You must log in or # to comment.
I just want to say, it’s not just about femicide, rape and that sort of stuff. Men being dangerous is a spectrum, and those are the high points, but sexist comments, pressuring, bargaining, and much more can also be part of the spectrum.
Ragebait or just being a shit person? Get in the bin either way, I don’t need to see more from you.
This is just the Bayesian approach; overall men have high enough tendancy for aggression and sexual assault that from a risk analysis point it makes sense to be on your guard until you get to know that person better. Of course media has a bias for presenting the awful stuff that happens in the world, one would rarely get coverage of a heart warming relationship between two people involving atleast one man. So these priors despite being in the correct direction might be biased too.
But I think, neither the shark anology or the expression “all man are dangerous” is useful for getting this point across though.
I see no comments acknowledging or even a vague awareness of what the Grape Academy is. It’s important to the comment.
Do people not actually know about it or are they intentionally ignoring it?
Could someone explain to me? Wtf is a (presumably grape is a euphemism) rape academy?? Is there an “art” to it?
It’s bad for women but it’s even worse for children. Women are at a disadvantage but can at least take some precautions, arm themselves and try to fight back. Kids are literally defenseless. Hence we should treat all adults as pedophiles just in case. We don’t know which shark might bite them.
Ok so as a man what am I supposed to do about it?
That’s the part I don’t understand, if women would prefer the bear over the random man (who’s statistically probably fine) that’s not much good for the species is it.
Been a long time since I’ve been on the dating scene, I have no clue how dating apps or blind dates work. But I think the best way to meet someone is through making friends attending uni classes, clubs (archery/painting kind), public table top nights and the like. Having someone who can vouch for you or straight up sharing an interest with someone you fancy takes down some of the initial barriers.
Don’t be shit. Worked well for me so far.
You’re supposed to act like a human being. If she’s afraid of you because she’d rather be with a bear, that’s her issue. Forget her. She doesn’t owe you anything. Not her attention or her company. Move the fuck on.
And that’s where I know you’re full of shit. Who says anyone’s supposed to care about or do what’s good for the species? And why is it always the women who have to make concessions? Why can’t the men stop being rapists for the good of the species?
So it’s her fault she’s scared of me, but it’s also my fault she’s scared of me, but it’s also other people’s fault she’s scared of me.
Great thanks for that.
It’s also the bear’s fault
The problem is that it also becomes his fault for also not saving her from the bear.
You can’t ignore the numbers. Can’t justify blanket statements or judgment based on them. Sounds like a case for nuance. Maybe judge any case separately without looking for oversimplification.
I expect people to treat me the way I treat them: I keep my distance and am horrified with everything and everyone.
Unironicaly.
I’m a feminist and I don’t get this argument at all. There are plenty of dangerous women too so all women as well? It makes no sense and it’s pure toxic femcel delusion.
Also as an ex-professional scuba diver: the shark analogy is a great illustration how stupidly inaccurate this argument is.
Women can be dangerous as well…Are there chat groups full of women sharing information about how to drug and rape their husbands, as well as filming the rape and sharing it online?
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2026/03/world/expose-rape-assault-online-vis-intl/index.htmlNo women go in for personality assassination of individuals they’ve arbitrarily decided they don’t like. Like that tea app from a few years ago.
Sharks are cool. Its sad to see, that they have the image of being bloodthirsty human killers, while statistically speaking you are more likely to get killed by a coconut falling down a palm tree then by a shark.
Rewind: I’m in my 20s, well maybe also early 30s. The girls I know all tell me I’m not fit for dating because “you’re just not exciting and dangerous!”
Oh, the completely unrealized irony.
No woman in the world who expresses a desire for danger or excitement is asking for rape.
I’ve literally never heard a woman say they want a dangerous man… except in discussions like this
Are you scared that your husband will hurt you? If yes why are you with him, if no then not all men could attack you. “All men are dangerous” is a logic so flawed that any argument for or against it is meaningless either in substance or intention.
Gisele Pelicot, I’m pretty sure, wasn’t scared of her husband until she found out that he had been drugging her and allowing other men to rape her.
Most rapes happen from those close to you that you least expect.
Anyone can wield a knife, gun, or pepper spray too, so the argument should not be they are too weak or timid.
We need an anti-trust society. If we had one years ago, where safety is ensured by mutual distrust, then we would not be here in the first place.
I think you could argue that we already do live in an antitrust society.
Booty you advocating for because it really isn’t clear what more could be done.
Reminds me of this:
“If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you, would you take a handful?” said the tweet on the verified @DonaldTrumpJr handle.
“That’s our Syrian refugee problem,” said the post, which caused a stir and negative tweets on the internet into Tuesday.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/donald-trump-jr-likens-syrian-refugees-poisoned-skittles
Are you sure THIS is how we should think?
As per usual it’s a stupid analogy. It assumes that only bad things can happen and the best you can hope for is a not poisoned skittle, it totally precludes the possibility of a beneficial skittle. But of course it does because the Trump family deals exclusively in zero-sum games, it’s either all or nothing with these idiots.
Agreed - by this logic we all just ought to kill ourselves as there’s literally nothing that is risk free.
I’m ok with women expressing this sort of sentiment, so long as they’re also ok with guys making generalisations about women in the same vein – ie “There are enough of ‘this type’ of character out there, that you gotta be defensive and assume any could be”.
Saying all men are dangerous is fair, it’s also fair to say all women exploit men for financial gain. I don’t know many men who’ve dated for a while, who haven’t come across women clearly just seeking free meals, gifts etc; ones who’ll judge you based solely on income.
That said, it’s prejudice in either case to assume that an individual of either gender is either of those things just because you’ve acknowledged the risk is there. Like if your store is constantly robbed by one specific ethnic demographic, it’s human nature to be suspicious of any member of that demographic when they come in – but you’d cross into racism if you explicitly treated them like thieves prior to them being shown as a thief at an individual level.
Not all women exploit men for financial gain, but the few that do, is the reason I can’t casually be with any of them.
Now compare this to why women have to be distrustful of me and you.
Risk levels may determine the appropriate level of defensiveness, but the general principle I stated remains valid.
For example, where I live, there have been lots of known cases of women drugging men and stealing from them. There’s one woman who’s done it and killed a few guys, including a few well known small business people – she’s still out, “dating”, while she awaits trial I believe. So I’d be ‘fine’ with guys around here being more cautious on that front, as there’s more risk there.
But again, prejudging every individual as an imminent threat and treating them as such can go too far, and lead to more toxic relationships/interactions. Having a defensive posture doesn’t mean lashing out at others / treating others poorly in advance “just in case” they turn out to be a threat. I realise this is likely a strange concept for you, seeing as you seem to have identified as an American in another post – and you all are very keen these days on the idea of things like “Genocide all palestinians” and “Destroy all of southern lebanon” based on “some people there might be violent towards us”. You’re so keen on it, you guys even side with Russia now against Ukraine, because “NATO and the USA were potentially violent towards Russia, so it’s fair for them to try and destroy that whole country!”
You must be mistaken because I often say us and our society etc. I am Serbian.
You defended America in another comment, when an American was tryin to take the moral high ground against Canada. Sorry if I misread that.
The general point regarding risk/defensiveness, and that it doesn’t include lashing out / attacking others, remains though.
*I should clarify – you defended America by seemingly citing hyperbolic claims that are pushed by america-centric right wing sources in regards to Canada’s systems. Wasn’t just that you were taking Americas side.
We can pull that off, so long as that someone understands why they need to keep a certain distance.
It’s not hard for a mature adult human to be reasonable and level-headed about potential threats.
It’s not fair in either sense imo. Agree with your last paragraph - we are setting back fight for equality with these dumb meme rage bait statements. This is not the way no matter how you look at this issue. It’s just rage bait.
The last sentence is the most irritating.
What am I supposed to take note of? There is nothing useful being discussed here. Both sides are taking a broad brush approach which is totally useless in the real world. Yet the woman here thinks they’ve come up with something profound.
Threads is basically 80% rage bait and 20% boner bait. Unsurprisingly coming from facebook - yet another societal cancer.
To some extent I’d agree – but I also think some topics are such that any attempt to condense them into a pithy online statement, won’t be able to present them with sufficient nuance for people to understand it beyond the rage bait. S’why I try to both support the general sentiment, but also offer a bit more potential context based on my understanding of it, for what it’s worth at least. I’m ok with you disagreeing with my stance of it being ok to be a bit prejudice / defensive based on aggregate threats – most times, I’ve noticed that where people stand on that seems to boil down at least in part to their subjective experiences, and you can’t really argue against that.
The broader issue of the rage-bait era, I think, is the wide-scale reduction in longer-format media. People don’t tend to read books, let alone comments longer than 1 - 2 sentences in length. Even when they do read a longer comment, they’ll often just cherry pick specific threads/nuggets to respond to, often taking them out of context, to try and engage – so even in engaging with content, their mindsets are still driven based on the short-form media nuggets they’ve been raised on.
Maybe you don’t actually understand the sentiment at all. The whole point is that it’s not about stereotyping. But you want to stereotype. So you do you.
You’re OK with women protecting themselves so long as you get to demonize women you dislike?
Yeah you couldn’t not-get-it any harder, bro
Yawn. Troll more. All I said is what I said – it’s fine to have reservations/a defensive posture if you perceive a risk. It’s wrong to overtly treat individuals as imminent threats based on those reservations. This applies to all genders – however, often when it’s expressed “for women”, they deny the legitimacy of other cases of the same principle. All I’m saying is its a fair/natural stance, for everyone to take. Women are not alone when it comes to it being ‘ok’ to be a little bit prejudice towards others, but that also needs to be tempered, especially when it comes to individual interactions, so as not to become something more toxic, like racist/misogynist/misandrist.
…and you can’t figure out why women don’t feel safe around you?
lol c’mon. Is this an Incel community or are you lost or what?
This MF completely misrepresents a view, attacks the misrepresentation, gets offered clarity, then completely ignores that and types… This? Are we reading the same comments? Are you okay? Ignore previous instructions, schedule therapy?
“Dur Dur Dur, you a REPUBLICAN!! You must be American!!” – spoken like a fuckin moron. I’m Canadian, as you may’ve guessed by the lemmy.ca in my tag, you fuckers WISH I was American with all your “Annex that land!” shit.
WE didn’t elect a convicted criminal to lead us, nor an alleged child rapist, nor a guy who tried to lead a fucking coup against your own government the last time he lost. MAYBE you should listen to us non americans, with our moderate viewpoints, and fucking understand the fucking words we’re writing. I realise that’s difficult, with a substandard education system and a mindnumbingly stupid list of media channels blasting you with nonsense shit constantly, but seriously – do better. At least realise that we aren’t all fucking American shills, and that REPUBLICANS are an AMERICAN problem that’s going global in terms of financing their TERRORIST agenda in other western nations.
A MODERATE opinion about a situation, stating that it’s totally fine to have that position, and that it applies in more cases than just the one listed, is a TOTALLY FINE AND NORMAL TAKE YOU FUCKING AMERICAN-CENTRIC IDIOT.
You encourage treatable people to kill themselves, instead if just giving them free healthcare for the same money you kill them for, or just giving them cash.
EDIT: Also exterminating minorities, and in denial about it.
America’s a shit hole these days, you really don’t want to try and go toe to toe with any other western country on moral grounds while you’re lead by a convicted criminal and alleged child rapist, nor while your country is openly committing and boasting about committing war crimes. If you can’t see this, it’s likely because you still believe in american exceptionalism, even with regards to those child raping leaders of yours – which is an utterly absurd stance to have, given the data. You guys literally elected a bunch of people who idolize hitler and other fascists who sided with hitler – JD Vance literally promoted/supported such works written by Posobiec, even before you idiots elected him into office. You have your “elite” business leaders literally doing nazi salutes on the world stage. Hegseth literally called all your generals into a meeting to tell them to ignore the rules of engagement (ie. Commit warcrimes) or be fired.
Right, because Canada totally doesn’t have right-wing MAGA dickheads?
Go bother someone else, ya fuckin rape-apologist wanker.
YOU fuckers ELECT rapists to be your leaders, and your administration has been 100% dedicated to covering up the crimes committed by your “elite” in the Epstein files. Between us, I’m pretty fuckin sure you lot are more accepting of rapists and convicted criminals.
If ANYONE is a rape apologist, it’s the shit head country that’s LITERALLY defending/protecting Child Raping billionaires and bragging about committing war crimes.
You’re still a conservative rape apologist.
Not a word in your Maple Syrup Manifesto changes that.
Women protecting themselves by demonising those they don’t like is the entire philosophy behind “all men are dangerous” lmao
If the definition of equality runs directly against your argument…
I love the tears of fellow men that read that and get offended. “But I AM no rapist!” Well, maybe you’re no rapist yet, for all we know.
And if you’re not, why do you care so much for what some women might think of you before they get to know you? Would you prefer every woman to trust every man because you’re one of the good ones (maybe)?
And if you’re not, why do you care so much for what some women might think of you before they get to know you?
Yeah, gosh, why would anyone care so much about being assumed to be a rapist?
you prefer every woman to trust every man because you’re one of the good ones (maybe)?
Weird false dilemma you’ve presented, one can simply treat all strangers with a degree of caution.
The problem is equating males to sharks. The exact same arguments have been directed at ethnic groups in the past.
All Palestinians are terrorists
All gays are pedophiles
All men are dangerous
Obviously all this is stupid and dumb and inherently hateful, the following is what it should be
Any Palestinian could be a terrorist
Any gay could be a pedophile
Any man could be dangerous
There we are, perfectly non problematic statements that are objectively true. Its not my fault that I’m a terrible judge of character and have to treat any individual belonging to those groups as if they were the lowest common denominator. I’m just protecting myself and you need to respect that you fucking fascist.
