As men, we need to be sensitive to the safety of women?

[mtber75]

Good point about guns. A woman can be trained to use one just as proficiently as a man. The whole "poor vulnerable women" vs. "awful predatory men" is yet another example of anti-male propaganda espoused by contemporary society.

 

 

Yeah, remember that WeinerGate scandal in NY. He just got thrown under the bus by the establishment for what? Being a narcissist and taking pictures of himself so he can show off to the ladies? Meanwhile everyone was throwing sympathy cards to the poor wife (popular rising political figure)!!!

[TheBigQuestion]

Pointing out that people are more likely to be victimized by people they know seems to imply that they should ONLY worry about people they know, and they should NEVER worry about strangers. Anyway, I was thinking more about the mother of that 9-year-old boy, who seems to think that strangers in the subway could never pose a threat to her kid.

 

 

 

It only has to happen once! I'm aware that crimes like the Leiby Kletzky murder are not common, but the fact that it happened even once is disturbing to me. That could have been any kid walking down the street by himself. It could have happened to that 9-year-old boy whose mother is convinced that the strangers of NYC will never harm her child. Are kids likely to be kidnapped and murdered by strangers? No, but it's not impossible. It does happen. I mean, I'm not likely to get into a car accident every time I drive, but I still wear my seatbelt. Like you said, it's just common sense.

 

 

 

Calm down. I didn't put words in anyone's mouth and I don't engage in any irrational behaviors. I'm sorry, I don't have a young child to send out into the city streets to prove just how "rational" I am. I have only myself to take care of, and I think I do a pretty good job.

 

No. My statements do not imply anything of the sort, unless you're inclined to disagree with them in the first place, or if you have problems with reading comprehension. They imply, nay, clearly state in plain language, that people should measure out how to take care of themselves in proportion to what has the greater chance of causing them harm. Nothing more, nothing less. So yes, you asserted something that I did not at any point say.

 

That mother realized that sending a 9-year-old on a crowded subway in a relatively safe city with a mode of communication and a curfew was safe enough from an empirical standpoint. At no point did she or anyone else say that strangers in the city couldn't harm her. She just chose not to shelter her child for unsubstantiated reasons, and the fact that a good amount of people razzed her for doing what she did is a testament to how sheltered a society we are becoming.

 

Yes, it's unfortunate that bad things happen to good, innocent people. You are correct to find it disturbing. My point from my initial post onward hasn't changed. Precautions should be proportional to reality. The article I'm talking about was on the topic of helicopter parenting and the unwarranted obsession with child safety, both of which have done away with such staples of growing up as dodgeball and jungle gyms. Giving a kid money for train fare and a curfew to run an errand has only been considered beyond the pale in terms of parenting for the past 25 or so years, which has paradoxically coincided with a sharp decline in almost all crimes in almost all environments. Why? Probably because fear sells in large quantities among small-minded people.

Edited November 29, 2011 by TheBigQuestion

[dasein]

Absolutely agree. Now, why aren't there more feminist pro-gun's rights groups out there?

 

LOL good one. I promise not to mention after this that depriving the citizenry of firearms is one of the first steps in marxist/leninist systems of centralized control, along with inculcating a victim mentality in women (and any other pliant group that will listen), destroying social institutions, removing men from the family unit and placing the state in their stead. Sound familiar?

 

OK to the topic, public safety for all is everyone's concern. More violent crimes are committed against men than women, which many tend to forget. As far as "women's safety" being polarized out as a separate issue from "public safety?" F-ck no, that's an example of why we are in the gender mess we are in now.

[Queen Zenobia]

LOL good one. I promise not to mention after this that depriving the citizenry of firearms is one of the first steps in marxist/leninist systems of centralized control, along with inculcating a victim mentality in women (and any other pliant group that will listen), destroying social institutions, removing men from the family unit and placing the state in their stead. Sound familiar?

 

I feel like I've wandered into one of my father's economics and political thought courses right now. Preach preacher.

[thatone]

Was having a discussion among friends, and someone was telling me that with the way the world is these days, esp. with what you hear on the news and the like, it's no wonder women tend to be overly cautious when men approach them. He was saying that doing any kind of cold-turkey approach be it at a gas station, bookstore, or whatever....and perhaps forgoe that altogether. Because they don't know who you are or what you're capable of.

 

He says, women have to be cautious on a constant basis or on alert almost instinctively. And if you're not in tune with that, any kind of approach without any real kind of familiarization can be off-putting, even though you do have a clean record and you're friends can vouche for you, but she doesn't know that.

 

That the only real way to get to know a woman is through a network of her friends knowing YOU, and the like.

 

Though, some KIND of approach has to be done, but apparently these days.....you cannot just go up to a woman and start talking to her. You better have a good reason basically?

 

Any truth to this?

 

that's all bullsh*t.

 

i strike up conversation with people in public all the time, men and women alike. i'm not particular about which sex they are.

 

i've run into professional athletes in bars before, they're all bigger/stronger/faster than me, should i have been afraid of them?

 

you can't walk 2 miles in the city i'm from without running into some sort of street scam artist, should i be afraid of them?

 

anyone who can't have a conversation with a stranger needs professional help.

[Sugarkane]

1 in 4 women will be sexually abused in their lifetime. Thats a fact. Yet men who get sexually abused is much lower.

[Sugarkane]

It's still different being a woman compared to a man. As a woman I don't feel safe having one night stands with strangers. Yet I read many men on here do this freely. You have a higher chance of being sexually assaulted. If you're a man you wouldn't have to worry about being sexually assaulted by a woman. How many times do you hear about men getting sexual assaulted? Pretty much zero.

 

As a woman you still have to take precautions:

Don't party alone, get drunk, ask a stranger to take you home.

Don't walk at home at night alone.

Not get talked into something you don't want to do.

[Sugarkane]

Also alot of foreigners come from countries where women are treated like cattle. They have no rights, that's normal for these people. You also have these extremists that preach racism and that if women aren't covered from head to toe, it's okay to rape them.

[Elysian Powder]

1 in 4 women will be sexuall abused in their lifetime. Thats a fact. Yet men who get sexually abused is much lower.

 

Feminist propaganda meant to fund more female programs and to further vilify men by making women fearful of men, and by being on their guard 24/7 when near men, men will give up on women which will result in women only being approached by players, resulting in a massive increase of female clients for psychologists and pharmacologists.

 

I have never met an abused woman. Not even in HS the girls had to endure abuse.

 

Also alot of foreigners come from countries where women are treated like cattle. They have no rights, that's normal for these people. You also have these extremists that preach racism and that if women aren't covered from head to toe, 's okay to rape them.

 

Funny that I know many Islamic women and they are entitled. Can you stop spouting BS to gain attention, or am I abusing you?

Edited November 29, 2011 by Elysian Powder

[Taramere]

As a practical matter, yes, men DO need to be sensitive to the safety concerns of women and how their pick-up approaches may appear to them.

 

It's polite and social to show a certain amount of sensitivity towards strangers. I mean if I'm going for a cycle or a walk in a location where it would be normal to say hi to passing strangers, I'll kind of automatically monitor the person's body language in advance. It's not a complicated process. It's just a split second thing that with some people, you can get a strong sense that they just want to be let alone and even just saying hi to them might be an imposition.

 

A very small minority of men might struggle with the rejection that a very direct "I'm not interested - leave me alone" message from a strange woman entails, and use it as a reason to berate or be aggressive to her than just leaving her alone. Obviously men like that shouldn't be encouraged to approach strangers. If they can't take a "not interested" message with good grace, problems are going to result.

 

Having a pleasant chat with a stranger in a petrol station or a shop isn't a big deal though. Even for the paranoid, there are almost always CCTV cameras keeping a watchful look-out in these places. In terms of whether men should be sensitive to women potentially feeling harassed when approaching them...well, it depends what they're approaching them about.

 

Maybe in the US, men just walk up to women in shops and ask them out? I would find that odd. Where I live it's normal for a sort of group conversation to take place between the shopkeeper and customers (often about a front page news story). If the person lives in your area you might chat to them again when you see them in the park or in the street. Gradually you start getting to know that person from the snippets of conversation you have with them and you feel more of a connection with them.

 

I get the impression that in the US there's more this sense of I want it and I want it NOW! "Interesting news story, right? My name's George. How are you? Would you like to go out for dinner tonight?"

 

I can see that in some environments that might work well. In other environments, it's liable to be regarded as pushy and unwelcome...like a cold-calling salesman. I think a person just has to gauge the environment they're in, and work within its norms and rules for the most part. Once in a while, if they encounter somebody they have a strong instant sense of connection with, they might break those rules....but I think people who habitually break the social norms and rules of their environment are probably going to meet with mistrust from others.

[Forever Learning]

Life is tough, so what?

 

I would hate for anyone to construe my input here as negative or that I am complaining about the hardships in life.

 

My focus in life is on my gratefulness and thankfulness for the good things in my life.

 

I am not here to bash men, or anyone. I judge each person individually by there own personal merits of inner character and integrity.

 

I don't have any agenda. Life is what it is. I just observe it and try to learn from it. I mostly try to keep my hand off life's 'stove', so to speak.

 

My personal experience has taught me I should take certain precautions and maintain a certain level of awareness to maintain my own safety. I still think life is more dangerous for women and children. Not saying life can't be dangerous for men as well. It's not a walk in the park for anyone. Such is life.

 

I adjust accordingly for my own safety based on past personal experience. Some of this I learned the hard way. But it's all good, as evidenced by the fact that I am here and typing these words on my computer screen at the moment. And I am thankful for that privilege.

Cheers!

[AHardDaysNight]

I know at least 3 women that have been raped, abused, or molested in their lifetime. Many of these have been by family members or "friends", that they thought they knew.

 

I have never been propositioned for sex in a negative way, but just a few months ago, I witnessed 4 guys surrounding a hot girl and catcalling, trying to get her to "suck their dick." This wasn't the first time I've seen this happen, either.

 

Yes, women definitely have more to fear from social interaction than men. Yet women tend to have better communication skills than most men, including myself. I still don't understand this.

[Emilia]

1 in 4 women will be sexually abused in their lifetime. Thats a fact.

 

That number is really high, I don't think it's true - not in Western Europe anyway

[thatone]

I know at least 3 women that have been raped, abused, or molested in their lifetime. Many of these have been by family members or "friends", that they thought they knew.

 

 

that's a fact that's actually a fact .

 

the vast majority of crimes in general, nevermind sexual crimes, are committed by people the victim knows already.

[dasein]

1 in 4 women will be sexually abused in their lifetime. Thats a fact. Yet men who get sexually abused is much lower.

 

That is a completely made up statistic, far from being a fact, and the only source it has is the feminists and politically partisan "studies" that have been parroting it back and forth at one another for years. One has to only look at the questions used in such studies "Have you ever been uncomfortable about any sex act you have participated in?" for example, without any explanation or qualification. A "yes" of course = sexual abuse. What does that even mean? Who among us has not felt uncomfortable at some point about some sex act?

 

Other questions include absurdities like "have you ever said no to sex and then continued to have sex anyway?" discounting that many completely consensual sex acts take place after some initial "reputation insurance" has taken place on the woman's part. "Have you ever been touched in a way you found to be offensive?" A "yes" = another sexual assault without any description of the circumstances.

 

When the studies are analyzed and held to scrutiny, turns out that a very large portion of women go back to HAVE MORE SEX with the supposed perpetrator after the supposed sexual assault. Many end up in LTRs or marrying their abuser after the so-called abuse. When asked about this disparity, doctrinaire feminists' standard reply is "well they just don't realize that they were being sexually abused." Apparently feminists have a very low opinion of the cognitive powers of women to know whether they have been abused or not.

 

Analysis of police reports and other reliable indicia that a crime has actually taken place reveals that the actual incidence of sexual abuse of women in a given community in a given year is 1 in 1000 or even much less. Among nearly 25,000 female Pennsylvania college students, supposedly a hotbed of sexual assault due to young people drinking and partying, only 13 sexual assault incidents were reported in 2009. That's almost 1 in 2000. Keep in mind that most of these aren't rapes, and sexual assault could be anything from rape to some drunk frat guy grabbing a girl's boob on the dance floor.

 

When confronted with the above, the first feminist line of defense is of course "well sexual abuse/rape is the most underreported crime." A statement that conveniently, can not be disproven. Feminism asks us to make discriminatory social and political policy based on analysis equivalent to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

 

Anyone interested in exactly how bad the problem of false feminist statistics has become should read the following well-researched law review article very carefully and note how eager feminists are to repeat socially harmful lies ad nauseum for their own benefit. It is a link to a pdf, not a webpage.

 

EDIT: Link not good, google Greer false rape article

[KindMan]

Women here get too much power, i would rather live where females are cattle than gods.

[AHardDaysNight]

So, if life is tough, then who cares what happens to them?

 

Anybody with a heart, for example.

 

I may hate some people, but I don't wish them harm. It's when you become that kind of person, that you become the monster.

[EasyHeart]

I think you have to be sensitive about making sure women feel safe when you approach them, but you don't have to freak out about it.

 

That means only approaching a woman in a crowded place and backing off immediately if she shows signs of disinterest. It's creepy to follow a woman to her car or to approach her on a dark street, and it's creepy to not leave her alone when she's not interested. But I don't think there's anything wrong with chatting up a woman in public (though there's a very low probability that it's ever going to work).

[Taramere]

It's worth looking at the more in depth analysis of those statistics. There's close to double the likelihood of women being the victims of homicide within an intimate relationship. It doesn't specify whether these are opposite sex or same sex, but we could probably assume same sex as men are nearly twice as likely as women to kill somebody they're in an intimate relationship with.

 

According to the statistics, women are a bit more than four times as likely as men are to be killed in the course of a sexually motivated attack. Circumstances in which men are almost exclusively the victims include drug related and gang related violence.

 

So if somebody gets killed as part of a gang clash, drug related dispute or other organised crime activity, the chances are high that that victim will male. If somebody gets killed as a result of somebody else attacking them for sexual motives, the chances are that that victim will be female.

[Emilia]

And men are 4 times more likely to get murdered than women.

 

You are right but for a very specific reason only: young males (age group 16-24) are the most likely to get into fights under the influence of drugs and alcohol thus the most exposed to violence.

 

Men that are older and/or avoid that brawling lifestyle are not any more likely to get attacked than women are and I would imagine they are more able to fend for themselves than the average woman.

[phillyfan]

Was having a discussion among friends, and someone was telling me that with the way the world is these days, esp. with what you hear on the news and the like, it's no wonder women tend to be overly cautious when men approach them. He was saying that doing any kind of cold-turkey approach be it at a gas station, bookstore, or whatever....and perhaps forgoe that altogether. Because they don't know who you are or what you're capable of.

 

He says, women have to be cautious on a constant basis or on alert almost instinctively. And if you're not in tune with that, any kind of approach without any real kind of familiarization can be off-putting, even though you do have a clean record and you're friends can vouche for you, but she doesn't know that.

 

That the only real way to get to know a woman is through a network of her friends knowing YOU, and the like.

 

Though, some KIND of approach has to be done, but apparently these days.....you cannot just go up to a woman and start talking to her. You better have a good reason basically?

 

Any truth to this?

 

Hell yea dude. Ive got a sista I look out 4 her, I tell her shes gota watch out, if she gives a dude sh*t then yea his egos hurt but hell, if she dont n shes always 2 ncie then hell - worse case sinario, tht dude is gona trick her n atack her or wateva....me n my boys, we r all about talkin 2 the girls in bars or clubs wen its the rite place n time, all drinkin, dancin, girls lookin fine, flirtin, hell its expectd. But u r gona b a sleaze if u hit on girls in the street, in a store, wateva, u cant blame the girl 4 bein careful u just dont know what crazies r out there.

[dasein]

It's worth looking at the more in depth analysis of those statistics.

 

...

 

There's close to double the likelihood of women being the victims of homicide within an intimate relationship. It doesn't specify whether these are opposite sex or same sex, but we could probably assume same sex as men are nearly twice as likely as women to kill somebody they're in an intimate relationship with.

 

...because the plain statistic, "75% of murder victims are men" doesn't carve out enough of a victimhood role for women? Needs some massaging to get to the "desired" result? I certainly don't want to build a strawman myself, so why isn't "75% of murder victims are male" "good enough" as it stands? I don't see any "worth" to more in depth analysis at all.

 

"Men are nearly twice as likely as women to kill somebody they're in an intimate relationship with."

 

Even if true arguendo, says nothing about the relative levels of safety between men and women in public, whether singling out "women's safety" is a legitimate public concern, or whether women overblow the "stranger danger" threat, does it? If anything it supports that women are in fact overfearful of strangers and underfearful of men they already know.

 

It simply shifts back to the comfortable "female victimhood" perspective from the unacceptable "male victimhood" perspective.

 

I think the statistic, 75% of murders are committed against men is just fine as it stands in the context of this thread, no need for more "in depth analysis" whatsoever.

 

According to the statistics, women are a bit more than four times as likely as men are to be killed in the course of a sexually motivated attack.

 

Motive for the attack doesn't speak at all to the relative level of safety between the genders though does it? I also find the term "sexually motivated attack" subject to the distinct possibility of feminist statistical chicanery. Why not simply say "where the victim was raped?" I know why, because rape in a victim's corpse is quite measurable, whereas "sexually motivated attack" allows "there was a bruise on the victim's breast" (which could have been caused by falling or struggle) so let's check the "sexually motivated attack" box despite no evidence of penetration or other molestation. "Sexually motivated attack" when talking about murders against women is just another form of "statistic fluffer," right? Once you read enough feminist study methodologies, the weasel words start to pop right out. "Sexually motivated attack" especially in a murder case with no testimony from the victim = weasel word.

 

Circumstances in which men are almost exclusively the victims include drug related and gang related violence.

 

Let's get some clarity here, "drug related and gang related" violence means "inner city minority crime," right? What's your point in separating out inner city minority murders perpetrated against men due to gangs and drugs, from inner city minority crimes perpetrated against women? Because that's exactly what you are doing despite not stating the conclusion. That somehow the gang and drug violence is insular and separate despite that those gangs and criminals are the exact same people murdering women, due to sexual or whatever motive? Makes no sense.

 

Surely you aren't saying that the gang and drug murders of men happen in one locale and context whereas the murders of women happen in some other removed locale and context? What then?

 

If male murder victims are predominately a function of inner city minority crime, then why aren't female murder victims also a function of inner city minority crime, regardless of motive?

 

It would seem that the thread answer, based on taramere's surmise about the male victims of murder, is to avoid areas where inner city minority crime is taking place and any concern for women's safety outside those areas is unnecessary to separate from concerns for public safety generally.

[dasein]

You are right but for a very specific reason only.

 

Rationalize away however you like, that men are the victims of 75% of murder, young old whatever, is a perfectly valid statistic, documented by the poster. There's no "massaging" it away or trick that can be used to discount it or convert it back to evidence of female victimhood. Efforts to do so are transparent and don't work any more. Give it up.

[Feelsgoodman]

Rationalize away however you like, that men are the victims of 75% of murder, young old whatever, is a perfectly valid statistic, documented by the poster. There's no "massaging" it away or trick that can be used to discount it or convert it back to evidence of female victimhood. Efforts to do so are transparent and don't work any more. Give it up.

Exactly. Women (and especially feminists) love to play the victim. It's like a religion for them. Any statistic that contradicts their dogma is automatically considered "massaged" or irrelevant for one reason or another.

[azsinglegal]

CCW permit FTW!