It’s almost like she’s trying to be polite because she knows that sometimes guys turn violent when they’re rejected.
EDIT: Look, I’m getting tired of this. Not a single person arguing with this is having a conversation about this that is based in reality, they are just trying to twist words to make it sound like maybe there’s some equivalence here. Have some statistics from Australia. You can look them up for your country if you care:
Those discrepancies are shocking but not really that surprising if you’ve lived in society at all. Also, this is just rates of violence, of any kind. It says nothing at all about the consequences of that violence. I’ll bet if you looked into that it’s worse for women too. If you’re wondering why so many categories don’t have rates of violence against men, it’s because they have a “high relative standard error”, which is statistics speak for “the rate is so low we can’t properly measure it”.
But if you’re saying, “NOt All mEn” in the face of this reality then let’s be real, you don’t actually give a shit about this. You just feel personally attacked and you want to deflect. Men getting mad because their fragile egos are bruised. Maybe some of them would turn violent if a woman said it to their faces. As they say, a hit dog will bark.
Woah now, you better not be insinuating that men and women are anything but exactly equal in their temperament. The salty dudes on Lemmy won’t let you get away with telling them otherwise.
I’ve been in a handful of conversations over the last couple weeks with men on this platform that don’t understand the concept that women have to treat men a specific way for fear of the few of them that can be violent.
Apparently watching out for your own safety as a woman by treating men differently is sexist and completely unacceptable.
No, no, you’re supposed to treat everyone fairly, the exact same way and always assuming they are the best, most stable people who would never react adversely to a “no” or any other negative occurrence.
And then when you run into that statistically inevitable crazy person, just let em beat you to death! You wouldn’t want to hurt the feelings of all the perfectly decent people you met before then, would you?
Big giant /S
This is unfortunately one of those cases where the mere existence of dangerous individuals makes being a little unfair with the rest of us completely warranted.
Men killing women and women being afraid of being killed by men is apparently exactly the same thing, and we’re sexist for even noticing it. How dare we make them aware of an uncomfortable truth that they were successfully ignoring?
It’s not a hard concept to grasp. Thank you for saying it, and don’t pay the salty dudes here any mind. I readily tell the ones that argue on behalf of their egos to just talk to any woman they know about this, and I always get some half-cocked “well they’re bigots too” line.
Like yeah sure, every woman is explicitly taught by other women not to put themselves in a potentially compromising position with a man because all women are secretly bigots.
Bear in mind Lemmy is an overall very leftist platform. Claiming an outside observer can tell a man from a woman is going to attract downvotes, let alone going on to list alleged specific differences.
Note to readers, because I am used to Lemmy: Anyone assuming I agree or disagree with any given take on gender differences can fuck off. My actual post conveys no opinion on them.
You’re completely correct. Normally, I’m on the side of not assuming people’s gender and I’m of the mind that you shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover.
But, because of the safety and personal ramifications crossing the wrong person can have, I think it’s important that we acknowledge a woman’s right to seek safety in a situation she perceives might possibly go south for her. That includes the prerogative of not putting herself in a situation that she perceives as risky to begin with.
Maybe that concept would be better accepted if it were expanded to “Anyone should have the right to avoid danger they think they might be in”
Woah now, you better not be insinuating that men and women are anything but exactly equal in their temperament.
I’ve honestly been taught that blanket statements about sex/gender are usually not fine. So this sort of shit feels wrong in that sense and of course hurtful when you’re at the receiving end of a negative blanket statement. I’m sure many can agree with that sentiment in general terms, whether it’s based on skin colour, sex/gender, sexual orientation or whatever.
Apparently watching out for your own safety as a woman by treating men differently is sexist and completely unacceptable.
I mean treating all men different is sexist and prejudiced. There’s really no way around that. Whether this sort of blanket prejudice is justified in this case, could be. But also that’s not a great look, to justify statistics or stereotype based prejudice.
It’s not unreasonable for a woman to avoid putting herself in a situation that a potential predator can take advantage of or retaliate against her for. Talk to a woman you know about this. I’m tired of having this conversation with men who don’t understand and just get offended.
So this sort of shit feels wrong in that sense and of course hurtful when you’re at the receiving end of a negative blanket statement
You have been on the receiving end your entire life if you are a man, and 9 times out of 10, you have not noticed because it does not affect you. It’s not about you, especially if you aren’t a predator.
I’m tired of having this conversation with men who don’t understand and just get offended.
Easy solution would be to talk about it in a manner that doesn’t need a clarification that’s you don’t think all men are like that. That’s really the issue with the way this is discussed.
Nobody is denying the situation here, but rather taking offence to being labeled because of their gender.
You have been on the receiving end your entire life if you are a man, and 9 times out of 10, you have not noticed because it does not affect you.
Easy solution would be to talk about it in a manner that doesn’t need a clarification that’s you don’t think all men are like that. That’s really the issue with the way this is discussed.
Believe me, that’s not the solution you think it is.
Nobody is denying the situation here, but rather taking offence to being labeled because of their gender.
Unfortunately, people who take offense will find ways to deny the situation. The fact is, if you’re walking down the street and a woman 100 ft out moves to the other side before crossing you, she understands that there is a slight chance you might be a danger to her.
That’s discrimination that you can neither control nor fight against as a man. It also doesn’t affect you if you weren’t planning on assaulting that woman. But just the fact that it is done rustles so many jimmies because the knee jerk reaction men have is “well I wasn’t going to assault anyone so that’s messed up”. But that line of thinking is a way of framing the situation to make it about you. It’s not about you.
What I’m saying is, women don’t think all men are like that. That would be completely ridiculous. But statistically, enough of them are to warrant not being immediately trusting of strangers that can biologically overpower them in every situation.
I’m sorry but receiving end of what?
Bro. I quoted you. The receiving end of “a negative blanket” against men
Believe me, that’s not the solution you think it is.
How come?
That’s discrimination that you can neither control nor fight against as a man. It also doesn’t affect you if you weren’t planning on assaulting that woman. But just the fact that it is done rustles so many jimmies because the knee jerk reaction men have is “well I wasn’t going to assault anyone so that’s messed up”. But that line of thinking is a way of framing the situation to make it about you. It’s not about you.
I’m not talking about someone switching to another side of the street because of my gender or skin colour or any other reason one might discriminate, but rather the discussion that talks about a group as thing singular thing and makes it seem like it was all of of them. Not to mention going after people who obviously take offense to being labeled in such a way. I find it fucked up and I don’t see any reason to do that.
Bro. I quoted you. The receiving end of “a negative blanket” against men
It wasn’t clear what you meant. Hence the need for clarification. But I got what you meant now.
I directly answered that in the same comment. Unfortunately, people who are offended will find a reason to take exception of the situation. There’s no amount of drawing examples that will satisfy the type who only sees that they personally are being attacked and not that it’s more about mitigating risk.
I try to illustrate the reasoning every time. As I have with the following example I made to you. The usual reaction is “well actually the woman in question is still a bigot for avoiding me on the street because she doesn’t know me”, or a similar sentiment in which the offended person runs head first into the point and still misses it.
I’m not talking about someone switching to another side of the street because of my gender or skin colour or any other reason one might discriminate, but rather the discussion that talks about a group as thing singular thing and makes it seem like it was all of of them. Not to mention going after people who obviously take offense to being labeled in such a way. I find it fucked up and I don’t see any reason to do that.
Well first, I’d like to congratulate you on being the only person I’ve encountered so far who’s interested in the discussion and not the reaction.
But also, I’d like to say that anyone who hears the reasoning “women have to be cautious around men because some men are capable of violence” and jumps immediately to “women think all men including me are violent and that’s wrong” is sorely missing the point.
No one is going after men who take offense at that line of logic so much as those men who are loudly voicing their misunderstanding of a concept which goes on around them all of the time that they have only just noticed. It seems that your concept of “going after those men” is just people who understand the situation trying over and over to explain it.
As someone interested in the discussion side of this issue and not the actual conflict, which you seem to understand, please tell me how you would handle someone strongly asserting to you that women are bigots because they avoid men or treat them differently when they don’t know how they’re going to react.
I’m interested to hear how you might improve an exchange with someone who doesn’t allow the reasoning that women should be allowed to cross the street 100 ft before crossing you in the interest of their safety.
I don’t think it’s about finding it personally offending but rather that it does paint all men in a certain light and I just don’t think that sort of generalizations are good.
I’d like to say that anyone who hears the reasoning “women have to be cautious around men because some men are capable of violence” and jumps immediately to “women think all men including me are violent and that’s wrong” is sorely missing the point.
I mean I think it went a bit further than that.
As someone interested in the discussion side of this issue and not the actual conflict, which you seem to understand, please tell me how you would handle someone strongly asserting to you that women are bigots because they avoid men or treat them differently when they don’t know how they’re going to react.
If you are acting differently towards someone because of their gender (or skin colour or religion), that would make them prejudiced at least. So I wouldn’t argue that point. I’d probably say they are prejudiced but that might be out of fear rather than malice and rather focus on what to do about that.
Guys, we have to suck it up. I’ve talked with my wife about this very thing, a lot. She’s really helped me process a lot of relationship trauma in my deep past, including bad/weird breakups.
Men, by and large, have the ability to utilize violence in ways that women simply do not*. Especially towards women. This shapes a lot of inequity and abuse in society writ large, no matter where you are. Forget the law, forget about the rest doing the right thing, forget all your bias, and forget any logical fallacies you are clinging to right now. Just look at the stats above.
One in four. 25%. If you were doing anything in your day-to-day life that came with a risk of bodily or psychological harm a quarter of the time, every time, you’d probably just stop. Or, as OP is pointing out, screw social pretense and improvise a solution with a better shot at safety.
To flip that around, consider all the women you know and then think about how 25% of them have been abused in some way.
Women learn from their peers or otherwise adapt to be non-confrontational, passive, indirect, avoidant, or just plain not present. Sometimes that lesson is learned proactively, sometimes first-hand. Why? Because 25%, that’s why.
(* As someone who has been abused by women, yes, there are outliers. But since we’re talking statistics, that’s another discussion.)
I was just ranting to my husband about how I got tired of being polite to men* in my personal life who don’t take “no” for an answer the first time, I WILL be a “bitch” to co workers, in laws, friends etc that pull this shit. I am exhausted after years of finding 17 different ways to politely say no to a stranger who wants something from me on any given day. I am absolutely fucking done wasting time pussyfooting my words, with the men I am safe with (for whatever reason) and uh often men I am not safe with but I have been VERY lucky to have positive outcomes there. Pure luck
* I just don’t currently have women like this in my life. I have though
Some countries in Europe started to look more into this topic since the number of femicides is growing and becoming more newsworthy it seems.
A lot of people are biased since sexism is deeply rooted in our society and many don’t realize what’s happening around them if they are not directly affected.
Just this week I had to discuss with a rather aggressive delivery person who berated me (unprovoked and for a made up reason) until my partner came from another room. As soon as he had to discuss his issue with another man he started to believe the facts and stopped. Actually kinda glad this happened since my partner is also very biased regarding “everyday sexism” since it doesn’t affect him and this was the first time he was able to see it first hand.
I didn’t want to relay this while the thread was still so hot, but I’m a large scary-guy-shaped person - I really doubt any of the guys in this thread would say any of this to my face - and I didn’t understand this until my sister asked me to tell our dad something she needed him to hear because “he’ll listen to you because you’re a man”. I said I didn’t think he was that sort of person, and she just said, “No, it’s normal for people not to listen to women.” So I told him the thing and he listened to me where he hadn’t listened to her.
I was pretty shook by that, so I asked my partner if that was normal and she said “Oh, yeah,” without having to think twice about it.
That’s where my journey started. After you start seeing it, you can’t stop.
I also started noticing at a certain point how often women would randomly apologise for existing near me in public. Like they are clearly afraid of me. It doesn’t feel nice, but it’s never once occurred to me to yell “not all men!” or “I’m one of the good ones!” at their retreating backs.
I’ve discovered - through being NB - that I can completely reverse this by even slightly feminising my appearance. I actually get random women smiling at me in public, not politely, but openly and genuinely. It makes me think of what a trans man said about how lonely it is to be a man, how he misses the camraderie of women looking out for each other. From my perspective when I’m fully man-coded I agree, men absolutely do not openly smile at me. That’s too gay, or something.
I’m not worried that any bad actors will abuse this info to get women to let their guard down though, because a consequence of this is getting an absolutely appalling amount of disgust and hate from random dudes, but I consider the trade absolutely worth it when I have the energy for it.
Thanks for sharing your story. One of my guy friends is the Hagrid Type. Big, hairy, loud. But he also tries to break through his appearance. And I think that’s the whole point:
Instead of telling “not all men” it’s better (but also more difficult) to show us. Be nice. Hold other men accountable. Things can be changed but first we have to face reality.
It also saddens me to hear about the manly loneliness that’s caused by the same internalized sexism. I’m glad to hear you found a way out of this, that still lets you be you!
Who are you referring to when you say “these”? Because it seems like you’re making judgement calls about people based entirely on whether or not they questioned your blanket generalization about literally half the population of the planet.
Oh really lol? So you made this accusation but as soon as I ask you to explain specifics you back out?
I mean, I know what I said, and I wasn’t generalising about all men. You said, “these”. Give me the quote, explain what you’re talking about, unless you re-read it and you know you it actually doesn’t say what you’re trying to make it say. I’m happy to explain, but I do want you to explain what you’re talking about. I said a lot, so you need to meet me halfway. It’s not a big ask.
But if you’re saying, “NOt All mEn” in the face of this reality then let’s be real, you don’t actually give a shit about this. You just feel personally attacked and you want to deflect. Men getting mad because their fragile egos are bruised. Maybe some of them would turn violent if a woman said it to their faces. As they say, a hit dog will bark.
“If you are bothered by blanket statements and sexism towards you, it’s just because your ego is bruised and you might actually be the violent person I’ve painted you as.”
No. The point is we can’t ask vulnerable people to throw caution to the wind when around those who have the ability to harm them.
Part of being one of the good ones, is not taking it personally when someone who doesn’t know you are safe, takes steps to try and make sure you won’t harm them. Because they can’t know for sure that you wouldn’t.
This is almost word for word what racists argue. You even used the term “one of the good ones”, holy hell. How do you not see how fucked up this is?
Part of being one of the good ones, is not taking it personally when someone who doesn’t know you are safe, takes steps to try and make sure you won’t harm them. Because they can’t know for sure that you wouldn’t.
It’s hard to not take it personally when a group you’re member of is being made negative blanket statements about and when those who think it’s hurtful speak up, they’re mocked. And then there’s the belittling language about how if you are “one of the good ones” you should just take it and “make sure you won’t harm them”.
It’s one thing to say that yes, women are more cautious around men and there’s some reason for it. But it’s the blanket statements, "“NOt All mEn” and “just ignore it” shit that bothers me. That’s not fine imo.
If you’re not asking vulnerable people to throw caution to the wind, be specific about what should be different.
I know it feels like absolute shit to have the worst assumptions made about you because of your gender, race or whatever else, but aside from treating everyone fairly whenever no risk is involved, we can’t ask people to assume the best about others when deciding anything, if doing so puts them at the mercy of a stranger in any way.
Hell. I’m a tall man, and I would have reservations if a girl wants to have a first date at her place, alone. Odds are, 99.99%, it’ll be fine, might get laid, woo. But what if it isn’t fine?
We’re not discussing the kind of discrimination where you instantly and completely dismiss someone as a human being, but the kind where you are careful about what kind of human being they might be.
The first kind robs people of life opportunities, the second only ever hurts our feelings.
I’d prefer to see the discussion happening from the position that some men are violent, which causes women to be cautious. There should be a common understanding in both that men can be violent towards women in high rates, but also that it’s not a reason to label the whole group or speak implying such.
Now we’ve had both a very clear blanket statement about women and people mocking those who take offense to that and talking about “the good ones”. That’s not a discussion that is going the right way. That’s the sorta shit that causes more discrimination and bad sentiments.
I’m not saying women can’t (or aren’t allowed to be) be prejudiced, I know it’s a reaction. It’s the discourse that makes it out to be all men that goes overboard and is just the same as what racists do. It’s one thing to cross to the other side of the street when you saw someone you are worried about coming, okay you probably do fear something so individually whatever, fine, but if you go online and justify it with “well those people statisticially…” you’re just spreading really discriminatory shit and of course people are going to pipe up.
We’re not discussing the kind of discrimination where you instantly and completely dismiss someone as a human being, but the kind where you are careful about what kind of human being they might be.
I know, but it’s not like racism is just thinking someone is a human. I’d say most racism isn’t like that, but small things.
But no one here is suggesting any of this is grounds for completely disregarding a person or a demographic of people.
I would turn down that first at-home date, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t make a counter-suggestion. And even then I would risk offending her by revealing my unwillingness to immediately trust her.
And if she does take offence, that isn’t exactly telling of her having a healthy understanding of how the situation might look to me. Even as I turn her down, it’s not like I’ve already decided she’s a crazy person.
The people getting mocked are ones who feel they’ve been wronged by this kind of caution, for example by getting an overly careful and roundabout “no”, taking offence because someone would assume the worst about them. That they wouldn’t have taken a straight answer well.
In reality, it was going to be a “no” either way, and she was perfectly within her right to do it carefully with a complete stranger.
Throwing around the stats and explanations is to help us understand. The point is that the numbers are such that vulnerable people do not even have the option of being fair, because if they are, inevitably, they will run into at least one nutcase which will then proceed to explode in their face.
Unfortunately, the real solution here is actually to take it on the chin, because most of the time, it really isn’t personal, or even consequential.
In any situation where two or more people interact, a more vulnerable party has every right to take whatever precaution they feel is needed to be safe, until they know for sure that doing so isn’t needed.
When this is the case, there is nothing to take offence from. It’s not about you.
But it can still hurt, and when you then see stats and stories about violent men thrown around it feels like people are telling you that “they were right about you” and that you should feel hurt.
But that’s not the point. The point is that there are good reasons to be careful. And when someone does so around you, unless there are additional circumstances to consider, there’s nothing there that’s a personal slight upon your character, gender, or anything else.
I think in this specific case and unfortunately in these sort of discussion, the people being mocked seem to be those who take offense to the discourse that paints men in generic terms as violent or take it personally (which while not meant as such, can obviously feel like it to some).
Unfortunately, the real solution here is actually to take it on the chin, because most of the time, it really isn’t personal, or even consequential.
I think the real solution would be to for the discourse to be such that it doesn’t make it seem like it’s all men. Of course if it seems like all men are being blamed, people will complain. It’s not a huge switch in the rhetoric either to make it clear that’s not what is being said imo. But here it felt like they doubled down on it instead.
“n in m women said that they …” and “p in q men said that they …” would be more correct.
You are comparing apples to oranges. If women and men were treated the same by the society and thus would report actual events with the same probability, then you could compare these.
How many men would admit they experienced emotional abuse were that the case? A rhetorical question. Like a half of them or more wouldn’t.
So to be clear: you think that domestic violence against men could be similar to domestic violence against women, for instance? Are you actually saying that?
There’s a reason you singled out emotional abuse, because if you mentioned any of the other kinds, it would be pretty obvious how silly your argument was, wouldn’t it?
So to be clear: you think that domestic violence against men could be similar to domestic violence against women, for instance? Are you actually saying that?
It is from factual statistics. Yes, I’m actually saying that.
There’s a reason you singled out emotional abuse, because if you mentioned any of the other kinds, it would be pretty obvious how silly your argument was, wouldn’t it?
Factual statistics say otherwise, that my argument isn’t silly.
I thought perpetuating gender role stereotypes and even prioritizing them over data was something a slrpnk.net user would be unlikely to do?..
Also I’m following the example of that other person and disengaging.
that would make a woman 6.3929 likelier to report than a man. So you actually have to normalize reported domestic violence by that, say, if there are 6 times more cases reported to police against women, then in reality it’s about the same.
Also every fucking police service publishes some stats.
“The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 97.2% of men do not report domestic violence to the police, compared to 82.1% of women.[6]”
Which is exactly why they rely on anonymous survey results rather than police reports to get these statistics, which you would understand if you looked into Excrubulent’s sources before immediately going into defense mode and jumping down their throat because they acknowledged that women being wary of men is not irrational behavior.
Men in general are more likely than women to be physically violent towards their partners, and women in general are more likely than men to be victims of physical abuse.
To acknowledge that is not to say all men are abusive, just as it is not to say that all women are abuse survivors. However, to jump in and go “not ALL men!!!” only when violence against women is discussed is to dismiss and silence the trauma experienced by all domestic abuse survivors regardless of gender, assume that there is some “clue” they all missed to avoid being abused, and that anyone who responds to that trauma by being wary of people with similar broad-strokes profiles is treating unfairly everyone that does not exhibit this explicit “clue”. And that is victim-blaming, because there is just no way to know at first glance.
Those might sound like hefty assumptions but I gotta be honest with you, I truly do not understand what outcome you are trying to reach by rehashing this, over and over, other than silencing discourse that you find damaging to your own ego and self-image, and, further, what rationale you could find to feel personally attacked by this discourse, other than simply not being able to empathize with fellow members of the human race that happen to belong to the opposite gender.
It is reasonable to be cautious as a woman until you can be sure that the man you are with is safe. You can argue that men should do the same if you truly believe that they experience the same risks. You cannot argue, however, that women are wrong or irrational for behaving this way without making sexist arguments. Which is probably why you people always stop short of making any actual actionable arguments.
And to clarify, because apparently we are unable to differentiate unless it is said explicitly; I’m talking about you, personally, and people that respond in this way to any mention of domestic abuse with acknowledgement that it is primarily experienced by women at the hands of men. I am not talking about ALL men.
“The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 97.2% of men do not report domestic violence to the police, compared to 82.1% of women.[6]”,
that would make a woman 6.3929 likelier to report than a man. So you actually have to normalize reported domestic violence by that, say, if there are 6 times more cases reported to police against women, then in reality it’s about the same.
You would think that a group called the Bureau of Statistics would understand that they need to normalise. You would think they understand something about, oh, I don’t know, statistics, maybe?
In fact, you would think that the fact that they have statistical rates down to a tenth of a percent for how often people report to the police clearly indicates that they have other numbers, independent of those reports, to generate these reporting statistics. How would they know that X% of people report without knowing what the actual numbers of incidents are?
This is rock-banging basic stuff. Just simple, obvious logic. You had those numbers in your hands, you used them to try and make a point, and you didn’t realise this. I don’t think we should be taking your advice on how to use statistics.
Genuinely not trying to be that guy, but it seems like you’re saying that because it happens to men less often than to women, we can just ignore when it happens to men. Which im sure isnt what you’re trying to say, but its the insinuation you present whenever you bring up stats like these.
Because your using these stats to dismiss people saying men face domestic abuse too? I get you’re doing it because those people arent arguing in good faith, but its still ultimately you insinuating "men dont face DA as much of women, so they dont matter.
your using these stats to dismiss people saying men face domestic abuse too
Nobody brought it up. I wasn’t dismissing anything like that.
"men dont face DA as much of women, so they dont matter.
I didn’t say that, nor did I insinuate it. You haven’t made your case, you’ve just said I said something I clearly didn’t say. I don’t know what else to um… say.
So if nobody brought this up, why did you write that edit and bring up these statistics?
I didn’t say that, nor did I insinuate it.
You did though.
this is just rates of violence, of any kind. It says nothing at all about the consequences of that violence. I’ll bet if you looked into that it’s worse for women too. If you’re wondering why so many categories don’t have rates of violence against men, it’s because they have a “high relative standard error”, which is statistics speak for “the rate is so low we can’t properly measure it”.
And you also pull the claim of “women get harsher sentences when they commit DA” out of your arse too.
So you admit that you read “the consequences of that violence” and your mind immediately went to the legal consequences for the perpetrator, instead of thinking about the physical harm done to the victim.
That says basically everything about the butthurt responses in this thread.
The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?”
If you can’t answer that fast enough to determine if you’re dealing with a violent man, then “not all men” is meaningless to a woman who is trying to not get killed.
Also, you’re basically saying women don’t think about this. I wonder what kind of answers you’d get if you actually asked any of them about this.
Do you not know how often racists use crime stats to bolster their arguments too?
Men more often kill women is no grounds to make blanket arguments about men in general, same way as some minorities being overly represented in rape statistics is no grounds to make blanket statements about those minorities.
You can say it’s just you “being careful” and whatnot, but you should realize that you’re using word for word the same arguments racists use to justify their racism. Both represent an actual threat to women for sure but it’s no justification for labeling them all, that’s the point.
A woman might in both cases be vary of the specific groups here, at the mildest level. Discrimination can range from very minor to very hostile behaviour. Basically your imagination is the limit for what someone might do about these prejudiced feelings.
actually twisted made up bullshit if you look into it
Statistics Finland, Finnish Government, the police and several university studies have made deep dives into this. But if you can show them wrong then by all means, go ahead. But I can provide you the sources for these claims, if you really want to go there.
So, absolutely no interest in the subject matter then. I’ve been trying to figure you out and I think I’ve got it:
You’re using racism as a tool to deflect any talk of sexism, and to imply that saying men are far more likely to kill women is sexist against men, even though it is 100% true. And even then you’re talking about racism using anti-black racist talking points, which is extremely telling.
You’re staying in the realm of innuendo though. You’re not really saying anything. I bet if you actually stood up and said what you mean it would be horrific and you’d get banned, which is why you’re not doing it.
Black men usually get the talk at a very young age that they need to be super careful in every interaction with police or else they might be killed.
Now, not all cops are trying to kill black men in traffic stops. But if you don’t know which cops will kill you on the flimsiest pretext, then this isn’t terribly useful to a black man trying not to get killed.
Tell me, is it “racist” of these black men to be concerned about being killed by cops?
It’s not a perfect comparison, but the point is that these are people who are simply being extremely polite to avoid the potential threat of violence, and the other party is the one who has an undue likelihood of perpetrating that violence.
In both cases, the violence is the bigotry, not the worry about who might inflict that violence.
Some - wrong - people might say that black men worrying about being killed by a cop is racism because they are acting on information about their race. These are presumably the same people saying women are sexist for worrying about male violence. As always, noticing bigotry is in fact not the real bigotry.
Let’s go back to the original example: a woman dating.
Assume the woman is a lesbian. Would it be racist for her to apply the behavior in the post when she dated women of color, if her opinion was based on the statistic quoted in my last post?
If a good man has a woman turn violent on him, odds are he has a physical advantage and will be able to deal with it. It shouldn’t have to happen that way but he can probably keep himself safe.
Flip that around, and as a woman, even if 99.99% of men will take it completely calmly, the small chance that you’re dealing with that 0.01% who will flip out and try to hurt you the second things don’t go his way, is fucking terrifying.
Especially if you’re smaller than average and dealing with someone bigger than average, the smart thing is to not just risk it. No, it doesn’t feel good when a girl assumes the worst about me, but I get it, so I don’t take it personally.
I can know I would never turn my strength and size to hurting to someone, she cannot.
The exact same considerations apply. If you’re in a situation where others could physically overpower you, you tend to try avoid doing anything that gives anyone reason to do so if that occurring is even the tiniest possibility.
When it comes to ones own bodily safety, other considerations become secondary, whether that’s fair or not.
It’s not matter of “all of them are like that” but of playing it safe.
I’m saying you’re the one who was in danger and therefore had the exact same concerns, and thereby you enforced my point that prioritising your own safety in this way isn’t about gender.
Anyone can be at a physical disadvantage, and therefore have to rely on caution. And anyone can turn out to be a crazy person.
My point is - you’d think attacking a guy twice one’s size might present a risk to one’s safety, but that didn’t seem to stop them. Like, one punch from me might easily have killed them, so it’s puzzling. In a way I think they knew they were protected by their size, because I just wouldn’t dare touch them. Even when being attacked with a blunt object!
“And therefore, it’s women that are privileged”. No, I’m really not trying to make that point, but it would be funny if I was.
You met some crazies, which just proves the point that they exist, and we all have good reason to act with caution lest we encounter one with unfortunate results.
It’s almost like she’s trying to be polite because she knows that sometimes guys turn violent when they’re rejected.
EDIT: Look, I’m getting tired of this. Not a single person arguing with this is having a conversation about this that is based in reality, they are just trying to twist words to make it sound like maybe there’s some equivalence here. Have some statistics from Australia. You can look them up for your country if you care:
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-safety-australia/latest-release
Those discrepancies are shocking but not really that surprising if you’ve lived in society at all. Also, this is just rates of violence, of any kind. It says nothing at all about the consequences of that violence. I’ll bet if you looked into that it’s worse for women too. If you’re wondering why so many categories don’t have rates of violence against men, it’s because they have a “high relative standard error”, which is statistics speak for “the rate is so low we can’t properly measure it”.
But if you’re saying, “NOt All mEn” in the face of this reality then let’s be real, you don’t actually give a shit about this. You just feel personally attacked and you want to deflect. Men getting mad because their fragile egos are bruised. Maybe some of them would turn violent if a woman said it to their faces. As they say, a hit dog will bark.
This. And I’m a guy. I completely understand why women are “overly” nice.
Woah now, you better not be insinuating that men and women are anything but exactly equal in their temperament. The salty dudes on Lemmy won’t let you get away with telling them otherwise.
I’ve been in a handful of conversations over the last couple weeks with men on this platform that don’t understand the concept that women have to treat men a specific way for fear of the few of them that can be violent.
Apparently watching out for your own safety as a woman by treating men differently is sexist and completely unacceptable.
No, no, you’re supposed to treat everyone fairly, the exact same way and always assuming they are the best, most stable people who would never react adversely to a “no” or any other negative occurrence.
And then when you run into that statistically inevitable crazy person, just let em beat you to death! You wouldn’t want to hurt the feelings of all the perfectly decent people you met before then, would you?
Big giant /S
This is unfortunately one of those cases where the mere existence of dangerous individuals makes being a little unfair with the rest of us completely warranted.
Men killing women and women being afraid of being killed by men is apparently exactly the same thing, and we’re sexist for even noticing it. How dare we make them aware of an uncomfortable truth that they were successfully ignoring?
As always, noticing bigotry is the real bigotry.
It’s not a hard concept to grasp. Thank you for saying it, and don’t pay the salty dudes here any mind. I readily tell the ones that argue on behalf of their egos to just talk to any woman they know about this, and I always get some half-cocked “well they’re bigots too” line.
Like yeah sure, every woman is explicitly taught by other women not to put themselves in a potentially compromising position with a man because all women are secretly bigots.
The male ego is such a fragile thing.
deleted by creator
Thanks for saying that. The sheer volume of unadulterated bullshit can be a little bit gaslighting sometimes.
I wanna add that it’s a delight to see someone competently explaining something that needs to be more widely understood.
This is what social media should be for. The ever advancing push towards consensus and common understanding.
deleted by creator
Bear in mind Lemmy is an overall very leftist platform. Claiming an outside observer can tell a man from a woman is going to attract downvotes, let alone going on to list alleged specific differences.
Note to readers, because I am used to Lemmy: Anyone assuming I agree or disagree with any given take on gender differences can fuck off. My actual post conveys no opinion on them.
You’re completely correct. Normally, I’m on the side of not assuming people’s gender and I’m of the mind that you shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover.
But, because of the safety and personal ramifications crossing the wrong person can have, I think it’s important that we acknowledge a woman’s right to seek safety in a situation she perceives might possibly go south for her. That includes the prerogative of not putting herself in a situation that she perceives as risky to begin with.
Maybe that concept would be better accepted if it were expanded to “Anyone should have the right to avoid danger they think they might be in”
I’ve honestly been taught that blanket statements about sex/gender are usually not fine. So this sort of shit feels wrong in that sense and of course hurtful when you’re at the receiving end of a negative blanket statement. I’m sure many can agree with that sentiment in general terms, whether it’s based on skin colour, sex/gender, sexual orientation or whatever.
I mean treating all men different is sexist and prejudiced. There’s really no way around that. Whether this sort of blanket prejudice is justified in this case, could be. But also that’s not a great look, to justify statistics or stereotype based prejudice.
1 in 3 women experience sexual assault of some kind in their lifetimes. 99% of the perpetrators are men.
It’s not unreasonable for a woman to avoid putting herself in a situation that a potential predator can take advantage of or retaliate against her for. Talk to a woman you know about this. I’m tired of having this conversation with men who don’t understand and just get offended.
You have been on the receiving end your entire life if you are a man, and 9 times out of 10, you have not noticed because it does not affect you. It’s not about you, especially if you aren’t a predator.
Easy solution would be to talk about it in a manner that doesn’t need a clarification that’s you don’t think all men are like that. That’s really the issue with the way this is discussed.
Nobody is denying the situation here, but rather taking offence to being labeled because of their gender.
I’m sorry but receiving end of what?
Believe me, that’s not the solution you think it is.
Unfortunately, people who take offense will find ways to deny the situation. The fact is, if you’re walking down the street and a woman 100 ft out moves to the other side before crossing you, she understands that there is a slight chance you might be a danger to her.
That’s discrimination that you can neither control nor fight against as a man. It also doesn’t affect you if you weren’t planning on assaulting that woman. But just the fact that it is done rustles so many jimmies because the knee jerk reaction men have is “well I wasn’t going to assault anyone so that’s messed up”. But that line of thinking is a way of framing the situation to make it about you. It’s not about you.
What I’m saying is, women don’t think all men are like that. That would be completely ridiculous. But statistically, enough of them are to warrant not being immediately trusting of strangers that can biologically overpower them in every situation.
Bro. I quoted you. The receiving end of “a negative blanket” against men
How come?
I’m not talking about someone switching to another side of the street because of my gender or skin colour or any other reason one might discriminate, but rather the discussion that talks about a group as thing singular thing and makes it seem like it was all of of them. Not to mention going after people who obviously take offense to being labeled in such a way. I find it fucked up and I don’t see any reason to do that.
It wasn’t clear what you meant. Hence the need for clarification. But I got what you meant now.
I directly answered that in the same comment. Unfortunately, people who are offended will find a reason to take exception of the situation. There’s no amount of drawing examples that will satisfy the type who only sees that they personally are being attacked and not that it’s more about mitigating risk.
I try to illustrate the reasoning every time. As I have with the following example I made to you. The usual reaction is “well actually the woman in question is still a bigot for avoiding me on the street because she doesn’t know me”, or a similar sentiment in which the offended person runs head first into the point and still misses it.
Well first, I’d like to congratulate you on being the only person I’ve encountered so far who’s interested in the discussion and not the reaction.
But also, I’d like to say that anyone who hears the reasoning “women have to be cautious around men because some men are capable of violence” and jumps immediately to “women think all men including me are violent and that’s wrong” is sorely missing the point.
No one is going after men who take offense at that line of logic so much as those men who are loudly voicing their misunderstanding of a concept which goes on around them all of the time that they have only just noticed. It seems that your concept of “going after those men” is just people who understand the situation trying over and over to explain it.
As someone interested in the discussion side of this issue and not the actual conflict, which you seem to understand, please tell me how you would handle someone strongly asserting to you that women are bigots because they avoid men or treat them differently when they don’t know how they’re going to react.
I’m interested to hear how you might improve an exchange with someone who doesn’t allow the reasoning that women should be allowed to cross the street 100 ft before crossing you in the interest of their safety.
I don’t think it’s about finding it personally offending but rather that it does paint all men in a certain light and I just don’t think that sort of generalizations are good.
I mean I think it went a bit further than that.
If you are acting differently towards someone because of their gender (or skin colour or religion), that would make them prejudiced at least. So I wouldn’t argue that point. I’d probably say they are prejudiced but that might be out of fear rather than malice and rather focus on what to do about that.
I’ll back you up.
Guys, we have to suck it up. I’ve talked with my wife about this very thing, a lot. She’s really helped me process a lot of relationship trauma in my deep past, including bad/weird breakups.
Men, by and large, have the ability to utilize violence in ways that women simply do not*. Especially towards women. This shapes a lot of inequity and abuse in society writ large, no matter where you are. Forget the law, forget about the rest doing the right thing, forget all your bias, and forget any logical fallacies you are clinging to right now. Just look at the stats above.
One in four. 25%. If you were doing anything in your day-to-day life that came with a risk of bodily or psychological harm a quarter of the time, every time, you’d probably just stop. Or, as OP is pointing out, screw social pretense and improvise a solution with a better shot at safety.
To flip that around, consider all the women you know and then think about how 25% of them have been abused in some way.
Women learn from their peers or otherwise adapt to be non-confrontational, passive, indirect, avoidant, or just plain not present. Sometimes that lesson is learned proactively, sometimes first-hand. Why? Because 25%, that’s why.
(* As someone who has been abused by women, yes, there are outliers. But since we’re talking statistics, that’s another discussion.)
I was just ranting to my husband about how I got tired of being polite to men* in my personal life who don’t take “no” for an answer the first time, I WILL be a “bitch” to co workers, in laws, friends etc that pull this shit. I am exhausted after years of finding 17 different ways to politely say no to a stranger who wants something from me on any given day. I am absolutely fucking done wasting time pussyfooting my words, with the men I am safe with (for whatever reason) and uh often men I am not safe with but I have been VERY lucky to have positive outcomes there. Pure luck
* I just don’t currently have women like this in my life. I have though
Some countries in Europe started to look more into this topic since the number of femicides is growing and becoming more newsworthy it seems.
A lot of people are biased since sexism is deeply rooted in our society and many don’t realize what’s happening around them if they are not directly affected.
Just this week I had to discuss with a rather aggressive delivery person who berated me (unprovoked and for a made up reason) until my partner came from another room. As soon as he had to discuss his issue with another man he started to believe the facts and stopped. Actually kinda glad this happened since my partner is also very biased regarding “everyday sexism” since it doesn’t affect him and this was the first time he was able to see it first hand.
I didn’t want to relay this while the thread was still so hot, but I’m a large scary-guy-shaped person - I really doubt any of the guys in this thread would say any of this to my face - and I didn’t understand this until my sister asked me to tell our dad something she needed him to hear because “he’ll listen to you because you’re a man”. I said I didn’t think he was that sort of person, and she just said, “No, it’s normal for people not to listen to women.” So I told him the thing and he listened to me where he hadn’t listened to her.
I was pretty shook by that, so I asked my partner if that was normal and she said “Oh, yeah,” without having to think twice about it.
That’s where my journey started. After you start seeing it, you can’t stop.
I also started noticing at a certain point how often women would randomly apologise for existing near me in public. Like they are clearly afraid of me. It doesn’t feel nice, but it’s never once occurred to me to yell “not all men!” or “I’m one of the good ones!” at their retreating backs.
I’ve discovered - through being NB - that I can completely reverse this by even slightly feminising my appearance. I actually get random women smiling at me in public, not politely, but openly and genuinely. It makes me think of what a trans man said about how lonely it is to be a man, how he misses the camraderie of women looking out for each other. From my perspective when I’m fully man-coded I agree, men absolutely do not openly smile at me. That’s too gay, or something.
I’m not worried that any bad actors will abuse this info to get women to let their guard down though, because a consequence of this is getting an absolutely appalling amount of disgust and hate from random dudes, but I consider the trade absolutely worth it when I have the energy for it.
Thanks for sharing your story. One of my guy friends is the Hagrid Type. Big, hairy, loud. But he also tries to break through his appearance. And I think that’s the whole point:
Instead of telling “not all men” it’s better (but also more difficult) to show us. Be nice. Hold other men accountable. Things can be changed but first we have to face reality.
It also saddens me to hear about the manly loneliness that’s caused by the same internalized sexism. I’m glad to hear you found a way out of this, that still lets you be you!
I was with you until that last paragraph… Kind of a shitty thing to say.
Then you weren’t with me at all. These are shitty people.
Who are you referring to when you say “these”? Because it seems like you’re making judgement calls about people based entirely on whether or not they questioned your blanket generalization about literally half the population of the planet.
I want you to look at my comment and tell me - quote the quote please - where I said that all men are violent.
EDIT: Or whatever you think the blanket statement was.
Nah, I think I’d rather not engage. You know what I was referring to, I literally said it in my initial response.
Have a nice day.
Oh really lol? So you made this accusation but as soon as I ask you to explain specifics you back out?
I mean, I know what I said, and I wasn’t generalising about all men. You said, “these”. Give me the quote, explain what you’re talking about, unless you re-read it and you know you it actually doesn’t say what you’re trying to make it say. I’m happy to explain, but I do want you to explain what you’re talking about. I said a lot, so you need to meet me halfway. It’s not a big ask.
No, as soon as you take a glance at a white ball and ask for elaborate proof that it isn’t black.
I just asked them to explain what their claim was, in any way, in specific. It’s not hard to do that, unless your claim is bullshit on its face.
Seems that way doesn’t it?
I didn’t even read the rest of this comment, btw.
Sure does.
Congrats on not actually caring.
“If you are bothered by blanket statements and sexism towards you, it’s just because your ego is bruised and you might actually be the violent person I’ve painted you as.”
Incredible logic.
No. The point is we can’t ask vulnerable people to throw caution to the wind when around those who have the ability to harm them.
Part of being one of the good ones, is not taking it personally when someone who doesn’t know you are safe, takes steps to try and make sure you won’t harm them. Because they can’t know for sure that you wouldn’t.
This is almost word for word what racists argue. You even used the term “one of the good ones”, holy hell. How do you not see how fucked up this is?
It’s hard to not take it personally when a group you’re member of is being made negative blanket statements about and when those who think it’s hurtful speak up, they’re mocked. And then there’s the belittling language about how if you are “one of the good ones” you should just take it and “make sure you won’t harm them”.
It’s one thing to say that yes, women are more cautious around men and there’s some reason for it. But it’s the blanket statements, "“NOt All mEn” and “just ignore it” shit that bothers me. That’s not fine imo.
So what exactly is the change you want?
If you’re not asking vulnerable people to throw caution to the wind, be specific about what should be different.
I know it feels like absolute shit to have the worst assumptions made about you because of your gender, race or whatever else, but aside from treating everyone fairly whenever no risk is involved, we can’t ask people to assume the best about others when deciding anything, if doing so puts them at the mercy of a stranger in any way.
Hell. I’m a tall man, and I would have reservations if a girl wants to have a first date at her place, alone. Odds are, 99.99%, it’ll be fine, might get laid, woo. But what if it isn’t fine?
We’re not discussing the kind of discrimination where you instantly and completely dismiss someone as a human being, but the kind where you are careful about what kind of human being they might be.
The first kind robs people of life opportunities, the second only ever hurts our feelings.
I’d prefer to see the discussion happening from the position that some men are violent, which causes women to be cautious. There should be a common understanding in both that men can be violent towards women in high rates, but also that it’s not a reason to label the whole group or speak implying such.
Now we’ve had both a very clear blanket statement about women and people mocking those who take offense to that and talking about “the good ones”. That’s not a discussion that is going the right way. That’s the sorta shit that causes more discrimination and bad sentiments.
I’m not saying women can’t (or aren’t allowed to be) be prejudiced, I know it’s a reaction. It’s the discourse that makes it out to be all men that goes overboard and is just the same as what racists do. It’s one thing to cross to the other side of the street when you saw someone you are worried about coming, okay you probably do fear something so individually whatever, fine, but if you go online and justify it with “well those people statisticially…” you’re just spreading really discriminatory shit and of course people are going to pipe up.
I know, but it’s not like racism is just thinking someone is a human. I’d say most racism isn’t like that, but small things.
I can somewhat agree with that.
But no one here is suggesting any of this is grounds for completely disregarding a person or a demographic of people.
I would turn down that first at-home date, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t make a counter-suggestion. And even then I would risk offending her by revealing my unwillingness to immediately trust her.
And if she does take offence, that isn’t exactly telling of her having a healthy understanding of how the situation might look to me. Even as I turn her down, it’s not like I’ve already decided she’s a crazy person.
The people getting mocked are ones who feel they’ve been wronged by this kind of caution, for example by getting an overly careful and roundabout “no”, taking offence because someone would assume the worst about them. That they wouldn’t have taken a straight answer well.
In reality, it was going to be a “no” either way, and she was perfectly within her right to do it carefully with a complete stranger.
Throwing around the stats and explanations is to help us understand. The point is that the numbers are such that vulnerable people do not even have the option of being fair, because if they are, inevitably, they will run into at least one nutcase which will then proceed to explode in their face.
Unfortunately, the real solution here is actually to take it on the chin, because most of the time, it really isn’t personal, or even consequential.
In any situation where two or more people interact, a more vulnerable party has every right to take whatever precaution they feel is needed to be safe, until they know for sure that doing so isn’t needed.
When this is the case, there is nothing to take offence from. It’s not about you.
But it can still hurt, and when you then see stats and stories about violent men thrown around it feels like people are telling you that “they were right about you” and that you should feel hurt.
But that’s not the point. The point is that there are good reasons to be careful. And when someone does so around you, unless there are additional circumstances to consider, there’s nothing there that’s a personal slight upon your character, gender, or anything else.
I think in this specific case and unfortunately in these sort of discussion, the people being mocked seem to be those who take offense to the discourse that paints men in generic terms as violent or take it personally (which while not meant as such, can obviously feel like it to some).
I think the real solution would be to for the discourse to be such that it doesn’t make it seem like it’s all men. Of course if it seems like all men are being blamed, people will complain. It’s not a huge switch in the rhetoric either to make it clear that’s not what is being said imo. But here it felt like they doubled down on it instead.
“n in m women said that they …” and “p in q men said that they …” would be more correct.
You are comparing apples to oranges. If women and men were treated the same by the society and thus would report actual events with the same probability, then you could compare these.
How many men would admit they experienced emotional abuse were that the case? A rhetorical question. Like a half of them or more wouldn’t.
Ah, yes, emotional abuse, the only thing on this list.
I don’t see my argument to be limited to emotional abuse in any way, and an example doesn’t have to cover all cases.
TLDR, you don’t look smart.
So to be clear: you think that domestic violence against men could be similar to domestic violence against women, for instance? Are you actually saying that?
There’s a reason you singled out emotional abuse, because if you mentioned any of the other kinds, it would be pretty obvious how silly your argument was, wouldn’t it?
It is from factual statistics. Yes, I’m actually saying that.
Factual statistics say otherwise, that my argument isn’t silly.
I thought perpetuating gender role stereotypes and even prioritizing them over data was something a slrpnk.net user would be unlikely to do?..
Also I’m following the example of that other person and disengaging.
“factual statistics” which are… nowhere to be seen.
You won’t be missed.
This is so dumb that I’ll return to comment.
The pic you posted says the same thing as I say about factual statistics. You’ll have to argue with yourself.
Also the first page in Google:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7658679/
https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS
and Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men with this - “The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 97.2% of men do not report domestic violence to the police, compared to 82.1% of women.[6]”,
that would make a woman 6.3929 likelier to report than a man. So you actually have to normalize reported domestic violence by that, say, if there are 6 times more cases reported to police against women, then in reality it’s about the same.
Also every fucking police service publishes some stats.
Which is exactly why they rely on anonymous survey results rather than police reports to get these statistics, which you would understand if you looked into Excrubulent’s sources before immediately going into defense mode and jumping down their throat because they acknowledged that women being wary of men is not irrational behavior.
Men in general are more likely than women to be physically violent towards their partners, and women in general are more likely than men to be victims of physical abuse.
To acknowledge that is not to say all men are abusive, just as it is not to say that all women are abuse survivors. However, to jump in and go “not ALL men!!!” only when violence against women is discussed is to dismiss and silence the trauma experienced by all domestic abuse survivors regardless of gender, assume that there is some “clue” they all missed to avoid being abused, and that anyone who responds to that trauma by being wary of people with similar broad-strokes profiles is treating unfairly everyone that does not exhibit this explicit “clue”. And that is victim-blaming, because there is just no way to know at first glance.
Those might sound like hefty assumptions but I gotta be honest with you, I truly do not understand what outcome you are trying to reach by rehashing this, over and over, other than silencing discourse that you find damaging to your own ego and self-image, and, further, what rationale you could find to feel personally attacked by this discourse, other than simply not being able to empathize with fellow members of the human race that happen to belong to the opposite gender.
It is reasonable to be cautious as a woman until you can be sure that the man you are with is safe. You can argue that men should do the same if you truly believe that they experience the same risks. You cannot argue, however, that women are wrong or irrational for behaving this way without making sexist arguments. Which is probably why you people always stop short of making any actual actionable arguments.
And to clarify, because apparently we are unable to differentiate unless it is said explicitly; I’m talking about you, personally, and people that respond in this way to any mention of domestic abuse with acknowledgement that it is primarily experienced by women at the hands of men. I am not talking about ALL men.
You would think that a group called the Bureau of Statistics would understand that they need to normalise. You would think they understand something about, oh, I don’t know, statistics, maybe?
In fact, you would think that the fact that they have statistical rates down to a tenth of a percent for how often people report to the police clearly indicates that they have other numbers, independent of those reports, to generate these reporting statistics. How would they know that X% of people report without knowing what the actual numbers of incidents are?
This is rock-banging basic stuff. Just simple, obvious logic. You had those numbers in your hands, you used them to try and make a point, and you didn’t realise this. I don’t think we should be taking your advice on how to use statistics.
Genuinely not trying to be that guy, but it seems like you’re saying that because it happens to men less often than to women, we can just ignore when it happens to men. Which im sure isnt what you’re trying to say, but its the insinuation you present whenever you bring up stats like these.
Why would that be the insinuation? You’re inserting that, not me.
Because your using these stats to dismiss people saying men face domestic abuse too? I get you’re doing it because those people arent arguing in good faith, but its still ultimately you insinuating "men dont face DA as much of women, so they dont matter.
You are the first person to even bring that up.
Okay?
Nobody brought it up. I wasn’t dismissing anything like that.
I didn’t say that, nor did I insinuate it. You haven’t made your case, you’ve just said I said something I clearly didn’t say. I don’t know what else to um… say.
So if nobody brought this up, why did you write that edit and bring up these statistics?
You did though.
And you also pull the claim of “women get harsher sentences when they commit DA” out of your arse too.
So you admit that you read “the consequences of that violence” and your mind immediately went to the legal consequences for the perpetrator, instead of thinking about the physical harm done to the victim.
That says basically everything about the butthurt responses in this thread.
From the pic I didn’t assume this was gender specific
I believe this is directly related to many women being more empathetic. Many guys are not violent.
This is a repackaging of “not all men”.
The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?”
If you can’t answer that fast enough to determine if you’re dealing with a violent man, then “not all men” is meaningless to a woman who is trying to not get killed.
Also, you’re basically saying women don’t think about this. I wonder what kind of answers you’d get if you actually asked any of them about this.
This is the sort of logic I’ve seen people use to justify racism. “Not all of them of course but enough, I’m just being careful”.
Tell me, do you know how likely women are to be killed by men vs the other way around?
Do you not know how often racists use crime stats to bolster their arguments too?
Men more often kill women is no grounds to make blanket arguments about men in general, same way as some minorities being overly represented in rape statistics is no grounds to make blanket statements about those minorities.
You can say it’s just you “being careful” and whatnot, but you should realize that you’re using word for word the same arguments racists use to justify their racism. Both represent an actual threat to women for sure but it’s no justification for labeling them all, that’s the point.
What are women doing with this information?
What are racists doing with their - actually twisted made up bullshit if you look into it - information?
A woman might in both cases be vary of the specific groups here, at the mildest level. Discrimination can range from very minor to very hostile behaviour. Basically your imagination is the limit for what someone might do about these prejudiced feelings.
Statistics Finland, Finnish Government, the police and several university studies have made deep dives into this. But if you can show them wrong then by all means, go ahead. But I can provide you the sources for these claims, if you really want to go there.
You’re supplying nothing and asking me to disprove it. Fuck right off with that.
And the correct answer as to what those groups are doing with the information is:
Women are generally careful not to offend men.
Racists participate in violence against minorities.
These are not the same thing, and it should be obvious if you’re even slightly paying attention.
deleted by creator
So, absolutely no interest in the subject matter then. I’ve been trying to figure you out and I think I’ve got it:
You’re using racism as a tool to deflect any talk of sexism, and to imply that saying men are far more likely to kill women is sexist against men, even though it is 100% true. And even then you’re talking about racism using anti-black racist talking points, which is extremely telling.
You’re staying in the realm of innuendo though. You’re not really saying anything. I bet if you actually stood up and said what you mean it would be horrific and you’d get banned, which is why you’re not doing it.
deleted by creator
The only thing that’s clear is that you’re a coward who will not stand up and say what they mean.
If you want statistics I added them to my original post. I don’t care what you have to say about it. It’s not worth trying to parse your bullshit.
Or “prejizz” for short.
Can I use this fantastic opinion to back racism as well, or is is exclusively reserved for sexism? Thanks!
Let’s apply this logic to racism!
Black men usually get the talk at a very young age that they need to be super careful in every interaction with police or else they might be killed.
Now, not all cops are trying to kill black men in traffic stops. But if you don’t know which cops will kill you on the flimsiest pretext, then this isn’t terribly useful to a black man trying not to get killed.
Tell me, is it “racist” of these black men to be concerned about being killed by cops?
Cops aren’t a race. Actually basing this on racism would go something like this:
“Of the 9,468 murder arrests in the US in 2017, 53.5% were black and 20.8% Hispanic.” Is it racist for cops to be more quick to use deadly force against black people and Hispanic people because they are arrested for violent crime more often than people of other races?
The answer is yes, this is in fact racist.
Footnote: The quoted statistic is the result of systemic racism and various societal issues in the US, and I suggest people read about why there is this discrepancy.
It’s not a perfect comparison, but the point is that these are people who are simply being extremely polite to avoid the potential threat of violence, and the other party is the one who has an undue likelihood of perpetrating that violence.
In both cases, the violence is the bigotry, not the worry about who might inflict that violence.
Some - wrong - people might say that black men worrying about being killed by a cop is racism because they are acting on information about their race. These are presumably the same people saying women are sexist for worrying about male violence. As always, noticing bigotry is in fact not the real bigotry.
Let’s go back to the original example: a woman dating.
Assume the woman is a lesbian. Would it be racist for her to apply the behavior in the post when she dated women of color, if her opinion was based on the statistic quoted in my last post?
My answer would be the same: it would be racist.
You are working really hard to not answer my questions.
Which men?
And, are women conscious of the danger when saying no to men?
deleted by creator
I prefer to think of them as heuristics, but this one isn’t very true, you’re right.
Removed by mod
Yes, I think the empathy helps with that.
My very obvious joke comment got removed by mods in a shitpost community of all places.
Weird place, isn’t it.
God, yeah, all women are wonderful and all men are bad. That’s certainly been my life experience.
That’s not really the point.
If a good man has a woman turn violent on him, odds are he has a physical advantage and will be able to deal with it. It shouldn’t have to happen that way but he can probably keep himself safe.
Flip that around, and as a woman, even if 99.99% of men will take it completely calmly, the small chance that you’re dealing with that 0.01% who will flip out and try to hurt you the second things don’t go his way, is fucking terrifying.
Especially if you’re smaller than average and dealing with someone bigger than average, the smart thing is to not just risk it. No, it doesn’t feel good when a girl assumes the worst about me, but I get it, so I don’t take it personally.
I can know I would never turn my strength and size to hurting to someone, she cannot.
I don’t disagree, having been attacked by… three women.
The exact same considerations apply. If you’re in a situation where others could physically overpower you, you tend to try avoid doing anything that gives anyone reason to do so if that occurring is even the tiniest possibility.
When it comes to ones own bodily safety, other considerations become secondary, whether that’s fair or not.
It’s not matter of “all of them are like that” but of playing it safe.
Like attacking a man easily twice your size? Somebody should have told them! They could have ended up getting hurt.
What?
I’m saying you’re the one who was in danger and therefore had the exact same concerns, and thereby you enforced my point that prioritising your own safety in this way isn’t about gender.
Anyone can be at a physical disadvantage, and therefore have to rely on caution. And anyone can turn out to be a crazy person.
My point is - you’d think attacking a guy twice one’s size might present a risk to one’s safety, but that didn’t seem to stop them. Like, one punch from me might easily have killed them, so it’s puzzling. In a way I think they knew they were protected by their size, because I just wouldn’t dare touch them. Even when being attacked with a blunt object!
“And therefore, it’s women that are privileged”. No, I’m really not trying to make that point, but it would be funny if I was.
I don’t think you have a point.
You met some crazies, which just proves the point that they exist, and we all have good reason to act with caution lest we encounter one with unfortunate results.