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?
One thing about being a woman (which I am not for the record, I have a lovely wife who explains things) is that you can’t just trust men. They can overpower you, and even though most won’t, some will and there’s no way to tell who it’s going to be. That necessarily means women have to not trust men that they don’t know intimately for their own safety.
That concept certainly extends to parents of girls. If there is not a female authority in the house, a sleepover with a man and bunch of girls is questionable at best and tragedy waiting to happen at worst, even if that man is one of their fathers.
It doesn’t mean that they have to think that man is “unpacified” to call out that specific situation as inappropriate. It’s just a boundary your friend now has to be aware of, and agree to let his daughter go to sleepovers in other girls’ homes.
That being said, I wouldn’t call this specific situation stigma from being a perceived incel, but more like parents being wary of a single man they might not know that well hosting a sleepover with a bunch of girls.
…
Edit: There have already been a couple of real salty men who take issue with the fact that women are wary of men just because they’re men. I get it. I’ve been there.
But I’m not going to rehash the whole argument I just went through because you might think the line of reasoning that you aren’t a rapist means it’s wrong for women to take precautions.
It’s not personal. It’s not a reflection of you as a person. It’s just something women have to be aware of.
I’m not going to engage this point with anyone else. I posted some resources. I’d urge anyone who comes away from this comment thread with anger or confusion to just get a woman’s perspective first and try to be open minded.
What the hell?
That’s an awful take on life. Replace “men” who can overpower women with a race of people who have larger physiques than the average people or perhaps with those who hail from culture who has had a more violent past. We’re obviously just assuming things, so why not? A generic man can overpower a generic woman just as much as a generic Norwegian person can overpower a generic Korean person.
That’s saying that you can’t trust your kids to sleep over at the house of anybody who isn’t like you. I really hope that you guys aren’t pushing this world view on children.
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.
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.
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.
^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.
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?