011, according to the CDC:
an estimated 1.6% of women reported that they were raped in the 12 months preceding the survey. The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate.
And
The percentages of women and men who experienced these other forms of sexual violence victimization in the 12 months preceding the survey were an estimated 5.5% and 5.1%, respectively.
Added together, we see that 7.1% of women and 5.1% of men reported being victims of sexual violence in 2011. That is, 58% of victims of all sexual violence in 2011 were women, and 42% were men. For every 3 female victims, there were 2 male victims.
Now on to your second claim: that more than 95% of perpetrators are men. From the “Characteristics of Sexual Violence Perpetrators” section about a third of the way down, keeping in mind the percentages above:
For female rape victims, an estimated 99.0% had only male perpetrators (more on this later…). In addition, an estimated 94.7% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape had only male perpetrators.
And
For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape victims (an estimated 79.3%) had only male perpetrators. For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims had only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (an estimated 82.6%), sexual coercion (an estimated 80.0%), and unwanted sexual contact (an estimated 54.7%). For noncontact unwanted sexual experiences, nearly half of male victims (an estimated 46.0%) had only male perpetrators and an estimated 43.6% had only female perpetrators.
To help us with the breakdowns of these numbers, earlier in the report we find that:
1.7% of men were made to penetrate a perpetrator in the 12 months preceding the survey [and] an estimated 1.3% of men experienced sexual coercion in the 12 months before taking the survey [and] an estimated 1.6% of men having experienced unwanted sexual contact in the 12 months before taking the survey [and] an estimated 2.5% of men experienced this type of victimization (noncontact unwanted sexual experiences) in the previous 12 months
So, of the 1.7% of made to penetrate male victims, 82.6% of perpetrators were female. Of the 1.3% sexual coercion, 80% of perpetrators were female. Of the 1.6% unwanted sexual contact, 54.7% were female, and of the 2.5% noncontact, 43.6% were female.
So, 1.4% of the 1.7% made to penetrate, 1% of the 1.3% sexual coercion, .9% of the 1.6% unwanted sexual contact, and 1.1% of the 2.5% noncontact.
So, 4.4% of the 7.1% of men reporting sexual violence had female perpetrators. That is, 62% of sexual violence against men is committed by women (in 2011).
So, going back to our numbers above, we see that 62% of the 42% of sexual violence with men as victims was committed by women.
Our final numbers are: 74% of sexual violence in total is committed by men, and 26% is committed by women. Which ain’t great, but that feels a lot more realistic, and it’s a far cry from the intentionally misleading numbers you’re citing.
BUT IT GETS WORSE…
What happens when we look at just rape? Note that first we have to figure out what the CDC means by “rape”, because at first “99% of rape is committed by men” looks pretty damning.
Well, “rape” is defined by the CDC for the purposes of this study as “completed or attempted forced penetration or alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration”. That is, only being penetrated counts as rape.
Men, on the other hand, get the completely separate category “made to penetrate”, that is, “being forced to have sex with someone, just doing the penetrating instead of being penetrated.”
So, 99% of rapists are men because rape is intentionally defined as “being penetrated” to exclude male victims of rape from the statistics. I wonder why…
Well, what happens when we actually look at those numbers, counting “made to penetrate” as, y’know, rape, because it is rape?
an estimated 1.6% of women (or approximately 1.9 million women) were raped in the 12 months before taking the survey
And
The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate.
Which is, again, because male rape victims are effectively excluded from this definition. Also, we have this:
an estimated 1.7% of men were made to penetrate a perpetrator in the 12 months preceding the survey
And
Characteristics of Sexual Violence Perpetrators For female rape victims, an estimated 99.0% had only male perpetrators. In addition, an estimated 94.7% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape had only male perpetrators. For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape victims (an estimated 79.3%) had only male perpetrators. For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims had only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (an estimated 82.6%), sexual coercion (an estimated 80.0%),
Note that these numbers clearly show that made to penetrate happens just as much each year as “rape”. This means that fully half of rape victims are men (in 2011 - the number fluctuates in the other years of the study, but not more than 5%).
Finally, if 99% of rapists are men and 83% of “made to penetrators” are women … then an estimated 42% of the perpetrators of nonconsensual sex (that is, rape) in 2011 were women.
Sorry for the wall of text, but I think it’s important to debunk this sort of misandrist misinformation.
Edit: Here’s a Time article that confirms these numbers. They also mention that boys under 15 are more likely to be sexually assaulted than women over 40, and are more than twice as likely to be assaulted as girls under 15.
I’m just going to leave the cdc report on sexual assault from 2010-2012 that says the same thing as my initial claim, with the same statistics in detail, for you to draw your own conclusions from. Check the tables from page 18 onward.
My friend, statistics aren’t sexist. They just are. I don’t really have time to sit here and argue that women suffer more from sexual violence than men do. It’s not really up for debate, and I’ve learned not to engage the people who think it is.
If you’re going to accuse me of misandry because I’m defending a woman’s prerogative to feel safe, I’m just not going to fire back. Have fun with that.
I think you’ll want to check those numbers, actually, since they perfectly match everything I’m saying (since it’s the published CDC report from the same time). But it is reassuring that even the source you cite has the same numbers I’m citing.
If you’re so certain that your numbers are borne out by the data, could you please point out exactly where your claim that “more than 80% of the victims [of sexual assault] are women and more than 95% of the perpetrators are men” is borne out by the yearly data in this report?
My friend, statistics aren’t sexist. They just are.
I agree, which is why I took the time to cite the statistics exactly, instead of throwing out random numbers that aren’t borne out by the data.
I don’t really have time to sit here and argue that women suffer more from sexual violence than men do. It’s not really up for debate, and I’ve learned not to engage the people who think it is.
I’m not arguing that women don’t suffer more from sexual violence than men do. I’m just arguing that women suffer much less from sexual violence compared to men than is usually believed, that women commit sexual assault much more than is usually believed, and that men are raped as often as women are.
As you say, this is not up for debate, and whether you “debate me” or not, it won’t change the facts, and I’ve made sure that this information is now available and organized for anyone who doesn’t insist on closing their eyes to misandry.
Edit in response to your edit (the last line of your comment): That’s not an accurate description of what’s happening here, and playing the victim under the guise of “I’m just defending a woman’s prerogative to feel safe” isn’t going to work when all I’ve done is show that your misandrist claims about the perpetrators and victims of sexual violence are not correct.
You’ve misunderstood my point.
Please do enlighten me. Because from where I’m standing, it looks like you’ve blamed women considering the worst case scenario on some self-important role attached to their gender, and not the very basic and obvious line of reasoning that their safety is on the line.
I can see that. I neither blame anyone, nor ascribe self-importance. Men are encouraged to disregard threats, women encouraged to take them seriously. This is an observation, not a moral judgement.
Violence against men is statistically underreported, and they’re still the majority of reported victims. Everyone’s safety is on the line, men are just taught to disregard that risk and women are taught not to. Again, observation, not moral judgement.
Hmm… There was a comic about women and serial killers that got me started thinking about this but…
Do you think both genders are being sold on extremes of the other that might be skewing our ability to interact rationally?
Like women being sold extremes of men abusiveness and cults and rapists and men on stingy or “slutty” women. And now both genders are spending less time with each other and more with internalized extreme versions of each other?
It’s like maybe a symptom of a lack of social spaces or maybe just leads to less of them as people only feel comfortable in closed groups. I’m thinking we are all being taken for a ride.
Or people are way worse than I can consider.Okay so hear me out. I have this pet theory that might explain some of the divide between genders, but also political parties, causing paralysis which ultimately might lead to humanity’s extinction. Forgive me if I’m stating the obvious.
I’m going to set up two axioms to arrive at an extrapolated conclusion.
One: Human psychology tends to ascribe more weight to negative things than positive things in the short term. In the long term this generally balances out, but in the short term it’s more prudent in a biological sense to pay attention to the rustling in the bushes than the berries you might pick from them. This is known as the negativity bias.
Two: The modern gatekeepers of social interaction, Big Tech, employ blind algorithms that attempt to steer your attention towards spending more time on their platforms. These companies are the arbiters of the content we experience daily and what you do and don’t see is mostly at their discretion. The techniques they employ, in simple terms, are designed to provoke what they call ‘engagement’. They do this because at the end of the day FAANG have not only a financial interest, but a fiduciary duty to sell advertisements at the behest of their shareholders. The more they can engage you, the more ads they can sell. They employ live A-B testing, divide people into cohorts and poke and prod them with psychological techniques to try and glue your eyeballs to their ads.
Extrapolated conclusion: These companies have a financial and legally binding interest to divide the population against itself, obstructing politics and social interaction to the point where we might not be able to achieve any of the goals that we need to reach to prevent oblivion.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
I absolutely agree and would only like to add that humans also have a Confirmation bias that is of course reinforced by engagement algorithms as well. So not only do we tend to only see the negative but also predominantly the negative that reinforces our worldview. Best example is the fact that many people are convinced crime rates are going up all the time while they are actually going down world-wide for decades already.
That is an interesting factor I hadn’t even considered. Thanks for pointing it out.
In this sort of place we are also pretty good at selecting and promoting the best performing offensive material against the other side on whatever axis sides are drawn — cats vs dogs; cars vs bicycles; religion vs religion vs no religion
Not really the best against the other side - the best for their side to feel would offend the other side
Further thought - I was taught to not follow news because news isn’t about what’s important, it’s about what keeps you watching or gets you to buy the newspaper. This problem has always existed since we first had information tied to money
Exactly. Allowing (edit: promoting, even!) that kind of content is in the interest of businesses that need your attention. Fear, anger and outrage drive engagement like nothing else.
There’s a whole documentary about exactly this, called The Social Dilema (2020). The film is a bit over-the-top and hyperbolic, but I get that they’re competing with shows that are mostly CGI explosions and have to spice things up. Anyway, it goes into details, using sources from the industry, and it’s worth a watch. At the very least you’ll feel vindicated about your thesis.
Awesome, I’ll be sure to check that out. Thanks for the tip!
BINGO. You nailed it. This is absolutely how it works. It’s not even a “conspiracy” in the traditional sense, evil tends to naturally become “industry standard” in a “highly competitive market.”
Also I’d like to add to this, how people are working more than ever, and participation in civics, local politics, hobbies, religious organizations, etc… Have been trending downward for ages. “Third places” between home and work are also disappearing. If you set foot outside your home, you’re on somebody’s turf and you’d better be buying something or working for them.
And talking with others? My goodness how unproductive! Gotta be working on these 3 side hustles. “Maybe you can monetize talking with friends!” /s
My neighborhood personally is full of renters who never bother to meet each other and are rarely seen outside at all, and many will probably be gone within 3 months. Knocking on your neighbor’s door will just get your face on a Ring video posted with
“ANYBODY KNOW THIS GUY? PROBABLY CASING THE PLACE OMG.” with responses like
“Never answer your door and get a gun and a big dog. I’ve seen this on TV and a friend got robbed once.”
This all adds up to literally seeing and experiencing the world through a digital filter. A filter that makes tons and tons of money when everybody is in a pocket universe. Scared of each other. Filtering each other. Weaponized by politics. Swayed by ads. Nobody shares resources. Nobody talks. Nobody gathers.
They’re all the most important thing in their own little worlds, buying products and generating data. I liken this to when we started seeing split-screen disappear from video games. “Well now each player needs a game console, and a subscription, and the game…”
Lol sorry didn’t mean to follow your TED talk with a blog post of my own. But, yeah, how the heck do we get this message out there…our humanity is hanging on by a thread…
I certainly think so. Social media and all those publicity-hungry news publishers have contributed to fostering an image of men and women that is unrealistic and without nuance. Not just regarding aggressiveness of men or chronically dtf women.
This might be a weird take, but Ted Bundy was only so successful because his victims inherently trusted him. In today’s world I believe he would have a lot more trouble to find a woman that assumes he has good intentions.
That and the gender separation is exaggerated by smaller families. Often a lot of people will only interact extensively with their mother or father as a member of the opposite sex, rarely anyone around their own age.
Not fond of this “both sides” attitude - you don’t see women threatening the safety of men: the onus is on men to ensure that women feel safe around them. It’s not enough to not hurt a woman, but to ensure the woman is always in a situation where she feels like you aren’t a threat. Don’t isolate her from a crowd as there is safety in numbers. Be confrontational against men who male her feel unsafe. Keep space so she doesn’t have to fear sudden movements from you. Etc etc etc. It’s work to navigate in such an environment, but it isn’t impossible.
If you want to engage with women on more equal footing, your enemy is the men who are making them feel unsafe, not the women for feeling unsafe. This is the only viable path forward.
The mall thing actually happened?
Yup:
The boy, identified only as Landen, was 5 when Emmanuel Aranda threw him nearly 40 feet to the ground. Aranda, who had been banned from the Bloomington, Minnesota, mall twice in previous years, told investigators that when went there “looking for someone to kill” after women rejected his advances.
The guy sounds like a real winner.
deleted by creator
When it comes to men being angry or violent at being spurned, it is never a joke.
Women have been telling us forever, though. Do we listen? Hence the comic. “Just say no, it can’t be that scary!”
deleted by creator
It’s pretty fucking unhinged, indeed.
It is that scary. When I was a younger idiot, I was unintentionally pushy and implied to a lady that I was about to rawdog it. She was scared, and went home, and it’s completely my fault that I didn’t let her feel safe. I was too myopic to see that a little comment I made had affected her security.
Being a larger, more muscular human I could have put it in despite her protests. Being naked together isn’t consent for more than being naked together.
At least you learned the correct lesson from that about empathy instead of just saying “next time I won’t say anything. I’ll just raw dog it.”
People say I’m a “good guy” but honestly the bar is so low is doesn’t feel like a compliment because I know who they are coming me to.
If a man kills random people, and it’s not obviously racially motivated, you can safely bet it’s about women.
Certainly very scary, a horrible tragedy, and a mental health emergency we need to find a way to prevent. Learning about things like this can understandably frighten anyone. However, the reality is it’s an outlier, very rare, almost no one will ever experience anything like this
Calling things an outlier just serves to dismiss the issue from being dealt with simply because it doesn’t fit some rigid standardized and (lazy) under-developed solution. The problem still remains. It’s still an issue even if you want to play statistics on how it doesn’t affect you personally because a system wasn’t made to deal its it because ‘it’s an outlier’. That’s the problem with standardizing problems that shouldn’t be approached with a standardized solution. In fact it’s the individuality that gets lost and where we fail to deal with problems head on. “It doesn’t fit in my box so I won’t deal with it”.
This article has a story of a man throwing a boy, but doesn’t say the reason why he threw the boy.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/06/us/boy-thrown-mall-of-america-settlement/index.html
Edit: Here is an article with the reason given by the man:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-threw-year-mall-america-balcony-tells-police/story?id=62423602
He said he came up with a plan to “kill someone at the mall” on Thursday and indicated that he was angry because women at the mall had rejected him.
So it looks like the comic is referencing an actual event.
Men are approaching women in record lows, sooo yay I guess?
If that means less women are dead? Yay indeed.
deleted by creator
Even as an introverted, socially awkward guy, I understand the real answer is better socialization. When the only encounter you have is a brief awkward attempt to hit on someone, which has always been low probability for most of us, you’re going to be frustrated. Too bad there weren’t more ways in everyday life for that frustrated guy to have gotten to know more people, recognized women as people, had varying levels of relationships with varying people.
Why would a man want to approach a woman that automatically assumes the worst of them?
Yeah but the amount of men shooting kids that stumbled on their property cuz they thought it was a trespasser is getting up there.
When their research to find that one “This strategy is guaranteed to get you a date!” Doesn’t play out the way it’s promised
When they don’t get what they think they’re “owed”…
I want to remind people of a different advice that similarly gets people into bad situations:
“The worst that can happen, is they say no. Go shoot your shot”
Yeah, that’s the worst that you think may happen. The worst that can happen is you misjudged the situation and now you’re making someone fear for their safety, and you’re a horrible creep in the eyes of anyone they talk to. You may get into trouble with your employer, friends, family, you really don’t know. And you only have yourself to blame. And don’t underestimate the effects of shame (as in: feeling guilty about something bad you did)
I’m not saying flirting is never permissible, but you should set boundaries based on the perspective of the other as well. The advice “worst case, they say no” is not at all asking the question how the other would feel being approached in this way. They may have more to lose than you do
As a woman I think a much better approach is “if it’s an appropriate situation go ahead and flirt, but pay attention to if she flirts back. And most importantly trust her words over her behavior.”
I’m not attracted to men, but I don’t mind them hitting on me in appropriate situations. I hate that I get asked out at work (not even public facing). Hell, there’s one man who I knew socially who hit on me, noticed I wasn’t reciprocating, then stopped and became platonically friendly instead. That made me trust him quite a bit actually.
I think a LOT of men just dont see the flirting as flirting anyway. They miss the side-eye (or mistake the nervous social side-eye). I know I missed a LOT of “signals”. I was better when she just said “hey I have a crush on you, do you feel the same?”
You’re probably more in-tune with the signals people show. With B/G relationships I feel there’s a lot of separation society puts inbetween the two so they dont really grow up together understanding each other. So here in the UK that would be separate gendered schooling, separate clubs and activities that are historically accessible or presumed upon each other.
Some people are oblivious to signs. A guy may be on the spectrum too. This is why growing up socializing is so important but with the internet we are more isolated from social cues than ever before.
I’m more saying that this is how some men talk themselves into hitting on someone in inappropriate situations, or (in their heads) blur the line without realizing. Missing signals isn’t only realizing years later that she was into you (a cliché story), but also “they’re just being friendly, it’s not flirting” (doesn’t get said enough)
As a man, when I was still dating, I loved when women made it clear they weren’t interested or had a boyfriend. They were some of my best friends. We could go out and have a good time and there wouldn’t be any sexual tension. We could talk about other people they liked or I liked. I’d wingman for them and they’d do the same for me.
I had one date where we planned on hanging out at her apartment to watch a movie and pretty much as soon as she invited me in she told me that she wasn’t interested in dating or doing anything with me. We were laughing and joking the whole night. We had an absolute blast and for years even after she moved and married her husband we’d still talk.
So, girls need to make the first move.
Asking someone a question is now tantamount to a threat? wtf?
Of course not, don’t be foolish.
Inserting oneself into another’s bubble without thought or tact can make one come off as creepy or threatening.
All it takes is thinking with your eyes, ears, and brain rather than your dick.
Totally agree.
Tangent, I don’t think anyone considers that abrubtly inserting yourself into someone elses bubble is actually the most honest thing someone can do if they want to meet you. It’s similar to someone who curses a lot being more honest.
Manipulating a scenario so that you come off as less creepy is actually an indication of fixation, you have to think more about that action than just walking up and saying “Hi pretty lady or man”. Not to mention there’s the inherent subversive aspect, i.e. your relationship technically starting on a lie (that lie being the interaction was organic and spontaneous, as opposed to the truth of it being planned). Just like someone who curses has to think about not cursing (as opposed to someone who just speaks their mind).
🤷♂️ I could be stupid and just wrong about what I’m saying, but it adds up to me.
Hi, welcome. I knew you’d show up. Have a look around and try to learn. Remember: Not everyone is similar to you. Thanks for being here ♥
I knew you’d show up. Thanks for replying as predicted! ♥
sees posts
Seems reasonable, yes, men are more likely to be aggressive / dangerous.
sees comments
…anyone wanna make a purplepilldebate community?
Damn, that’s sexist, generalized gender political strokes that paint half of everyone in a negative way isn’t healthy.
The fediverse is filled with the type of bury their heads in the sand men’s rights activists that this comic is speaking to. And it’s sad to see it fall on deaf ears.
So much for all their high-brow Marxist ways.
I’m kind of proud of our team of guys at work. We have had a couple of women work with us in the past but its rare. The dudes at work dont shout comments, dont wolf whistle, dont harass women. I dont understand why its so hard for others not to be complete morons. In fact one or two have called out the behaviour of others.
Some industries are better than others. I work in a situation where I work with multiple crews. Some are great where everybody just acts like people and… some are shit where if they get a fem-presenting person on random call from the hall they act like they are radioactive and chuck them back in the call out pool unfailingly at day’s end.
I see a lot of bad power dynamics at play regularly. The thing I found the most telling on a crew is the treatment pretty girls get over the plain or unattractive ones. If it seems like the guys are just generally more attentive to the pretty ones and not making an effort through be sociable more generally and not rewarding actual merit - or if a crew tends to keep the same guys and the girls keep cycling out then chances are good there’s shit going on under the surface that the girls are too afraid to talk about until they learn you’re trustworthy enough to vent to.
I should point out we’re hospital binmen. Like the binmen you see on the street but with slightly different kit (plus we also collect clinical waste). Only thing more stereotypically masculine a job is probably being a builder, plumber or electrician. Have seen a fair few women doing electrician roles and such in recent years.
I’m a trans-masculine person who worked in siding and concrete forming before transitioning over to work as union film set dressing. Think professional furniture mover who handles everything from delicate little knicknacks to industrial equipment. My second career is closer to egalitarian split but it’s still favors guys by a margin. I fall into the gender gulf as a lot of guys don’t really connect with me being their people… But I don’t really veiw women as my people either. I can just kind of relate to their problems because we share some of the same issues with how we are precieved and they feel more comfortable venting around me even if they are confused about me.
I imagine it can be especially isolating to be a trans-masculine person… possibly even more than being a trans-feminine person.
I really hope you have people in your life who you feel fully comfortable hanging and talking with! I’m sure that those women appreciate your support.
Maybe don’t constantly listen what media says? Otherwise u will end up paranoid.
Maybe actually listen to women’s experiences, instead.
I can tell you haven’t.
deleted by creator
Guess what happened the two whole times I deliberately ignored the “paranoia.”
Go on. Guess.No.fucking.shit. !!
I can’t believe you’re getting downvoted.Yeah, disregard advice destined to protect an endangered group when you belong to that group. That’s going to go reallllllly well.
Is it actually intended to protect you, or is it intended to constantly neg you to the point you become a hollow shell of a woman, overly eager to please others out of fear for hypotheticals, no longer capable of recognizing good in others so you’ll settle for the abusive relationships you’ve been conditioned to expect?
Translation:
I don’t consider women human beings capable of discerning a good situation from a bad one.
I believe that women are so simple minded that warning them of the worst case scenario irrevocably ruins them socially.
I think that if we keep showing women the consequences of not being wary of men who may be violent, they will inexplicably choose abusive relationships where that violence is ever present.
Man, you sound like you have zero respect for women whatsoever. You really think that women are so weak minded as a whole that just being exposed to the violence primarily levied against women is going to break all women mentally?
It’s not something specific about women, but people in general respond poorly to being constantly bombarded with fear porn. the only thing specific to women in this scenario is the flavour of fear porn being peddled. There are abundant examples of other flavours designed to antagonize other demographics throughout the media landscape.
Men have been screaming at me in public about their penis feelings since i was in primary school and that’s the very least of it. Women don’t need the media to know we’re in danger. Men will bombard us with enough sexual harrassment to do that themselves.
It’s not fear porn. It’s reality.
If what you’re saying is that people respond poorly in general to the news, then fine. But that’s hardly the same thing as being negged into abusive relationships.
You can use real scenarios as fear porn by hyper focusing on them, far beyond what’s reasonable, and to the exclusion of everything else.
You’re treading a fine line with that logic claiming that news like this is designed to neg women into being constantly afraid.
Men are just as likely to get murdered by men as women are likely to get murdered by men.
And yet men are not afraid of talking to other men.
It ain’t the stats, it’s the perception.
Thank you for being the voice of reason, and backing it up with data, Any chance you can share the source?
Women are physically inferior to men, and most men don’t have a sense of romantic entitlement towards other men. I really can’t believe I have to explain why the dynamic of men telling another man no is different from a woman doing the same.
Funny how this is almost never what actually happens.
You kidding? Fear porn is a solid half of social media, at least.
It’s incredible how many people think gaslighting is literally any instance of saying something untrue.
But this instance is particularly egregious, because you didn’t even read the first sentence of the link you posted.
I’m posting this thinking you only see gaslighting as its intentional use by other people. But there’s also the instance of self-gaslighting, where one creates their own demons.
We’ll take as an example the idea of the movie “Number 23”. Where Jim Carrey plays a man who becomes obsessed with the number 23, starts seeing it everywhere and begins the search for a conspiracy related to it.
When we begin to fear something, we start taking it as a serious possibly of happening. We get drawn by news we’d otherwise pay less attention to, we start searching our surroundings for the chance that something like that might happen, we begin to view potential aggressors with distrust. And the longer we focus on this fear, the more it takes over and compromises our judgement. This is where the self-gaslighting comes in. We twist the world to have it conform to this fear, second-guess every interaction, attribute hidden meanings to every conversation and consider anyone who might be able to act as we fear as someone willing to act in that way.
Self-gaslighting can be inferred from the comic above because all we see are the instances in which the fear is magnified in an otherwise normal day.
Catcalling, sticking too close in the subway, dismissive reactions, they’re all normal, rude behavior that happen to anyone, but in different ways.
Catcalling specifically happens to women as an uneducated attempt to flirt or show off. Most of the time it’s just a dumb ritual of teasing that most of the initiators simply forget about, but on the rare occasions that it devolves to violence, anyone can be a target: the woman in question, the friends the watched it happen or any random passerby that had the misfortune of being a passive observer. Most women don’t stick around long enough to see that part happen though.
Sticking too close in the subway, if not by a violent individual who would be violent regardless when given the chance, is an awkward social need or a sign of depression. Have you ever seen the meme about a guy relieving himself in the men’s restroom, only to have another guy come in and stop at a urinal right next to the first guy? That’s not just a meme. Men have to suffer such individuals all the time.
And in the subway specifically, maybe the person is a creep. But also maybe they don’t care who sits around because they like that spot, it soothes them after a long day at work, it’s their one real joy and you’re in the way. Or maybe they’re socially awkward and want to start a conversation, but are too shy to do so in public. Or maybe they’re just a creep. Really, they’re probably just a creep. The subway brings out the weird in people.
And finally, dismissive reactions are normal in everything. We don’t want to live in fear, we don’t want to blow things out of proportions, we don’t want to engage in stressful situations all around. It’s like going to WebMD, it says you have cancer, so you freak out, people tell you to chill and you’re upset they’re not freaking out with you.
You may consider the dismissal as a lack of emotional support, yet on the contrary, trying to calm you down is the best emotional support one can offer even though it’s done poorly. Freaking out doesn’t help, ever.
All in all, self-gaslighting into believing things are worse than they actually are is more common than we think. But the opposite is also very much true. The dog sitting in a burning room meme saying “This is fine” is the gold standard in today’s society.
I think it’s valid to bring up gaslighting here since the poster they’re replying to is implying that we shouldn’t believe women are victims as much as they are. It’s pretty much a guarantee that everyone will know a woman who has been subject to sexual assault in their life.
Isn’t this just fear-mongering? This comic implies that every single time that someone rejects a man that man is going to do something bad. I’m not going to deny the fact that there are men that are unhinged but this is nothing but a man-hating comic.
- Over half of women in the USA have experienced sexual violence
- 1/4 of women have been raped or had someone try to rape them
- 1/3 of women have been sexually harassed in a public setting.
- The leading cause of death of pregnant Americans is murder
There’s a good reason why we’re cautious.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/fastfact.html
That 1/3 feels low tbh. Hell basically every woman I’ve talked about it with has been sexually assaulted in a public setting. Some more severe than others of course but being groped in a bar by someone is such a common experience for women that I can’t help but wonder if they used the word sexual harassment rather than described it. There’s that study that showed if you describe rape without using the word a lot more people are willing to admit to it than if you just use the word.
I understand that but there is a big difference between being cautious and being a paranoid man hater and that’s what I’ve been seeing a lot of lately. There are a lot of disgusting men in the world, I won’t deny that, but to assume all men are like that is asinine.
We aren’t assuming all men are like that, we’re assuming an unknown man is more likely to be like that than is worth the risk.
And then there’s the fact that the majority of rape victims knew and trusted their rapist. Then we’re here knowing that when we’re raped or abused or whatever else we’re going to be treated like fools for trusting the person who hurt us.
So in short, not all men, but far too many women
So if you assume an unknown man is likely to be violent towards you and it’s not worth the risk then how do you ever expect to meet new people that are men without automatically assuming they are a rapist? Also, you said that the majority of rape victims knew and trusted their rapists which means that you can’t even trust the people you know. So now you’re telling me you literally can’t trust anyone and you’re trying to tell me that you’re not paranoid. Please explain to me how that makes sense.
I read that comic much more literally and it think this is true in general. We see something in the news frequently and it can color our whole life. Yea, too many women have experienced an outburst from some rejected guy. Men’s mental health surely is a problem our society needs to do something about. However a random conversation is safe for most people most of the time. I believe women don’t need to live in fear but I’m biased just like in the comic. I like to think both of us want the news to focus on accuracy rather than simple fright or outrage
Hey, go pet an alligator.
Studies show most alligators have no carnivorous intentions towards humans, and usually just want to get away. So probably most of the time they’ll just run off at worst. Maybe once in a while they might try biting back to remove a limb, but surely that won’t happen every single time.
This metaphor doesn’t make sense when you think about risk analysis. If we are comparing humans to alligators here then let’s say you go up to 1000 people and put your arm out in front of them. Now do the same thing with 1,000 alligators. Is it more likely that the alligators will be far more aggressive? Probably. Now until this experiment is done we’ll never know but that is the reason why your alligator metaphor. It also implies that women interacting with men would be equivalent to women petting an alligator which let’s face it most people wouldn’t want to get close to a wild alligator.
let’s say you go up to 1000 people and put your arm out in front of them.
All fine and dandy but that’s not what they were comparing it to
Then what were they comparing it to?
Yes, all forms of murder are statically rare in the USA and most people of all genders have an extremely small chance of ever being murdered. Homicide of any kind is not even in the top 10 causes of death in the USA. Violent crime is overall lower than it has been in recent decades and is on the decrease. So basically none of us need to waste time or energy worrying about that.
deny the fact that there are men that are unhinged
Oh look… somebody is peddling the “few bad apples” routine again.
I am not sure if you think that is some sort of “gotcha” but that isn’t it. In fact, I’m not sure what you are implying at all. Care to elaborate further?
If I’m ever single again, I’m not dating anymore. I’m done with this shit.
I am young so I might change my mind, but I have never tried and I probably never will, since I will just fail anyway.
If I happen to find someone by chance then that’s cool but realistically that’s never ever gonna happen, so I will be alone but that’s life.
An average bad status quo is probably better than a failing low.
That makes me sad for you. I hope you remain open to chance.
I am open to chance, I just don’t think it will happen.
I just doubt anything will happen unless at least some effort is spent, and that effort is better spent on something more productive and more likely to succeed.
What happened with me was I made a great friend and we decided to start dating years after we’ve met and known each other. I have no experience with dating apps and stuff like that were you meet a stranger to them immediately try to have such a close relationship, never really understood how that could work (maybe my autism speaking there tbh) but it just feels so backwards, isn’t it better to start with a friendship, with no intent on starting a relationship but going there once we find out that it’s somewhere we both want to progress to. Maybe this craze for quickly starting a relationship with a total stranger is a product from romance novels and the lack of free time of our current culture? I don’t know but I know I love my boyfriend very much and we started as just boy friends.
I’m so glad to not feel so alone in this. A thousand times YES.
I met my wife over an MMO and we were close friends for at least a year before we decided to take it further. Our relationship has been strong for over 16 years and I can’t imagine my life without her.
It seems to confuse the heck out of single friends/relatives when I suggest seeking out hobbies and interests or church groups, or volunteering or whatever, and finding someone you want to spend more time with and seeing where that goes.
Neoliberal capitalism ultimately tries to reach its tendrils into every facet of our lives to make our human experience a “product” or “marketplace”, and what are dating apps, if not “online shopping for a mate”? It reduces people to products, the same way job applications do. People reach for it because they don’t know any better or it’s convenient, and end up disappointed that the men are pigs and the women are shallow.
It’s the same reason you aren’t likely to find a quality relationship by hanging around in bars before the apps happened. It’s just a bazaar of “mate hunting” and any meaningful connection made is a mere numbers game.
Of course you’re also right that there’s a negative feedback loop here with the job-life-takeover situation. Many people feel like some exploitative app is their only chance of meeting anybody outside of work. People are too burned out to do anything but work anymore, and social culture has degraded to such a point that walking up and talking to someone you don’t already know is “creepy and rude.”
Tragic stuff.
isn’t it better to start with a friendship, with no intent on starting a relationship but going there once we find out that it’s somewhere we both want to progress to
I definitely think this is much healthier, but if you don’t have the time to make a large network of friends until it turns out one of them happens to be single, interested in you, and has known you for a long while, it just isn’t a choice.
Oh that’s def true, but at the same time a lot of people that do have time or can just make time for making friends or nurturing the ones they already have just don’t because they’re stuck in this mentality of rushing straight into meeting their next partner by chance instead, but it is really true that the people that can’t sadly don’t have an alternative
Being a straight woman in this day and age is so unfortunate, I feel bad for y’all ngl
If your reaction to “Men can be threatening to women.” Is “Wow all men are murderers I guess we can’t talk to them anymore thanks feminism.” You’re probably a little too emotional for internet access.
It’s not all men are murderers, it’s enough men are sexually violent that 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime and pretty much all women have a scary story. Yes, it’s a minority of men, but when there’s enough of them that you have a very real chance of being sexually assaulted at some point then it’s going to be scary regardless because you don’t know which ones it is.
Your reaction to that shouldn’t be “oh it’s only 20%, most women aren’t raped and the rest need to suck it up because it was just a scary experience”, it should be, “that’s fucking terrifying, I should be understanding and helpful”.
I don’t think a year has gone by since I was a teenager than I wasn’t painfully aware of myself when in public. It was much worse at 11-16 than it is at 37. But…as a small woman I have been followed in parking lots, into stores, recorded (I started recording back) and just the general less threatening long up-down lascivious staring. My rape experience was in my own bed in my own house in my pajamas. The last tinder date I had before I met my spouse tried to force me into their car. So when people give all sorts of sage advice about ways to avoid it…or like many are saying that it’s rare…I also want to say I don’t know any women who haven’t had an uncomfortable experience. I am incredibly mindful that this behavior is no universal among men, but experience shapes my own behavior. Don’t be mad when we cross the street or say no.
Further, saying no behind closed doors is something even more terrifying. Sometimes I’ve had relations I would not have if I thought I was safe to do so.
Just my personal story, mind.
Shit is scary out there. Had a situation recently that definitely reinforced how spooky it is being a woman in public.
So I’m chilling with the crew at a bar, came out to catch a homie mixing originals. One of our friends is a cutie. She’s with 3 of us fellas. We’re in a booth, very obviously a group that came here together. One of the regulars kicks it with us for a bit, harmless banter, classic bar chat shit.
He ends up chilling for a while. We’re cracking jokes & having fun, he says his dude owns the bar, etc. He gets a bit flirty (again, felt fully harmless at the time), goes to fetch us a round of brew. She only wanted a water by this stage in the night. When she finally gets around to taking a small sip all her internal alarm bells go off, thinks sum’m tastes off.
We manage to pick up the vibe and dip before anything extra sketch went down and had a lil debrief, made sure everyone was ok etc… One of my dudes had also taken a decent gulp first and seemingly got pretty woozy off it. Now, I can’t for sure confirm whether it was truly laced or just shitty dirty bar hose water and a mild panic attack. Can’t say whether homie was chemically woozy or placebo woozy (very well could’ve been tired from long day and lots of brew + dancing), but either way, enough to be a scary situation! We’re like 95% sure shit was sketchy.
Absolutely worth trusting the gut when you get an off feeling. Better safe than sorry, all that. As a dude, I’ve NEVER needed to think twice about a gift beverage at a bar. I circle lots of music scenes and almost every single time I’m out I’ll catch a random free drink, smoke, lol candy or whatever off a stranger randomly offering. I’ve definitely asked to confirm what these gifts are, but generally felt safe enough to take their answers at face value.
Ladies DEFINITELY can’t be as cavalier about gifts from strangers though… That’s how they end up the subject of these crime podcasts.
Idk, felt like a relevant story to share.
Stay safe, stay frosty, y’all ❤️ Good weekends all around!
I know it shouldn’t need to be said, but as a woman, THANK YOU! Thank you so so much for being a safe haven with actual conscious awareness of the dangers women face. We need more men that will stand up to the stupid Alpha Bros and stop shit before we are in serious trouble!
One thing that might help you help the ladies in your life is coming up with a code phrase that lets her tell you she doesn’t feel safe in a situation that requires discretion. Ex: “Janice texted me” (with a name yall never use). My fiance and I have a code phrase, and I’ve had to use it twice. It feels good knowing I have an out no matter what when things start feeling sketchy.
This is a colorful perspective.
Growing up as a man, I was told that I should be ‘alpha’, I should be a predator and girls like only such guys. I tried to question this, but I was surrounded by all this. Hell, even when I reached my mom on such a topic, she just stopped the conversation.
Your post made me recall several situations where I made young women uncomfortable. Hell, I used to be such a dumbass.
Yeah dude, all that pick up artist shit is pretty toxic and counter productive imho. Especially these incel influencers talking about “deserving” goddamn anything. Like, being a “good guy” for a minute doesn’t mean you deserve a sex treat, you dirty dogs! 😒
Now, I’ve thankfully been committed in a ship for a while now so can’t speak to modern dating scene (fuck it looks bleak for lads in them middle thirties), but I always leaned on my funny bones more than anything back when I was making moves. That and, now this is pretty obvious, just treating women like regular people – cause they are! (Duh).
I never tried too hard to “have game.” I’ve just been a perpetually evolving amalgamation of shit I find cool. If you’re just naturally comfortable and confident in your skin, and visibly having the most fun in the room it’s way more attractive than trying too hard. Desperation reeks. Least that’s my take.
Of course the rules are a smidge different when you’re 11/10 fine as helllll 🤣 I’ve seen the chat game on them Chads and it gets reckless lmao
Good on ya for the introspective reflection though, truly! Not necessarily a bad thing to cringe at past you; that means you’re growing and improving.
For the men being dramatic in the comments, think about this: if your reaction to women saying they have a reason to be afraid is to take your dating ball and go home, whine and complain about women being afraid of you because of your gender, blame women for listening to reports of crime, or otherwise do anything but listen and expand your empathy, you are a big part of the reason women have to be cautious. Thank you for proving their point.
if your reaction to women saying they have a reason to be afraid is to take your dating ball and go home, whine and complain about women being afraid of you because of your gender, blame women for listening to reports of crime, or otherwise do anything but listen and expand your empathy, you are a big part of the reason women have to be cautious
I guess I must be one of the “dramatic” men, but if women are worried about being killed, then men who aren’t killing women aren’t a big part of the reason. That doesn’t make any sense.
The men who are a big part of the reason women have to be cautious are the ones who are violent against women. Those guys are the problem, period.
So if you found a cockroach in your ice cream, you’d just eat around it?
You can respond to us however you’d like, but we aren’t the reason women have to be careful. The men who commit violence against women are the reason women have to be careful.
You can be careful around all men. I certainly am. No offense taken; you have to treat everyone as a potential threat to catch the ones who are, and the only non-threat people who resent that are naive.
But that doesn’t mean the non-violent men are the reason women have to be careful. The violent men are the reason women have to be careful. Unless you’re saying something about men who are naive somehow enabling evil?
All I’m getting from this cockroach thing is you’re feeling disgusted by this situation?
Not just the men who commit violence. Women have to be careful around the men who sit by and let it happen, the ones who try to argue with women on the internet instead of learning a bit of empathy. The non-violent men condone the behavior of violent men when they focus on trying to defend themselves rather than join in calling out bad behavior.
I feel like we keep dancing around the fact you’re referring to me, so I’ll go ahead and acknowledge that.
No, the fact that I’m here arguing with you doesn’t mean I would let a man put his hands on you. That also doesn’t make sense.
But I can’t be everywhere, protecting you from every other man. Your vulnerability is not a pure function of my agreeing with you, because your vulnerability is not modulated by my relationship toward you.
In short, I cannot protect you from every other man. No matter how much I stop questioning and focus on empathy, it won’t protect you.
And I can step in and protect you from a man being violent, without agreeing with everything you say. I have sufficient empathy to recognize you as valuable enough to protect from a person being violent.
I can see that you really want to tie together two unrelated things:
- Men who commit violence against women
- Men who argue with women
But I’m not going to let that happen, because it doesn’t make any sense. This story you have about how men who argue with you would have the power to end the threat of violence against you, if they just stopped arguing … it just doesn’t hold any water.
Bro, I don’t need you to protect me. You spend more time arguing with me than arguing with men who think it’s okay to use women. And you are confused why that puts you on the side of men who hurt women? Really?
You are clueless at best.
I think that when people experience real violence they lose the illusion that the really violent people are people who can be reasoned with, who might only be missing a bit of argumentation but otherwise perfectly able to live virtuously.
What I’m saying is that I think you don’t have any experience with this because if you did you would understand what you think of as the solution isn’t effective at all.
How can you tell which is which when they’re all dressed as men?
If in doubt, ask a man you trust. It’s not like those guys would be popular among the majority, or we don’t know who they are.
Seriously by and large women seem to have completely broken threat and personality radars. Incapable of judging the difference between harmless, insecure/aggressive, and peaceful. Don’t let “intimidating” confuse you the peaceful ones are exactly that – in the rollercoaster sense. If you got yourself a harmless one and want to coax them towards peaceful challenge them to a tickle fight.
Please tell me you’re joking or just a troll.
Where are you that everybody knows everybody else, including randoms at a bar or out on the street?
From the vibe in this thread this is likely to get me bombed with downvotes, but the stakes are too high to take a gamble on whether a guy is “just intimidating” or a real threat to your safety. If a guy can’t take no for an answer in a bar chances are good he’s not going to take no in other situations either. And if I’m already uncomfortable, I’m not going to offer to make physical contact in the hopes the guy is just awkward.
Accept the fact that they’re not into you and move on. If you can’t, or won’t, you’re part of the problem.
Where are you that everybody knows everybody else, including randoms at a bar or out on the street?
Why would you need to know someone to judge their character quickly. Have you heard about this thing called empathy with which you can walk in someone’s shoes and within a split-second see what their state of mind is.
This is precisely what I mean by having a broken threat and personality radar. “Oh I can’t tell” yeah then fix that. Learn to read people. If you need help with that, ask someone, but not on the internet this needs real-world experience.
Accept the fact that they’re not into you and move on.
Don’t flatter yourself. I’m not talking about picking up girls, you are.
Why would you need to know someone to judge their character quickly.
Wow, you’re so naive, if you aren’t a troll. You seriously think you can know a person from just a few moments of interaction? So many people are great at masking their true thoughts and intentions.
Ted Bundy was known to be charming and charismatic… but this is by no means limited to serial killers. All kinds of people put on a facade every single day. Oftentimes it’s not even malicious.
You don’t always know who a person truly is, even if you THINK you know them. Women will get into relationships with men who seem lovely at first, and then they turn abusive as soon as they get married because they believe they’ve had her tied down enough so she won’t leave. You hear from friends, family, neighbors of murderers and abusers say that they had no idea of that person’s dark behavior.
Say you have a jar full of candy that you’d like a piece of, but you know that there are a handful of pieces in the jar that will poison and kill you. There’s no way to know which is which. Would you not be wary, even though you know that most of them are probably fine?
You’re also forgetting about (or ignoring) the kinds of men that look away when their friends or family do/say things to women that aren’t ok.
Maybe those men aren’t openly misogynistic, and maybe they would never actively harm a woman themselves, but they’re also unsafe for us to be around when they do nothing to stop or object to their peers’ behavior. Those kinds of men are even more common than abusers. I certainly wouldn’t want to be with anyone like that, even if I knew with 100% certainty that they would never lay a hand on me.
You seriously think you can know a person from just a few moments of interaction?
You can tell enough to know whether they’re safe to be around.
Women will get into relationships with men who seem lovely at first, and then they turn abusive as soon as they get married because they believe they’ve had her tied down enough so she won’t leave.
Yes. As I said: Women have shit threat and personality radars. Many of those women probably were warned by men they knew. If they weren’t, then probably because people knew they wouldn’t listen.
So many people are great at masking their true thoughts and intentions.
Those look like they’re hiding something.
Seriously, this is a skill issue. Learn to relate to people. Get therapy if need be.
If you are personalizing it, it was about you and yes, you are the problem.
