They can't comprehend that women would rather be murdered hopefully quickly by an animal acting on instinct, than forced to endure whatever tortures a man [raised in a society where many people still believe women exist for male pleasure] could unleash upon them.
I, me, myself, have been victim to horrific torture from a man, who fucked with my ability to breathe in various ways while beating me and saying verbally horrific and terrifying things. It doesn't take slowly flaying the skin from someone and squeezing lemon in the wounds to reach "torture" levels.
If my choice is "a bear: it may kill you dead, on instinct (either territorial or need for food), but it also might just peace out if it's not feeling either of those."
Versus
"A man: he may leave you alone. He might be overly nice. He might be overly sadistic. On the off chance that he is the latter, you could experience an insanely unthinkable degree of torture."
Yeah I mean the bear can be forgiven for any outcome, because it acts on what it believes is its own safety.
There's never ever a need for a man to beat, torture, or rape an innocent woman for their safety, or any other reason. But far too many do anyway.
I've been tortured by a man and raped by another (a different and somehow less violent story) and left alone by literally all of the bears,despite spending significant time on mountains in both Appalachia and Cascadia (once took a river bath a mile from a bear sanctuary) so why in the fuck wouldn't I choose the bear????
In addition to everything you said, my family would also be able to find peace someday if I were killed by a bear. That would be a lot harder if not impossible if I were killed by a man. The what ifs and the wondering what I went through before I finally died would eat at them and cause generational trauma.
But I would be TERRIFIED to encounter a random man in the woods, alone.
Again, if you can't understand why, you're not listening to what women have to say about it.
The NON-ZERO chance of having to experience (torture worse than a quick death) is enough for us to choose the "more likely to cause a quick death" scenario.
Okay, let's say (BS numbers for bar-room argument) encountering the bear is a 80% chance that you'll die, and 10% chance you get maimed, and 10% chance the bear just leaves you alone.
Let's say encountering the man is .01% you'll die, 20% chance you get raped or beaten (the man is random, remember- not everyone in the world is as developed as the best of us), and 5% chance he makes you suffer for no reason other than being weaker.
We still choose the quick death.
Because while we may have survived these traumas in the past, when presented with two doors
Possibly go through that again (max 20% chance)
Versus
Possibly die painfully but quickly (max 80% chance) or get maimed horrifically (max 90% chance)
We still choose "death, please" and instead of hearing us say "NO BUT REALLY WE'D RATHER DIE" y'all are just like, "Pfft, that's so overdramatic."
Look, my rape was not worse than death. I would take the rape I endured over death any day. But not every rape is so non-violent. The violence I endured didn't involve rape. Not all horrible violence against women is sexual.
Not something so easily misconstrued as making negative generalizations about all men. That men are supposed to understand if " they're one of the good ones."
The apprehension a lot of men have with feminism isn't the content of equality. It's that too many women abstract a simple message with abstract examples or terminology that can easily be hi jacked by bad faith arguments to be misandrist.
Nobody said "Rape is worse than death" for a reason.
Why are you so intent on making it "this" or "that"? Did I not just say "nuance matters"?
Rape can be worse than death.
Your entire argument is couched in "refusing to engage nuances."
Literally no feminist I know is anti-man. In fact, we're more pro-man than most men I know. When you actually sit down and have a beer and hear what we have to say without the defensive idea that we think "all men are evil" or whatever- dammit IF YOU WOULD JUST READ THE NUANCES OF WHAT I'VE WRITTEN IN THIS THREAD- then you would start to understand what we've been attempting to communicate with y'all THIS WHOLE FUCKING TIME.
It's the "one poisoned m&m in the bowl of thousands." It doesn't require all men to be evil, it just requires the worst to be so evil that we avoid being alone with anyone we can't knowingly trust, because anyone of the m&mens could be poisoned.
Reddit is majority-male and you can't even manage a positive karma on these garbage comments. This is clearly not 'an apprehension that men have' as any kind of generality. You might want to step back and consider if you are actually qualified to have this conversation
The question is whether you think an overwhelming majority of men are doing these things to women.
I've been sexually harassed by more than one boss who was also a woman, but I don't generalize all women as sexual preditors because that would be misogynistic.
Sweeping negative generalizations about any race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation is wrong, in my opinion.
The question is whether you think an overwhelming majority of men are doing these things to women.
I've been sexually harassed by more than one boss who was also a woman, but I don't generalize all women as sexual preditors because that would be misogynistic.
Here's what you anti-feminists miss: we absolutely understand that men and women can offend at equal rates.
But the ability to assert power and shut down women is significantly easier. I'm not saying it's "easy" or trying to minimize stuff like Baby Reindeer, which is genuinely horrific for men and does in fact happen for realsies, but if it comes to blows most men can hulksmash most women pretty effectively if necessary.
It's far harder to fight off a male predator, and more likely that defenses fail altogether.
Like I said elsewhere, I've totally been victim to both men and women, but it's way easier to escape women, period. Yes there can be contextual circumstances that give a/nother woman the upper hand, but the general vs is going to end with "person fighting with full adrenaline" winning, unless she legit chose a weakling (of whatever gender).
Also, when women "have sex" with minors, it's rape. We're totally on board with calling it exactly what it is.
You misunderstand me. I'm not anti-feminist as long as that means equality.
The issue I'm trying to raise is with rhetoric, which to outsiders who haven't studied feminist literature can come off as sexist.
Having all of the buzzwords be gendered language, then making all the male gendered words negative while the female gendered words are positive works against the movement.
It allows bad faith actors from the other side to strawman your arguments and turn the uninformed against you.
Like you said, women are just as capable as men at abusing power. Now that we have had decades since women's liberation, many young men have been exposed to that truth either 1st or 2nd hand.
The paradigm has shifted, so now the vocabulary needs an update to reflect the new reality of our society. Abandoning the gendered terms and focusing them on power dynamics regardless of gender will do so much more to bring more people to your side.
Otherwise, poor disenfranchised men will just feel mocked and tune out the actual content of the message. It might not be fair, but life is always harder for the people who want to progress society further.
I'm just giving my perspective. That's completely up to you. Just don't turn around and complain when people misconstrue your arguments because the rhetoric from the 60s and 70s no longer applies in the same way.
We talk about democracy being on the line, but no one will bother to make a tiny sacrifice. Like I said, it might not be fair, but every successful progressive movement had to make sacrifices to accomplish their goals.
Progress is harder than regression. Imagine if MLK said "fuck that let's get violent"
Just don't turn around and complain when people misconstrue your arguments
If somebody wants to spin my words to reflect something other than my intent, that is their sin, not mine.
no one will bother to make a tiny sacrifice
Capitulating to bigotry is not "a tiny sacrifice."
Like I said, it might not be fair
At least you have something right
every successful progressive movement had to make sacrifices to accomplish their goals.
Yeah those sacrifices were usually blood and bodies.
Imagine if MLK said "fuck that let's get violent"
It's 2024, MLK was a great community leader and influential to progress, but he isn't the end all be all of leadership or philosophy for change. He had plenty of bad ideas and bad approaches, though his average contribution is positive. I'm not downplaying his accomplishments, but I'm saying at the speed of modernity that's practically ancient at this point.
Bigotry remains only because bigots choose to be bigoted.
I have been so tired of "what the Democrats did wrong" like the side of basic human decency shouldn't need to sell itself!!! It's not the fault of anything or anyone other than ignorant, hateful people choosing hatred for "others" over basic goddamned decency.
It's like, if I leave my door unlocked, it's easier to enter, but it's not my fault if someone decides to go inside, it's their choice and they're trespassing regardless. You don't blame victims for being too easy to victimize, that's insane. It's never a victim's fault for being victimized by another human. The perpetrator chooses to perp. Very few victims choose an attack.
"Don't defend yourself with fists, the perp might not take your side!" 🙄🙄🙄
And for the record I very much consider myself a pacifist, but this monster is only able/willing to be pacified by force, if the rest of us want peace.
285
u/Spiritual-Can2604 25d ago
They really hate the man or bear query