Obviously I can understand why mysoginists are hated upon, As their belief is all women are trash or men are superior etc. But why are incels also generally hated upon? They are lacking in a way that makes them unable to gey in a relationship, but that shouldn’t necessarily mean they are mysoginists, right?
What am I missing here? I haven’t ever had a relationship with a woman, but I don’t hate all women either. I just consider myself unlucky. Does that make me an incel?
Is it an awful way to go through life? Yes. Does it lower your risk to go through life this way? Also yes. Sorry, but I’m not risking my kid’s innocence to be politically correct.
Not all men, but enough men to be wary of all men.
Concise and to the point. Thank you for understanding this. Unfortunately, the other guy is dead set on not understanding it.
I can’t believe what I’m reading in this thread.
You are judging half of the population on their physical makeup.
This makes me sick.
Fuck trying to be better than those who have come before us. Fuck trying to build a better future.
I hope our paths never cross.
deleted by creator
No, half the population is being judged on their statistical likelihood to commit violence. Their physical makeup is only part of that. Most of it is a cultural entitlement, as evidenced by so many on here getting butthurt that people might be afraid of them because of their life experiences.
I agree with you. This sort of blatant bigotry has to be a right wing psyop to split the left or something. No way that “liberal” minded people could think it’s rational to discriminate against half the population
Lmao
You’re really missing the point here and getting offended over reality for half the population.
Enough men are a danger to women and children that it forces women to be wary of all men. Which is the smart and right thing to do.
If you’re in a room with 100 people and you know 10 of them are extremely violent with extremely short fuses that can be triggered by anything from a casual look to an uninvited ‘hello’’, but you don’t know which 10 it is, how are you going to socially navigate that room? Are you going to pretend like everyone in that room is a friend and make strong eye contact with everyone saying hello? Or are you going to tread lightly?
That’s the reality women face with men every day.
I know plenty of people who make this same argument for why whites can’t trust blacks. Those people are called racists. People who make the argument you’re making are called sexists.
No you don’t. Because there isn’t a preponderance of evidence than black people are less trustworthy than non-POC.
Just because an argument sounds similar does not make it the same.
That is true, but is not a universally held belief. Many strongly feel that black people are inherently dangerous and untrustworthy. Others feel the same about Muslims. Or Chinese. Or Russians. Or Jewish people. Or Gypsies.
People who feel that way about those groups are called bigots. You feel that way about men which means you are also a bigot. Not a difficult analysis.
Feelings & beliefs =/= statistics
What do FBI crime stats say about Black Americans?
Statistics are easily misconstrued, and often are
We aren’t talking belief here. What I am saying is based off of empirical evidence.
Why are you being so unapologetically obtuse?
You can use FBI crime statistics to make “empirical” arguments about black Americans. Yet I think we both recognize that would be fallacious
^false equivalency. Sexists hate men (or women) on principle. That’s not what this concept is. You’d know that if you paid attention just a little bit
Treating someone negatively or positively on the basis of their sex is sexism.
Applying a loose definition to a situation to fit your politics is dishonest
Treating someone differently on the basis of sex is sexism. Treating someone differently on the basis of race is racism. This isn’t hard
And what of abusive women? Women are suddenly more trustworthy in this situation?
Why?
You got evidence it’s not just a social stigma that’s giving men a bad reputation and ignoring all the instances where women have done the same?.
You’re not being cautious. You’re being paranoid and propagating a serious social problem that has been around for literally centuries.
99% of sexual assault cases are perpetrated by men, and 91% of the victims are women
You’re not being diligent or “fair” to men to avoid spreading a social stigma, you are blind to the fact that it’s nearly 100x more likely to be a man committing sexual assault than a woman.
Accusing this person of being paranoid of a very real problem is ironically pretty ignorant and paranoid on your own part as a man (I assume).
And so you keep propagating garbage. Slow clap.
Anyway:
https://www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/files/library/effectsofsexualassaultsonmen-physicalmentalandsexualconsequences.pdf
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02717-0
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1097184X08322632
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/if-love-could-kill/202401/the-last-taboo-female-sexual-abuse-of-children
I doubt you’ll actually read any of this. But if you are interested in educating yourself you may need a paywall unlocking extension for some of these.
Perhaps you’ll even notice how the subject of men getting raped by women, or children getting abused by women, goes unreported, is understudied, almost never gets funding for study, is never taken seriously, and has more than a little bit of social pressure going against it.
But hey, I guess I’m just blind, huh?
Ok, let’s take your garbage source by source, since you obviously think that overwhelming me with data is a viable strategy:
“Violence against women survey shows that 3% of men experienced some form of sexual victimization”
So… Consistent with my source that estimates about 9% of victims are men (or specifically not explicitly women)?
“The incidence rates of male sexual victimization range widely, from less than one percent to 73%” the reason given in the source is that many incidences are believed to be under reported.
That still doesn’t really change the fact that reported sexual assault in the US is overwhelmingly done by men, as outlined by your next source:
Starting at Page 18
“More than a quarter of US women experienced unwanted sexual contact at some point in their lives”
“Across all states, between 23.4% and 42.0% of women experienced non-contact unwanted sexual experiences at some point in the lives”
Perpetrators of female sexual contact are 97.1% Male with nearly 70% of unwanted sexual contact done by an acquaintence or stranger. You know that point I’ve been making up and down this thread about women needing to be wary of men they don’t know? Here it is. In your source.
Page 32 lines out that 86.5% of unwanted sexual contact to men were also perpetrated by exclusively men, with less than 10% of those cases being female only perpetrators.
So… Also supporting my source that the vast majority of sexual assault is done by men? Even the vast majority of unwanted sexual contact done against men is perpetrated by other men?
(The onus is on you to provide a source not locked behind a pay wall if you want me to read it, not me to crack it. However, I will again point out that the claim I made does not preclude male victims of sexual assault from existing at all)
This one is a little different because it’s exclusively about sexual violence toward children, and neither here nor there on my original claim, but:
"Although these convictions are far less than those of male offenders…
While figures in the United States suggest that women account for 12 to 17 percent of the sex offender population"
Yeah, again, consistent with the core assertion that men are far more likely to commit sexual assault.
So in conclusion, maybe you didn’t actually read most of these? Because they all (obviously excluding the one I didn’t see behind the pay wall) outright state exactly what I said, which is that the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by men.
Who’s pedaling garbage? These are your sources…
Now where’s the part where you acknowledge the fact that the source I linked is thoroughly notated and referenced? And that I didn’t in fact just make those numbers up?
Or am I the only one required to do any reading?