Cause they go looking for trouble. Nothing wrong with it, I do it myself, but women aren't exactly provoking fights in the middle of the streets. At least, not ones in which they themselves participate.
This is horrifically presumptuous. I can think of many incidents here in the UK where a male was assaulted, often lethally, and they were simply minding their own business beforehand. To assume that a man is only being assaulted because he "was looking for trouble" is patently sexist.
I know full well what the statistics are. Let's assume for a moment that men are innocent victims. I also know that I have a fighting chance of defending myself. The average woman would be overpowered by a 13-year-old boy. I'd be quite scared to go outside if a 13-year-old boy could do literally whatever he wanted to me.
This exact statement could be used to advocate for the prohibition of women's "freedom", which would be met with backlash. After all, wouldn't it be "safer" for women if they had a curfew, couldn't wear certain clothes in public or drink alcohol? For their safety of course.
This is horrifically presumptuous. I can think of many incidents here in the UK where a male was assaulted, often lethally, and they were simply minding their own business beforehand. To assume that a man is only being assaulted because he "was looking for trouble"
You misunderstand. I say that it is far more likely for men to go out looking for trouble, and that this explains the 'disparity'. It need not be true in every case to explain the disparity and then some.
is patently sexist.
Not impressed when they call me sexist, nor am I when you do so.
This exact statement could be used to advocate for the prohibition of women's "freedom", which would be met with backlash.
I don't care about backlash
Only if you believe in restricting people's freedom "for their own good". Like with lockdowns.
You misunderstand. I say that it is far more likely for men to go out looking for trouble, and that this explains the 'disparity'. It need not be true in every case to explain the disparity and then some.
Citation needed.
Not impressed when they call me sexist, nor am I when you do so.
I know you're not, that's why I said it. I don't actually care if you're even sexist or not.
I don't care about backlash
Only if you believe in restricting people's freedom "for their own good". Like with lockdowns.
I don't agree with either of those things. I was informing you about the natural conclusion for the premise you presented.
It is just my judgment based on my personal experience.
I know you're not, that's why I said it. I don't actually care if you're even sexist or not.
That's very honorable of you.
I don't agree with either of those things. I was informing you about the natural conclusion for the premise you presented.
Not necessarily. I could say that if women go out, it's more dangerous for them (and it is), but that it should be up to them to make the decision and not to me.
This is horrifically presumptuous. I can think of many incidents here in the UK where a male was assaulted, often lethally, and they were simply minding their own business beforehand. To assume that a man is only being assaulted because he "was looking for trouble" is patently sexist.
This exact statement could be used to advocate for the prohibition of women's "freedom", which would be met with backlash. After all, wouldn't it be "safer" for women if they had a curfew, couldn't wear certain clothes in public or drink alcohol? For their safety of course.
You misunderstand. I say that it is far more likely for men to go out looking for trouble, and that this explains the 'disparity'. It need not be true in every case to explain the disparity and then some.
Not impressed when they call me sexist, nor am I when you do so.
Citation needed.
I know you're not, that's why I said it. I don't actually care if you're even sexist or not.
I don't agree with either of those things. I was informing you about the natural conclusion for the premise you presented.
It is just my judgment based on my personal experience.
That's very honorable of you.
Not necessarily. I could say that if women go out, it's more dangerous for them (and it is), but that it should be up to them to make the decision and not to me.