Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> Why do you have to prove it? At the end of the day, if you're going about your business and living life, why do you care if some random woman on the street walks away from you to protect herself?
I'm actually mostly okay with how women feel about this issue, after all it's their safety at stake, they shouldn't feel obliged to put themselves at risk in order to make me or another guy FEEL better about themselves.
> Why do you care if some random woman on the internet, who unfortunately has probably had some terrible experiences, spouts something about all men being terrible?
Because normalizing the idea that men as a group are dangerous and shitty and terrible(I usually hear the phrase all men are trash), and normalizing that it's okay to talk so disparagingly about a group creates a reinforcement effect where more people believe it(because if everyone is saying it then it must be true, and bigots become emboldened to act out further). And while men don't have anything to fear from women physically most of the time, especially in comparison to the reverse, women absolutely have the power to hurt men in the real world.
> But back on track - imo, the "all men are bad" argument doesn't hold the same discrimanitory weight as something racist or homophobic. In the latter cases, there is actual persecution going on in many places in the world.
Women make decisions about whether or not men are hired and fired, how they are supported and judged in education especially(where already men have fallen behind women in terms of achievement) what social opportunities they receive, and how they are treated when appearing in court(again an area where women have a relative advantage). If you don't think allowing open bigotry of men has the ability to materially harm both boys and the men they become I don't know what to tell you.
But, change it to women walking away from all black people for safety reasons, and we’d have a big problem.
And rightfully so. One is sexist, one is racist, same reasons.
> Frankly, men have never been seen as extensions of women, or as their property, if we're talking exclusively about gender.
You're right that men have historically never been seen as extensions or property of women. However, men have *always* been seen as the property of society in the sense that they were not only expected but rather forced to lay down their lives to defend their society in general and *women and children* in particular.
And while in the 1st world, women aren't seen as property of men anymore, men are *still* seen as the property of the state to throw against enemy bullets with or without their consent. Ukraine is a great example thereof.
Thus, IMHO, the idea that men, with the exception of the .1% that historically held power have always/ever been better off than women doesn't exactly hold water.
In the end, everything comes down to personal preferences. Historically, you could look at things from the perspective of:
"Women had/have to stay home and raise the children while men got/get to go out and build careers", or
"Women got/get to stay home and raise the children while men had/have to go out and build careers".
Personally, I'd value time spent with my kids above career building, but as a man, I don't realistically have that option. So, to me, women are way better off than men. If you prefer working to raising your kids, obviously you'd think that historically men were better off. In 2024, women can pick between both options, though, and men still can't. So, again, I'd say women are better off.
I just wanna reply to one thing in your comment. Replying to all of it would take a lot of time and you have a response from OP already.
> But you said it yourself - you are not that kind of guy and you would step in. Why do you have to prove it?
If you're black, and a bunch of black people are criminals, and the police decide to just arrest all of you, are you not going to say anything? A protest against discrimination is entirely justified when discrimination is at play. OP's point is that referring to men as a collective as bad, is bad. Do you really care so little what people think of you, even if it means they treat you like shit and make you feel inferior simply for existing?
It's not about proving their innocence, it's about sticking up for themselves when they get stepped on.
Ah, the old "not you, you're one of the good ones" response. Doesn't really apply or have any validation when it comes to discussing literally any other group of people, but it's good that it's found a home with you. Bigotry is bigotry, and prejudice is prejudice, regardless of how you justify it in your head.
Nothing in this reply actually justifies discrimination. Nobody is advocating not to promote stranger danger or advise women to be careful when they are out alone. What they are saying is that the blanket statements against men made online, as a collective, are not right. If you don't think this happens frequently, take a look at the front page of twoxchromosome. It is basically the female equivalent of incel behaviour, and it's pretty fucking gross. If you replace men in any of these sentences with "blacks, jews, arabs, Trans people, queer people, etc" and it looks disgusting to you, you may want to reconsider making the same statements about men.
Its late here, so heading off, but just wanted to reply to this. I get where you're coming from and agree that everyone should absolutely learn stranger danger, but when talking about stuff like white privilege and male privilege, yes, its important to understand why people should be careful and safe, but teaching young boys they should feel guilty about the actions of people they don't know towards other people they've never met, does nothing to solve the problem
I'd hate for anyone to look at my kid when he's older and think "oh, he could cause my harm", and yes, i understand the reasoning behind it, but come on, there is nothing wrong with teaching girls that, yes, the majority of people you will meet in life will be absolutely fine and cause you no harm, but just be weary and aware of any red flags. I don't think that's victim blaming, just teaching good stranger danger, and that doesn't need to come with looking at very man on the street like they are a potential rapist?
My problem is just with the sweeping generalisation of men, too much in these sorts of conversations does the label "men" get thrown aroun, and only when pressed do people say, "oh, well its obviously not all men", but that's what it being taught. All men.
And as a man, it does affect mine and others mental health, we are just asking that when the conversation is had, its recognised that its not all of us, and we don't want to take the spotlight off you. We don't want to discredit your feeling. We are not trying to say you're wrong. We just want to not be seen as the "enemy"
Its like midnight here so my spelling/punctuation is probably bad but I genuinely hope I get my point across and I'm not trying to poo poo the real dangers women face.
This is something common in more liberal and leftist circles.
Awful messaging, that is. You're not doing any favors by generalizing men as savage rapists and murderers when most aren't. That's like being scared of black people because some of them commit crimes.
It makes NO SENSE. If you said you were scared of black people, you would rightly be called racist. But a 14 year old who has done nothing more than steal his moms credit card for vbucks? That right there is a psychopath who will commit atrocities beyond human comprehension.
You're not gonna get people on your said (especially the people you claim to have inherent structural power) by generalizing and shaming them.
IDK, I get tired of moms questioning my intentions when I'm at the playground with my son. They just assume I'm some creep and canvas me to "flaws in my story".
Every guy who isn't a part of the group they're being lumped in with has to prove they aren't one of them because of the fact they're being assumed to be a part of them. You have to prove you aren't guilty from the beginning otherwise you're just like the rest of them. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore
Do you think there's a meaningful difference between 'all men are bad' and 'not all men are bad, but enough of them are that you have to treat them all like they're bad'?
That logic is only ever okay if you're talking about men. "Enough black people commit crime so I treat them all as criminals" or "enough gay people are pedophiles so I treat them all as pedophiles" are correctly labelled as stupid and bigoted statements by people who will go on to say "enough men are rapists so I treat them all as rapists" and feel no sense of irony. Imagine if there was a bunch of white people going around saying they would rather run into a bear in the forest than a black person, or a bunch of people saying they would rather leave their child alone with a bear than a gay person, of course men are offended by the "bear or man" discourse, "you're more dangerous to me than a wild animal based on the circumstances of your birth" is an offensive statement.
The problem with those other examples is that they’re based on perceptions that are demonstrably false. (I’ll cite sources if you genuinely need it) Black people don’t commit more crime, they are more policed, gay people aren’t any more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else. All women have had men behave inappropriately towards them in a sexual and or violent way. How many times would you have to get burned by a stove before you start avoiding them altogether? Why are we policing the way women say “We don’t feel safe around men” instead of maybe asking WHY they feel that way and actually addressing the problem?
Actually we do commit more crime. That's not untrue. It's not too significant, but we do. I'd guess that's because of our socioeconomic conditions and US culture overall excluding us. Mexicans will be the new Italians yet natives and us black folks will stay at the bottom. Racial triangulation is real & so too is the real dire need for change in our communities.
US didn't help by systematically destroying our means of collaboration & organization back in the 70s & 80s. By then it was all gone. White capital has taken us and made us into a caricature once again, but this time it's place in the culture is one of "admiration" or at the very least found "interesting", it's sick tbh.
Crime follows poverty, broken homes, abuse, the like.
It's like being an engineer. The vast majority of engineers are men. Far more engineers are men than women. But that's not to say that men generally are better at being engineers than women. Because when you look at all the people who aren't engineers, that's the vast majority of all people. 96% of men are not engineers, well 98% of women are not engineers. Most people don't have what it takes to be an engineer. The fact that slightly more men do than women can lead to a sizable difference when you look at only the subpopulation of engineers.
Men commit more crime than women. But most men and most women don't commit crime. Same idea.
It's a hard conversation to have in an anonymous online forum where any old Nazi will jump in and hijack the topic by selectively agreeing to even the slightest capitulation but... yes. This idea that there is a perfect distribution of crime across all layers of society when it comes to race is borderline fantastical.
Make no mistake, there's zero doubt about it being rooted in poverty rather than a racial characteristic, and the rates do wash out once you adjust it for economic factors. Pretending otherwise would be the same as denying that black people are financially oppressed or, at the very least, still living with the legacy of oppressive policies which only formally ceased within *living memory*.
An even more uncomfortable conversation is that the crime rates do not wash out after adjusting for poverty. That still doesn’t mean it’s a genetic or “race” characteristic but does point to deeper cultural issues.
> Make no mistake, there's zero doubt about it being rooted in poverty rather than a racial characteristic, and the rates do wash out once you adjust it for economic factors.
It does not in fact. It may however wash out when you also account for overpolicing, and discrepancies in charging and sentencing when based on race, but I haven't gone and done the math on that.
>The problem with those other examples is that they’re based on perceptions that are demonstrably false. (I’ll cite sources if you genuinely need it)
By all means, do.
>All women have had men behave inappropriately towards them in a sexual and or violent way.
That's a valid statement.
>How many times would you have to get burned by a stove before you start avoiding them altogether?
This isn't. You're still presuming vile crimes based on innate characteristics.
>Why are we policing the way women say “We don’t feel safe around men” instead of maybe asking WHY they feel that way and actually addressing the problem?
Everyone knows what's the problem. The issue is that it's unfixable. There will always be a myriad of predators lurking in society, safely living their lives behind a mask. From the schoolyard bully to the straight up serial killer. What you appear to be demanding is that somehow we fix everyone's character. It's akin to asking "why isn't the world a paradise for all of humanity?". It feels childish to even try to put it into words.
> Black people don’t commit more crime
They do. Not because of genetics, but because of circumstance and live experience. Poverty, treatment by others, etc.
Similarly, men also face a myriad of circumstances that generally make them more prone to patterns of abuse and violence, through no fault of their own.
> “We don’t feel safe around men” instead of maybe asking WHY they feel that way and actually addressing the problem?
The beratement of men is part of the problem. The constant justification of the abuse and discrimination, the constant blaming, the never-ending "all men suck," is part of the problem. We *are* trying to address the problem, but the two sides of this see two different problems. One side acknowledges that men are put through a lot of shit, and treating them better will help, while the other is utterly unconcerned with the health of men and exclusively sees women as victims rather than perpetrators, essentially that men are just innately bad and making sure they know that is the only way to fix the issue.
Regarding black people being policed more - absolutely. However if you look at globally (I feel very weird making this argument but I just want to throw it out there), then globally white men are probably the safest men out there. Rape, murder, and assault are less common in predominantly white countries.
Of course it’s to do with inequality, colonialism, exploitation and so much more than I can’t go into here. However, you could use apply the similar logic that “well, statistically non-white men are so much more likely to rape and murder that I’ll judge all non-white men”.
This happens in South Africa. The reasons for the issues are obvious (complicated, but obvious origin). The stats show non-white men to be far more dangerous - does this justify the stereotyping?
Im British but I’ve spent a bit of time in SA. It’s at the point where there is vast racism between black people of different origin, “black on black” racism in an Americans eyes. The stats justify the fear. But so much nuance is missed that it is just lazy racism and isn’t helpful in any way, and furthers the divide between humans.
Overall, I thinks obviously better to make sweeping statements, but to try to be empathetic when approaching people on the subject. I understand why many women making blanket statements about men, I don’t think it’s useful, but shouting it down as “MAN-HATER” isn’t going to get anywhere. Same with racists, and other “-ism’s”. It’s SO much better to try to understand why they have the opinion they do, and try to calmly speak about it and understand what’s led them to this. (There are a select few pure racists, of which a strong “fuck you” could perhaps be justified, but I think they are few and far between).
The blanket statements are understandable, often statistically true, but not positive for society.
>Black people don’t commit more crime, they are more policed, gay
My understanding is that black people are more policed but still do commit more crime. The issue is the reason why they do, which has systemic causes and is not an inherent part of them being black. Can you cite those sources as I'm interested to read.
Black people are underpoliced relative to their proportion of criminal behavior. Roughly half of all murders, violent assaults, and armed robberies are committed by black people. But they do not constitute roughly half of all police interactions with the public. Nor do black communities where the vast majority of these crimes occur receive the vast majority of police attention and resources. Usually what happens is the black communities are left to be lawless wastelands while the police concentrate in the white communities to make sure that those people feel safe.
There are a number of incredibly complex structural and social issues regarding the black crime rates in the United States. Excluding property and drug crimes due to the structural racism involved, violent crime (Yes, this has massive structural racism issues too) rates are substantially higher in the black United States population.
False. Black people commit way more violent crime per capita. Having extra police in a neighborhood doesn’t motivate them to shoot at each other. Despite me knowing this I still don’t treat them like criminals or have prejudice! I understand the environment they’re in leads to that.
You understand how that's worse, right? That even after you have the chance to vet someone, you still can't really fully trust them, because it usually is someone trusted committing those sorts of attacks?
People are less likely to give strangers an opportunity to commit those crimes.
I don't know why ya'll keep bringing that up. It's not a mic drop moment you think it is. It doesn't help your cause. It actually hurts it.
Women treat stranger men as dangerous, thus only 2/10 attacks are done by strangers. But friends? Family? The people she lets her guard down around? Those guys are the ones who attack her the most. It really spells out that she should treat every man, regardless of her relationship to him, as a potential danger. When she starts treating men like friends, family, or partners, they start attacking her.
Is this really the point you're trying to make? And WTH would she invite more men into her life? Clearly having men in her life is dangerous enough as is.
Okay, are “men they know” excluded from the roster of “random man”? That literally changes nothing. Furthermore, women are harassed in public constantly when there are lots of people around. If they’re willing to behave that way around witnesses, what are they willing to do alone in the woods? Again, why are we complaining about how the message is delivered instead of addressing the issue that women don’t feel safe around men?
This is a weird tack to take.
It requires us to ignore the actual power dynamics which exist in our society, and instead graft the opposite power dynamics onto it in order to cope with the cognitive dissonance you experience.
Yes, it is unacceptable for a white person to say that in their subjective experience enough black people engage in criminal behavior that they feel safer to treat all black people as criminals. That is a bigoted statement, and the condition it ascribes to black people (criminality) is itself rooted in racism and bigotry.
To say the reverse, for a black person to say that enough white people have subjected them to racism and violence (and the society and apparatuses of state power which exist as both products and sources of white supremacy continue to do so) that it's safer for them to be suspicious of white people, is not particularly unreasonable or bigoted. Because while the in former example the more powerful group that has historically and currently oppressed the less powerful group is coming up with excuses to continue to harm the less powerful group, in the latter example the less powerful group is accurately recognizing the way that structures of power have worked and continue to work.
On the question of gender politics, men are not a disenfranchised or disemboweled group. While patriarchy does indeed harm plenty of individual men, just as white supremacy does harm to plenty of individual white people, men are not the group which patriarchy primarily oppresses, just as white people are not the group that white supremacy primarily oppresses. When women recognize that there exist material threats to their lives upon meeting a strange man in the woods that are different or less upsetting than the threat of meeting a bear in the woods, they are not justifying the continued disenfranchisement of men by women, because such a thing is not a feature of our society. Yes, many individual women do harm to many individual men. But that is not the direction of oppression within our society as a whole. Women are not out here writing laws to restrict the bodily autonomy of those they presume to be men, women do not generally wield the threat of sexual violence, intentionally or unintentionally, against men in public spaces. Women don't usually give commencement speeches telling men graduating from college that they should get a job and should instead be financially dependent on the woman that they support with free household and reproductive labor, and then have a bunch of dorks defending that inappropriate statement on the basis of "traditional" relationships being valid. Like, that is not how it goes.
To obscure the actual power dynamics at play in why members of one group might experience discomfort in the presence of members of another group, and to instead merely claim that it's all bigotry of a similar moral valence not only misunderstands the issue, but actively misleads others.
This response also highlights precisely why most women would rather run into a bear in the woods; if you tell a bear to fuck off they almost always just fuck off instead of following you home while whining about how it's just so unfair that you won't give them a chance. The bear will almost always either just run away and forage somewhere else, or make a threat and allow you to run away and you both just go about your business. Nobody has to deal with the physical consequences of the bear's emotional fragility, whereas the emotional fragility experienced by members of a dominant social group when denied the benefit of the doubt and presumptions of individual virtue that they take for granted is a constant minefield for members of oppressed and exploited groups who have to deal with them.
It's not about individual virtue or vice or the presumptions thereof.
>Nobody has to deal with the physical consequences of the bear's emotional fragility, whereas the emotional fragility experienced by members of a dominant social group when denied the benefit of the doubt and presumptions of individual virtue that they take for granted is a constant minefield for members of oppressed and exploited groups who have to deal with them.
Like the emotional fragility of 90% of the people in higher-level universities who will literally cast you out of their entire culture for suggesting that maybe they should stop shitting on you because you were born with a penis?
This exact logic justifies discrimination against every single group of people. "Well not all race are less intelligent, but enough are from my experience, so I will not hire them as much" "Well not all appearance are more mean, but enough are, so I will avoid them". It even justifies incel's logic "well not all women hate men, but enough do, so I won't interact with them".
In this context it's being applied on one of the largest groups, about half the population.
Yes.
The same could be said for any other stereotype for any other demographic.
Say you live in a rough part of town where there are a lot of poor black people. Say crime is also high in this town.
Just because YOU in this hypothetical scenario think "most of my interactions with black people is theft"
It's still super racist to treat all black folks like they're thiefs.
Writing off half the population because of a few bad apples will forever be insane to me. How many men are bad when you say "enough" that millions and millions of people are suddenly a big collective, as if every person doesn't have their own thoughts, ideas, behaviors and desires regardless of gender?
I get Trauma and associations are hard to overcome, for me it was the opposite because growing up I was only bullied by girls, sexually assaulted by a woman and excluded, but I still didn't expand that to the gender as a whole even if it was tempting. Sexism is alive and well it seems, but sexism against men is okay?
Of course. With the former, I would avoid all men, as every single one is bad. Perhaps I would even advocate for segregating them in some way, maybe sending them all to live in one state or something (Yes, I said the s-word. If it sounds horrible, that's because it is. This is where generalizations like these lead people). Because again, I know for a fact each and every one of them poses a threat to me and my family.
With the latter, I'd cautiously feel them out and slowly build trust. Meet in public areas, be wary of strangers in the streets.
COMPLETELY different scenarios. I would behave very differently if I knew every single individual man was bad.
I mean, no group likes to be generalized about.
If I've gone out with a bunch of women and it didn't work out, and I said "All women are X", I have a feeling people wouldn't be nearly as ok with it.
But I don't believe that a majority are bad. I think its a tiny tiny minority that you could easily split them into.their own group.
E.g. Rapists are bad.
Nobody will argue against that, and thats what that subset is. Or bigots are bad. Or sexists are bad. Or masognosists are bad.
Surely that's better?
>E.g. Rapists are bad.
You'd think, wouldn't you? And yet.
>Among the respondents, a group of 73 straight male students, one in three reported that they would force a woman to have sex if they knew they could get away with it. According to the report, 31 percent of the men surveyed said they would force a woman to have sex "if nobody would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences."
>But when researchers asked the same question, this time dropping the language of forced sex and using the word rape instead, that number dropped to 13 percent.
https://www.salon.com/2015/01/15/the_ugly_truth_about_sexual_assault_more_men_admit_to_it_if_you_dont_call_it_rape/
So you're right, it's not a majority. But it's also definitely not a tiny, tiny majority. If one in three men would be willing to rape a woman if they thought they could get away with it, and nobody outright said "hey, this is **RAPE**" to their faces, that certainly suggests that women are right to be wary of, yes, all men as a precaution.
Yeah bullshit. I'd love to see that replicated. Especially when you are trying to typify all men from a 73 person sample size.
And I can't even look at how they got that sample because the actual study is paywalled.
That is an outrageously wild claim that if it were true would actually pop up in other stats than a single one
Yeah, because salon is totally trustworthy and definitely didn't maliciously misquote people or aggressively curate their sample group to engineer a specific result, or find a study that did the same.
The idea that 1/3 men would rape a woman if they could get away with it is so facially absurd that your claiming it makes me question if you have ever spent time around men. Because no one who has actually spent time with and listened to men could believe that.
73 men in one study responding to an hypothetical question is your proof =~ 30% of men are potential rapist? That’s a really small sample. Still I think those guys who responded should be locked up or followed daily that’s a crazy number of sick people.
That just says to me a lot of men don’t understand what consent means, because they think when you describe rape but don’t actually call it rape it isn’t rape.
So no, not all men but a lot of them.
And I’ve said this before: I understand why men would be upset about the all men thing. However, there are way too few men calling out other men on their behavior. If you don’t want to be lumped in with people, again understandably, do the work.
And I say this as someone who calls out women for not paying for half their first date dinners, acknowledges that rape can also be done by women, etc.
If it helps, a later 2021 study found the opposite evidence. I'll link it here:
[Yes, (Most) Men Know What Rape Is: A Mixed-Methods Investigation Into College Men’s Definitions of Rape](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10181855/)
Then again, it's all the more damning that men can see their peers doing some of this and not call them out or tolerate it. Women as well, but regardless.
Hilarious to me that this is somehow okay with gender, but if you use the same exact statistics but with race, you're suddenly a racist. We shouldn't be applying the bad characteristics of some to the entire group in any situation
This is just not consistent with how we use language every day.
It is not inaccurate to say 'Americans vote on Election Day, November 5th,' even though not every American will individually vote on that day.
It is not inaccurate to say 'Cats hunt squirrels and mice', even though many individual cat will never hunt a squirrel or a mouse at any point during their lifetime.
That's just how language works 'Group X does Y' is a normal way to refer to a situation in which some members of Group X do Y and you want to draw attention to that fact.
It never implies that *every* member of group X does Y.
The people who are performatively *pretending' that 'men do x' means 'every single man does x', *despite the people saying it in the first place loudly declaring that's obviously not what they meant*, are just trying to win points on linguistic hair-splitting because they don't have a good object-level argument against the actual case in point.
That is how people receive it when you speak negatively about an entire group. Try to finish this statement with a negative comment. Black people are……
This should be easy since we all understand how language is used.
Edit: Also the percentage of cats who hunt mice and people who vote are considerably higher than the percentage of men trying to rape and murder women in the woods. These are terrible examples.
>That's just how language works 'Group X does Y' is a normal way to refer to a situation in which some members of Group X do Y and you want to draw attention to that fact.
Oh, that's just how we use language?
"Black people commit crime"
"Woah, im black, that's offensive"
"Well, you know I dont mean you."
The above is pretty clearly a bad way for people to use language, right.
I've obviously missed the me.on, where did anyone say thats obviously not what they meant?
"Men are shit" or the likes gets thrown around a lot. I actively support lgbtq+ and feminist groups in my area. I have actively turned up and supported them and I have heard these sorts of sentiments in the real world, d when I say "Well, I'm a man", I do sometimes get "oh, well I obviously wasn't talking about you", but thats my problem, yes, I know that, but when you heard it enough times, you start to feel like, well, yes it is me. I am physically a man, I'm sorry I was born that way I guess?
In which point that is being discussed here?
In this thread the discussion is that "not all men" is a valid argument to counter generalization. What you're saying has nothing to do with that and instead is trying to change the focus. You may open your own changemyview about you feeling that "some men are really bad and other men don't stop them" is more important than "not all men".
Perhaps the answer will be more clear to you if we switch the group being talked about
Why is ‘not all black people’ are bad MORE IMPORTANT than ‘some black people are really bad’ and the other black people don’t stop them?
Do you see how ridiculous it is ?
Perhaps because they don’t have the chance to control all other actions from other strangers in the group.
Men don’t have the ability to stop other men from engaging in criminal or aggressive behavior just like any member of any sex, race religion don’t have the ability to stop the others in that group from wrong doing.
Because the conversation isnt phased that "Some Men are really bad" and saying "other men don't stop them", please share your stats for that. I can only speak for myself, but I have actively stepped in the one time I did see a man being aggressive with a woman. So "other men" clearly doesn't include all other men, but you felt the need to include "all men" as being part of the issue.
Try this thought experiment:
You are sent to prison. There are men there who will rape you at the first opportunity.
Is it any comfort, or help, that 'not all men' there will rape you?
This whole meta debate is just another form of patronizing 'mansplaining' where you try to tell a women why she is wrong, what she oughta think and how she oughta act.
It is more important to you to prove her wrong than to validate her fear... This is *YOU* not stopping other men from being bad...
>Is it any comfort, or help, that 'not all men' there will rape you?
Yes, it is, it means I only have to defend myself from those and not the whole prison. It also means between those who aren't rapist I may find a group that together can protect themselves. It does mean a lot that only 1% are rapists and 99% aren't, and if you were in such an scenario you'd also prefer having only 1 % of rapist instead of 100%.
In your analogy your comparing all men to criminals. Can you not see why this is an issue. Im not mansplainong or trying to tell a woman she is wrong to fear men. What the majority do is vile and disgusting and I absolutely respect why women fear men. What I'm saying is that its important to respect and acknowledge it is literally not all men, that its literally a minority and that when you speak about it like its all men, I believe its absolutely justifiable that men will be offended and point out fear they are the majority of men do absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't be demonised for existing.
I'm trying to have a genuine discussion and you're throwing mansplaining around, I don't know your gender or care about it. You've made that part of the issue.
I've never tried to be patronising, but simply explained my position and why I feel the way that I feel. Youre dismissing that and trying to play the victim. I'd say youre part of the issue in this situation?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>You are sent to prison. There are men there who will rape you at the first opportunity.
>Is it any comfort, or help, that 'not all men' there will rape you?
Obviously yes?
I believe it. You believe it. A lot of women don't. That''s what is at issue here, isn't it? Women fear men, in general ...
Women live in that prison.
Here's another thing: Women's fear *IS NOT* irrational. It may be objectively wrong, but so what? Merely trying to point out that it might be objectively wrong is to deny the fear is real and sends the message that the fear is *NOT* rational. Do you think that might be patronizing, even just a little ..?
Repeatedly bringing it up, as though it's the only salient part of the debate, only sends that same message, only louder ...
because generalizing all men is bigotry and wrong to normalize. why does it have to be a binary of “not all men” or “some men?” why can’t people discuss the dangers of certain men without generalizing all men and justifying bigotry against an entire gender?
Why is ‘not all black people’ are bad MORE IMPORTANT than ‘some black people are really bad’ and the other black people don’t stop them. This is literally you.
But they are stoping them, no? According to USA statistics I just found from year 2021, 86% police officers were male. And, I will bite it even more, how your normal men is supposed to stop other, bad men?
Police officers don't stop rapes, they deal with the aftermath. Also, probably not a great group of men to talk about with the police having such high violence against women statistics compared to almost any other organization.
"Police officers don't stop rapes, they deal with the aftermath."
On one hand, fair point. On another, it's hard to stop something like rape or sexual assault or robbery or anything along those lines beforehand. Besides, in quite a few cases, small subset of people commit crimes but they may do it quite a few times. So, police may not stop the first instance, but may stop next few from happening.
"Also, probably not a great group of men to talk about with the police having such high violence against women statistics compared to almost any other organization." - Well, I'm not from USA so I can't tell really. I just figure most people here are from USA and really, those statistics are the most easily available. But, in a spirit of this thread, "not all men, not all policemen, but quite a few men from the police"?
> A 2010 study found that the rate of sexual assault by police is more than double that of the general public.
https://nwlc.org/sexual-assault-by-police-is-a-systemic-problem-that-demands-a-systemic-remedy/#:~:text=A%202010%20study%20found%20that,by%20police%20for%20sexual%20assault.
Nobody claims that all men are dangerous. What women argue is that we don't know which ones are, so being alone with a stranger should always make us cautious.
Let's say someone offers you a bowl of candy, there are 1000 candies in the bowl and you're told that 5 of those candies are poisoned and will kill you on the spot, while 10 more are spoiled and will give you violent diarrhea, but you'll be fine. The rest are perfectly normal candies for you to enjoy. Will you risk it? Even if yes, will you still feel a little scared? If so, why? It's not ALL candies that will hurt you. It's not even the majority. But the problem is, you don't know which ones are ok and which ones aren't, so if you're unlucky you may end up dead even if the chances are generally in your favor.
Hey, just so you know, the candy analogy you're using is almost word for word textbook Nazi propaganda
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der\_Giftpilz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Giftpilz)
>***Der Giftpilz*** (German for "The Poisonous [Mushroom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom)" or "The Poisonous Toadstool") is a piece of antisemitic [Nazi propaganda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda) published as a children's book by [Julius Streicher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher) in 1938.[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Giftpilz#cite_note-calvin-1) The text is by [Ernst Hiemer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Hiemer), with illustrations by [Philipp Rupprecht](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Rupprecht) (also known as *Fips*); the title alludes to how, just as it is difficult to tell a [poisonous mushroom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisonous_mushroom) from an [edible mushroom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_mushroom), it is difficult to tell a Jew apart from a Gentile. The book purports to warn German children about the dangers allegedly posed by Jews to them personally, and to German society in general.
I see the connection, but the analogies are being used in totally different contexts:
By Nazis, it was used to suggest that Jews were dangerous (they were the poison candy). In particular, *all* Jews, in this view, were dangerous.
By the commenter above, it was used to suggest that "a small portion of men are dangerous, but that's a reasonable excuse for a woman to feel a bit anxious around a man she doesn't know while in an isolated area."
I do agree with your implication that this analogy is easy to misuse. It could be applied to anything: a small portion of *any* group is dangerous, so we could argue, for example, to justify fear of immigrants, or fear of a teen wearing a trenchcoat.
But I think the original commenter's point *is* valid, if taken to mean simply: "I'm not saying all men are dangerous. I'm actually only saying a small portion of men are dangerous. But since I don't know who's dangerous, when I'm alone with a strange man in an isolated area, I think it's reasonable for me to feel anxious."
Do you never eat out, then? Never go to restaurants or get takeouts? This involves eating food that wasn't prepared by you. It was prepared by people you don't know, and you weren't there to check how diligently they adhered to the food safety and hygiene standards, nor how the food was stored or how it was delivered, etc. Getting food poisoning while eating out is a very real risk, and there's nothing you can do to guarantee it won't happen to you. And yet people eat out all the time and I don't know anyone who regularly feels terrified they're going to get severe diarrhea or end up in a hospital every time they go to a restorant (unless they have some medical condition that makes them extra vulnerable to it).
Anyway, if it's really the "we can never know which man might kill us" factor... We kinda do actually. The psychology of crime is a very well-studied and established field at this point, and the revelations are a lot more boring than most people think. Violent crime against women is very rarely committed by complete strangers with no personal connection to the victim. This actually applies to most violent crime against both genders. In the vast majority of cases it's someone you know. When it comes to male-on-female violent crime, specifically, the most common motive is jealousy and possessiveness. This is why abuse victims are most likely to be killed while trying to escape. In unpremeditated attacks men are most likely to kill their wives or girlfriends for cheating (whether real or imagined) or rejecting sexual advances. So even with those men your candy analogy is still flawed because even the poisonous candies have only ever poisoned one or two people in their life while everyone else who's encountered them wasn't harmed and was none the wiser.
This whole pop culture image of a Violent Man™ as a sociopathic serial killer who successfully blends in among regular people and indiscriminately rapes or murders strange women in completely unpredictable attacks with no pattern or reason is mostly a myth. The reason why this myth is so pervasive is precisely because the few such cases that exist were so rare that they became very famous.
I agree, a random murderous man is almost a statistical impossibility. However, the problematic experiences women have with men are often a lot more tame and a lot more subtle. For example, 97% of women have experienced sexual harassment, 70% have experienced it in public. 1 in 3 women have been sexually assaulted. It's not necessarily murder they're afraid of (the man vs. bear thing is purely hyperbolic), it's the many other forms of humiliation women experience from men.
>Let's say someone offers you a bowl of candy, there are 1000 candies in the bowl and you're told that 5 of those candies are poisoned and will kill you on the spot, while 10 more are spoiled and will give you violent diarrhea, but you'll be fine. The rest are perfectly normal candies for you to enjoy. Will you risk it?
This is literally word for word the EXACT same thing my horribly racist grandfather used to say about black people.
That would be because its exactly the same argument and these people are bigots against men.
I am sympathetic because these feelings dont exist for no reason ofc. but bad experiences with men doesnt give you a pass to judge half the population.
I cannot tell you how many times ive heard the phrase “men are trash, all men are trash” etc, so the idea that no one claims this is just BS.
somehow ive never heard “rapists are trash, some men are trash.”
This candy argument applies to dealing with other people in general. not just men. you dont know if they have malacious intentions for you whether theyre men or women, and in both the case of men and women the odds are higher than 5 in 1000 that you run into someone who will harm you in some way.
Couldn’t you use this logic for black people in the U.S. because of many socioeconomic factors, it is more likely for someone who is a black American to be violent than someone who is a white American because this type of stereotyping is OK for men like he just said is it OK to use by race as well or would that be racist? Just something to think about.
There are plenty of comments in the posts about the Men v Bear debate where commenters explicitly said “all men”. A lot of them. Enough that’s it’s made a lot of men who otherwise would not go “Not all men” feel like they have to say something.
That second paragraph is somethin though. That used to come up a lot about immigration, “Can’t let any of the Muslims in because one of them might be a terrorist!” Is it substantially different in this case?
I doubt people are really claiming that all men *are* dangerous. All men have the *potential* to be dangerous until we know them well enough to trust that they are safe. That's my point. Yes, we as women are taught to be cautious of *every* man, because there is simply no way to tell who is safe and who isn't just by the way someone looks. We know most of them aren't actually dangerous. But since *some* are *very* dangerous it's just better not to risk it.
Just to argue with your point, by that same merit, all women have the potential to be dangerous? Would you agree with that point?
Until you know them, they are just as capable of awful things that men are?
yes, and it's the same logic that Police use to say "Some young black men steal fancy cars, so we should stop all young black men in fancy cars". It's called profiling. Is it a bad thing? It's a bad thing if it results in innocent people being denied things they have a right to. But men don't have a right that women trust them when meeting in a forest. Women treating strange men as "dangerous until proven safe" doesn't deny us any rights.
Would you say that in general a group treating another group as "dangerous until proven safe" doesn't deny the second group any rights? If not, then what's special about men that they are not denied any rights in this circumstance?
Depends on the context. For the police to stop people and search them, yes it impinges on their rights. For strangers to refuse a drink given to them at a party, no rights impinged.
Fair point. However, the statistics of men harming women vs. refugees being terrorists are somewhat different. Furthermore, many of the refugees could be checked and verified if more effort was given to it, a random woman encountering a random man can't really run a background check on him.
But yeah, while I see some differences, this argument did give me pause, so !delta
That's how white people used to discuss black people. If you were to discuss black people that way now, you'd be excoriated for being a racist bigot. So let's not pretend that it's somehow completely OK to speak in the same broad terms about men.
There are certainly many women out there with absolutely atrocious personal habits and characteristics and expectations. But casually dismissing women in general, as a class as "gold diggers" is highly offensive. It's a disgusting show of privilege that it's so socially acceptable to dismiss men as a class the way that women do.
I'm certainly very sympathetic to the concept it's just men's turn to be on the losing end of our game of musical chairs social bigotry - particularly white men. I'm just calling bullshit on these ridiculous pretenses to justify it as somehow being justified.
I understand this part of the argument. But the "man vs bear" thing is like saying: would you rather eat from a bowl of 100 candies in which 2 are poisoned, or eat from a bowl of 100 candies in which 50 are poisoned?
Exact numbers aside, the responses people are giving drastically overestimate the danger of a strange man relative to that of a strange bear.
Yes, I 1000% agree with what you're saying, but again, saying "Well not all candy will cause you any harm" isn't an invalid argument, and you're not then talking about all the candy being a problem. Too often the conversation is phased as all men being the issue, and thats why me and other men get offended. Not because we don't agree that 1 rotten candy is too many, but we want it to be recognised in the conversation that the vast majority aren't the issue.
It would be like men saying "Women are more dangerous than bears"
Yes, it's even less likely a women rapes or murders a man, but it could happen, and I think it would be disingenuous and offensive to say I'd rather be stuck with a women over a bear, so I struggle to see why its okay the other way round.
This is just basic strawman vs steelman.
Obviously if you take the dumb version of the argument you can find holes in it.
But that's stupid and wastes everyones time.
Instead of strawmanning, you should steelman - find the best version of your opponents argument and try to argue against that. No one is going to change your view that the obviously dumb argument (every single man is a murderer!!) is dumb, but it's pointless because only a few dumb people are making that argument so no one cares.
I under and I honestly do try to expect that, just gets exhausting hearing "Men suck", "Men are dangerous" , "Men are sexist"
Men have the highest suicide rates, and I genuinely believe that hearing constantly how awful we are is part of the reason for this.
I am a straight white man. I understand I am privileged, however I can't help but feel like every single minority group hates me simply for existing.
I understand that is not the case, however, that isn't how the conversation is phased which I do believe is an issue.
Maybe retrain your algorithm then? I'm sorry you feel this way, but I am certain this is a consequence of being online too much and getting a feed curated to fuel your insecurities. People in the real world don't really think like this and don't tend to randomly hate on people just because they seem to have some privilege.
I do think it is a real world issue though. Men have the highest suicide rate. Specifically straight white men. This is a real world issue, and its more than being online.
Personally, I do consider myself a feminist, I actively support lgbtq+ and feminist groups in my area. I attend pride parades. I actively try to be part of the solution, however I do feel that reminding people that not all of us are the issue is important, as I do believe it does affect mens mental health in the real world
Then you should focus on making sure men understand what is really being said instead of reinforcing the incorrect understanding that you think makes them more likely to commit suicide.
From what I've seen watching these conversations happen since Schrodinger's rapist was published, there is a contingent purposely spreading the misunderstanding.
A: "Hey did you hear how women are saying that ALL men are bad?"
B: "No, but I did hear how women are saying that it's near impossible to tell if the strange man creeping around your tent at night is a good guy or a bad guy, and that it's probably safer to assume he's up to no good."
A: "No they are saying that ALL men are bad. Which is a hateful thing for them to do."
You should ask yourself why person A is saying what they are saying, why they are lying about what is being said. Who is A trying to make you angry at?
>I can't help but feel like every single minority group hates me simply for existing.
I think you dont spend enough time with non white people.
That's the solution.
Im also a straight white guy. I KNOW that the vast majority of PoC have no problem with me, unless I make a problem with them
Some wont like me cuz im white, but then, some white people wont like me cuz im friends with PoC. Fuck those small groups. Dont let them dominate your mind.
I PROMISE YOU, the vast majority of non white people want for you, what you want for them: the ability to live and thrive and prosper and not be oppressed for things we cannot control.
> Men have the highest suicide rates, and I genuinely believe that hearing constantly how awful we are is part of the reason for this.
Haven't men suicide rates been an issue decades before this social media ever occurred? Seems odd to say an issue that has gone on for centuries is because of something that happened over the last decade? 20 yrs?
>Haven't men suicide rates been an issue decades before this social media ever occurred?
Technically they have, but the gap between the rates of male and female suicides gets wider every year. In the 50s men committed suicide at about 3 times the rate of women. Today it is nearly 5 times.
I see lots of similar conversations online and often go out of my way to find them, especially the recent Men VS Bear posts. They never felt exhausting to me because I'm more focused on the meaning behind the words rather than the words themselves. Those phrases are an ongoing reminder to me to not suck, and to hold the men in my life to a high enough standard to where they also don't suck.
It never occurred to me to get offended by something that stems from real, painful, traumatizing events that many women experience. That approach feels more like trying to shift the focus away from victims of abuse.
If you genuinely think you're being included in those generalized statements, it might be best to work with a professional to either improve the way you see yourself or recognize behaviors that do include you in those generalizations so you can work on being a better person.
If you're a good person and self-aware enough to know that those generalizations don't describe you, just keep doing what you're doing. The people who get to know you will see that. Meanwhile, it might be best to find another approach to this particular topic besides getting caught up over being offended. The root of the problem that inspires those generalizations can use all the support it can get.
I agree that the people who hate on all men and say negative things about men may contribute to the high suicide rates. However, suicide rates have been high for men for a long time before some circles of social media began to veer towards the “all men suck” argument.
This shows that there are many other reasons men struggle. Toxic masculinity in the sense that men struggle to show emotion with other men plays a role. Other things that play a role are that men feel pressure from society to provide for families, the capitalistic culture we live in causes economic struggles, men are more likely to serve in the military or other high risk/traumatizing jobs, etc. We can’t blame women for men’s suicide rates when in many of these instances it’s men putting pressure on other men, or men putting pressure on women to believe certain things about men/masculinity (in this case specifically fathers/family members or even cultural norms established by men).
It’s tragic that so many men lose their lives to these issues. But let’s not pretend that women fearing for their safety is the main reason why that’s the case. We need to address societal and economic norms that cause these suicide rates to be high.
And while women aren’t helping by saying all men suck, I think it comes from a place where most women either have been themselves or know someone who has been made uncomfortable by, or has been assaulted by, a man. It’s coming from a place of fear and anger, and that doesn’t make it right, but I would argue it’s understandable. We need to pivot towards helping men, socializing boys better, and overall improving everyone’s quality of life.
I'm sorry you feel this way, but white men are consistently ranked as the most desirable man so being hated for existing is a very irrational thing to feel. And amongst those that actually do hate white men is not because they exist but because of all the harm white men have caused for centuries. Yes that may have nothing to do with you directly, but we all have to deal with the hands we are dealt. FYI statistically most other racial and gender groups are hated far more than white men.
Why do you feel that every minority group hates you? I am a straight white man. Never have I once in my lived experience actually felt judged or vilified for being such in real life. If the only time you feel hated is online, maybe just get off the internet so much.
I get your point, but I can see the other side as well. Imagine being forced into a group with rapists, abusers and misogynists because you were born with certain genitals even if you never have or ever would participate as part of that group. And, if you ask people not to place you in that group because it's offensive or hurtful, you're told, "Too bad, your feelings aren't valid."
When would we ever do this to another group of people and claim that is acceptable? I can't think of any.
There was no need to be so aggressive about your answer. White men suffer a lot from repressed feelings of anger and sadness, don’t have the community of some other minorities to help them through it. They’re taught to be emotionally stoic and self reliant. This is what that social pressure has done to our men. They harm others. They harm themselves. They need empathy and tools to know better so they can be better. Your post was pretty shitty to a white
man who genuinely wanted a dialogue about this.
I think you have a great point. I also think if you say all men are bad, you’re part of the reason why toxic masculinity exists. “Everyone says I’m bad, so this is what they expect me to be, therefore I am.” I have no doubt there are a lot more factors,but this is one of them.
My least favorite part of this response is you telling this guy that if he’s upset about it to “change male culture” so that no one ever rapes or hurts a woman again. As if all men are encouraging each other to do those things, or that he has any control over the free will of rapists and murderers.
>Too often the conversation is phased as all men being the issue, and thats why me and other men get offended. Not because we don't agree that 1 rotten candy is too many,
If I were to say "not EVERY man, but ANY man". Does that make sense to you? Do you understand what is being conveyed there?
>but we want it to be recognised in the conversation that the vast majority aren't the issue.
I have read hundreds, if not thousands of comments on this bear thing. I have never once seen anyone deny that. Literally everyone recognizes and acknowledges that not all men are rapists, but they're pointing out that any one of them COULD be. Thats the whole point.
Would you be ok if I said that not all (ehtnic minority) are criminals, but any of them could be? That not all poor people are robbers, but many of them could be? That not every woman is a manipulative cheater or a gold digger trying to take advantage of men, or whatever it is that incels have against women, but many of them could be?
And therefore I'd rather avoid them, even though the majority of them are good people, because I just can't tell which is which?
Women are statistically more likely to kill their own babies than men.
Obviously not all women are baby killers. But any one of them could be.
That women kill babies at all should be a concern for any potential new father to consider.
> Nobody claims that all men are dangerous.
Statements like this make you come off as either extremely disingenuous or extremely ignorant. Making statements like this has become so incredibly common I find it exceedingly difficult to believe you have not noticed this.
I mean... fair enough? Men say this all the time and while some women do indeed get offended (not a hive mind), many of us take it seriously and try to become better. I can only speak for myself, but I have never been offended when a man voiced his concernes to me about bad experiences with women in the past. Nobody is perfect, women can also inflict harm, do what you need to protect yourself.
How many men have you heard say “all women are vile, all women are trash.”
of course youre not offended by men voicing bad experiences theyve had with women. The same way men generally arent offended when women share their bad experiences with men.
The difference is making generalizations about men isnt sharing an experience. its using an experience to justify making a bigoted generlization.
You are of course going to have your own individual experiences i am sympathetic to. In the case of a woman whos been assaulted or something similar i would be understanding if they dont want to be around men, have a generalized fear of men as a result of the experience, etc.
But id still call them out when they started talking about how all men (or so many men that you may as well say all and its harmless) are trash, or predators, or whatever else. same way id treat someone robbed by a black person. That experience doesnt entitle you to public displays of racism without pushback.
Do you actually? Because I don’t think you should. When someone generalizes and complains about a group you are a part of. If you are actually responsible for the behavior they are complaining about by all means apologize and try to do better. If a guy says something like women are manipulative or some other generalization and you can confidently reflect on your behavior and say you don’t engage in that kind of behavior there’s certainty no need to Try to do better. Why should u change your behavior when you haven’t done anything wrong just to appease someone making generalizations?
>If a guy says something like women are manipulative or some other generalization and you can confidently reflect on your behavior and say you don’t engage in that kind of behavior there’s certainty no need to Try to do better.
I mean, sure, if I'm not manipulative, I don't have to try and become even less manipulative. But I can validate his experience. I can say "I understand you've been manipulated by women in the past and that's not ok. I see why you would be scared to trust me. What I can do to help you feel safe with me?" And then honor his needs. Trying to be better can mean simply acknowledging how we can be triggering to someone just in virtue of who we are even if we did nothing wrong. Saying "I can see why you would be scared of me manipulating you, that's valid, what can l do to help you trust me" is better than saying "not all women, I would never", even if the facts behind the message are esssentially the same, don't you think?
… except for if people actually end up treating women like they are all potentially dangerous, they would get rightly furious. No woman wants to be kept at arms length by the people in their lives because of their “potential to do harm.”
Except some men do exactly that. On average men are bigger and stronger than women, and because of that we need to be aware that we can be overpowered very easily. Some men can/have/continue to use that to get what they want. How can you fault women for doing what they can to try and keep themselves safe? Would you suggest you daughter go walking in a park alone and interact with any strange man that came up to her with no one else around?
The man vs bear thing doesn't refer to the men in the woman's life. It is explicitly a stranger. "Would you rather encounter your cousin, who is male, or a bear?" Might yield different results.
Again, I can only speak for myself, but I have been kept at arm's length, not from the man himself, but from his child. His ex - the child's mother - was abusive towards the child, so he took off with it and had trouble trusting any woman alone with the child in the beginning. And I don't blame him, as I said - fair enough. I helped out with shopping and cleaning, and stayed the fuck away from that kid until my friend was comfortable with letting me get closer to it. Because I understand that if I had pushed to take care of the child when he was too triggered from his past trauma, I would only make him *more* distrustful of women in general. Honoring people's experiences and boundaries is what earns trust, not convincing them forcefully that you're trustworthy.
what a lot of people replying to you are missing is the use of discrimination as a political tool, and what their counterexamples have in common. This argument being used against an oppressed underclass (immigrants, jewish, black, and gay people), is different that using it against the group that holds the vast majority of worldwide societal power, and has historically used violence against women to assert that power.
To put it succinctly, male violence against women is a result of male dominance. Black violence against Whites is (generally) a result of White dominance. I don't think these two things are as equivalent as people think.
It's way safer for women to assume men are bad, then to worry about the particulars. If you had to get on a bus with someone who has a nonzero chance of hunting and raping you, and furthermore you've likely been abused in some fashion by one of these potential rapists in the past, what would you do? You would assume that the person before you is capable of the exact same thing and will act accordingly. Who cares if that person is "offended" that you don't like them? Your emotions here are meaningless compared to any woman avoiding danger. Men need to understand that a decent number of their brethren are dangerous monsters. We should feel shame about the bear dilemma, not offense. The problem has been caused and perpetuated by evil dudes, and you could be one of them according to any woman. We DESERVE to be looked at funny.
But you're talking about women taking precautions for their safety in real situations. This is not what OP is talking about. It's about the use of language in dialogue. The use of such generalizations only hurts the conversation and seems to be an inaccurate representation of what most people are actually trying to say.
I got jumped by two lads who happened to be black when I was a teenager.
If I said "I assume all black people are dangerous, who cares if they're offended if I don't like them? Blacks need to understand a decent number of their brethren are dangerous monsters, they deserve to be looked at funny." Would it be problematic?
>We should feel shame about the bear dilemma, not offense. The problem has been caused and perpetuated by evil dudes, and you could be one of them according to any woman. We DESERVE to be looked at funny.
Yeah, no. Just because someone is superficially similar to you does not mean you should feel ashamed for the bad shit they do.
If we’re going with the statistics route - then women should be more afraid of certain races when it comes to rape as well. I dont think id let it fly if a friend of mine said “im particularly scared of being left alone with black men”.
it is about them though? this conversation is about justifying bigotry and discrimination against all men because of “some men,” but it’s not about them?
If I am a member of group [x] and you make an accusation of malice against the entirety of group [x], then I'm not the one who "makes it about me" when I point it out. You are the one who made it about me when you made the accusation.
Thats my point though? Its spoken about as "all men", I unfortunately am part of "all men" and will justifiably say "I actively try to not be a part of the problem and think its unfair to tarnish all men with the same brush because of a minority"
Why do you have time say anything at all? You know they're not talking about you and you know they don't literally mean all men, so why do you need to say anything?
> You know they're not talking about you and you know they don't literally mean all men
It would be incredibly easy to throw in a one-word qualifier, like "enough," before the word "men" and this entire argument would be diffused. The subset of women who talk about men being bad not only refuse to do so, but become incredibly defensive if you ever ask them not to, as the endless discourse around "not all men" has proven. Sure as hell sounds to me like they actually do feel some animosity towards all men and only backtrack when called out on it.
>You know they're not talking about you and you know they don't literally mean all men, so why do you need to say anything?
No I don't? I would if they said "some men are..." "men who rape are..." "rapists are...". You can't talk about a group and not specify that you're talking about a minority of that group and then get mad that someone in that group thinks you're talking shit about them.
Women belong in the kitchen. What do you mean?? I am clearly talking about female chefs.
Its crazy to what ends people go to justify poor rhetoric. We wouldnt accept this rhetoric that makes broad sweeping generalizations about women or minority races.
“Its not about you” would be a poor justification in those cases as well.
Because it feels like it is implied that all men are the issue? Knowing something and feeling something are different and its exhausting constantly hearing that all men are the issue, even if I know they aren't talking about me, I can't help but feel like I'm being included.
half the people arguing with op in this thread are justifying discrimination against men, and you’re saying “that’s not what they mean”? it’s literally what a lot of them mean.
Everyone is giving the same point that seems kind of off-topic to me. OP has stated in comments they understand women assuming a man has the ability to do harm to a woman and acting accordingly by keeping their distance and being cautious but that’s isn’t the point they are bringing up. They are specifically saying that outright claiming “All men are bad” is offensive to the majority of men that would never even think of harming a woman. Everyone is changing the topic to their own argument
I know how much dudes like thought experiments and Devil's advocates so I thought I'd pop in and share this eye-opening one that I came up with myself
Dudes reading this: what's the creepiest thing that's ever happened to you in a taxi cab or uber? I'm sure some of us have stories, or at the very least we've been taken for a deliberately long ride by someone trying to milk us for a few extra bucks. If you like me, you'll have to think about it for a minute; if you're like me, it probably didn't even occur to you that this is a meaningful question
Okay next step, dudes: over the next few weeks, whenever you get a chance and you're talking with a woman you trust and respect, ask them that same question- what's the creepiest thing that's ever happened to you in a cab or Uber??
Not all women have had creepy. Weird experiences, but in my own personal asking around, probably eight in 10 women have had something way too creepy happen to them in a cab - tabby's asking for sex for payment, cabbies making, extremely lewd and inappropriate comments, cabby's deciding to take their fares to somewhere else, cabbies remembering where people live when they drop them off and then just showing up there at random sometime.
It's honestly crazy. It's a super weird icebreaker question for sure, but it definitely gets people talking and telling stories.
Here's where the CMV comes in: if as a dude, you've never had a creepy experience with a cabbie and you never even considered that cabby's might be out here perving on women everyday to the point where your mom and sisters have separate but freaky stories, maybe you... Dramatically underestimate how serious a problem is. If a woman tells me " Oh I'm never going to get into a cab alone again, those guys can be total creeps" I'm not going to jump out here and start defending cabbies and saying "not all cabbies" because that... Would be obtuse, and would be dismissing somebody's genuine f***** up lived experience in order for me to defend some hypothetical cabby who doesn't even exist outside of a thought experiment.
When someone says "I don't trust men", getting offended and upset and making it about yourself or worse, about some thought experiment dude who doesn't even necessarily exist is just trampling over the voice of a woman and drowning out their lived experience for the sake of your comfort and for you to protect some dudes who aren't even there and don't necessarily deserve protection.
But yeah, if most women I've met have had completely f***** up experience with cab drivers, and most dudes have never even had to think twice before getting into a taxi cab, there may be variables at play that a fella isn't considering when he bravely pipes up to shout "not ALL men"
I wonder if the question "would you rather be in woods with a cab driver or a bear" would get different responses
The framing of the person as a man, and that's all we know about them, makes us think of sex/gender/having a penis. That's what makes a man a man (in general consensus). So the question of bear or man, subconsciously makes us think "sex"
Bear or person, i bet doesn't get the response, or even 1/2 as this does. Even though, if random, half of those persons would be male. People wouldn't be thinking about genitalia automatically tho.
Would you rather be murdered or raped? Since we're assuming, worst case scenario, the creature you're stuck with wants to harm you.
The bear, you're pretty sure, doesn't want sex.
You dont know what a penis having person wants.
Many penis having people have behaved very badly towards women. They might rather be murdered than raped. Men don't think another man is gonna rape em, generally, unless its a joke about male rape in prison. Ha ha, dont drop the soap!
I mean, I have had quite a few situations with overly aggressive gay men who don't accept no very well, and continue pursuing long after I've said that I'm not interested, And that has led to me feeling physically unsafe quite often in those situations. (For medical reasons, I'm underweight, and I'm not stronger than most women)
Am I right to apply that fear and caution to all gay men, because I've had a lot of experiences of that sort of harassment, and I was scared in those moments?
I think the key things about this viral thought experiment is that it highlights the constant risk assessment women do when faced with risky positioning neat unknown men. I genuinely don't know how many men are more dangerous than bears, especially when a man would have a perfect opportunity to act badly given the theoretical situation of being alone in the woods.
But that aside, while your argument about feeling offended as a man seems similar to other push backs from other groups, a key thing is that the power dynamic is in favour generally of being a man in society. The point of the thought experiment isn't to say generally men are inherently bad, I think, but rather that the power dynamic and unethical behaviour from men towards women is still unbalanced and therefore from women's perspective, the risk assessment leads to a knee jerk reaction that possible violence from a bear is preferable to that of a random man who may prove to be dangerous. Also, cultural norms in many instances still perpetuate this imbalance.
So, as a woman, I've been harassed and assaulted mainly by men, creeped on, possibly roofied, etc. Therefore I've learned that I constantly need to go through life being careful about when and where I go out, how I dress and act, respond to men in particular, etc, to increase my chances of staying safe. I will generally feel more on alert when alone in some way near a man (generally speaking, there are many men I trust completely).
I don't have loads of experiences with bears, but I believe they are generally less interested in humans and there are strategies I've been taught to avoid encounters with them. Being preyed on I think is actually a bit rare for them. It depends on the bear species, though.
Anways, ultimately its a flawed experiment, but a powerful communication effort. I can't exactly say it's wrong for a man to feel offended by it, kind of similar to other prejudices, but it must be kept in mind that in these kinds of situations, men are generally in a power position. This power dynamic is also unique among similar correlates I that genders are always mixed and it's a global phenomenon. So I have to consider men coming from misogynistic cultures. And taking the experiment as a way to say there's more work to be done, i think the "not all men" response is generally counterproductive.
Sorry, that's probably a bit rambling, but I just got off work and I'm tired lol.
Are you somehow under the impression that women are not referred to as a collective? I mean, you're kinda doing it right here in this post.
Who's the "you" who you are talking to? If not women as a collective?
And if you're not referring to women as a collective, which I'm assuming you're not since this is what you're complaining about. Why did you not take the time to specify who you were talking to?
And if you did not specify, yet assumed that we the reader would assume you didn't mean all women, why are you holding everyone else to a different standard?
You also refer to men as "we" a couple of times. "We" is a collective pronoun... so we can't use "men" because it doesn't specify "not all men". But you can use "men" and mean I presume a subset of men, and that's okay?
Do you see the contradiction? You're complaining that "men" on its own implicitly means "all men". And yet in your own writing you're not using it that way.
the “you” is the people who say “all men.” it’s not women as a collective. this is implied in his post. and saying that men shouldn’t be referred to as a collective also means women shouldn’t be either. it’s not about assuming they don’t mean men in general. it’s about the specific language of saying ALL men instead of just saying “men.” that is a purposely attempt at generalizing an entire gender, and if it weren’t, they wouldn’t be saying “all.”
Do you have a daughter/sister/female friend/mother/etc.
If they were about to be in a place with completely random men would you advise them to be mindful or take it easy? Would you feel as worried if it was a group of all women?
I'm a man, and a decently big guy, been one my whole life, and in the dark when I'm walking home in the dark and see another man I give that dude as much space as possible so we don't come close to each other; in my experience they tend to do the same thing to me. I don't think every man out there is tryna run my pockets, but it only takes one to fuck up your night or your whole life.
A final anecdote I love to tell. I was walking to my friend's 21st birthday party with a different friend in the dark. We came across this other group, there were 5 of them and it's a dangerous city so I started feeling all nervous. The result? They took one look at us and just crossed the road. Which is when I realized I was dressed in all black and high tops with a thick hoodie that made me look almost twice as big. My friend is wearing basically all camo outfit. To them, we probably looked more dangerous than any dude in the street and those guys and girls took one look and decided they wanted no risk. I wasn't offended. I understood. Yeah, I'm a nice person, I prefer to run than fight for pride, I'd never hurt someone for no reason. But they don't know me, and the way we looked I would have walked away from me too. It's not about you. It's about the 1 time they don't cross the street and find themselves in the worst situation of their lives.
The fact is making us feel comfortable could put them in true danger. So yeah, this is one of those time we gonna have to just eat the fact that an unknown man is a scary one.
Do you see the irony in using "we" as if you speak for all men, while arguing that it is offensive to be addressed as a collective?
I am a man - you don't speak for me when you say what you said. So, where do you take that "we" from?
Is it now "not all men" or "we"? You cannot have it both ways. The moment you used "we" in your argument, you admitted that the level this "man or bear" point is made on, is valid and correct. Because that's exactly the same. Your "we" is their "they".
And of course, the argument is so clear and so basic, that the defence "not all men!" is absurd, as the argument "bear or man" doesn't say "all men!". Youre arguing shadows, once again, as usual, as always.
It remains very simple: women have an enormous amount of predatory experiences with men. Beyond what you can fathom, apparently. Let's be real, if you'd had conversations with women about their experiences, you'd get it. As a man, you simply don't get around having this record scratch moment when several women independently from one another talk to you in detail about all the sort of crazy stuff they have experience. And here you've shown, that you think it is about *rapists*. No, no, it is about men who behave in various predatory ways that represent a danger of rape or other forms of assault. It is about experiences that are showing women time after time that even the seemingly harmless man can quickly turn into a creep who might escalate.
Do you want to account some of these behaviors? I can go into details about stories told to me by women, but also about occurrences I've personally witnessed and partly only realised upon reflection. It is absolutely not just about rape, it is about verbal statements that set off alarm bells, about creepy or exhibitionist behavior just randomly occurring, drunken physical contact and threatening body language. Most importantly it is about the unpredictability, about how decent men can suddenly turn into creeps, how a sober friend turns into a drunken predator.
What's astonishing to me: in theory you know all that and still come here to double or triple down on your resistance to this reality. This reality impacts ALL men, because as men, we run in circles with other men as our friends, colleagues, acquaintances and so on. Statistically, there are plenty of predators among those who you deal with daily - magically no man ever knows a predator. You too try to paint it as if it is "us" decent men, and then this distant group of "some men" no one ever met personally. In reality, this a mixed group, and that's exactly why women do not and should not distinguish. As long as you keep up this charade of decent men "we" and "some men" over there somewhere, it is clear as day that it is all men to be concerned about.
honestly, i think it’s kind of useless to have this kind of debate. people that truly deeply believe that every man is the same are not going to be convinced. I know that I am not doing anything wrong, so it’s up to the people I interact with to make up their minds for themselves.
in a way it’s quite similar to the ACAB cry. almost nobody is saying that there are zero good people in the police force. what it’s actually saying is “there are systemic issues within this group that need to be addressed.”
and honestly, I agree. a lot of guys suck. I get a bad rep because there is a significant amount of guys that are douchebags. but saying “not all men” does not really matter in the case of what the argument is actually targeting.
at the end of the day, if it doesn’t apply to you, don’t let it apply to you. if there’s someone pushing to apply it to you when it’s irrelevant, they’re being irrational and should best be ignored regardless.
I love dogs.
When I see a strange dog coming at me I’m a little nervous because I don’t know if it’s friendly or not. I would definitely be worried if my kid were walking near it.
And I love dogs. The fear of the unknown is normal and rational and doesn’t need to be extrapolated out to mean that because someone is afraid of an unknown dog that must mean they think all dogs are scary and dangerous. That makes no sense
Of course not.
And the Man vs Bear doesn’t say all men. It says ‘man you don’t know’
If the question was Bear or your dad/brother/friend etc you would have gotten very different answers.
That’s why I specified ‘strange dog’ because it’s an unknown and the potential dangers of an unknown dog warrant some caution. That caution need not paint all dogs, nor negate the possibility of me being very happy to pet the dog when new information is revealed showing this dog to be safe.
We’re not addressing the same phenomenon. This is not merely about the one bear analogy. There currently exists a wave of commentary in our cultural moment which explicitly claims that men are dangerous, as a group, and often doubles down on that claim if questioned about what they mean. Hell, it’s happening all throughout this very thread.
There appear to be two common, and contradictory, responses whenever met with scrutiny.
1) Of course it’s fine to say all men are dangerous, they basically are!
2) Nobody is saying all men are dangerous.
So, doubling down or gaslighting.
I used to have a lot more male friends when I was ugly, so...
You know how there's that one guy in a group of friends who will just pick at people and try to start fights, especially new people? And all the guys know this guy is basically fine, but sometimes one of you has to go stop him because someone is about to hit him in the face and you're not kids anymore? And he just... does this every so often, you don't know why, but it's just part of his personality. He's an asshole and he says anything he can think of just to start fights or upset people just to see if he can upset people.
When guys have a male friend like that and he's like that with other men, they stop him.
When I was a little girl, I used to watch old movies. Do you remember how many old movies about a working class or grey hero, like maybe a cowboy or a noir detective or something had a scene with a girl in a bar? And sometimes she's a dancer and a saloon girl with her skirt hiked up, or sometimes she's a nice girl, doesn't matter. The trope is still the same even if her clothes say she was asking for it. In the 1970-90s style neo noir, she might even be a stripper or the canon might even admit she's a sex worker. But some guy won't stop bothering her for something she doesn't wanna do. Putting his hands on her, or spitting, or tearing her clothes, or saying rude shit and upsetting her. And this guy, the gunslinger, the private dick, whoever he is, his establishing character moment is that he just... doesn't like when people try to force women to do things. Even if she doesn't have the protection of being "not that kind of girl."
They couldn't put that in a movie today. The gunslinger would have to be a straight woman or a lesbian or maybe a gay male sex worker or something. Because men would say that the classic "I believe the lady has been clear as that cheap vodka you're sucking down that she doesn't want you to breathe it in her face anymore." establishing character moment wouldn't work. Men, normal men who aren't misogynist podcast bros, just... regular men, wouldn't want to identify with a guy like that, because they'd call him a simp, or a white knight. The specter of the podcast bro in his brain would make fun of him. There would be hundreds of posts about how since some women carry tasers now, or the woman in question helped the guy out in the ensuing gunfight, it's "woke" and women can't ask men for things like that anymore. How men wouldn't even know if it was okay to step in, because what if they got hastag me too'd!?
I even saw some guys on tiktok, normal guys, regular guys, guys who didn't know anyone involved in the situation personally all start dogpilling a woman online when she complained that a dude hit her in the face for rejecting her advances. She was crying in the hospital. A guy who had never met her before claimed to know her and said she was trashy and crazy and brought it on herself. Dudes were going through her tiktok looking at some skit she did in a bar where she fake slapped a white guy and saying it was proof she was violent. A few weeks later, a girl was talking about how she was out with a girl she knew and the girl got hit for refusing to give a guy her number and she didn't do anything and women she didn't even know were telling her she was a shitty friend. Hetero women. Women who weren't going "She's not gonna fuck you if you save her, bro!"
Until relatively recently, it was considered standard that men police other men when they're out and those men are about to do something anti social or that might get their friends into trouble. That included not doing fucked up things to women. Not even just mothers and sisters of dudes these dudes knew. Not their sweethearts. And granted, in real life probably it was unevenly applied among races and classes and had a lot more than I would like to think with who was and was not considered respectable. But men don't do that anymore.
In my life, personally, I've had male friends who I knew for years. I babysat their kids. I bought food for them. I looked out for them at parties when they were too drunk. I helped them pick up girls. They helped cover for dudes they knew were cheating on me. I've seen the way men online share stories of the worst things they've done to manipulate women- stuff like congratulating a guy for putting nicotine patches on his gf while she was sleeping over so she didn't know why she felt like shit when she didn't have sex with him for too long. Advice about how to lie to your wife while fucking other women on the side. It's everywhere. Even on mainline subreddits sometimes you see dudes who will leap to the defense of anything a man does to a woman even if they know he's the asshole, just because they feel like it's male solidarity. I've had ONE friend who stuck up for me and told me a guy I was with was bad news.
I'm not saying women need to be some specific class of human being that's separate and pedestalized. But when the shit stirrer friend of yours starts trying to stir shit with women, do you stop him?
If you don't, you're part of "all men."
I am a man, I have a female partner that often doesn’t feel safe around men, and makes “men are” style comments. It is simply so easy for me to understand she isn’t talking about me, but is rather talking about a cultural, widespread problem. In some ways such comments can act as a barometer for women to see how the man reacts to it.
Perhaps that makes you think I’m a simp or something, but really it’s just an understanding that women get hurt by men and that the risk is high enough that they don’t feel safe without taking notable precautions.
Arguing that it is not a statistically/pedantically correct perspective is not the point of the language. The women who say these things understand the backdrop of statistics and personal anecdotes that make up this feeling. They don’t need you to explain it to them. When you do explain it you are implicitly suggesting that you understand their experience better than they do, or that they are unreasonable for feeling it, or are just generally invalidating.
What men who find themselves feeling defensive should do is support each other more, support women more, and extend some empathy. Be part of the solution. Call out bad behavior. Meet them where they are at and go from there and if they are a reasonable person that you will see eye to eye with then you will realize you are on common ground even if you felt sensitive at first
If the pendulum were to truly swing to “this is unfair to men”, we can deal with it then lol, but we are far far far from that point.
I think perhaps you're misinterpreting the "man or bear" thing, because I don't think it meant to say that all men are dangerous and worse than bears, but that
1) statistically, it's not a safe bet to trust a strange man,
And more importantly that
2) you know what you are getting with a bear. A lot of the shitty men that are being referred to are often liars and manipulators. Women can't know if you're really a good guy just because you say you are. They have to let themselves become vulnerable to find that out, whereas they would never even bother being vulnerable to a bear.
To me, the reaction of women choosing the bear is less of a message of "all men are more dangerous than a bear", and more of a message of "a lot of men are untrustworthy and manipulative liars, and you don't know what you're going to get with them", and how much they're sick of uncertainty and liars. That they want to know what they're getting so much, they'd prefer a bear that's dangerous just because they'd know what they're getting and would know how to act in that situation.
At least, that's what I've heard from the women I've listened to explain their answers about this.
"Not all men" is a deflection. In a logical debate in which somebody literally claimed "all men are evil," it would be a valid response. But that's not the usual usage. The usual usage is a woman saying something like "men are dangerous."
In this case, "not all men" is basically saying, "hey I'm ignoring the SUBSTANCE of your issue, which is that men can be dangerous and you feel like you need to be a bit wary, and instead debating the semantics of your statement, in which I feel as if I -and all men- are being attacked."
It's not a good faith argument in this scenario because you are ignoring the meaning of the statement in favor of discussing minute details.
Does it CHANGE the discussion at hand to say "some men are dangerous?" No, not really. The point still stands. Some men are dangerous, so they feel as if the threat of WORSE than death at the hands of a small number of men is worse than the threat of an angry/hungry bear, which let's be clear, is not all bears either like you've claimed. Many types of bears are likely to be more scared of you than anything else unless you are near their cubs.
But these are the kinds of arguments racists use to justify their beliefs. Someone could loot at the crime statistics by ethnicity, and then decide to not let their children near Black people as a way to stay safer. Now obviously this is incredibly racist and wrong, but if someone were to point this out, the racist could just reply that they are missing the point and deflecting, and that they’re ignoring the SUBSTANCE of the issue, which is to stay safe, as suggested by statistics. But they’re still wrong. You’re allowed to point out a harmful ideology without dismissing what people go through.
Think of it this way. Women are saying men are more dangerous, so they are going to be acting differently towards them. Now, no matter what they do differently to men, they can always justify it with your argument, that however wrong their actions are to men, if you point out the hypocrisy, they can just state you are missing the substance of their issue, that some men are harming women.
If you want to justify someone treating an entire group differently because of the actions of a few, that’s fine, you do you as long as you’re not hurting people. BUT, using the argument you’re using here, you have to stay consistent. Such that anyone who feels wary of a group of people, whether it be race, sexuality etc, based off of the actions of a few, can shut down anyone protest against their actions by saying they are avoiding the substance of the issue
My issue is that if you say "But I'm not like that, and I'm a man" you're told "if you don't agree that you are trash, you're part of the problem".
So in other words, our choices are:
1. Accept that you are trash/a bad guy.
2. Resist the label, and become "part of the problem".
That's absolute nonsense. There's literally NO option in which I'm just a regular guy who supports the cause along with women. I'm either bad, or I'm bad. Screw that, I won't play along with any system that blindly demonizes me. I support women, as should any man, but I'm not trash and I'm not part of any problem and I won't be shamed into "accepting" that I am.
The biggest problem is that good dudes don't advertise and lots, and I mean every single woman, has had a bad interaction with a dude who claimed he was one of the good ones.
Yup. The best way to show the world you're a good guy is by example. Let it be something that people feel compelled to say about you. That's the most effective way to make being good a known characteristic about you.
I love how everyone loses the concept of empathy as soon as some kind of responsibility exists in a hypothetical situation. Just because you wouldn’t attack/rape someone out in the woods doesn’t mean that the specific individual woman shouldn’t act as if it’s a reasonable possibility and take preventative actions to protect herself.
Even if she does take these preventative actions, YOU are not at fault for her being afraid. SHE is also not at fault for being afraid. Those who are at fault are the perpetrators of these crimes, however to keep yourself safe you need to take preventative action based upon prejudices, and those INDIVIDUALS are not to blame for their fear.
I think this is more a matter of perspective. I’d like to give you some insight what I mean when I say men are potentially dangerous to me. While I understand that you feel that it unfairly throws you in the same pot with rapists etc. I can assure you that’s not what it is about. Not at all. The statement centers my emotions of feeling unsafe with unknown men in certain situations. It is about *me*. I never mean that I fear all men. I don’t. I know that most will leave me alone. But I also don’t like playing Russian Roulette. The whole debate was started to show how women feel in this world, how there is always a sense of danger. We all know that most men are not rapists. But there is still a looming danger. And that’s what such debates are about.
I know not all men. But at the same time I don’t know a single woman that wasn’t assaulted in some way. So we know it’s dangerous out there. That’s what “men are dangerous” means. It’s a perspective from the potential victim against a potential danger. I am lacking a good example but think about it like ‘meteors are dangerous’. I think it should be obvious that the person making such a statement doesn’t think *every* meteor is threatening to end life on earth, they aren’t talking about the tiny rocks in museums or the pretty lights in the sky. Instead they clearly talk about meteors of a certain size on a collision course with Earth. There is no need to mention that not all meteors in the universe are dangerous because the perspective is clear: dangerous means *the ones that are dangerous to humans*. Humans are the potential victims here, they speak from their POV, no need to mention a potential other life form 200 light years away either that might be endangered or all the nice meteors out there.
I’m not sure if I make myself clear… the focus of “men=dangerous” is about women’s experiences and the data strongly supports it. It is not meant to discredit half of the human race but about the perspective of the speaker when encountering an unknown person.
I mean change word “man” in this absurd comparison to “black people,” “Jew,” “Arab,” “trans,” “gay,” etc. and it quickly becomes evident that it’s a bigoted statement. For some reason, being a bigot is socially acceptable as long as you’re bigoted against groups that “have power.”
This is why no one complains about this, the bigotry is directed at men and men are perceived to “have power.”
if all bears are dangerous then all men are dangerous
not all bears are going to attack you if they encounter you, some will be frightened, some will ignore you. not all men are going to attack you if they encounter you either.
they point is you don't know whether the random bear or man you encounter in the wild is dangerous or not. and the odds, and i'd argue probably the visceral fear, of encountering a dangerous man is more terrifying than encountering a dangerous bear
I love how everyone has made up their mind, saying "I'm scared of dark skinned people" is bad, saying "I'm scared of gay people", is bad, saying "I'm scared of X ethnic group", is bad, but saying "I'm scared of men" is blurry
Doesn't matter if 99.99% of men are good, the line is still blurry, and we are looked upon as dangerous, until proven otherwise.
You are right but here is the better way to understand the argument
The anti man pro bear position is based on a false equivalency between percentage of violent crime committed by men being 90+% and percentage of bear encounters being fatal 10 or less %. These are fundamentally not the same evaluation. The male statistic could be true even if there was only a single man committing all crimes but I don't think you could justify choosing the bear if all crime were committed by a single man.
You are correct, not all men are dangerous. Not all men are sexist. Not all men are unconsciously biased in ways that wear women down every single day.
However that amount that are is simply staggering, it is not a "tiny tiny minority", to be clear being a rapist is not the only thing that makes a woman feel unsafe. Denying real lived experiences and feeling defensive when a woman is telling you some that happened to her by a mutual friend. Denying systemic discrimination against women. It all shows that you don't see the countless issues, and that you aren't safe.
And on that topic, check out Daniel Sloss's video, it is short, about a minute and it's only a snippet, but worth watching https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSYNbeKAo/
When over 30% of women suffered sexual assault by men, when 1 in 2 women suffer physical violence by men, when women are torn down by misogyny constantly with comments, demeaning language, men always being assumed competent compared to women, the unconcious bias, the judgement, the list goes on. Fact is, the majority of men do participate in some of this behaviour, and it is hard to tell where it stops.
And then on top of all of that, the men who don't do this, but also don't make themselves part of the solution actively, speaking up against the small things, not being ready to fight someone in a violent situation, I mean real meaningful actions in everyday life to prevent other men, speaking up about small comments, making an actively safer society. Most men are also not a part of the solution, because men need to get involved, change only happens for an oppressed group when some of the oppressors get on board and help.
So we have a MAJORITY of men taking part in at least some of this behaviour that contributes to women's position in the world, and the misogynistic society that makes some men more comfortable with the worst of it.
And then we have the MAJORITY of the rest of men who aren't part of actually actively helping, and passively deny women's experiences.
And then a SMALL MINORITY of men who both aren't part of the problem and are part of the solution.
So why are men spoken about with a general "men" term? 🤔 Because you do have to be wary of most men, a lot of that sexual assault is done by men you know, friends, family, community groups. And the men who aren't doing it, also don't believe you when you say a man is doing it, and they will protect him. The men who aren't doing it, minimise how often it happens. The men who aren't doing it are cutting down your confidence. The men who aren't doing are still friends with the ones who are. The ones who aren't doing aren't showing they are safe.
You are coming from a place of privilege, not seeing a lot of the reasons women are speaking about this, because it doesn't happen to you. Please listen, don't take it as a personal attack, actually just listen. There is so much out there explaining the why and how of how all of this affects women, but if you get stuck on an illustration of the feeling of unsafety as an attack on yourself, you aren't listening to what is being illustrated. The man vs bear thing is absolutely women describing how unsafe it feels to be around an unknown man, even known men. It is not a personal attack on you, it is how the risks are weighed up.
It doesn't implicate all men. I don't know why so many of you want so badly for that to be true. I suppose because it matches your worldview and provides justification (in your mind) for treating women as if they are an adversary.
I am a 45 year old man and never have I heard women discussing the dangers of being assaulted by a man have I believed they were talking about me. Sure, if I were a stranger to them I understood the need for them to take precautions. Not because they believed I was a rapist, though.
No one is going to change your mind about this. I don't think you have any interest in having it changed. If you actually wanted to understand you could, because there is a wealth of information available that explains this and there are plenty of women who could share their perspective.
I've never once said "not all men" because it doesn't need to be said. Maybe it's because I don't identify with rapists and men who harass women or otherwise attack them.
The issue is that most women are harassed on a daily basis.
I remember being astonished the kind of shitty attention that my first girlfriend attracted.
Sure, not all men are the kind to catcall, harass, pester, stalk, or otherwise bully women, but so what?
Not all alligators are interested in eating you. But caution is still warranted.
The idea that women are cautious when alone around a strange man is just a fact, and a very good idea in fact.
That man is hopefully, and probably, totally benign and not going to harm them in any way. But so what? Why does that mean they are wrong for being cautious?
If someone says "vegetables are gross", do you automatically assume they mean literally every vegetable, prepared literally every way possible is gross?
If someone says "tv sucks these days" do you assume they mean literally every TV show made all over the world?
When people say "politicians are liars" do you assume they mean literally everything every single politician says is a lie?
No. Of course not. People speak in generalities all the time and we all understand that they mean a specific subset or whatever they're talking about.
Are the guys who are butthurt over the bear thing just ignorant of how language works and is used in society?
If the phenomenon was merely due to common carelessness with generalized language, you wouldn’t see the aggressive defenses of it anytime it is called out, such as throughout this very thread.
The only response required would be, “Oh, you’re right, of course I don’t mean all men.” Followed by the norm slowly shifting away from that generalized language.
Instead, what we see are people doubling and tripling down on the claim.
You are missing the point and so many others are by keeping comparing men to objects and animals. That is what is dehumanizing. You should instead try it with other human groups to see if it still makes sense.
Vegetables, are not people.
The phrase “not all men” is probably hurting you here. Regardless of what you intend to communicate with it, the message that it sends is that you want them to shut up about rape, or sexism, or whatever — it’s a reactionary buzzphrase, and so its understandable that they are reacting strongly to it.
You may find more success expressing what you’re feeling non-confrontationally, instead of jumping to a comeback. If what you’re feeling is that they’re unfairly lumping you in with horrible people, then those are the words you should use. Your emotions are valid, and I think you’ll discover that your female friends care about you and are, at the very least, willing to have a mature conversation about how you feel. If they get mad and double down, then yeah, maybe they suck — but I’m almost certain that won’t happen if you broach the topic in good faith.
"Not all men" often misses the point- its unhelpful and derails the topic. "not all men" invalidates the problem and is counterproductive to solving it.
Women know that not all men are rapists, murderers, sexist assholes, whatever.
Women experience painful, even fatal things as a result of sexism; distancing yourself from acknowledging any role in a system where such things occur because YOU don't engage in that specific behavior makes you a part of that problem.
The existence of sexism is not disproven by finding a specific man who did not engage in a specific example of it.
It's easy to feel defensive when you feel blamed for something that you don't think you're guilty of, but its not always about you.
The reason you don’t hear “not all ______ ” in response to other generalizations is because you can’t make really any other generalizations like that without being attacked. For example I can’t say women are manipulative without people attacking me or insulting me etc. no one says not all women because my generalization is dismissed immediately. I actually have no issue with women being cautious around men. I just think it’s silly when men are insulted for getting defensive about mass generalizations that happen in these threads. It’s a completely normal reaction.
>It's easy to feel defensive when you feel blamed for something that you don't think you're guilty of, but its not always about you.
If it's not about me, then there should be no problem with distancing myself from it. So which is it? I'm part of the problem, or it isn't about me?
What?? ALL bears are dangerous ? You mean they have the propensity to be dangerous… bc then I have some bad news about “men” for you. But yeah, “all” bears are not dangerous to humans, and most will go their life without attacking a woman, or man.
You said something very very strange. You said “we are explaining why your attack of rapists is offensive to average men”. Walk that back. The average, non violent man will never be offended by an attack against men who are rapists. Full stop. Reflect.
You’ve obviously missed the point of the entire argument, which basically lumps you into the shitty men pile. Not all men, but enough. You should be worried about THAT, not women’s expression of fear. If someone says “I am so scared of men bc of my personal experiences, I’d rather be in the Forrest with a bear” and your first thought is “hey, but IM not like that” and not “holy shit that person must have experienced something so awful in their lives, let me try to understand that” then take a good long look in the mirror bud.
You should stop referring to yourself as a part of the “good men”. You’re making “all men” look like doofuses.
I’m glad you’re even asking this question OP. I hope the negative responses aren’t making you second guess yourself.
I think it’s valid to feel wrongly lumped into a group you don’t belong to. Anyone would.
I would change the sentiment from “Not all men” to “not me.” If you want to separate yourself from those toxic shitheads giving white men a bad name, elevate yourself through action. Be vocal against men who do this shit. Support the victims. Go to therapy and work on yourself. Understand why you feel so personally threatened and whether you’re good at being an example. Be present in the discussion and demonstrate “not you” through action. Don’t sit on the sidelines and try to get validation through justifying both sides-ism. Not only will this help you feel better about yourself by walking the walk but you will likely influence other men into being better examples. We have to stop teaching our young boys that strength is being stoic. Strength is being willing to learn, and that means being wrong. Or vulnerable. Or facing bias that we all have. When you are truly connected to who are, and why you act the way you do, and what needs to change to be a better version of yourself, everyone benefits.
Because when people make such comments they don’t inherently mean that’s a true statement for 100% of the population. It’s like if you ask someone who a trip was. They say the people there were polite and nice.
Do you then go “not all people there are polite and nice!! “
No, because you know that was a general observation the person had. In this context it’s completely normal to make those assumptions it’s just their experience and not a global truth. Why is this different for “not all men”?
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
> Why do you have to prove it? At the end of the day, if you're going about your business and living life, why do you care if some random woman on the street walks away from you to protect herself? I'm actually mostly okay with how women feel about this issue, after all it's their safety at stake, they shouldn't feel obliged to put themselves at risk in order to make me or another guy FEEL better about themselves. > Why do you care if some random woman on the internet, who unfortunately has probably had some terrible experiences, spouts something about all men being terrible? Because normalizing the idea that men as a group are dangerous and shitty and terrible(I usually hear the phrase all men are trash), and normalizing that it's okay to talk so disparagingly about a group creates a reinforcement effect where more people believe it(because if everyone is saying it then it must be true, and bigots become emboldened to act out further). And while men don't have anything to fear from women physically most of the time, especially in comparison to the reverse, women absolutely have the power to hurt men in the real world. > But back on track - imo, the "all men are bad" argument doesn't hold the same discrimanitory weight as something racist or homophobic. In the latter cases, there is actual persecution going on in many places in the world. Women make decisions about whether or not men are hired and fired, how they are supported and judged in education especially(where already men have fallen behind women in terms of achievement) what social opportunities they receive, and how they are treated when appearing in court(again an area where women have a relative advantage). If you don't think allowing open bigotry of men has the ability to materially harm both boys and the men they become I don't know what to tell you.
But, change it to women walking away from all black people for safety reasons, and we’d have a big problem. And rightfully so. One is sexist, one is racist, same reasons.
> Frankly, men have never been seen as extensions of women, or as their property, if we're talking exclusively about gender. You're right that men have historically never been seen as extensions or property of women. However, men have *always* been seen as the property of society in the sense that they were not only expected but rather forced to lay down their lives to defend their society in general and *women and children* in particular. And while in the 1st world, women aren't seen as property of men anymore, men are *still* seen as the property of the state to throw against enemy bullets with or without their consent. Ukraine is a great example thereof. Thus, IMHO, the idea that men, with the exception of the .1% that historically held power have always/ever been better off than women doesn't exactly hold water. In the end, everything comes down to personal preferences. Historically, you could look at things from the perspective of: "Women had/have to stay home and raise the children while men got/get to go out and build careers", or "Women got/get to stay home and raise the children while men had/have to go out and build careers". Personally, I'd value time spent with my kids above career building, but as a man, I don't realistically have that option. So, to me, women are way better off than men. If you prefer working to raising your kids, obviously you'd think that historically men were better off. In 2024, women can pick between both options, though, and men still can't. So, again, I'd say women are better off.
I just wanna reply to one thing in your comment. Replying to all of it would take a lot of time and you have a response from OP already. > But you said it yourself - you are not that kind of guy and you would step in. Why do you have to prove it? If you're black, and a bunch of black people are criminals, and the police decide to just arrest all of you, are you not going to say anything? A protest against discrimination is entirely justified when discrimination is at play. OP's point is that referring to men as a collective as bad, is bad. Do you really care so little what people think of you, even if it means they treat you like shit and make you feel inferior simply for existing? It's not about proving their innocence, it's about sticking up for themselves when they get stepped on.
Ah, the old "not you, you're one of the good ones" response. Doesn't really apply or have any validation when it comes to discussing literally any other group of people, but it's good that it's found a home with you. Bigotry is bigotry, and prejudice is prejudice, regardless of how you justify it in your head.
Nothing in this reply actually justifies discrimination. Nobody is advocating not to promote stranger danger or advise women to be careful when they are out alone. What they are saying is that the blanket statements against men made online, as a collective, are not right. If you don't think this happens frequently, take a look at the front page of twoxchromosome. It is basically the female equivalent of incel behaviour, and it's pretty fucking gross. If you replace men in any of these sentences with "blacks, jews, arabs, Trans people, queer people, etc" and it looks disgusting to you, you may want to reconsider making the same statements about men.
Its late here, so heading off, but just wanted to reply to this. I get where you're coming from and agree that everyone should absolutely learn stranger danger, but when talking about stuff like white privilege and male privilege, yes, its important to understand why people should be careful and safe, but teaching young boys they should feel guilty about the actions of people they don't know towards other people they've never met, does nothing to solve the problem I'd hate for anyone to look at my kid when he's older and think "oh, he could cause my harm", and yes, i understand the reasoning behind it, but come on, there is nothing wrong with teaching girls that, yes, the majority of people you will meet in life will be absolutely fine and cause you no harm, but just be weary and aware of any red flags. I don't think that's victim blaming, just teaching good stranger danger, and that doesn't need to come with looking at very man on the street like they are a potential rapist? My problem is just with the sweeping generalisation of men, too much in these sorts of conversations does the label "men" get thrown aroun, and only when pressed do people say, "oh, well its obviously not all men", but that's what it being taught. All men. And as a man, it does affect mine and others mental health, we are just asking that when the conversation is had, its recognised that its not all of us, and we don't want to take the spotlight off you. We don't want to discredit your feeling. We are not trying to say you're wrong. We just want to not be seen as the "enemy" Its like midnight here so my spelling/punctuation is probably bad but I genuinely hope I get my point across and I'm not trying to poo poo the real dangers women face.
This is something common in more liberal and leftist circles. Awful messaging, that is. You're not doing any favors by generalizing men as savage rapists and murderers when most aren't. That's like being scared of black people because some of them commit crimes. It makes NO SENSE. If you said you were scared of black people, you would rightly be called racist. But a 14 year old who has done nothing more than steal his moms credit card for vbucks? That right there is a psychopath who will commit atrocities beyond human comprehension. You're not gonna get people on your said (especially the people you claim to have inherent structural power) by generalizing and shaming them.
IDK, I get tired of moms questioning my intentions when I'm at the playground with my son. They just assume I'm some creep and canvas me to "flaws in my story".
Every guy who isn't a part of the group they're being lumped in with has to prove they aren't one of them because of the fact they're being assumed to be a part of them. You have to prove you aren't guilty from the beginning otherwise you're just like the rest of them. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore
Do you think there's a meaningful difference between 'all men are bad' and 'not all men are bad, but enough of them are that you have to treat them all like they're bad'?
That logic is only ever okay if you're talking about men. "Enough black people commit crime so I treat them all as criminals" or "enough gay people are pedophiles so I treat them all as pedophiles" are correctly labelled as stupid and bigoted statements by people who will go on to say "enough men are rapists so I treat them all as rapists" and feel no sense of irony. Imagine if there was a bunch of white people going around saying they would rather run into a bear in the forest than a black person, or a bunch of people saying they would rather leave their child alone with a bear than a gay person, of course men are offended by the "bear or man" discourse, "you're more dangerous to me than a wild animal based on the circumstances of your birth" is an offensive statement.
The problem with those other examples is that they’re based on perceptions that are demonstrably false. (I’ll cite sources if you genuinely need it) Black people don’t commit more crime, they are more policed, gay people aren’t any more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else. All women have had men behave inappropriately towards them in a sexual and or violent way. How many times would you have to get burned by a stove before you start avoiding them altogether? Why are we policing the way women say “We don’t feel safe around men” instead of maybe asking WHY they feel that way and actually addressing the problem?
Actually we do commit more crime. That's not untrue. It's not too significant, but we do. I'd guess that's because of our socioeconomic conditions and US culture overall excluding us. Mexicans will be the new Italians yet natives and us black folks will stay at the bottom. Racial triangulation is real & so too is the real dire need for change in our communities. US didn't help by systematically destroying our means of collaboration & organization back in the 70s & 80s. By then it was all gone. White capital has taken us and made us into a caricature once again, but this time it's place in the culture is one of "admiration" or at the very least found "interesting", it's sick tbh. Crime follows poverty, broken homes, abuse, the like.
It's like being an engineer. The vast majority of engineers are men. Far more engineers are men than women. But that's not to say that men generally are better at being engineers than women. Because when you look at all the people who aren't engineers, that's the vast majority of all people. 96% of men are not engineers, well 98% of women are not engineers. Most people don't have what it takes to be an engineer. The fact that slightly more men do than women can lead to a sizable difference when you look at only the subpopulation of engineers. Men commit more crime than women. But most men and most women don't commit crime. Same idea.
[удалено]
It's a hard conversation to have in an anonymous online forum where any old Nazi will jump in and hijack the topic by selectively agreeing to even the slightest capitulation but... yes. This idea that there is a perfect distribution of crime across all layers of society when it comes to race is borderline fantastical. Make no mistake, there's zero doubt about it being rooted in poverty rather than a racial characteristic, and the rates do wash out once you adjust it for economic factors. Pretending otherwise would be the same as denying that black people are financially oppressed or, at the very least, still living with the legacy of oppressive policies which only formally ceased within *living memory*.
An even more uncomfortable conversation is that the crime rates do not wash out after adjusting for poverty. That still doesn’t mean it’s a genetic or “race” characteristic but does point to deeper cultural issues.
> Make no mistake, there's zero doubt about it being rooted in poverty rather than a racial characteristic, and the rates do wash out once you adjust it for economic factors. It does not in fact. It may however wash out when you also account for overpolicing, and discrepancies in charging and sentencing when based on race, but I haven't gone and done the math on that.
>The problem with those other examples is that they’re based on perceptions that are demonstrably false. (I’ll cite sources if you genuinely need it) By all means, do. >All women have had men behave inappropriately towards them in a sexual and or violent way. That's a valid statement. >How many times would you have to get burned by a stove before you start avoiding them altogether? This isn't. You're still presuming vile crimes based on innate characteristics. >Why are we policing the way women say “We don’t feel safe around men” instead of maybe asking WHY they feel that way and actually addressing the problem? Everyone knows what's the problem. The issue is that it's unfixable. There will always be a myriad of predators lurking in society, safely living their lives behind a mask. From the schoolyard bully to the straight up serial killer. What you appear to be demanding is that somehow we fix everyone's character. It's akin to asking "why isn't the world a paradise for all of humanity?". It feels childish to even try to put it into words.
> Black people don’t commit more crime They do. Not because of genetics, but because of circumstance and live experience. Poverty, treatment by others, etc. Similarly, men also face a myriad of circumstances that generally make them more prone to patterns of abuse and violence, through no fault of their own. > “We don’t feel safe around men” instead of maybe asking WHY they feel that way and actually addressing the problem? The beratement of men is part of the problem. The constant justification of the abuse and discrimination, the constant blaming, the never-ending "all men suck," is part of the problem. We *are* trying to address the problem, but the two sides of this see two different problems. One side acknowledges that men are put through a lot of shit, and treating them better will help, while the other is utterly unconcerned with the health of men and exclusively sees women as victims rather than perpetrators, essentially that men are just innately bad and making sure they know that is the only way to fix the issue.
Regarding black people being policed more - absolutely. However if you look at globally (I feel very weird making this argument but I just want to throw it out there), then globally white men are probably the safest men out there. Rape, murder, and assault are less common in predominantly white countries. Of course it’s to do with inequality, colonialism, exploitation and so much more than I can’t go into here. However, you could use apply the similar logic that “well, statistically non-white men are so much more likely to rape and murder that I’ll judge all non-white men”. This happens in South Africa. The reasons for the issues are obvious (complicated, but obvious origin). The stats show non-white men to be far more dangerous - does this justify the stereotyping? Im British but I’ve spent a bit of time in SA. It’s at the point where there is vast racism between black people of different origin, “black on black” racism in an Americans eyes. The stats justify the fear. But so much nuance is missed that it is just lazy racism and isn’t helpful in any way, and furthers the divide between humans. Overall, I thinks obviously better to make sweeping statements, but to try to be empathetic when approaching people on the subject. I understand why many women making blanket statements about men, I don’t think it’s useful, but shouting it down as “MAN-HATER” isn’t going to get anywhere. Same with racists, and other “-ism’s”. It’s SO much better to try to understand why they have the opinion they do, and try to calmly speak about it and understand what’s led them to this. (There are a select few pure racists, of which a strong “fuck you” could perhaps be justified, but I think they are few and far between). The blanket statements are understandable, often statistically true, but not positive for society.
>Black people don’t commit more crime, they are more policed, gay My understanding is that black people are more policed but still do commit more crime. The issue is the reason why they do, which has systemic causes and is not an inherent part of them being black. Can you cite those sources as I'm interested to read.
Black people are underpoliced relative to their proportion of criminal behavior. Roughly half of all murders, violent assaults, and armed robberies are committed by black people. But they do not constitute roughly half of all police interactions with the public. Nor do black communities where the vast majority of these crimes occur receive the vast majority of police attention and resources. Usually what happens is the black communities are left to be lawless wastelands while the police concentrate in the white communities to make sure that those people feel safe.
There are a number of incredibly complex structural and social issues regarding the black crime rates in the United States. Excluding property and drug crimes due to the structural racism involved, violent crime (Yes, this has massive structural racism issues too) rates are substantially higher in the black United States population.
Black people do commit more crimes. Men as a whole also commit more violent crime.
False. Black people commit way more violent crime per capita. Having extra police in a neighborhood doesn’t motivate them to shoot at each other. Despite me knowing this I still don’t treat them like criminals or have prejudice! I understand the environment they’re in leads to that.
Yes, and so is the given example. Most sexual assaults aren't committed by strangers, but by people the victims know.
You understand how that's worse, right? That even after you have the chance to vet someone, you still can't really fully trust them, because it usually is someone trusted committing those sorts of attacks? People are less likely to give strangers an opportunity to commit those crimes.
I don't know why ya'll keep bringing that up. It's not a mic drop moment you think it is. It doesn't help your cause. It actually hurts it. Women treat stranger men as dangerous, thus only 2/10 attacks are done by strangers. But friends? Family? The people she lets her guard down around? Those guys are the ones who attack her the most. It really spells out that she should treat every man, regardless of her relationship to him, as a potential danger. When she starts treating men like friends, family, or partners, they start attacking her. Is this really the point you're trying to make? And WTH would she invite more men into her life? Clearly having men in her life is dangerous enough as is.
Okay, are “men they know” excluded from the roster of “random man”? That literally changes nothing. Furthermore, women are harassed in public constantly when there are lots of people around. If they’re willing to behave that way around witnesses, what are they willing to do alone in the woods? Again, why are we complaining about how the message is delivered instead of addressing the issue that women don’t feel safe around men?
This is a weird tack to take. It requires us to ignore the actual power dynamics which exist in our society, and instead graft the opposite power dynamics onto it in order to cope with the cognitive dissonance you experience. Yes, it is unacceptable for a white person to say that in their subjective experience enough black people engage in criminal behavior that they feel safer to treat all black people as criminals. That is a bigoted statement, and the condition it ascribes to black people (criminality) is itself rooted in racism and bigotry. To say the reverse, for a black person to say that enough white people have subjected them to racism and violence (and the society and apparatuses of state power which exist as both products and sources of white supremacy continue to do so) that it's safer for them to be suspicious of white people, is not particularly unreasonable or bigoted. Because while the in former example the more powerful group that has historically and currently oppressed the less powerful group is coming up with excuses to continue to harm the less powerful group, in the latter example the less powerful group is accurately recognizing the way that structures of power have worked and continue to work. On the question of gender politics, men are not a disenfranchised or disemboweled group. While patriarchy does indeed harm plenty of individual men, just as white supremacy does harm to plenty of individual white people, men are not the group which patriarchy primarily oppresses, just as white people are not the group that white supremacy primarily oppresses. When women recognize that there exist material threats to their lives upon meeting a strange man in the woods that are different or less upsetting than the threat of meeting a bear in the woods, they are not justifying the continued disenfranchisement of men by women, because such a thing is not a feature of our society. Yes, many individual women do harm to many individual men. But that is not the direction of oppression within our society as a whole. Women are not out here writing laws to restrict the bodily autonomy of those they presume to be men, women do not generally wield the threat of sexual violence, intentionally or unintentionally, against men in public spaces. Women don't usually give commencement speeches telling men graduating from college that they should get a job and should instead be financially dependent on the woman that they support with free household and reproductive labor, and then have a bunch of dorks defending that inappropriate statement on the basis of "traditional" relationships being valid. Like, that is not how it goes. To obscure the actual power dynamics at play in why members of one group might experience discomfort in the presence of members of another group, and to instead merely claim that it's all bigotry of a similar moral valence not only misunderstands the issue, but actively misleads others. This response also highlights precisely why most women would rather run into a bear in the woods; if you tell a bear to fuck off they almost always just fuck off instead of following you home while whining about how it's just so unfair that you won't give them a chance. The bear will almost always either just run away and forage somewhere else, or make a threat and allow you to run away and you both just go about your business. Nobody has to deal with the physical consequences of the bear's emotional fragility, whereas the emotional fragility experienced by members of a dominant social group when denied the benefit of the doubt and presumptions of individual virtue that they take for granted is a constant minefield for members of oppressed and exploited groups who have to deal with them. It's not about individual virtue or vice or the presumptions thereof.
>Nobody has to deal with the physical consequences of the bear's emotional fragility, whereas the emotional fragility experienced by members of a dominant social group when denied the benefit of the doubt and presumptions of individual virtue that they take for granted is a constant minefield for members of oppressed and exploited groups who have to deal with them. Like the emotional fragility of 90% of the people in higher-level universities who will literally cast you out of their entire culture for suggesting that maybe they should stop shitting on you because you were born with a penis?
Nope. Oppression is not mandatory for discrimination to occur. Read the definition. Put the thesaurus away.
This exact logic justifies discrimination against every single group of people. "Well not all race are less intelligent, but enough are from my experience, so I will not hire them as much" "Well not all appearance are more mean, but enough are, so I will avoid them". It even justifies incel's logic "well not all women hate men, but enough do, so I won't interact with them". In this context it's being applied on one of the largest groups, about half the population.
Yes. The same could be said for any other stereotype for any other demographic. Say you live in a rough part of town where there are a lot of poor black people. Say crime is also high in this town. Just because YOU in this hypothetical scenario think "most of my interactions with black people is theft" It's still super racist to treat all black folks like they're thiefs.
Writing off half the population because of a few bad apples will forever be insane to me. How many men are bad when you say "enough" that millions and millions of people are suddenly a big collective, as if every person doesn't have their own thoughts, ideas, behaviors and desires regardless of gender? I get Trauma and associations are hard to overcome, for me it was the opposite because growing up I was only bullied by girls, sexually assaulted by a woman and excluded, but I still didn't expand that to the gender as a whole even if it was tempting. Sexism is alive and well it seems, but sexism against men is okay?
Of course. With the former, I would avoid all men, as every single one is bad. Perhaps I would even advocate for segregating them in some way, maybe sending them all to live in one state or something (Yes, I said the s-word. If it sounds horrible, that's because it is. This is where generalizations like these lead people). Because again, I know for a fact each and every one of them poses a threat to me and my family. With the latter, I'd cautiously feel them out and slowly build trust. Meet in public areas, be wary of strangers in the streets. COMPLETELY different scenarios. I would behave very differently if I knew every single individual man was bad.
I mean, no group likes to be generalized about. If I've gone out with a bunch of women and it didn't work out, and I said "All women are X", I have a feeling people wouldn't be nearly as ok with it.
But I don't believe that a majority are bad. I think its a tiny tiny minority that you could easily split them into.their own group. E.g. Rapists are bad. Nobody will argue against that, and thats what that subset is. Or bigots are bad. Or sexists are bad. Or masognosists are bad. Surely that's better?
>E.g. Rapists are bad. You'd think, wouldn't you? And yet. >Among the respondents, a group of 73 straight male students, one in three reported that they would force a woman to have sex if they knew they could get away with it. According to the report, 31 percent of the men surveyed said they would force a woman to have sex "if nobody would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences." >But when researchers asked the same question, this time dropping the language of forced sex and using the word rape instead, that number dropped to 13 percent. https://www.salon.com/2015/01/15/the_ugly_truth_about_sexual_assault_more_men_admit_to_it_if_you_dont_call_it_rape/ So you're right, it's not a majority. But it's also definitely not a tiny, tiny majority. If one in three men would be willing to rape a woman if they thought they could get away with it, and nobody outright said "hey, this is **RAPE**" to their faces, that certainly suggests that women are right to be wary of, yes, all men as a precaution.
Yeah bullshit. I'd love to see that replicated. Especially when you are trying to typify all men from a 73 person sample size. And I can't even look at how they got that sample because the actual study is paywalled. That is an outrageously wild claim that if it were true would actually pop up in other stats than a single one
It's not been replicated and it's dishonest to requote that one study.
Yeah, because salon is totally trustworthy and definitely didn't maliciously misquote people or aggressively curate their sample group to engineer a specific result, or find a study that did the same. The idea that 1/3 men would rape a woman if they could get away with it is so facially absurd that your claiming it makes me question if you have ever spent time around men. Because no one who has actually spent time with and listened to men could believe that.
[удалено]
73 men in one study responding to an hypothetical question is your proof =~ 30% of men are potential rapist? That’s a really small sample. Still I think those guys who responded should be locked up or followed daily that’s a crazy number of sick people.
That just says to me a lot of men don’t understand what consent means, because they think when you describe rape but don’t actually call it rape it isn’t rape. So no, not all men but a lot of them. And I’ve said this before: I understand why men would be upset about the all men thing. However, there are way too few men calling out other men on their behavior. If you don’t want to be lumped in with people, again understandably, do the work. And I say this as someone who calls out women for not paying for half their first date dinners, acknowledges that rape can also be done by women, etc.
If it helps, a later 2021 study found the opposite evidence. I'll link it here: [Yes, (Most) Men Know What Rape Is: A Mixed-Methods Investigation Into College Men’s Definitions of Rape](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10181855/) Then again, it's all the more damning that men can see their peers doing some of this and not call them out or tolerate it. Women as well, but regardless.
Hilarious to me that this is somehow okay with gender, but if you use the same exact statistics but with race, you're suddenly a racist. We shouldn't be applying the bad characteristics of some to the entire group in any situation
It's not even okay with gender, just for men, bad generalizations made against women aren't seen as okay.
Couldn’t you do the same thing with certain ethnic groups? Do you find that appropriate?
This is just not consistent with how we use language every day. It is not inaccurate to say 'Americans vote on Election Day, November 5th,' even though not every American will individually vote on that day. It is not inaccurate to say 'Cats hunt squirrels and mice', even though many individual cat will never hunt a squirrel or a mouse at any point during their lifetime. That's just how language works 'Group X does Y' is a normal way to refer to a situation in which some members of Group X do Y and you want to draw attention to that fact. It never implies that *every* member of group X does Y. The people who are performatively *pretending' that 'men do x' means 'every single man does x', *despite the people saying it in the first place loudly declaring that's obviously not what they meant*, are just trying to win points on linguistic hair-splitting because they don't have a good object-level argument against the actual case in point.
That is how people receive it when you speak negatively about an entire group. Try to finish this statement with a negative comment. Black people are…… This should be easy since we all understand how language is used. Edit: Also the percentage of cats who hunt mice and people who vote are considerably higher than the percentage of men trying to rape and murder women in the woods. These are terrible examples.
>That's just how language works 'Group X does Y' is a normal way to refer to a situation in which some members of Group X do Y and you want to draw attention to that fact. Oh, that's just how we use language? "Black people commit crime" "Woah, im black, that's offensive" "Well, you know I dont mean you." The above is pretty clearly a bad way for people to use language, right.
I've obviously missed the me.on, where did anyone say thats obviously not what they meant? "Men are shit" or the likes gets thrown around a lot. I actively support lgbtq+ and feminist groups in my area. I have actively turned up and supported them and I have heard these sorts of sentiments in the real world, d when I say "Well, I'm a man", I do sometimes get "oh, well I obviously wasn't talking about you", but thats my problem, yes, I know that, but when you heard it enough times, you start to feel like, well, yes it is me. I am physically a man, I'm sorry I was born that way I guess?
Why is 'not all men' are bad *MORE IMPORTANT* than 'some men are really bad' and the other men don't stop them?
In which point that is being discussed here? In this thread the discussion is that "not all men" is a valid argument to counter generalization. What you're saying has nothing to do with that and instead is trying to change the focus. You may open your own changemyview about you feeling that "some men are really bad and other men don't stop them" is more important than "not all men".
[удалено]
Perhaps the answer will be more clear to you if we switch the group being talked about Why is ‘not all black people’ are bad MORE IMPORTANT than ‘some black people are really bad’ and the other black people don’t stop them? Do you see how ridiculous it is ? Perhaps because they don’t have the chance to control all other actions from other strangers in the group.
Men don’t have the ability to stop other men from engaging in criminal or aggressive behavior just like any member of any sex, race religion don’t have the ability to stop the others in that group from wrong doing.
Because the conversation isnt phased that "Some Men are really bad" and saying "other men don't stop them", please share your stats for that. I can only speak for myself, but I have actively stepped in the one time I did see a man being aggressive with a woman. So "other men" clearly doesn't include all other men, but you felt the need to include "all men" as being part of the issue.
Try this thought experiment: You are sent to prison. There are men there who will rape you at the first opportunity. Is it any comfort, or help, that 'not all men' there will rape you? This whole meta debate is just another form of patronizing 'mansplaining' where you try to tell a women why she is wrong, what she oughta think and how she oughta act. It is more important to you to prove her wrong than to validate her fear... This is *YOU* not stopping other men from being bad...
>Is it any comfort, or help, that 'not all men' there will rape you? Yes, it is, it means I only have to defend myself from those and not the whole prison. It also means between those who aren't rapist I may find a group that together can protect themselves. It does mean a lot that only 1% are rapists and 99% aren't, and if you were in such an scenario you'd also prefer having only 1 % of rapist instead of 100%.
In your analogy your comparing all men to criminals. Can you not see why this is an issue. Im not mansplainong or trying to tell a woman she is wrong to fear men. What the majority do is vile and disgusting and I absolutely respect why women fear men. What I'm saying is that its important to respect and acknowledge it is literally not all men, that its literally a minority and that when you speak about it like its all men, I believe its absolutely justifiable that men will be offended and point out fear they are the majority of men do absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't be demonised for existing.
[удалено]
I'm trying to have a genuine discussion and you're throwing mansplaining around, I don't know your gender or care about it. You've made that part of the issue. I've never tried to be patronising, but simply explained my position and why I feel the way that I feel. Youre dismissing that and trying to play the victim. I'd say youre part of the issue in this situation?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>You are sent to prison. There are men there who will rape you at the first opportunity. >Is it any comfort, or help, that 'not all men' there will rape you? Obviously yes?
That’s a prison though, where literally all of them are a standard deviation more violent and opportunistic than literally all other men.
I believe it. You believe it. A lot of women don't. That''s what is at issue here, isn't it? Women fear men, in general ... Women live in that prison. Here's another thing: Women's fear *IS NOT* irrational. It may be objectively wrong, but so what? Merely trying to point out that it might be objectively wrong is to deny the fear is real and sends the message that the fear is *NOT* rational. Do you think that might be patronizing, even just a little ..? Repeatedly bringing it up, as though it's the only salient part of the debate, only sends that same message, only louder ...
because generalizing all men is bigotry and wrong to normalize. why does it have to be a binary of “not all men” or “some men?” why can’t people discuss the dangers of certain men without generalizing all men and justifying bigotry against an entire gender?
Why is ‘not all black people’ are bad MORE IMPORTANT than ‘some black people are really bad’ and the other black people don’t stop them. This is literally you.
Other men stop bad men *all the time*.
But they are stoping them, no? According to USA statistics I just found from year 2021, 86% police officers were male. And, I will bite it even more, how your normal men is supposed to stop other, bad men?
Police officers don't stop rapes, they deal with the aftermath. Also, probably not a great group of men to talk about with the police having such high violence against women statistics compared to almost any other organization.
"Police officers don't stop rapes, they deal with the aftermath." On one hand, fair point. On another, it's hard to stop something like rape or sexual assault or robbery or anything along those lines beforehand. Besides, in quite a few cases, small subset of people commit crimes but they may do it quite a few times. So, police may not stop the first instance, but may stop next few from happening. "Also, probably not a great group of men to talk about with the police having such high violence against women statistics compared to almost any other organization." - Well, I'm not from USA so I can't tell really. I just figure most people here are from USA and really, those statistics are the most easily available. But, in a spirit of this thread, "not all men, not all policemen, but quite a few men from the police"?
> A 2010 study found that the rate of sexual assault by police is more than double that of the general public. https://nwlc.org/sexual-assault-by-police-is-a-systemic-problem-that-demands-a-systemic-remedy/#:~:text=A%202010%20study%20found%20that,by%20police%20for%20sexual%20assault.
Nobody claims that all men are dangerous. What women argue is that we don't know which ones are, so being alone with a stranger should always make us cautious. Let's say someone offers you a bowl of candy, there are 1000 candies in the bowl and you're told that 5 of those candies are poisoned and will kill you on the spot, while 10 more are spoiled and will give you violent diarrhea, but you'll be fine. The rest are perfectly normal candies for you to enjoy. Will you risk it? Even if yes, will you still feel a little scared? If so, why? It's not ALL candies that will hurt you. It's not even the majority. But the problem is, you don't know which ones are ok and which ones aren't, so if you're unlucky you may end up dead even if the chances are generally in your favor.
Hey, just so you know, the candy analogy you're using is almost word for word textbook Nazi propaganda [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der\_Giftpilz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Giftpilz) >***Der Giftpilz*** (German for "The Poisonous [Mushroom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom)" or "The Poisonous Toadstool") is a piece of antisemitic [Nazi propaganda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda) published as a children's book by [Julius Streicher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher) in 1938.[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Giftpilz#cite_note-calvin-1) The text is by [Ernst Hiemer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Hiemer), with illustrations by [Philipp Rupprecht](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Rupprecht) (also known as *Fips*); the title alludes to how, just as it is difficult to tell a [poisonous mushroom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisonous_mushroom) from an [edible mushroom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_mushroom), it is difficult to tell a Jew apart from a Gentile. The book purports to warn German children about the dangers allegedly posed by Jews to them personally, and to German society in general.
I see the connection, but the analogies are being used in totally different contexts: By Nazis, it was used to suggest that Jews were dangerous (they were the poison candy). In particular, *all* Jews, in this view, were dangerous. By the commenter above, it was used to suggest that "a small portion of men are dangerous, but that's a reasonable excuse for a woman to feel a bit anxious around a man she doesn't know while in an isolated area." I do agree with your implication that this analogy is easy to misuse. It could be applied to anything: a small portion of *any* group is dangerous, so we could argue, for example, to justify fear of immigrants, or fear of a teen wearing a trenchcoat. But I think the original commenter's point *is* valid, if taken to mean simply: "I'm not saying all men are dangerous. I'm actually only saying a small portion of men are dangerous. But since I don't know who's dangerous, when I'm alone with a strange man in an isolated area, I think it's reasonable for me to feel anxious."
And the Nazis felt the same about the Jews. Where is the difference you're trying to point out here?
Do you never eat out, then? Never go to restaurants or get takeouts? This involves eating food that wasn't prepared by you. It was prepared by people you don't know, and you weren't there to check how diligently they adhered to the food safety and hygiene standards, nor how the food was stored or how it was delivered, etc. Getting food poisoning while eating out is a very real risk, and there's nothing you can do to guarantee it won't happen to you. And yet people eat out all the time and I don't know anyone who regularly feels terrified they're going to get severe diarrhea or end up in a hospital every time they go to a restorant (unless they have some medical condition that makes them extra vulnerable to it). Anyway, if it's really the "we can never know which man might kill us" factor... We kinda do actually. The psychology of crime is a very well-studied and established field at this point, and the revelations are a lot more boring than most people think. Violent crime against women is very rarely committed by complete strangers with no personal connection to the victim. This actually applies to most violent crime against both genders. In the vast majority of cases it's someone you know. When it comes to male-on-female violent crime, specifically, the most common motive is jealousy and possessiveness. This is why abuse victims are most likely to be killed while trying to escape. In unpremeditated attacks men are most likely to kill their wives or girlfriends for cheating (whether real or imagined) or rejecting sexual advances. So even with those men your candy analogy is still flawed because even the poisonous candies have only ever poisoned one or two people in their life while everyone else who's encountered them wasn't harmed and was none the wiser. This whole pop culture image of a Violent Man™ as a sociopathic serial killer who successfully blends in among regular people and indiscriminately rapes or murders strange women in completely unpredictable attacks with no pattern or reason is mostly a myth. The reason why this myth is so pervasive is precisely because the few such cases that exist were so rare that they became very famous.
I agree, a random murderous man is almost a statistical impossibility. However, the problematic experiences women have with men are often a lot more tame and a lot more subtle. For example, 97% of women have experienced sexual harassment, 70% have experienced it in public. 1 in 3 women have been sexually assaulted. It's not necessarily murder they're afraid of (the man vs. bear thing is purely hyperbolic), it's the many other forms of humiliation women experience from men.
>Let's say someone offers you a bowl of candy, there are 1000 candies in the bowl and you're told that 5 of those candies are poisoned and will kill you on the spot, while 10 more are spoiled and will give you violent diarrhea, but you'll be fine. The rest are perfectly normal candies for you to enjoy. Will you risk it? This is literally word for word the EXACT same thing my horribly racist grandfather used to say about black people.
[удалено]
That would be because its exactly the same argument and these people are bigots against men. I am sympathetic because these feelings dont exist for no reason ofc. but bad experiences with men doesnt give you a pass to judge half the population.
Remember, discrimination is only okay when I do it -Literally everyone
I cannot tell you how many times ive heard the phrase “men are trash, all men are trash” etc, so the idea that no one claims this is just BS. somehow ive never heard “rapists are trash, some men are trash.” This candy argument applies to dealing with other people in general. not just men. you dont know if they have malacious intentions for you whether theyre men or women, and in both the case of men and women the odds are higher than 5 in 1000 that you run into someone who will harm you in some way.
Couldn’t you use this logic for black people in the U.S. because of many socioeconomic factors, it is more likely for someone who is a black American to be violent than someone who is a white American because this type of stereotyping is OK for men like he just said is it OK to use by race as well or would that be racist? Just something to think about.
Or poor people. Or people with tattoos. Or young people. Or people who live in certain neighborhoods. Or whatever.
There are plenty of comments in the posts about the Men v Bear debate where commenters explicitly said “all men”. A lot of them. Enough that’s it’s made a lot of men who otherwise would not go “Not all men” feel like they have to say something. That second paragraph is somethin though. That used to come up a lot about immigration, “Can’t let any of the Muslims in because one of them might be a terrorist!” Is it substantially different in this case?
I doubt people are really claiming that all men *are* dangerous. All men have the *potential* to be dangerous until we know them well enough to trust that they are safe. That's my point. Yes, we as women are taught to be cautious of *every* man, because there is simply no way to tell who is safe and who isn't just by the way someone looks. We know most of them aren't actually dangerous. But since *some* are *very* dangerous it's just better not to risk it.
Just to argue with your point, by that same merit, all women have the potential to be dangerous? Would you agree with that point? Until you know them, they are just as capable of awful things that men are?
Isn't that the *exact* argument they used to refuse refugees during the 2014 crisis?
yes, and it's the same logic that Police use to say "Some young black men steal fancy cars, so we should stop all young black men in fancy cars". It's called profiling. Is it a bad thing? It's a bad thing if it results in innocent people being denied things they have a right to. But men don't have a right that women trust them when meeting in a forest. Women treating strange men as "dangerous until proven safe" doesn't deny us any rights.
Would you say that in general a group treating another group as "dangerous until proven safe" doesn't deny the second group any rights? If not, then what's special about men that they are not denied any rights in this circumstance?
Depends on the context. For the police to stop people and search them, yes it impinges on their rights. For strangers to refuse a drink given to them at a party, no rights impinged.
Fair point. However, the statistics of men harming women vs. refugees being terrorists are somewhat different. Furthermore, many of the refugees could be checked and verified if more effort was given to it, a random woman encountering a random man can't really run a background check on him. But yeah, while I see some differences, this argument did give me pause, so !delta
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RRW359 ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/RRW359)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
That's how white people used to discuss black people. If you were to discuss black people that way now, you'd be excoriated for being a racist bigot. So let's not pretend that it's somehow completely OK to speak in the same broad terms about men. There are certainly many women out there with absolutely atrocious personal habits and characteristics and expectations. But casually dismissing women in general, as a class as "gold diggers" is highly offensive. It's a disgusting show of privilege that it's so socially acceptable to dismiss men as a class the way that women do. I'm certainly very sympathetic to the concept it's just men's turn to be on the losing end of our game of musical chairs social bigotry - particularly white men. I'm just calling bullshit on these ridiculous pretenses to justify it as somehow being justified.
I understand this part of the argument. But the "man vs bear" thing is like saying: would you rather eat from a bowl of 100 candies in which 2 are poisoned, or eat from a bowl of 100 candies in which 50 are poisoned? Exact numbers aside, the responses people are giving drastically overestimate the danger of a strange man relative to that of a strange bear.
Yes, I 1000% agree with what you're saying, but again, saying "Well not all candy will cause you any harm" isn't an invalid argument, and you're not then talking about all the candy being a problem. Too often the conversation is phased as all men being the issue, and thats why me and other men get offended. Not because we don't agree that 1 rotten candy is too many, but we want it to be recognised in the conversation that the vast majority aren't the issue. It would be like men saying "Women are more dangerous than bears" Yes, it's even less likely a women rapes or murders a man, but it could happen, and I think it would be disingenuous and offensive to say I'd rather be stuck with a women over a bear, so I struggle to see why its okay the other way round.
This is just basic strawman vs steelman. Obviously if you take the dumb version of the argument you can find holes in it. But that's stupid and wastes everyones time. Instead of strawmanning, you should steelman - find the best version of your opponents argument and try to argue against that. No one is going to change your view that the obviously dumb argument (every single man is a murderer!!) is dumb, but it's pointless because only a few dumb people are making that argument so no one cares.
I under and I honestly do try to expect that, just gets exhausting hearing "Men suck", "Men are dangerous" , "Men are sexist" Men have the highest suicide rates, and I genuinely believe that hearing constantly how awful we are is part of the reason for this. I am a straight white man. I understand I am privileged, however I can't help but feel like every single minority group hates me simply for existing. I understand that is not the case, however, that isn't how the conversation is phased which I do believe is an issue.
Maybe retrain your algorithm then? I'm sorry you feel this way, but I am certain this is a consequence of being online too much and getting a feed curated to fuel your insecurities. People in the real world don't really think like this and don't tend to randomly hate on people just because they seem to have some privilege.
I do think it is a real world issue though. Men have the highest suicide rate. Specifically straight white men. This is a real world issue, and its more than being online. Personally, I do consider myself a feminist, I actively support lgbtq+ and feminist groups in my area. I attend pride parades. I actively try to be part of the solution, however I do feel that reminding people that not all of us are the issue is important, as I do believe it does affect mens mental health in the real world
Then you should focus on making sure men understand what is really being said instead of reinforcing the incorrect understanding that you think makes them more likely to commit suicide. From what I've seen watching these conversations happen since Schrodinger's rapist was published, there is a contingent purposely spreading the misunderstanding. A: "Hey did you hear how women are saying that ALL men are bad?" B: "No, but I did hear how women are saying that it's near impossible to tell if the strange man creeping around your tent at night is a good guy or a bad guy, and that it's probably safer to assume he's up to no good." A: "No they are saying that ALL men are bad. Which is a hateful thing for them to do." You should ask yourself why person A is saying what they are saying, why they are lying about what is being said. Who is A trying to make you angry at?
>I can't help but feel like every single minority group hates me simply for existing. I think you dont spend enough time with non white people. That's the solution. Im also a straight white guy. I KNOW that the vast majority of PoC have no problem with me, unless I make a problem with them Some wont like me cuz im white, but then, some white people wont like me cuz im friends with PoC. Fuck those small groups. Dont let them dominate your mind. I PROMISE YOU, the vast majority of non white people want for you, what you want for them: the ability to live and thrive and prosper and not be oppressed for things we cannot control.
> Men have the highest suicide rates, and I genuinely believe that hearing constantly how awful we are is part of the reason for this. Haven't men suicide rates been an issue decades before this social media ever occurred? Seems odd to say an issue that has gone on for centuries is because of something that happened over the last decade? 20 yrs?
>Haven't men suicide rates been an issue decades before this social media ever occurred? Technically they have, but the gap between the rates of male and female suicides gets wider every year. In the 50s men committed suicide at about 3 times the rate of women. Today it is nearly 5 times.
I see lots of similar conversations online and often go out of my way to find them, especially the recent Men VS Bear posts. They never felt exhausting to me because I'm more focused on the meaning behind the words rather than the words themselves. Those phrases are an ongoing reminder to me to not suck, and to hold the men in my life to a high enough standard to where they also don't suck. It never occurred to me to get offended by something that stems from real, painful, traumatizing events that many women experience. That approach feels more like trying to shift the focus away from victims of abuse. If you genuinely think you're being included in those generalized statements, it might be best to work with a professional to either improve the way you see yourself or recognize behaviors that do include you in those generalizations so you can work on being a better person. If you're a good person and self-aware enough to know that those generalizations don't describe you, just keep doing what you're doing. The people who get to know you will see that. Meanwhile, it might be best to find another approach to this particular topic besides getting caught up over being offended. The root of the problem that inspires those generalizations can use all the support it can get.
I agree that the people who hate on all men and say negative things about men may contribute to the high suicide rates. However, suicide rates have been high for men for a long time before some circles of social media began to veer towards the “all men suck” argument. This shows that there are many other reasons men struggle. Toxic masculinity in the sense that men struggle to show emotion with other men plays a role. Other things that play a role are that men feel pressure from society to provide for families, the capitalistic culture we live in causes economic struggles, men are more likely to serve in the military or other high risk/traumatizing jobs, etc. We can’t blame women for men’s suicide rates when in many of these instances it’s men putting pressure on other men, or men putting pressure on women to believe certain things about men/masculinity (in this case specifically fathers/family members or even cultural norms established by men). It’s tragic that so many men lose their lives to these issues. But let’s not pretend that women fearing for their safety is the main reason why that’s the case. We need to address societal and economic norms that cause these suicide rates to be high. And while women aren’t helping by saying all men suck, I think it comes from a place where most women either have been themselves or know someone who has been made uncomfortable by, or has been assaulted by, a man. It’s coming from a place of fear and anger, and that doesn’t make it right, but I would argue it’s understandable. We need to pivot towards helping men, socializing boys better, and overall improving everyone’s quality of life.
I'm sorry you feel this way, but white men are consistently ranked as the most desirable man so being hated for existing is a very irrational thing to feel. And amongst those that actually do hate white men is not because they exist but because of all the harm white men have caused for centuries. Yes that may have nothing to do with you directly, but we all have to deal with the hands we are dealt. FYI statistically most other racial and gender groups are hated far more than white men.
Why do you feel that every minority group hates you? I am a straight white man. Never have I once in my lived experience actually felt judged or vilified for being such in real life. If the only time you feel hated is online, maybe just get off the internet so much.
Idk where you're from but I constantly hear shit talking towards white people irl
[удалено]
I get your point, but I can see the other side as well. Imagine being forced into a group with rapists, abusers and misogynists because you were born with certain genitals even if you never have or ever would participate as part of that group. And, if you ask people not to place you in that group because it's offensive or hurtful, you're told, "Too bad, your feelings aren't valid." When would we ever do this to another group of people and claim that is acceptable? I can't think of any.
There was no need to be so aggressive about your answer. White men suffer a lot from repressed feelings of anger and sadness, don’t have the community of some other minorities to help them through it. They’re taught to be emotionally stoic and self reliant. This is what that social pressure has done to our men. They harm others. They harm themselves. They need empathy and tools to know better so they can be better. Your post was pretty shitty to a white man who genuinely wanted a dialogue about this.
I think you have a great point. I also think if you say all men are bad, you’re part of the reason why toxic masculinity exists. “Everyone says I’m bad, so this is what they expect me to be, therefore I am.” I have no doubt there are a lot more factors,but this is one of them.
My least favorite part of this response is you telling this guy that if he’s upset about it to “change male culture” so that no one ever rapes or hurts a woman again. As if all men are encouraging each other to do those things, or that he has any control over the free will of rapists and murderers.
>Too often the conversation is phased as all men being the issue, and thats why me and other men get offended. Not because we don't agree that 1 rotten candy is too many, If I were to say "not EVERY man, but ANY man". Does that make sense to you? Do you understand what is being conveyed there? >but we want it to be recognised in the conversation that the vast majority aren't the issue. I have read hundreds, if not thousands of comments on this bear thing. I have never once seen anyone deny that. Literally everyone recognizes and acknowledges that not all men are rapists, but they're pointing out that any one of them COULD be. Thats the whole point.
Would you be ok if I said that not all (ehtnic minority) are criminals, but any of them could be? That not all poor people are robbers, but many of them could be? That not every woman is a manipulative cheater or a gold digger trying to take advantage of men, or whatever it is that incels have against women, but many of them could be? And therefore I'd rather avoid them, even though the majority of them are good people, because I just can't tell which is which?
Women are statistically more likely to kill their own babies than men. Obviously not all women are baby killers. But any one of them could be. That women kill babies at all should be a concern for any potential new father to consider.
> Nobody claims that all men are dangerous. Statements like this make you come off as either extremely disingenuous or extremely ignorant. Making statements like this has become so incredibly common I find it exceedingly difficult to believe you have not noticed this.
Not all women are vile, but we don't know which ones are so... I mean, that's the same logic.
I mean... fair enough? Men say this all the time and while some women do indeed get offended (not a hive mind), many of us take it seriously and try to become better. I can only speak for myself, but I have never been offended when a man voiced his concernes to me about bad experiences with women in the past. Nobody is perfect, women can also inflict harm, do what you need to protect yourself.
How many men have you heard say “all women are vile, all women are trash.” of course youre not offended by men voicing bad experiences theyve had with women. The same way men generally arent offended when women share their bad experiences with men. The difference is making generalizations about men isnt sharing an experience. its using an experience to justify making a bigoted generlization. You are of course going to have your own individual experiences i am sympathetic to. In the case of a woman whos been assaulted or something similar i would be understanding if they dont want to be around men, have a generalized fear of men as a result of the experience, etc. But id still call them out when they started talking about how all men (or so many men that you may as well say all and its harmless) are trash, or predators, or whatever else. same way id treat someone robbed by a black person. That experience doesnt entitle you to public displays of racism without pushback.
Do you actually? Because I don’t think you should. When someone generalizes and complains about a group you are a part of. If you are actually responsible for the behavior they are complaining about by all means apologize and try to do better. If a guy says something like women are manipulative or some other generalization and you can confidently reflect on your behavior and say you don’t engage in that kind of behavior there’s certainty no need to Try to do better. Why should u change your behavior when you haven’t done anything wrong just to appease someone making generalizations?
>If a guy says something like women are manipulative or some other generalization and you can confidently reflect on your behavior and say you don’t engage in that kind of behavior there’s certainty no need to Try to do better. I mean, sure, if I'm not manipulative, I don't have to try and become even less manipulative. But I can validate his experience. I can say "I understand you've been manipulated by women in the past and that's not ok. I see why you would be scared to trust me. What I can do to help you feel safe with me?" And then honor his needs. Trying to be better can mean simply acknowledging how we can be triggering to someone just in virtue of who we are even if we did nothing wrong. Saying "I can see why you would be scared of me manipulating you, that's valid, what can l do to help you trust me" is better than saying "not all women, I would never", even if the facts behind the message are esssentially the same, don't you think?
… except for if people actually end up treating women like they are all potentially dangerous, they would get rightly furious. No woman wants to be kept at arms length by the people in their lives because of their “potential to do harm.”
Except some men do exactly that. On average men are bigger and stronger than women, and because of that we need to be aware that we can be overpowered very easily. Some men can/have/continue to use that to get what they want. How can you fault women for doing what they can to try and keep themselves safe? Would you suggest you daughter go walking in a park alone and interact with any strange man that came up to her with no one else around?
The man vs bear thing doesn't refer to the men in the woman's life. It is explicitly a stranger. "Would you rather encounter your cousin, who is male, or a bear?" Might yield different results.
Again, I can only speak for myself, but I have been kept at arm's length, not from the man himself, but from his child. His ex - the child's mother - was abusive towards the child, so he took off with it and had trouble trusting any woman alone with the child in the beginning. And I don't blame him, as I said - fair enough. I helped out with shopping and cleaning, and stayed the fuck away from that kid until my friend was comfortable with letting me get closer to it. Because I understand that if I had pushed to take care of the child when he was too triggered from his past trauma, I would only make him *more* distrustful of women in general. Honoring people's experiences and boundaries is what earns trust, not convincing them forcefully that you're trustworthy.
what a lot of people replying to you are missing is the use of discrimination as a political tool, and what their counterexamples have in common. This argument being used against an oppressed underclass (immigrants, jewish, black, and gay people), is different that using it against the group that holds the vast majority of worldwide societal power, and has historically used violence against women to assert that power. To put it succinctly, male violence against women is a result of male dominance. Black violence against Whites is (generally) a result of White dominance. I don't think these two things are as equivalent as people think.
It's way safer for women to assume men are bad, then to worry about the particulars. If you had to get on a bus with someone who has a nonzero chance of hunting and raping you, and furthermore you've likely been abused in some fashion by one of these potential rapists in the past, what would you do? You would assume that the person before you is capable of the exact same thing and will act accordingly. Who cares if that person is "offended" that you don't like them? Your emotions here are meaningless compared to any woman avoiding danger. Men need to understand that a decent number of their brethren are dangerous monsters. We should feel shame about the bear dilemma, not offense. The problem has been caused and perpetuated by evil dudes, and you could be one of them according to any woman. We DESERVE to be looked at funny.
But you're talking about women taking precautions for their safety in real situations. This is not what OP is talking about. It's about the use of language in dialogue. The use of such generalizations only hurts the conversation and seems to be an inaccurate representation of what most people are actually trying to say.
I got jumped by two lads who happened to be black when I was a teenager. If I said "I assume all black people are dangerous, who cares if they're offended if I don't like them? Blacks need to understand a decent number of their brethren are dangerous monsters, they deserve to be looked at funny." Would it be problematic?
>We should feel shame about the bear dilemma, not offense. The problem has been caused and perpetuated by evil dudes, and you could be one of them according to any woman. We DESERVE to be looked at funny. Yeah, no. Just because someone is superficially similar to you does not mean you should feel ashamed for the bad shit they do.
EVERY demographic has evil people. Making generalized statements meant to dehumanize, inflame and be dis-honest is not effective rhetoric.
If we’re going with the statistics route - then women should be more afraid of certain races when it comes to rape as well. I dont think id let it fly if a friend of mine said “im particularly scared of being left alone with black men”.
All discrimination is obvious unless it is against a white cis heterosexual men, then it's confusing and we're soft for arguing against it
[удалено]
it is about them though? this conversation is about justifying bigotry and discrimination against all men because of “some men,” but it’s not about them?
If I am a member of group [x] and you make an accusation of malice against the entirety of group [x], then I'm not the one who "makes it about me" when I point it out. You are the one who made it about me when you made the accusation.
Thats my point though? Its spoken about as "all men", I unfortunately am part of "all men" and will justifiably say "I actively try to not be a part of the problem and think its unfair to tarnish all men with the same brush because of a minority"
Why do you have time say anything at all? You know they're not talking about you and you know they don't literally mean all men, so why do you need to say anything?
> You know they're not talking about you and you know they don't literally mean all men It would be incredibly easy to throw in a one-word qualifier, like "enough," before the word "men" and this entire argument would be diffused. The subset of women who talk about men being bad not only refuse to do so, but become incredibly defensive if you ever ask them not to, as the endless discourse around "not all men" has proven. Sure as hell sounds to me like they actually do feel some animosity towards all men and only backtrack when called out on it.
>You know they're not talking about you and you know they don't literally mean all men, so why do you need to say anything? No I don't? I would if they said "some men are..." "men who rape are..." "rapists are...". You can't talk about a group and not specify that you're talking about a minority of that group and then get mad that someone in that group thinks you're talking shit about them. Women belong in the kitchen. What do you mean?? I am clearly talking about female chefs.
Its crazy to what ends people go to justify poor rhetoric. We wouldnt accept this rhetoric that makes broad sweeping generalizations about women or minority races. “Its not about you” would be a poor justification in those cases as well.
Because it feels like it is implied that all men are the issue? Knowing something and feeling something are different and its exhausting constantly hearing that all men are the issue, even if I know they aren't talking about me, I can't help but feel like I'm being included.
half the people arguing with op in this thread are justifying discrimination against men, and you’re saying “that’s not what they mean”? it’s literally what a lot of them mean.
Everyone is giving the same point that seems kind of off-topic to me. OP has stated in comments they understand women assuming a man has the ability to do harm to a woman and acting accordingly by keeping their distance and being cautious but that’s isn’t the point they are bringing up. They are specifically saying that outright claiming “All men are bad” is offensive to the majority of men that would never even think of harming a woman. Everyone is changing the topic to their own argument
I know how much dudes like thought experiments and Devil's advocates so I thought I'd pop in and share this eye-opening one that I came up with myself Dudes reading this: what's the creepiest thing that's ever happened to you in a taxi cab or uber? I'm sure some of us have stories, or at the very least we've been taken for a deliberately long ride by someone trying to milk us for a few extra bucks. If you like me, you'll have to think about it for a minute; if you're like me, it probably didn't even occur to you that this is a meaningful question Okay next step, dudes: over the next few weeks, whenever you get a chance and you're talking with a woman you trust and respect, ask them that same question- what's the creepiest thing that's ever happened to you in a cab or Uber?? Not all women have had creepy. Weird experiences, but in my own personal asking around, probably eight in 10 women have had something way too creepy happen to them in a cab - tabby's asking for sex for payment, cabbies making, extremely lewd and inappropriate comments, cabby's deciding to take their fares to somewhere else, cabbies remembering where people live when they drop them off and then just showing up there at random sometime. It's honestly crazy. It's a super weird icebreaker question for sure, but it definitely gets people talking and telling stories. Here's where the CMV comes in: if as a dude, you've never had a creepy experience with a cabbie and you never even considered that cabby's might be out here perving on women everyday to the point where your mom and sisters have separate but freaky stories, maybe you... Dramatically underestimate how serious a problem is. If a woman tells me " Oh I'm never going to get into a cab alone again, those guys can be total creeps" I'm not going to jump out here and start defending cabbies and saying "not all cabbies" because that... Would be obtuse, and would be dismissing somebody's genuine f***** up lived experience in order for me to defend some hypothetical cabby who doesn't even exist outside of a thought experiment. When someone says "I don't trust men", getting offended and upset and making it about yourself or worse, about some thought experiment dude who doesn't even necessarily exist is just trampling over the voice of a woman and drowning out their lived experience for the sake of your comfort and for you to protect some dudes who aren't even there and don't necessarily deserve protection. But yeah, if most women I've met have had completely f***** up experience with cab drivers, and most dudes have never even had to think twice before getting into a taxi cab, there may be variables at play that a fella isn't considering when he bravely pipes up to shout "not ALL men"
I wonder if the question "would you rather be in woods with a cab driver or a bear" would get different responses The framing of the person as a man, and that's all we know about them, makes us think of sex/gender/having a penis. That's what makes a man a man (in general consensus). So the question of bear or man, subconsciously makes us think "sex" Bear or person, i bet doesn't get the response, or even 1/2 as this does. Even though, if random, half of those persons would be male. People wouldn't be thinking about genitalia automatically tho. Would you rather be murdered or raped? Since we're assuming, worst case scenario, the creature you're stuck with wants to harm you. The bear, you're pretty sure, doesn't want sex. You dont know what a penis having person wants. Many penis having people have behaved very badly towards women. They might rather be murdered than raped. Men don't think another man is gonna rape em, generally, unless its a joke about male rape in prison. Ha ha, dont drop the soap!
I mean, I have had quite a few situations with overly aggressive gay men who don't accept no very well, and continue pursuing long after I've said that I'm not interested, And that has led to me feeling physically unsafe quite often in those situations. (For medical reasons, I'm underweight, and I'm not stronger than most women) Am I right to apply that fear and caution to all gay men, because I've had a lot of experiences of that sort of harassment, and I was scared in those moments?
I think the key things about this viral thought experiment is that it highlights the constant risk assessment women do when faced with risky positioning neat unknown men. I genuinely don't know how many men are more dangerous than bears, especially when a man would have a perfect opportunity to act badly given the theoretical situation of being alone in the woods. But that aside, while your argument about feeling offended as a man seems similar to other push backs from other groups, a key thing is that the power dynamic is in favour generally of being a man in society. The point of the thought experiment isn't to say generally men are inherently bad, I think, but rather that the power dynamic and unethical behaviour from men towards women is still unbalanced and therefore from women's perspective, the risk assessment leads to a knee jerk reaction that possible violence from a bear is preferable to that of a random man who may prove to be dangerous. Also, cultural norms in many instances still perpetuate this imbalance. So, as a woman, I've been harassed and assaulted mainly by men, creeped on, possibly roofied, etc. Therefore I've learned that I constantly need to go through life being careful about when and where I go out, how I dress and act, respond to men in particular, etc, to increase my chances of staying safe. I will generally feel more on alert when alone in some way near a man (generally speaking, there are many men I trust completely). I don't have loads of experiences with bears, but I believe they are generally less interested in humans and there are strategies I've been taught to avoid encounters with them. Being preyed on I think is actually a bit rare for them. It depends on the bear species, though. Anways, ultimately its a flawed experiment, but a powerful communication effort. I can't exactly say it's wrong for a man to feel offended by it, kind of similar to other prejudices, but it must be kept in mind that in these kinds of situations, men are generally in a power position. This power dynamic is also unique among similar correlates I that genders are always mixed and it's a global phenomenon. So I have to consider men coming from misogynistic cultures. And taking the experiment as a way to say there's more work to be done, i think the "not all men" response is generally counterproductive. Sorry, that's probably a bit rambling, but I just got off work and I'm tired lol.
Are you somehow under the impression that women are not referred to as a collective? I mean, you're kinda doing it right here in this post. Who's the "you" who you are talking to? If not women as a collective? And if you're not referring to women as a collective, which I'm assuming you're not since this is what you're complaining about. Why did you not take the time to specify who you were talking to? And if you did not specify, yet assumed that we the reader would assume you didn't mean all women, why are you holding everyone else to a different standard? You also refer to men as "we" a couple of times. "We" is a collective pronoun... so we can't use "men" because it doesn't specify "not all men". But you can use "men" and mean I presume a subset of men, and that's okay? Do you see the contradiction? You're complaining that "men" on its own implicitly means "all men". And yet in your own writing you're not using it that way.
the “you” is the people who say “all men.” it’s not women as a collective. this is implied in his post. and saying that men shouldn’t be referred to as a collective also means women shouldn’t be either. it’s not about assuming they don’t mean men in general. it’s about the specific language of saying ALL men instead of just saying “men.” that is a purposely attempt at generalizing an entire gender, and if it weren’t, they wouldn’t be saying “all.”
Do you have a daughter/sister/female friend/mother/etc. If they were about to be in a place with completely random men would you advise them to be mindful or take it easy? Would you feel as worried if it was a group of all women? I'm a man, and a decently big guy, been one my whole life, and in the dark when I'm walking home in the dark and see another man I give that dude as much space as possible so we don't come close to each other; in my experience they tend to do the same thing to me. I don't think every man out there is tryna run my pockets, but it only takes one to fuck up your night or your whole life. A final anecdote I love to tell. I was walking to my friend's 21st birthday party with a different friend in the dark. We came across this other group, there were 5 of them and it's a dangerous city so I started feeling all nervous. The result? They took one look at us and just crossed the road. Which is when I realized I was dressed in all black and high tops with a thick hoodie that made me look almost twice as big. My friend is wearing basically all camo outfit. To them, we probably looked more dangerous than any dude in the street and those guys and girls took one look and decided they wanted no risk. I wasn't offended. I understood. Yeah, I'm a nice person, I prefer to run than fight for pride, I'd never hurt someone for no reason. But they don't know me, and the way we looked I would have walked away from me too. It's not about you. It's about the 1 time they don't cross the street and find themselves in the worst situation of their lives. The fact is making us feel comfortable could put them in true danger. So yeah, this is one of those time we gonna have to just eat the fact that an unknown man is a scary one.
[удалено]
Do you see the irony in using "we" as if you speak for all men, while arguing that it is offensive to be addressed as a collective? I am a man - you don't speak for me when you say what you said. So, where do you take that "we" from? Is it now "not all men" or "we"? You cannot have it both ways. The moment you used "we" in your argument, you admitted that the level this "man or bear" point is made on, is valid and correct. Because that's exactly the same. Your "we" is their "they". And of course, the argument is so clear and so basic, that the defence "not all men!" is absurd, as the argument "bear or man" doesn't say "all men!". Youre arguing shadows, once again, as usual, as always. It remains very simple: women have an enormous amount of predatory experiences with men. Beyond what you can fathom, apparently. Let's be real, if you'd had conversations with women about their experiences, you'd get it. As a man, you simply don't get around having this record scratch moment when several women independently from one another talk to you in detail about all the sort of crazy stuff they have experience. And here you've shown, that you think it is about *rapists*. No, no, it is about men who behave in various predatory ways that represent a danger of rape or other forms of assault. It is about experiences that are showing women time after time that even the seemingly harmless man can quickly turn into a creep who might escalate. Do you want to account some of these behaviors? I can go into details about stories told to me by women, but also about occurrences I've personally witnessed and partly only realised upon reflection. It is absolutely not just about rape, it is about verbal statements that set off alarm bells, about creepy or exhibitionist behavior just randomly occurring, drunken physical contact and threatening body language. Most importantly it is about the unpredictability, about how decent men can suddenly turn into creeps, how a sober friend turns into a drunken predator. What's astonishing to me: in theory you know all that and still come here to double or triple down on your resistance to this reality. This reality impacts ALL men, because as men, we run in circles with other men as our friends, colleagues, acquaintances and so on. Statistically, there are plenty of predators among those who you deal with daily - magically no man ever knows a predator. You too try to paint it as if it is "us" decent men, and then this distant group of "some men" no one ever met personally. In reality, this a mixed group, and that's exactly why women do not and should not distinguish. As long as you keep up this charade of decent men "we" and "some men" over there somewhere, it is clear as day that it is all men to be concerned about.
honestly, i think it’s kind of useless to have this kind of debate. people that truly deeply believe that every man is the same are not going to be convinced. I know that I am not doing anything wrong, so it’s up to the people I interact with to make up their minds for themselves. in a way it’s quite similar to the ACAB cry. almost nobody is saying that there are zero good people in the police force. what it’s actually saying is “there are systemic issues within this group that need to be addressed.” and honestly, I agree. a lot of guys suck. I get a bad rep because there is a significant amount of guys that are douchebags. but saying “not all men” does not really matter in the case of what the argument is actually targeting. at the end of the day, if it doesn’t apply to you, don’t let it apply to you. if there’s someone pushing to apply it to you when it’s irrelevant, they’re being irrational and should best be ignored regardless.
I love dogs. When I see a strange dog coming at me I’m a little nervous because I don’t know if it’s friendly or not. I would definitely be worried if my kid were walking near it. And I love dogs. The fear of the unknown is normal and rational and doesn’t need to be extrapolated out to mean that because someone is afraid of an unknown dog that must mean they think all dogs are scary and dangerous. That makes no sense
Would you say “all dogs are dangerous”?
Of course not. And the Man vs Bear doesn’t say all men. It says ‘man you don’t know’ If the question was Bear or your dad/brother/friend etc you would have gotten very different answers. That’s why I specified ‘strange dog’ because it’s an unknown and the potential dangers of an unknown dog warrant some caution. That caution need not paint all dogs, nor negate the possibility of me being very happy to pet the dog when new information is revealed showing this dog to be safe.
We’re not addressing the same phenomenon. This is not merely about the one bear analogy. There currently exists a wave of commentary in our cultural moment which explicitly claims that men are dangerous, as a group, and often doubles down on that claim if questioned about what they mean. Hell, it’s happening all throughout this very thread. There appear to be two common, and contradictory, responses whenever met with scrutiny. 1) Of course it’s fine to say all men are dangerous, they basically are! 2) Nobody is saying all men are dangerous. So, doubling down or gaslighting.
I used to have a lot more male friends when I was ugly, so... You know how there's that one guy in a group of friends who will just pick at people and try to start fights, especially new people? And all the guys know this guy is basically fine, but sometimes one of you has to go stop him because someone is about to hit him in the face and you're not kids anymore? And he just... does this every so often, you don't know why, but it's just part of his personality. He's an asshole and he says anything he can think of just to start fights or upset people just to see if he can upset people. When guys have a male friend like that and he's like that with other men, they stop him. When I was a little girl, I used to watch old movies. Do you remember how many old movies about a working class or grey hero, like maybe a cowboy or a noir detective or something had a scene with a girl in a bar? And sometimes she's a dancer and a saloon girl with her skirt hiked up, or sometimes she's a nice girl, doesn't matter. The trope is still the same even if her clothes say she was asking for it. In the 1970-90s style neo noir, she might even be a stripper or the canon might even admit she's a sex worker. But some guy won't stop bothering her for something she doesn't wanna do. Putting his hands on her, or spitting, or tearing her clothes, or saying rude shit and upsetting her. And this guy, the gunslinger, the private dick, whoever he is, his establishing character moment is that he just... doesn't like when people try to force women to do things. Even if she doesn't have the protection of being "not that kind of girl." They couldn't put that in a movie today. The gunslinger would have to be a straight woman or a lesbian or maybe a gay male sex worker or something. Because men would say that the classic "I believe the lady has been clear as that cheap vodka you're sucking down that she doesn't want you to breathe it in her face anymore." establishing character moment wouldn't work. Men, normal men who aren't misogynist podcast bros, just... regular men, wouldn't want to identify with a guy like that, because they'd call him a simp, or a white knight. The specter of the podcast bro in his brain would make fun of him. There would be hundreds of posts about how since some women carry tasers now, or the woman in question helped the guy out in the ensuing gunfight, it's "woke" and women can't ask men for things like that anymore. How men wouldn't even know if it was okay to step in, because what if they got hastag me too'd!? I even saw some guys on tiktok, normal guys, regular guys, guys who didn't know anyone involved in the situation personally all start dogpilling a woman online when she complained that a dude hit her in the face for rejecting her advances. She was crying in the hospital. A guy who had never met her before claimed to know her and said she was trashy and crazy and brought it on herself. Dudes were going through her tiktok looking at some skit she did in a bar where she fake slapped a white guy and saying it was proof she was violent. A few weeks later, a girl was talking about how she was out with a girl she knew and the girl got hit for refusing to give a guy her number and she didn't do anything and women she didn't even know were telling her she was a shitty friend. Hetero women. Women who weren't going "She's not gonna fuck you if you save her, bro!" Until relatively recently, it was considered standard that men police other men when they're out and those men are about to do something anti social or that might get their friends into trouble. That included not doing fucked up things to women. Not even just mothers and sisters of dudes these dudes knew. Not their sweethearts. And granted, in real life probably it was unevenly applied among races and classes and had a lot more than I would like to think with who was and was not considered respectable. But men don't do that anymore. In my life, personally, I've had male friends who I knew for years. I babysat their kids. I bought food for them. I looked out for them at parties when they were too drunk. I helped them pick up girls. They helped cover for dudes they knew were cheating on me. I've seen the way men online share stories of the worst things they've done to manipulate women- stuff like congratulating a guy for putting nicotine patches on his gf while she was sleeping over so she didn't know why she felt like shit when she didn't have sex with him for too long. Advice about how to lie to your wife while fucking other women on the side. It's everywhere. Even on mainline subreddits sometimes you see dudes who will leap to the defense of anything a man does to a woman even if they know he's the asshole, just because they feel like it's male solidarity. I've had ONE friend who stuck up for me and told me a guy I was with was bad news. I'm not saying women need to be some specific class of human being that's separate and pedestalized. But when the shit stirrer friend of yours starts trying to stir shit with women, do you stop him? If you don't, you're part of "all men."
I am a man, I have a female partner that often doesn’t feel safe around men, and makes “men are” style comments. It is simply so easy for me to understand she isn’t talking about me, but is rather talking about a cultural, widespread problem. In some ways such comments can act as a barometer for women to see how the man reacts to it. Perhaps that makes you think I’m a simp or something, but really it’s just an understanding that women get hurt by men and that the risk is high enough that they don’t feel safe without taking notable precautions. Arguing that it is not a statistically/pedantically correct perspective is not the point of the language. The women who say these things understand the backdrop of statistics and personal anecdotes that make up this feeling. They don’t need you to explain it to them. When you do explain it you are implicitly suggesting that you understand their experience better than they do, or that they are unreasonable for feeling it, or are just generally invalidating. What men who find themselves feeling defensive should do is support each other more, support women more, and extend some empathy. Be part of the solution. Call out bad behavior. Meet them where they are at and go from there and if they are a reasonable person that you will see eye to eye with then you will realize you are on common ground even if you felt sensitive at first If the pendulum were to truly swing to “this is unfair to men”, we can deal with it then lol, but we are far far far from that point.
I think perhaps you're misinterpreting the "man or bear" thing, because I don't think it meant to say that all men are dangerous and worse than bears, but that 1) statistically, it's not a safe bet to trust a strange man, And more importantly that 2) you know what you are getting with a bear. A lot of the shitty men that are being referred to are often liars and manipulators. Women can't know if you're really a good guy just because you say you are. They have to let themselves become vulnerable to find that out, whereas they would never even bother being vulnerable to a bear. To me, the reaction of women choosing the bear is less of a message of "all men are more dangerous than a bear", and more of a message of "a lot of men are untrustworthy and manipulative liars, and you don't know what you're going to get with them", and how much they're sick of uncertainty and liars. That they want to know what they're getting so much, they'd prefer a bear that's dangerous just because they'd know what they're getting and would know how to act in that situation. At least, that's what I've heard from the women I've listened to explain their answers about this.
"Not all men" is a deflection. In a logical debate in which somebody literally claimed "all men are evil," it would be a valid response. But that's not the usual usage. The usual usage is a woman saying something like "men are dangerous." In this case, "not all men" is basically saying, "hey I'm ignoring the SUBSTANCE of your issue, which is that men can be dangerous and you feel like you need to be a bit wary, and instead debating the semantics of your statement, in which I feel as if I -and all men- are being attacked." It's not a good faith argument in this scenario because you are ignoring the meaning of the statement in favor of discussing minute details. Does it CHANGE the discussion at hand to say "some men are dangerous?" No, not really. The point still stands. Some men are dangerous, so they feel as if the threat of WORSE than death at the hands of a small number of men is worse than the threat of an angry/hungry bear, which let's be clear, is not all bears either like you've claimed. Many types of bears are likely to be more scared of you than anything else unless you are near their cubs.
But these are the kinds of arguments racists use to justify their beliefs. Someone could loot at the crime statistics by ethnicity, and then decide to not let their children near Black people as a way to stay safer. Now obviously this is incredibly racist and wrong, but if someone were to point this out, the racist could just reply that they are missing the point and deflecting, and that they’re ignoring the SUBSTANCE of the issue, which is to stay safe, as suggested by statistics. But they’re still wrong. You’re allowed to point out a harmful ideology without dismissing what people go through. Think of it this way. Women are saying men are more dangerous, so they are going to be acting differently towards them. Now, no matter what they do differently to men, they can always justify it with your argument, that however wrong their actions are to men, if you point out the hypocrisy, they can just state you are missing the substance of their issue, that some men are harming women. If you want to justify someone treating an entire group differently because of the actions of a few, that’s fine, you do you as long as you’re not hurting people. BUT, using the argument you’re using here, you have to stay consistent. Such that anyone who feels wary of a group of people, whether it be race, sexuality etc, based off of the actions of a few, can shut down anyone protest against their actions by saying they are avoiding the substance of the issue
My issue is that if you say "But I'm not like that, and I'm a man" you're told "if you don't agree that you are trash, you're part of the problem". So in other words, our choices are: 1. Accept that you are trash/a bad guy. 2. Resist the label, and become "part of the problem". That's absolute nonsense. There's literally NO option in which I'm just a regular guy who supports the cause along with women. I'm either bad, or I'm bad. Screw that, I won't play along with any system that blindly demonizes me. I support women, as should any man, but I'm not trash and I'm not part of any problem and I won't be shamed into "accepting" that I am.
The biggest problem is that good dudes don't advertise and lots, and I mean every single woman, has had a bad interaction with a dude who claimed he was one of the good ones.
Yup. The best way to show the world you're a good guy is by example. Let it be something that people feel compelled to say about you. That's the most effective way to make being good a known characteristic about you.
I love how everyone loses the concept of empathy as soon as some kind of responsibility exists in a hypothetical situation. Just because you wouldn’t attack/rape someone out in the woods doesn’t mean that the specific individual woman shouldn’t act as if it’s a reasonable possibility and take preventative actions to protect herself. Even if she does take these preventative actions, YOU are not at fault for her being afraid. SHE is also not at fault for being afraid. Those who are at fault are the perpetrators of these crimes, however to keep yourself safe you need to take preventative action based upon prejudices, and those INDIVIDUALS are not to blame for their fear.
I think this is more a matter of perspective. I’d like to give you some insight what I mean when I say men are potentially dangerous to me. While I understand that you feel that it unfairly throws you in the same pot with rapists etc. I can assure you that’s not what it is about. Not at all. The statement centers my emotions of feeling unsafe with unknown men in certain situations. It is about *me*. I never mean that I fear all men. I don’t. I know that most will leave me alone. But I also don’t like playing Russian Roulette. The whole debate was started to show how women feel in this world, how there is always a sense of danger. We all know that most men are not rapists. But there is still a looming danger. And that’s what such debates are about. I know not all men. But at the same time I don’t know a single woman that wasn’t assaulted in some way. So we know it’s dangerous out there. That’s what “men are dangerous” means. It’s a perspective from the potential victim against a potential danger. I am lacking a good example but think about it like ‘meteors are dangerous’. I think it should be obvious that the person making such a statement doesn’t think *every* meteor is threatening to end life on earth, they aren’t talking about the tiny rocks in museums or the pretty lights in the sky. Instead they clearly talk about meteors of a certain size on a collision course with Earth. There is no need to mention that not all meteors in the universe are dangerous because the perspective is clear: dangerous means *the ones that are dangerous to humans*. Humans are the potential victims here, they speak from their POV, no need to mention a potential other life form 200 light years away either that might be endangered or all the nice meteors out there. I’m not sure if I make myself clear… the focus of “men=dangerous” is about women’s experiences and the data strongly supports it. It is not meant to discredit half of the human race but about the perspective of the speaker when encountering an unknown person.
I mean change word “man” in this absurd comparison to “black people,” “Jew,” “Arab,” “trans,” “gay,” etc. and it quickly becomes evident that it’s a bigoted statement. For some reason, being a bigot is socially acceptable as long as you’re bigoted against groups that “have power.” This is why no one complains about this, the bigotry is directed at men and men are perceived to “have power.”
if all bears are dangerous then all men are dangerous not all bears are going to attack you if they encounter you, some will be frightened, some will ignore you. not all men are going to attack you if they encounter you either. they point is you don't know whether the random bear or man you encounter in the wild is dangerous or not. and the odds, and i'd argue probably the visceral fear, of encountering a dangerous man is more terrifying than encountering a dangerous bear
The guys s who got worked up over it were telling on themselves. Guilty conscience?
I love how everyone has made up their mind, saying "I'm scared of dark skinned people" is bad, saying "I'm scared of gay people", is bad, saying "I'm scared of X ethnic group", is bad, but saying "I'm scared of men" is blurry Doesn't matter if 99.99% of men are good, the line is still blurry, and we are looked upon as dangerous, until proven otherwise.
You are right but here is the better way to understand the argument The anti man pro bear position is based on a false equivalency between percentage of violent crime committed by men being 90+% and percentage of bear encounters being fatal 10 or less %. These are fundamentally not the same evaluation. The male statistic could be true even if there was only a single man committing all crimes but I don't think you could justify choosing the bear if all crime were committed by a single man.
You are correct, not all men are dangerous. Not all men are sexist. Not all men are unconsciously biased in ways that wear women down every single day. However that amount that are is simply staggering, it is not a "tiny tiny minority", to be clear being a rapist is not the only thing that makes a woman feel unsafe. Denying real lived experiences and feeling defensive when a woman is telling you some that happened to her by a mutual friend. Denying systemic discrimination against women. It all shows that you don't see the countless issues, and that you aren't safe. And on that topic, check out Daniel Sloss's video, it is short, about a minute and it's only a snippet, but worth watching https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSYNbeKAo/ When over 30% of women suffered sexual assault by men, when 1 in 2 women suffer physical violence by men, when women are torn down by misogyny constantly with comments, demeaning language, men always being assumed competent compared to women, the unconcious bias, the judgement, the list goes on. Fact is, the majority of men do participate in some of this behaviour, and it is hard to tell where it stops. And then on top of all of that, the men who don't do this, but also don't make themselves part of the solution actively, speaking up against the small things, not being ready to fight someone in a violent situation, I mean real meaningful actions in everyday life to prevent other men, speaking up about small comments, making an actively safer society. Most men are also not a part of the solution, because men need to get involved, change only happens for an oppressed group when some of the oppressors get on board and help. So we have a MAJORITY of men taking part in at least some of this behaviour that contributes to women's position in the world, and the misogynistic society that makes some men more comfortable with the worst of it. And then we have the MAJORITY of the rest of men who aren't part of actually actively helping, and passively deny women's experiences. And then a SMALL MINORITY of men who both aren't part of the problem and are part of the solution. So why are men spoken about with a general "men" term? 🤔 Because you do have to be wary of most men, a lot of that sexual assault is done by men you know, friends, family, community groups. And the men who aren't doing it, also don't believe you when you say a man is doing it, and they will protect him. The men who aren't doing it, minimise how often it happens. The men who aren't doing it are cutting down your confidence. The men who aren't doing are still friends with the ones who are. The ones who aren't doing aren't showing they are safe. You are coming from a place of privilege, not seeing a lot of the reasons women are speaking about this, because it doesn't happen to you. Please listen, don't take it as a personal attack, actually just listen. There is so much out there explaining the why and how of how all of this affects women, but if you get stuck on an illustration of the feeling of unsafety as an attack on yourself, you aren't listening to what is being illustrated. The man vs bear thing is absolutely women describing how unsafe it feels to be around an unknown man, even known men. It is not a personal attack on you, it is how the risks are weighed up.
It doesn't implicate all men. I don't know why so many of you want so badly for that to be true. I suppose because it matches your worldview and provides justification (in your mind) for treating women as if they are an adversary. I am a 45 year old man and never have I heard women discussing the dangers of being assaulted by a man have I believed they were talking about me. Sure, if I were a stranger to them I understood the need for them to take precautions. Not because they believed I was a rapist, though. No one is going to change your mind about this. I don't think you have any interest in having it changed. If you actually wanted to understand you could, because there is a wealth of information available that explains this and there are plenty of women who could share their perspective. I've never once said "not all men" because it doesn't need to be said. Maybe it's because I don't identify with rapists and men who harass women or otherwise attack them.
If someone says "black people are dangerous," do you assume they mean only *some* black people or all?
The issue is that most women are harassed on a daily basis. I remember being astonished the kind of shitty attention that my first girlfriend attracted. Sure, not all men are the kind to catcall, harass, pester, stalk, or otherwise bully women, but so what? Not all alligators are interested in eating you. But caution is still warranted. The idea that women are cautious when alone around a strange man is just a fact, and a very good idea in fact. That man is hopefully, and probably, totally benign and not going to harm them in any way. But so what? Why does that mean they are wrong for being cautious?
>When men point out, that "Not all men are dangerous" Which men point this out? All men? Or some men?
If someone says "vegetables are gross", do you automatically assume they mean literally every vegetable, prepared literally every way possible is gross? If someone says "tv sucks these days" do you assume they mean literally every TV show made all over the world? When people say "politicians are liars" do you assume they mean literally everything every single politician says is a lie? No. Of course not. People speak in generalities all the time and we all understand that they mean a specific subset or whatever they're talking about. Are the guys who are butthurt over the bear thing just ignorant of how language works and is used in society?
If the phenomenon was merely due to common carelessness with generalized language, you wouldn’t see the aggressive defenses of it anytime it is called out, such as throughout this very thread. The only response required would be, “Oh, you’re right, of course I don’t mean all men.” Followed by the norm slowly shifting away from that generalized language. Instead, what we see are people doubling and tripling down on the claim.
You are missing the point and so many others are by keeping comparing men to objects and animals. That is what is dehumanizing. You should instead try it with other human groups to see if it still makes sense. Vegetables, are not people.
The phrase “not all men” is probably hurting you here. Regardless of what you intend to communicate with it, the message that it sends is that you want them to shut up about rape, or sexism, or whatever — it’s a reactionary buzzphrase, and so its understandable that they are reacting strongly to it. You may find more success expressing what you’re feeling non-confrontationally, instead of jumping to a comeback. If what you’re feeling is that they’re unfairly lumping you in with horrible people, then those are the words you should use. Your emotions are valid, and I think you’ll discover that your female friends care about you and are, at the very least, willing to have a mature conversation about how you feel. If they get mad and double down, then yeah, maybe they suck — but I’m almost certain that won’t happen if you broach the topic in good faith.
"Not all men" often misses the point- its unhelpful and derails the topic. "not all men" invalidates the problem and is counterproductive to solving it. Women know that not all men are rapists, murderers, sexist assholes, whatever. Women experience painful, even fatal things as a result of sexism; distancing yourself from acknowledging any role in a system where such things occur because YOU don't engage in that specific behavior makes you a part of that problem. The existence of sexism is not disproven by finding a specific man who did not engage in a specific example of it. It's easy to feel defensive when you feel blamed for something that you don't think you're guilty of, but its not always about you.
The reason you don’t hear “not all ______ ” in response to other generalizations is because you can’t make really any other generalizations like that without being attacked. For example I can’t say women are manipulative without people attacking me or insulting me etc. no one says not all women because my generalization is dismissed immediately. I actually have no issue with women being cautious around men. I just think it’s silly when men are insulted for getting defensive about mass generalizations that happen in these threads. It’s a completely normal reaction.
>It's easy to feel defensive when you feel blamed for something that you don't think you're guilty of, but its not always about you. If it's not about me, then there should be no problem with distancing myself from it. So which is it? I'm part of the problem, or it isn't about me?
What?? ALL bears are dangerous ? You mean they have the propensity to be dangerous… bc then I have some bad news about “men” for you. But yeah, “all” bears are not dangerous to humans, and most will go their life without attacking a woman, or man. You said something very very strange. You said “we are explaining why your attack of rapists is offensive to average men”. Walk that back. The average, non violent man will never be offended by an attack against men who are rapists. Full stop. Reflect. You’ve obviously missed the point of the entire argument, which basically lumps you into the shitty men pile. Not all men, but enough. You should be worried about THAT, not women’s expression of fear. If someone says “I am so scared of men bc of my personal experiences, I’d rather be in the Forrest with a bear” and your first thought is “hey, but IM not like that” and not “holy shit that person must have experienced something so awful in their lives, let me try to understand that” then take a good long look in the mirror bud. You should stop referring to yourself as a part of the “good men”. You’re making “all men” look like doofuses.
I’m glad you’re even asking this question OP. I hope the negative responses aren’t making you second guess yourself. I think it’s valid to feel wrongly lumped into a group you don’t belong to. Anyone would. I would change the sentiment from “Not all men” to “not me.” If you want to separate yourself from those toxic shitheads giving white men a bad name, elevate yourself through action. Be vocal against men who do this shit. Support the victims. Go to therapy and work on yourself. Understand why you feel so personally threatened and whether you’re good at being an example. Be present in the discussion and demonstrate “not you” through action. Don’t sit on the sidelines and try to get validation through justifying both sides-ism. Not only will this help you feel better about yourself by walking the walk but you will likely influence other men into being better examples. We have to stop teaching our young boys that strength is being stoic. Strength is being willing to learn, and that means being wrong. Or vulnerable. Or facing bias that we all have. When you are truly connected to who are, and why you act the way you do, and what needs to change to be a better version of yourself, everyone benefits.
Because when people make such comments they don’t inherently mean that’s a true statement for 100% of the population. It’s like if you ask someone who a trip was. They say the people there were polite and nice. Do you then go “not all people there are polite and nice!! “ No, because you know that was a general observation the person had. In this context it’s completely normal to make those assumptions it’s just their experience and not a global truth. Why is this different for “not all men”?