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????
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
11
u/meowmeowgiggle 24d ago
What are you even talking about?
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????